Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minority Leader for affording not only myself, but other members of the Republican Study Committee, the House conservative caucus on the Republican side of the aisle, the opportunity to take advantage of these opportunities on the House floor periodically in the form of a Special Order.

While I come to the floor today with the objective, Mr. Speaker, of addressing this week's momentous events concerning the President's second veto in the history of this administration and the war supplemental bill, I wanted to also speak about an issue that House conservatives have been heard on and have been active on in the course of this week, and it has to do with today's passage, by a vote of 237- 180, of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This legislation passed the House today, but not without the strenuous opposition of both the Republican Study Committee, and virtually all of its members who represented a lion's share of the 180 Members who opposed this legislation.

And to lead is to be misunderstood. And it is very likely, Mr. Speaker, that both yourself and maybe others that might be looking in would question why anyone would oppose hate crimes legislation. And I thought I might, before I move on to the attendant topic of the day, address the concerns that House conservatives had with this legislation and why, last night, with the leadership of our caucus chairman, Jeb Hensarling of Texas, and with the support of myself as a former chairman of our caucus, Mrs. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, a former chairman of our conference, and John Shadegg of Arizona, we urged the President of the United States to issue a veto threat of this hate crimes legislation, which he did so earlier today by way of a statement of administration policy.

So let me speak to our concerns about this bill before I move on to the topic of the Iraq supplemental. Thomas Jefferson said, famously, ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative power of government reach actions only, and not opinions,'' Jefferson went on to say, ``I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.''

Again, Thomas Jefferson, framing, as perhaps only he in American history could, the issue that grounded conservative concern in the hate crimes legislation today, that legislative powers of government should reach actions only and not opinions, and then reflected on that as the core central logic behind the first amendment protections of the freedom of religion.

In the case of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, we did not meet that standard today, Mr. Speaker. I believe this legislation was bad public policy, and unnecessary, and many House conservatives in the Republican Study Committee agreed.

Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal, regardless of the motive behind them. And there is no evidence presented on the floor today or before the Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, that underlying violent crimes at issue are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the States. Therefore, hate crimes laws truly serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for thoughts, for belief, for opinions.

Now, let's grant the point. Some thoughts, beliefs and opinions, like racism or sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them and condemn them. However, hate crimes bills, as the one we passed today, are broad enough also to include legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom and speech and religion must be paramount in cases like the bill we consider today.

The first amendment to the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now, America was founded on the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion are at the very core of the American experiment in democracy.

But what does that have to do with the hate crimes bill? Well, there is a real possibility that this bill, as written, religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally, based on their speech and protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title XVIII, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands or induces or procures its commission, or one who willfully causes an act to be done by another.

In the debate in the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact that there was an amendment adopted by my friend and colleague, Mr. Davis of Alabama. But that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that this bill would not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment even admitted in open markup testimony before the committee, that a pastor could, theoretically, still be targeted under the bill for incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs having to do with moral issues related to life or family or sexual preference.

For example, if a pastor included a statement in a sermon that sexual relations outside of marriage are morally wrong, and even quoted the Bible to make that point, and then a member of perverse intention in that congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations, that sermon could be used as evidence against that pastor.

Now, the real world effect of this, in addition to the possibility of prosecution, is the much greater and geometric possibility of a chilling effect. Putting a chill on pastors' words or religious broadcasters' programming or an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a small group Bible study is quite simply a blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Now, last week, when the Judiciary Committee took up the bill, I offered an amendment in good faith to make it clear, crystal clear, that this bill would not affect the constitutional right to freedom of religion. The Pence amendment stated plainly, ``Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.'' Unfortunately, the Pence amendment was defeated and rejected by the majority of the Judiciary Committee.

Yesterday, I took another bite at the apple. I submitted the Pence religious freedom amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration. But, again, that committee chose to adopt a closed rule, effectively blocking my amendment and many other good amendments offered for consideration.

Now, I would say very emphatically, we must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws. And very humbly put, the Pence amendment would have done so by stating once and for all that people and groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away, even as an addendum to or unintentionally as a result of the aiding and abetting clause of current law.

Mr. Speaker, House conservatives rose, as one man and one woman today, in opposition to this legislation. But it did pass. Again, Congress today adopted legislation, 237-180, but not without a fight.

Members of the Republican Study Committee came together late last night, called on President George W. Bush to veto this legislation should it reach his desk. And as I mentioned earlier today, the administration, in no small measure, due to House conservatives and the leadership of the Republican Study Committee, the administration issued a veto threat pertaining to the Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. They did so as House conservatives did, out of a belief that this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing ultimately religious thought.

And I must say before I move to my next topic, it was particularly grievous to many of us that the Democrat majority in Congress chose the National Day of Prayer to bring this bill to the floor; a bill that intentionally or unintentionally, could put in jeopardy the very religious expression that was being celebrated at tens of thousands of locations across the United States today.

I, myself, began my day in the east room of the White House with the President of the United States and religious leaders representing every faith in America to initiate and kick off this National Day of Prayer in, I believe, its 56th consecutive year.

In the ceremonies that took place here just off the Capitol, across the street in the Cannon Office Building, I learned that due to the leadership of Shirley Dobson and the organizers of the National Day of Prayer, by their estimates, there were some 50,000 venues in the United States of America where people were coming together, Mr. Speaker, not for politics, not for the purpose of political demonstrations, not to support one party over another, but as happened in Anderson, Indiana today at City Hall, for the purpose of coming together in prayer, believing that the effective and fervent prayers of a righteous Nation availeth much, believing that our prayers reach heaven and the throne of grace as Americans, by the millions, have believed from the very inception of our Nation.

And again I say I don't believe it was intentional. I would not ascribe this to the Democrat majority. But it was grievous, I can say, to many of us that this legislation, which we believe in our hearts threaten the very fabric of the first amendment, freedom of religion, was scheduled to come to the floor on the National Day of Prayer.

On the floor today, I closed with the thought that on this National Day of Prayer, we ought to take a stand for the right of every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, that we ought to take a stand for religious freedom and the first amendment in opposing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

And with that let me yield to the planned topic of the day, and I may well be joined by colleagues on the attendant question that has been the preoccupation of much of official Washington, much of the national media, and, understandably, much of the American people over the last week. It has to do, of course, Mr. Speaker, with the President's decision to exercise his authority in the executive branch under the Constitution to veto legislation delivered to him by the Congress of the United States. This was, in fact, the President's second veto. And today's Republican Study Committee leadership hour was organized to speak to the issue of Iraq and specifically the Iraq supplemental.

It was, as I said, a momentous week. We began with the delivery to the President of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act on May 1. The President very promptly addressed the Nation at the dinner hour and announced his intentions to veto the legislation, just his second veto in the history of the 43rd President of the United States.

The President made his objections clear, that, in effect, he vetoed this legislation because he believed, as I do, as House conservatives do, that the legislation was constitutionally flawed and fiscally irresponsible.

The President made reference specifically to the arbitrary date for beginning withdrawal of American troops without regard to conditions on the ground. He spoke of the effort by Congress, his words now, ``to micromanage the commanders in the field by restricting their ability to direct the fight in Iraq.'' And he also mentioned that this legislation ``contained billions of dollars of spending and other provisions completely unrelated to the war.''

The President spoke of the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq not being a plan for peace in the region. The mandated withdrawal in the legislation, he argued, would actually embolden our enemies and it could lead to a safe haven for terrorism in Iraq.

The President probably focused most of his objections in his message to the Nation on the micromanagement of the war by Congress. I have said many times on this floor, as many House conservatives have, under the Constitution of the United States, Congress can declare war. Congress can choose to fund or not to fund military operations. But Congress may not conduct war. And in the President's veto message to the Nation, it was precisely that effort by Congress, that constitutional overreach, in his words, to ``micromanage''

this war in Iraq that he found most unacceptable. The President would say the legislation is unconstitutional ``because it purports to direct the conduct of the operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the Constitution, including as commander in chief of the Armed Forces.''

In a very real sense this is an issue, Mr. Speaker, that the Founders of this Nation thought about, I would argue, more deeply than maybe any other issue in that balmy summer of 1787. It was the debate over whether or not we want a unified chain of command in the commander in chief, centered in the Presidency, or whether we wanted to risk creating the possibility or the prospect of what our Founders would call ``war by committee.''

Now, this notion of war by committee was actually something our Founders were fairly familiar with. A very cursory study of the early months of the Revolutionary War, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, all the way until that famed Christmas Day, 1776, is a classic case of an American military that is being beaten back, chased out of New York, chased across the Hudson River, chased all the way across New Jersey, and was facing great peril by the time they reached the Delaware. And many would observe, in the years that followed the war during the period of the formation of our constitutional government, that it was precisely war by committee that put our Nation in its nascent days most at risk.

History records that every night General Washington would spend a great deal of his time in his tent in the midst of the war, writing back to Congress, handing letters to couriers to send messages to the Congress to gain specific permission for military operations and appropriations and the conduct of the war. And the Congress was very busy engaging in what our Founders came contemptuously to refer to as ``war by committee.''

When the Constitutional Convention came around in 1787, it would be precisely that same generation of Americans that would say ``no,'' we want a unified chain of command, we want to vest in the President of the United States the ability to conduct war as the commander in chief.

And I think singularly the President's objection is grounded there, with the slight addition of some more than $10 billion in additional spending that has nothing whatsoever to do with the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, or, to that end, the conduct of the War on Terror.

House conservatives in the past have opposed war supplementals on the grounds that war spending bills ought to be about war spending and emergency war spending bills ought to be about emergency war spending. And the addition of funding, which the President described as ``billions of dollars of spending and other provisions'' that are ``unrelated to the war,'' are not an emergency and are not justified was altogether appropriate, in our judgment. The President said emphatically that ``Congress should not use an emergency war supplemental to add billions in spending to avoid its own rules for budget discipline and the normal budget process,'' and House conservatives agreed.

We were pleased to see the President veto this legislation, because House conservatives and the Republican Study Committee and, for that matter, virtually all House Republicans believed the bill, as the President found it, was constitutionally flawed and fiscally irresponsible. We would vote in a matter of a few legislative hours later to sustain the President's veto and facilitate a meeting that took place just yesterday, I believe, Mr. Speaker, between the leaders of the House and Senate in Congress and the President. And it seems to me that it was a pivot point in the debate, and I want to shift some of this conversation today to the same kind of pivot point.

While, frankly, Democrat leaders emerged from the West Wing speaking very little about compromise and it seems like the rhetoric of the Senate majority leader as well as the Speaker of the House centered around the phrase ``end the war,'' that their objective remained to be end the war, it would be President Bush in the Cabinet room who struck a more conciliatory tone. And I commend him for it.

The President said, and I am quoting now, ``Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences. Today is a day where we can work together to find common ground.'' And I believe House Republicans would share the President's sentiment that we can and should move forward to find common ground; not to compromise on those principles of constitutionality and fiscal discipline that the President articulated and we fully support, but to look for ways that we can ensure that these resources reach our troops in a timely way without strings attached and without fiscally irresponsible spending. And to that end, we will work and labor in the days ahead.

My personal hope and ambition, Mr. Speaker, is that before we return home for Memorial Day, before we return home to that day where we remember those who did not come home, that we would be able to speed the resources to our soldiers in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq without unconstitutional strings and without additional and unnecessary spending.

But there is one other reason why I believe it is imperative that we provide these resources to our troops in the field, and it has not been highlighted as much I believe as it should, but it has been a point that I have felt a burden about ever since my return from Iraq just shortly 1 month ago. I began the month of April in a delegation that took me literally into the heart of Baghdad and to Ramadi and to Tikrit. We met with General David Petraeus and learned a great deal about the beginnings of modest progress on the ground in Iraq. And so I would posit at the beginning of the balance of my time to suggest that the President was right to veto this legislation because it was constitutionally flawed. The President was right to veto this legislation because it was fiscally irresponsible. But I also believe the President was right to veto this legislation and Congress would be right to find a way to deliver these funds to our troops because we are beginning to see evidence that the surge, that our new strategy, that our new diplomatic initiatives in the region are just beginning to take hold; and now is not the time for us to reverse course and to embrace the objective of those who would say the American people, whatever the circumstances on the ground in Iraq, apparently, want us to end the war.

In my district I would say with confidence, the constituents of eastern Indiana want our troops to come home, but they want us to win and come home, and more importantly, they want freedom to win in Iraq and then bring our soldiers home.

And let me say that despite a recent wave of insurgent bombing, this war in Iraq is not lost. In fact, because of the President's surge, because of the brave conduct of U.S. and Iraqi forces on the ground in Baghdad, we are beginning to see the evidence of modest progress in Iraq. Let me say emphatically Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers that are now spread throughout the capital city of Baghdad.

I had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of visiting one of these joint operating centers across the river from the Green Zone right in the heart of downtown Baghdad. These facilities represent a sea change in the strategy of U.S. and Iraqi forces in the capital city of Baghdad. The very essence of the surge, first recommended, of course, by the Iraq Study Group on page 72 of the publication that is available for most Americans, the very centerpiece of this surge was not that we could deal with the instability in Iraq strictly with a military solution but, rather, as the Iraq Study Group recommended and the President ultimately embraced, that we could increase forces in the city of Baghdad temporarily to quell violence in Baghdad, to create a sufficient level of stability in the capital city to allow the political process of reconciliation, de-Baathification, and oil agreement and the diplomatic process in the region to take hold. That is the essence of the surge.

Now, to make that possible, as General Petraeus described to me walking down the streets in Baghdad, our strategy now is different from the strategy we have employed the last 3 years. In Baghdad, rather than sending our troops out on patrols, confronting the enemy, and returning to our base installations, now we move into areas

with sufficient forces to clear areas, to hold areas by establishing joint operating centers where U.S. and Iraqi forces live together, and then investing the resources to build up those areas and add further security.

As I said, Baghdad is not safe, and it was not safe the day we were there. But it is safer because American and U.S. forces are beginning to move into these areas, again, more than two dozen of these joint operating centers. Once areas have been cleared in house-to-house searches, clearing out weapons caches, arresting and confronting dangerous insurgents and al Qaeda, then U.S./Iraqi forces move into those joint operating centers and live there and patrol those areas 24/ 7. U.S. forces actually stay at the joint operating centers, bunking in with Iraqi forces.

One of the more moving moments for me on our tour of Baghdad 1 month ago was walking into the bunkhouse with both U.S. and Iraqi military on either side of us and then being told by U.S. commanders on the ground that they had offered the Iraqis, out of sensitivity to their different religious traditions and observances, to build separate sleeping quarters for the U.S. forces and the Iraqi forces.

And it was the Iraqi forces that said absolutely not, that now you've got bunkhouses, which are really pretty informal, just bunk beds kind of slapped together in wood frames the way you would see at almost any military installation. And U.S. and Iraqi forces are bunking in together. They are deploying together. And the result of that is that sectarian violence in Baghdad has been reduced in some neighborhoods of Baghdad by a very significant amount.

Again, let me say again, because I have demonstrated in the past the capacity to be misunderstood; Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer, I believe, because of the surge of U.S. forces into the neighborhoods of the capital city and the establishment of more than two dozen joint operating centers where U.S. and Iraqi forces are working together to confront al Qaeda and insurgents and to quell violence in the capital city.

There has also been another significant development that argues against reversing course, or to borrow the phrase of some leaders in the majority, ``just ending the war'' at this point, and that is specifically in western Iraq, what is known as the al Anbar province, which is known as Ramadi.

Now, I stood at the grave site of an Indiana soldier; I stood and prayed with his parents. He fell on the streets in combat in Ramadi some 2 years ago. It's extraordinary the difficulty U.S. forces have faced. The Marines have been in Ramadi for a number of years. It has been one of the most deeply compromised cities in Iraq. Ramadi is, in effect, the upscale Sunni city in Iraq. During the era of Saddam Hussein, those who did not live in the highly fortified Green Zone in downtown Baghdad lived in upscale Sunni neighborhoods in Ramadi.

And so one can imagine that al Qaeda and the insurgency, in efforts to resist the al Maliki government, their violence would be centered on the streets of Ramadi. And that has absolutely been true until very recently.

Things have changed in al Anbar province and Ramadi. Even The New York Times, perhaps one of the harshest critics of the war in Iraq, I think it was Sunday morning, this last weekend, depicted a huge front page story about the change in al Anbar province. And I would like to say, and I will say that the presence of U.S. Marines, under the command of General Odierno on the ground in Ramadi, have played a vital role in the precipitous decline of al Qaeda and insurgent violence in Ramadi and in al Anbar province. But General Odierno and the others would be quick to say that the real difference that has been made has been because the Sunnis themselves, Iraqi tribal leaders, 20 out of the 22 tribes have stepped forward now and initiated what has been called the ``Iraq Awakening Movement.''

During my trip to Ramadi just one month ago, I had the privilege of meeting with Sheik Sattar, a compelling and impressive man. His father was killed by al Qaeda in Ramadi. His two brothers were killed by al Qaeda in Ramadi. And Sheik Sattar, who presumably had had very little interest in becoming involved in the new government in Baghdad, Sunnis, if you will recall, had largely not participated in the national referendums and elections that have taken place, it would be Sheik Sattar who would go to the Marine Corps base several months ago in Ramadi and say, I'm done with al Qaeda and I'm done with the insurgency, how can I help.

And Sheik Sattar has now organized this Iraq Awakening Movement. To be specific, 22 of the 24 Ramadi area tribes are now cooperating with coalition forces, U.S. and Iraqi forces. And the decline in violence in Ramadi is that U.S. troops have established four bases, along with 40 joint security stations and observation posts throughout the city of Ramadi where they work and deploy and live alongside Iraqi soldiers. There are also 23 police stations in the city and in the surrounding area, as has been reported in the media in recent days.

Al Anbar province is not safe, but significant progress is occurring because the tribal sheiks have begun cooperating with American and Iraqi forces to fight al Qaeda, providing intelligence. And we are beginning to see a significant shift in al Anbar province. And I cite no further than the front page of The New York Times that actually had what I found to be a deeply moving photograph above the fold that showed a city where there has been war for some time.

The rubble of war shown along streets and torn asunder buildings, but there walking on the street were people and couples and children. And I caught sight of people on bicycles. When I was in Ramadi, we were presented with information of areas that had been protected from suicide bombs and car bombs, where soccer fields had opened back up. Children were returning to the streets.

Al Anbar province is changing. Is it safe? No. But is it improving? Yes. And the truth is that the progress that we're making on the ground in Baghdad, the modest progress demonstrated in the reduction of sectarian violence in the capital city, and what appears to be the beginnings of a sea change in the entire western half of Iraq, including in what was a war-torn city of Ramadi, give me hope. In fact, I characterized in an editorial in USA Today that what we saw a month ago in Baghdad could be evidence of just the sprouting of a springtime of hope in Iraq.

Let me say with confidence, Mr. Speaker, I know there is great frustration in this Congress and there are profound visions in this Congress over the role of this institution in developing policy in Iraq, and we will continue to have those arguments. But I would defy anyone to prove to me that there is one single Member of Congress who would like to see freedom lose in Iraq. I don't accept that.

Some may have come to the conclusion that freedom has lost and it can't be saved. I disagree with that. I don't believe freedom is lost. I don't believe the war is lost. But I believe in their heart of hearts, even the most hard-over opponent of continued U.S. involvement in Iraq who serves in this Chamber does not want to see freedom lose.

So I come to the floor today on behalf of the Republican Study Committee, on behalf of my own franchise in Congress, to essentially just suggest that there are many good reasons why the President vetoed the war supplemental this week. Number one, it's constitutionally flawed. It's simply wrong for Congress to place arbitrary timelines for withdrawal, to tie the hands of commanders on the ground, to engage in the kind of micromanagement that is beyond the purview of the Constitution of the United States. Congress can declare war; Congress can choose to fund or not to fund war; but Congress cannot conduct war. And that was reason enough for the President of the United States to veto this bill.

The bill was also fiscally irresponsible. We ought to ensure that war spending bills pertain exclusively to war spending. And particularly emergency war spending bills ought to be emergency war spending and not domestic projects that should be dealt with in the regular budget process.

The third thought I had today was simply to say that we ought to now find a way to come together, without

compromising core principles on either side of the aisle, we ought to find a way to come together to get our troops the resources they need to get the job done, because the unspoken fact this week, in the midst of a lot of political conflagration and argument, is the fact that, as General David Petraeus told us here on Capitol Hill last week, there is evidence that the surge, and there is evidence that because of Sunni leadership, tribal leadership in al Anbar province in Ramadi, there is evidence that Iraq is beginning to make modest progress toward exactly the kind of stability that will make possible the political progress and the diplomatic progress that are the real long-term answer here.

Let me emphasize that point one more time. I don't think there is a military solution in Iraq; we simply cannot surge troops to the four corners of Iraq. That is not the President's plan. It would not be workable in any event. I believe the President's plan is sound, to surge troops into the capital city to quell violence sufficient to give the al Maliki government in Baghdad the credibility to move a de- Ba'athification agreement, to move an agreement for sharing the revenues of oil proceeds with all of the people in Iraq on an equitable basis, to move new provincial elections, including in al Anbar province, where many of the Sunni leaders that we met with had expressed an interest in participating in provincial elections, should they be scheduled in the next month or two. But it is that kind of political process that will encourage ownership by Iraqis in this new constitutional republic that will be the real victory for freedom.

As the President said this week, we cannot define success in Iraq as the absence of violence. The day that freedom wins, whatever that day would be, the day that we can know with a moral certitude that this new democratically elected government in Iraq is able to defend itself, able to defend its people, the day we have the moral certitude that they can do that and we can begin then to come home in good conscience, there will likely be insurgent and al Qaeda violence taking place somewhere in Iraq. Therefore, we cannot define victory as the absence of violence, but we can define victory as the presence of a stable democratic, constitutional republic that can defend itself. And that, it seems to me, beyond the issues that the President raised when he vetoed the legislation, is the most compelling argument for finding a way forward, finding the common ground necessary to get our soldiers the resources they need to get the job done and to come home safe.

This is a tough time in Iraq. General Petraeus told me on the ground in Baghdad a month ago, he told Members of Congress gathered in a bipartisan briefing last week that there are difficult days ahead, that there is no guarantee that the surge, which seems to be beginning to take hold in Baghdad, will ultimately succeed. But it seems to me the fact that, despite the recent wave of insurgent bombings, or the fact that sectarian violence is down in Baghdad, the fact that Ramadi and al Anbar province appears, because of Sunni Iraqi leadership and U.S. and Iraqi forces, al Anbar province appears to be taking a turn for the better, however modest, that that argues for us finding a way forward, finding common ground where we can give our soldiers the resources they need. Because in Baghdad, despite the recent bombings, sectarian violence is down.

Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers in that capital city, more than 40 joint operating centers now spread throughout Ramadi, and the fact that in al Anbar province, more than 20 Sunni sheiks across the region have united together to oppose insurgency and al Qaeda.

This war is not lost. Congress should find the common ground necessary to give our soldiers the resources they need to get the job done, to stand up this government, to ensure this new democracy in Iraq can defend itself, and then lay the framework for us to come home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time. It is my fondest hope that what the President called us to in his remarks from the Cabinet room this week will characterize much of the debate between now and Memorial Day, and I want to quote his words again. The President, in thanking the leaders for coming down, said, ``Yesterday was a day that highlighted differences. Today,'' he said, ``is the day when we can work together to find common ground.'' But he also added, ``It is very important we do this as quickly as we possibly can.'' And he expressed confidence that we can reach agreement.

I will close with that, Mr. Speaker. I truly believe in all my heart that it is possible for a majority of this Congress to come together in a manner that we can deliver to our soldiers the resources that they need within a constitutional framework that doesn't intrude on the President's role as commander in chief, in a way that reflects fiscal discipline and in a way, also, that continues to provide the resources that if, in fact, the modest progress we are beginning to see continues to widen through the summer, that we, in fact, provide the resources for an expanding success for the surge, an expanding success for Iraqis stepping forward to oppose al Qaeda and insurgency in Al-Anbar, and ultimately a success for freedom in Iraq. I am confident of this, I am confident the common ground is there; and it will be my hope and my prayer and my pledge to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accomplish just that.

On behalf of the Republican Study Committee and our many members, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Republican leadership for yielding us this hour.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am profoundly grateful that while I have the privilege of co- chairing the Congressional Caucus for Protection of the Press, I want to acknowledge you have been the driving force behind this caucus. You recruited me to participation a year ago and I am grateful for this opportunity to have a reunion with you publicly on the House floor. The gentleman from California is a Member I deeply admire, and am honored to be associated with, as well as our Senate colleagues, Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Richard Lugar from my home State.

I would reflect at the outset about World Press Freedom Day which was the very day that we launched the Congressional Caucus For Freedom of the Press back on May 3, 2006, the profound importance of the freedom of the press and my belief that the United States of America ought to be a beacon of freedom for the world. We ought to inspire, we ought to articulate, we ought to use our freedom, as the gentleman from California is doing today in this Special Order, to highlight the absence of freedom in other parts of the globe. I am greatly enthused by his leadership, Mr. Speaker, and by the opportunity today.

A few thoughts on freedom of the press. I would offer where there is no freedom of the press, there is no freedom. If America is to be a beacon of hope for the world, we must hold high the idea of a free and independent press. We must advance it abroad and we must defend it at home.

A few quotes about the centrality of freedom of the press. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) suggested, sometimes we don't quite understand how central the freedom of the press is to the success of the American experiment. But our Founders enshrined the freedom of the press in the first amendment because they understood, as people who believed in limited government, that the only check on government power in real-time is a free and independent press.

Our Founders did not include freedom of the press in the first amendment because they got good press, they included it there because they believed in limited government and they believed in the survival of liberty, and they understood the role that the press plays in our society and as we seek to promote it through this caucus in other societies. The press is that agency of progress, that agency of accountability that makes freedom possible and sustains freedom.

A few thoughts from our Founders before I yield back to our effort to highlight what has been a train of frightening contract-style killings taking place in Russia that we seek to highlight today. Thomas Jefferson would say, ``Our liberty,'' and I would add parenthetically, anyone else's liberty, ``Our liberty cannot be guarded but by freedom of the press, nor that limited without danger of losing it.''

Roger McCormick, the founder of the Chicago Tribune, spoke words that are chiseled on the wall of that newspaper to this day, and I wrote them down when I was visiting the paper a few years ago, about the goal, the mission of a newspaper. He said, ``The newspaper is an institution developed by modern civilization to present the news of the day, to foster commerce and industry, to inform and lead public opinion, and to furnish that check upon government which no Constitution has ever been able to provide.''

Benjamin Rush, one of our Founding Fathers, would say, ``Newspapers are the sentinels of the liberties of the country.''

James Madison would say, ``To the press alone checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all of the triumphs which have by gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression.''

And Daniel Webster would say, ``The entire and absolute freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of government on the basis of a free Constitution.''

These great minds, these great voices of liberty, some of whom faces are chiseled into the wall of this great room, are what inspired the formation of the Congressional Caucus for the Freedom of the Press, and it inspires me to be able to stand with my co-chair, with the founder of this caucus, Congressman Schiff, to now use this platform,

this stage, this blue and gold and red carpet to hold up the ideal of the freedom of the press, and in the exercise of our own freedom to challenge those and expose those places in the world where the freedom of the press is under siege.

As I prepare to yield back to the gentleman, I would say that the rising tide of violence against journalists in Russia since the advent of the presidency of Mr. Putin is deeply troubling and ought to be troubling to anyone who cherishes the notion of a free and independent press.

As we saw the wall fall in 1991, we all hoped that the daylight of liberty was rushing in with perestroika and the changes and the democracy movement, but it seems that Boris Yeltsin's recent passing may be a metaphor for Russia today. The Boris Yeltsin who stood against Soviet totalitarianism, stood for democracy in his country, passed into history just a matter of weeks ago, and it seems as I think the gentleman will articulate in a powerful and compelling way today, that as he passes into history, we fear that this experiment in freedom and democracy, and particularly a free press in Russia, is passing into history as well. We do not conclude that, we fear it.

I am honored to be able to join my colleague and participate as he yields time to telling some of the stories of these journalists who have paid the price for doing liberty's work in that country of Russia.

So again, I commend the gentleman and give him whole cloth credit for founding the Congressional Caucus For Freedom of the Press. I am honored to stand with him and honored to call him a friend.

Mr. Speaker, also pictured on our poster, and I believe the gentleman from California could point to, in the upper left corner of the poster should be the image of Magomedzagid Varisov.

At around 9:00 p.m. on June 28, 2005, in the city of Makhachkala, assailants armed with machine guns opened fire

on Magomedzagid Varisov's sedan as he drove home with his wife. Varisov sustained multiple bullet wounds and died at the scene. The likely motive for Varisov's assassination was his work as a journalist and a commentator.

For three years prior to his murder, Varisov wrote analytical columns for the Novoye Delo, Dagestan's largest weekly newspaper. Dagestan, a Russian republic bordering the Caspian Sea, has been the scene of low- level political violence and unrest driven by a separatist rebellion since 2000. Varisov was often critical of the Dagestan separatists, and his expertise on the Northern Caucuses made him a highly sought after resource for reporters and researchers. As a journalist and a pundit, Varisov wrote that the opposition was trying to destabilize the republic and topple the regional government and authored investigative pieces into terrorism and organized crime in the region.

In an issue of Novoye Delo just before his death, Varisov examined Russian Army operations in the Chechen border town of Borozdinovskaya in which one person was killed and 11 others were reported missing. Ethnic Avars, fearing for their lives, left Borozdinovskaya by the hundreds and crossed into neighboring Dagestan. Varisov criticized Chechen authorities in his article for failing to protect the safety of Borozdinovskaya residents and appealed to Dagestan authorities to do right by them.

For over a year, Varisov had spoken of threats against him and had written about those threats in articles for Novoye Delo. Varisov complained that unknown individuals were following him, and he sought protection from Makhachkala law enforcement authorities. No protection came, and not long after, Varisov was gunned down.

In a tale that has become all too common in Russia, Mr. Varisov's murder will go unsolved and unprosecuted. A raid on October 25, 2005, killed three suspects in Mr. Varisov's death. Local prosecutors closed their case shortly afterward, and Varisov was added to the list of journalists whose murder will go unsolved but not forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, Aleksei Sidorov is our next victim, and his image appears along with Valery Ivanov at the center of the poster, if the gentleman from California would point it out. I do think, as Mr. Schiff said earlier, it is important in this moment that we dwell on the fact that these were people who demonstrated courage, who had loved ones and who are now gone forever, both to the cause and to their families and their communities, and it is imperative we look them in the face.

On October 9, 2003, Aleksei Sidorov, the editor-in-chief of the independent daily known as Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye, was murdered in Togliatti, a city on the Volga River 600 miles east of Moscow.

Sidorov was the second editor-in-chief of that newspaper to be murdered in a 2-year span. His predecessor, shown in the same photograph, Valery Ivanov, was shot eight times at point-blank range in April 2002.

According to local press reports, two unidentified assailants stabbed Sidorov in the chest several times as he approached the apartment building in Togliatti where he lived with his family. The assailants fled after stabbing Sidorov, and the editor died in his wife's arms after she heard his call for help and came down to the entrance of their building.

Sidarov's paper was a newspaper known for its investigative reports on organized crime, government corruption, and shady corporate deals in the heavily industrialized city of Togliatti. His colleagues are convinced the murder was in retaliation for the paper's investigative work.

One of them told the Committee to Protect Journalists, ``All of our investigative work was supervised by Aleksei.'' Another journalist at the paper told CPJ that Sidorov had received unspecified threats in retaliation for his work.

Government officials initially agreed that Sidorov's murder appeared to be a contract killing in retaliation for his work as a journalist. But a week after the killing, officials began offering conflicting explanations about the motive for the murder. On October 16, the local head of the Interior Ministry, Vladimir Shcherbakov, said Sidorov was stabbed after refusing to give a stranger a sip of some vodka he had supposedly been drinking, the independent Moscow daily Gazeta reported.

That same day, Deputy Prosecutor General Vladimir Kolesnikov said the

murder was related to ``the journalist's professional activity,'' the independent Moscow daily Kommersant reported. But the next day, he switched his story, calling the murder, ``an act of hooliganism,'' the ITAR-TASS news agency reported.

According to local news reports, Deputy Prosecutor General Yevgeny Novozhylov said that an intoxicated welder from one of the local factories, Yevgeny Maininger, stumbled upon Sidorov that evening and murdered him after a brief argument. The local police detained Maininger on October 12 and charged him with murder after he confessed to the killing.

Sidorov's family and journalists at the newspaper Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye were skeptical that the authorities had found the true killer. A year later, a Russian district court judge confirmed their doubts by acquitting the man.

On October 11, 2004, Judge Andrei Kirillov found that the 29 year-old alleged assailant was not involved in Sidorov's murder and said the prosecution's case was untenable, according to the independent Moscow daily known as Kommersant. Sidorov's family father said the family was pleased that the acquittal ended what they considered to be a flawed investigation. ``The investigation, instead of seeking out the real killer of my son, tried to dump everything on this innocent person,'' Mr. Sidorov's father, said. ``We will do everything possible to ensure the [authorities] start a normal investigation.''

Karen Nersisian, the defense lawyer representing the Sidorov family, said, he will work to have the case transferred to a higher court in Moscow, according to local press reports.

More than 3 years later, Sidorov's killer has not been identified.

On March 9, 2002, Natalya Skryl, a business reporter working for the Nashe Vremya newspaper in the City of Rostov-on-Don in southwestern Russia died from head injuries sustained during an attack the previous evening. Her image appears on our poster at the lower right-hand. Perhaps the gentleman from California could point that out for our C-SPAN camera team, Natalya Skryl.

Late on the night of March 8, Natalya was returning to her home in the town of Taganrog just outside of Rostov-on-Don when she was attacked from behind and struck in the head about a dozen times with a heavy blunt object. Neighbors called an ambulance and the police after hearing her scream. Natalya was found unconscious just outside her home and taken to Taganrog hospital, where she died the following day.

Natalya, who was 29, reported on local business issues for a newspaper owned by Rostov regional authorities. Just before her death, she was investigating an ongoing struggle for the control of Tagmet, an metallurgical plant. Nashe Vremya editor-in-chief Vera Yuzhanskaya believes that Natalya's death was related to her professional activities, ITAR-TASS news agency reported.

Since opening an investigation shortly after her murder, officials have changed their theory several times. Initially, the prosecutor's office said that because Natalya was carrying jewelry and a large sum of cash that were not taken at the time of the murder, that robbery could be ruled out as a motive.

But on July 24, 2002, the Taganrog Directorate of Internal Affairs announced that robbery was the motive, and that the crime was unrelated to her journalistic activities, according to a local radio station report. Taganrog authorities switched their story again on September 5, and the Nashe Vremya editor in chief, Vera Yuzhanskaya, told the Committee to Protect Journalists, when they closed the murder investigation without officially identifying the reason for the murder.

Gregory Bochkarov, a local analyst in Rostov-on-Don for the Moscow- based Center For Journalism in Extreme Situations told the Committee to Protect Journalists that the only credible motive for Natalya's murder was her reporting about Tagmet and that police had emphasized the robbery motive in an effort to play down the significance of her case. Just prior to her death Natalya reportedly told several of her colleagues that she had recently obtained sensitive information about the Tagmet story and was planning to publish an article revealing this information.

Let me say that again. Just prior to her death, Natalya told several colleagues that she had recently obtained sensitive information about the story and was planning to publish an article revealing that information.

Natalya, like all other journalists, is among the ranks of unsolved ranks of murders of journalists in Russia.

Mrs. Pence is waiting supper. I will ask the gentleman's forbearance. I extend my gratitude for your leadership of our caucus, for the honor of participating in this special order with you and to say how much I look forward to continuing to work with you as we use this institution of freedom to promote press freedom around the world.

As we've heard this morning, Madam Speaker, 4 years ago today, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush gave a speech. Now, it has been characterized by Members of Congress this morning that the President ``announced `mission accomplished.' '' And one other speaker said that the President ``declared `mission accomplished.' '' Actually, here's what the President said, and I am quoting: ``We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of the country that remain dangerous.'' But he added, ``our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The enemies of freedom are not idle and neither are we, and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.''

The President said, ``the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war of terror that began September 11 and still goes on.''

As the President said 4 years ago, Madam Speaker, ``our mission is not accomplished in Iraq or in the war on terror.'' So now is not the time to tie the funding for our troops to deadlines and defeat. Now is not the time for politicians in Washington, D.C. to micromanage and make decisions for our commanders in the field.

Mr. President, veto this bill.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, as the Nation looked on, once again Indiana law enforcement, State, county and city personnel, showed their professionalism and courage.

I rise today to commend the swift response by Indiana State and local authorities to quell the disturbance that began at 2:01 p.m. at New Castle Correctional Facility, at the very heart of my congressional district.

During a routine transfer from a dining hall to their cellblocks, a group of inmates removed their shirts, an officer was knocked to the ground, and the situation quickly spiraled out of control involving nearly one-third of the prison's population.

Guards quickly isolated the areas of disturbance. As the Nation looked on over the cable airwaves, backup officers arrived just 15 minutes later. The Indiana Department of Correction activated its Special Emergency Response Team and involved the State police. All offenders and the facility were secured by 4:45.

Investigations will go forward and questions will be answered, but, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of eastern Indiana, I rise to express my pride and gratitude to the law enforcement community involved, the State, the local, the city and the county, all those who ensured that this disturbance was contained, tragedy was averted, and the people of my congressional district were protected.

Madam Speaker, as President Bush said yesterday, this is a tough time in Iraq.

This week our Congress will hear from our commander in Baghdad, General David Petraeus, here on Capitol Hill. I suspect we will hear what I heard from General Petraeus on the streets of Baghdad just 3 weeks ago. That is, despite a wave of recent insurgent bombing, this war is not lost.

In fact, because of the President's surge and the brave conduct of our forces and the Iraqi forces, we are making modest progress in Iraq. In Baghdad, despite recent bombings, sectarian violence is down. Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers, and now more than 20 Sunni sheiks across the Al Anbar Province have united together to oppose the insurgency and al Qaeda.

I truly believe that we are making progress because of the President's surge. This war is not lost. The American people know in their hearts that victory is our only option.

Let's give General Petraeus a willing ear, the time and the resources and the authority to secure a victory for freedom in Iraq, for ourselves and our posterity.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to come before my colleagues and those that might be looking in to speak about the war in Iraq.

We have heard colleagues speak about the issue tonight in poignant and, no doubt, sincere terms. Mostly, the words of my Democrat colleagues register their objection to the ongoing war in Iraq, and that is expected, as Democrats will prepare to bring to the floor of the House of Representatives by this weekend a war spending bill that will include timetables for withdrawal that will add unconstitutional provisions which will necessitate the beginning of troop withdrawals by July 2007, with the goal of ending U.S. combat operations no later than March of 2008.

I want to leave for a little later, Mr. Speaker, the discussion of whether or not Congress has the constitutional authority that will be contemplated in this legislation, but for now I want to speak specifically to the state of the war. And I want to say, as President Bush said yesterday in the Oval Office, this is a tough time in Iraq.

In my role as the ranking Republican member of the Middle East Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee here in the House of Representatives, I am regularly and routinely briefed both about our surge strategy, the efforts of U.S. and coalition and Iraqi forces on the ground, and of course regularly briefed on the efforts of insurgents and al Qaeda and those attempting to foment sectarian violence and to generate a civil war in Iraq. It is a tough time in Iraq.

This week, we will hear from our commander in Baghdad. General David Petraeus is on Capitol Hill as we speak, preparing to meet tomorrow with Members of the United States House of Representatives to present his report on the progress of the surge. And that is specifically what I want to speak about tonight, because, Mr. Speaker, I suspect my colleagues will hear tomorrow what I heard from General David Petraeus in Baghdad just 3 weeks ago when I traveled with colleagues in the House and Senate to tour literally the streets of Baghdad and to tour our progress in Ramadi and in al-Anbar province.

I believe what General Petraeus will tell our colleagues on Capitol Hill tomorrow is that despite a recent wave of insurgent and horrific bombings, this war is not lost. In fact, because of the President's surge and the brave and courageous conduct of American soldiers on the ground and brave Iraqis on the ground, we are making modest progress in Iraq in the early months of this surge.

But, as General Petraeus will say, while Congress will this week contemplate embracing a resolution that will be built upon the predicate that the war is lost, in fact there is evidence that this new surge strategy both in Baghdad and in the al-Anbar province are beginning to have a good effect.

In Baghdad, for instance, as I will chronicle tonight, despite recent and horrific bombings, sectarian violence is down significantly in the past 2 months. Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the deployment of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers throughout the city. And now, perhaps most compellingly, in the al-Anbar province in Ramadi, more than 20 of the Sunni sheik leaders have come together to form what they call the Iraq Awakening Movement. For the first time ever, Sunni leadership in the al-Anbar province are standing with the American soldier and with the government of Nouri al- Maliki.

Again, let me say, this is a tough time in Iraq. But we are in the midst of

a strong backlash and counterattacks by insurgency in al Qaeda. We are beginning to see the seedlings of hope in that war-torn country. I truly believe we are making progress precisely because of the President's surge strategy.

This war is not lost. And before I close tonight, I will reflect on my heartfelt sentiment that I believe the American people know that victory is our only option in Iraq, and I will urge this Congress to give General Petraeus not only a willing ear tomorrow but also the time, the resources, and the authority under his Commander in Chief to secure a victory for freedom in Iraq.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the skepticism of my colleagues on this point and perhaps even the skepticism of some who would be looking in tonight. So let me stick tonight not so much with rhetoric or semantics, but let's just talk about the facts on the ground in Baghdad. Because it seems to me just, not as a Congressman, but as an American, that most of the facts that I get in the popular debate in America in the mainstream media have to do with the horrific counterattacks that insurgents and al Qaeda are conducting in response to the surge.

But I want to focus tonight, in the time that I have been allotted, on the products of the surge, both militarily, both with regard to security in Baghdad and in Ramadi, where I visited just 3 short weeks ago, and also, in the political process which we all know ultimately holds the solution to our impasse in Iraq.

Let me begin by saying, first and foremost, despite the difficulty of our challenge in Iraq, we are seeing positive indicators under the President's new strategy that we hope will turn into positive trends.

General Petraeus has been carrying out this new strategy now for just over 2 months. He will not have the full complement of U.S. forces and reinforcements on the ground in Baghdad for several months yet, which makes all the more questionable those who would be prepared at this point to announce withdrawal before the surge has been even fully implemented in Iraq.

Iraqi and American forces are making incremental gains, specifically in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. And let me emphasize, President's strategy, from the first time he outlined it to the Nation, from the time, a few days before that what I and a handful of Members were in the Cabinet Room and the President described his strategy for a surge of military reinforcements.

This is not about sending in enough forces to provide military control of the entire country of Iraq. President's strategy, the so- called surge, actually found its origin in the Iraq Study Group report, which, if memory serves, on page 74 in the published edition, actually said that, and I quote, that the Iraq Study Group said that they would support a temporary increase in forces or a surge in U.S. forces in Baghdad to quell violence in the capital city, to make possible a political solution.

Now, I know in the past, and perhaps even before the end of this week, many of my colleagues who oppose the war will cite glowingly the Iraq Study Group. But I will take whatever opportunity I have, informally or formally, to respectfully point them to that page of the Iraq Study Group report. The President's surge is a military strategy designed to quell violence in the capital city of Baghdad, and, to no less extent, in Ramadi and the al-Anbar Province.

The belief is that if we can, U.S. and Iraqi forces in the lead, if we can quell violence in the capital city, we can create an environment where the political process and a political settlement and, ultimately, regionally a diplomatic settlement can take hold. And there is some evidence that that surge strategy is beginning, just beginning to deliver on the security that will make that political and diplomatic settlement possible. The most significant element, therefore, of the new strategy is being carried out in Baghdad.

Baghdad, it is widely known, was the site of most of the sectarian violence in Iraq, and therefore it is the destination for most of our reinforcements. At this point there are three additional American brigades that have reached the Iraqi capital, and while another is in Kuwait preparing to deploy, one more will arrive next month.

The Iraq Government, for its part, when I am home in Indiana I am asked a lot about what are Iraqis doing for their own security as a part of this surge and as a part of this war. Well, the Iraqi Government is meeting its pledge to boost force levels in Baghdad.

Here is a jarring statistic, Mr. Speaker. For every U.S. combat soldier deployed in Baghdad, there are now roughly three Iraqi military forces deployed in Baghdad. Let me say that again. For every one American combat force, for every American soldier, combat soldier deployed in Baghdad, there are now roughly three soldiers as a part of the Iraq Security Force deployed in Baghdad.

And American troops are now living and working side by side with Iraqi forces. I actually had the chance to see it firsthand in our trip to Baghdad; in fact, our trip to a joint operating center with General David Petraeus on April 1. These neighborhood small outposts are called joint security stations.

In fact, on this map, Mr. Speaker, we see the coalition's forward operating bases in the fall of 2006. Here we see in the center of town the international zone, so-called the Green Zone. Of course here is the Baghdad international airport. And at this point, in fall of 2006, roughly, these diagrams, these small triangles, 1, 2, 3 and 4 represented all of the forward operating bases in Baghdad.

Since the beginning of the surge, now, Mr. Speaker, there are 21, 21 combat outposts throughout Baghdad, and 26 joint security stations run together with U.S. and Iraqi forces. These are seen as a key building block in an effort to increase security for Baghdad's residents.

As I mentioned, we traveled out to the al Karada joint security station during my April 1st trip to Baghdad. We helicoptered from the Green Zone. We landed at the al Karada joint security station. These joint stations, for all the world, they are like neighborhood police stations. And U.S. forces, literally, on 2-week rotations, move to these stations.

And it was very compelling to me to see U.S. and Iraqi forces side by side when we arrived in this joint operating security station. And they greeted us warmly, and we spoke with Iraqi military personnel; spoke, of course, with American personnel.

And I remember one of the facts that stuck out in my mind was that when they were building this particular joint operating center at al Karada, right literally in downtown Baghdad, they offered, out of respect to religious traditions, they offered the Iraqi forces, they said, Well, you could have separate living forces from the U.S. forces so that you wouldn't have to essentially bunk together. And it was the Iraqi soldiers who said, Absolutely not. We want to bunk together with the American forces. We want to, essentially, be in the same dorm with them, and we are deploying with them every day.

And there is a tremendous sense for all the world, Mr. Speaker, of esprit de corps that one gets when you see the American soldier and you see the Iraqi soldier, as we did that day at the al Karada joint security station.

Let me say again, I was unable to bring tonight, Mr. Speaker, a diagram that would show all of the locations of the 26 joint security stations that now dot the landscape of Baghdad, 26 stations that were not there in the fall of 2006. Security issues would not permit me to put that on, essentially, global television through C-SPAN coverage, looking in.

But for all the world, if you can imagine, here we had four forward- deployed stations in the Green Zone, and now, literally, I would mark up this map into almost an incomprehensible state if I were to draw the 21 combat outposts and the 26 combat security stations that are now on the ground in Baghdad.

Iraqi and American forces are working together. Specifically, not only living at these stations, but deploying 24/7 to clear out and secure neighborhoods. If a heavy fight breaks out, American forces step in. Iraqi forces learn, side by side, valuable skills in fighting shoulder to shoulder with our troops.

Iraqi and American forces have also, in the past 3 months, received more

tips than during any 3-month period on record.

Baghdad is not safe; can we say that for the RECORD? But Baghdad is safer because of the presence of U.S. and Iraqi forces throughout the capital city. And an evidence of that, number one, is a sharp decline in insurgent sectarian violence within the city of Baghdad, a sharp decline which I mentioned in my opening comments.

But also evidence we can point to is more tips from people in Baghdad than at any 3-month period on record. By living in Baghdad neighborhoods, it is believed that American forces are getting to know the culture, the concerns, the local residents.

I don't understand every operational profile of our presence in Iraq. I have been there five different times. But my sense is, Mr. Speaker, that prior to, essentially, the embedding of these joint security stations throughout the capital city, American forces essentially would deploy from one of our forward operating bases where there was a problem, patrol, deal with the problem and go back to base. Now we go, we stay. And that is what is being widely credited with two facts, one good and one bad.

The first fact, as I have mentioned, and I will say again, there has been a drop in sectarian violence in Baghdad, as well as in Ramadi, which I will get to in a minute. That is the good news.

The bad news is that the enemy is fighting back in the form of horrific bombings. We saw the bridge car bomb. We saw bombings against unsecured marketplaces, particularly recently on the south and west of Baghdad. Heartbreaking, violent acts by the enemy, which I believe give evidence of the fact that we are taking the fight to the enemy and the enemy is responding.

But again, let me say again, sectarian violence overall in Baghdad is down in the first 2 months. And it gives us just an inkling of hope for success of the surge.

Baghdad is not safer. But it is safer because of the presence of 26 joint operating centers where U.S. and Iraqi forces deploy and live together and patrol the neighborhoods 24/7.

Now, let me speak a little bit about the al-Anbar Province, truly an extraordinary experience from our time in Baghdad. Our delegation traveled west into the al-Anbar Province, the capital of which is the city of Ramadi. And Ramadi is a very dangerous place, Mr. Speaker. It is a place where there has been a great and tremendous and consistent insurgent presence.

Ramadi historically is where, frankly, most of the Sunni power in the country was focused. Most of the wealth of Sunnis was concentrated in Ramadi, and therefore the Sunni insurgency against the al-Maliki government found much expression in violence in that city.

Here is a picture on the ground, unclassified, of the insurgent presence in Ramadi, of just 2 months ago, the river passing through the middle of town. I believe the U.S. military base is in this direction.

But just to give you a snapshot here, Mr. Speaker, you can see all of this red area that shows insurgent presence in Ramadi. Quick snapshot, the present picture in Ramadi is this. And again it is in direct connection with the leadership of General Odierno, U.S. forces and Iraqi forces employing exactly the same strategy that I just described is being deployed in Baghdad, the deployment of joint security stations, Iraqis and Americans working together.

Now, the city of Ramadi that was highly compromised 2 months ago with insurgent presence, according to U.S. sources this would represent al Qaeda in Iraq positions, now, according to official U.S. military sources, now has been reduced in its scope to a relatively isolated area of the city of Ramadi.

Well, how is that happening? Is it all about joint operating centers and the military response?

Well, it certainly is a part of that. But I would also add, a great deal has to do with a sea change that is taking place among Sunni sheiks and Sunni leadership.

Remember, in the history of the three successive national elections and referenda that took place in Iraq, for the most part, Sunnis, and particularly Sunnis in al-Anbar Province, not only were opposed to measures, but refused to participate in most cases.

Now, there has been a breakthrough in recent months, and we met with a Sheik Sitar, a courageous man, roughly my age, who ended up, Mr. Speaker, being featured for all the world on a 60 Minutes program a week after we returned from Iraq, for all the world to see and hear his own words.

We sat in a room with Sheik Sitar and we heard them describe what he helped to found. It is called the Iraq Awakening Movement. The Iraq Awakening Movement already includes 22 of 24 Ramadi-area Sunni tribes that are now cooperating with U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Let me say that again; 22 of 24 Ramadi area tribes are now cooperating with U.S. and Iraqi and coalition forces.

Sheikh Sattar himself has an extraordinary and compelling story. His father was killed in his native town of Ramadi by al Qaeda. His two brothers were killed by al Qaeda. And to hear him tell it, Sheikh Sattar just said, That's enough, and began in the process with other sheikhs and other tribal leaders throughout the Sunni population of Ramadi and to say this is not going to happen like this anymore. And they came to the American base in Ramadi and sat down with officials and said, We want to figure out how to move forward.

He made comments that were echoed across the Nation on that ``60 Minutes'' CBS television program. And I commend Scott Pelley and I commend CBS News for replaying his comments.

He looked at us across the table and spoke about the American soldier. And I paraphrase now, Mr. Speaker, but Sheikh Sattar said, Anyone who points a gun at an American soldier in Ramadi is pointing a gun at an Iraqi. It was incredibly moving. He spoke of their gratitude to the American soldier. And then he looked me right in the eye across this small conference table at the U.S. military base in Ramadi, and he said, Congressman, anyone who tells you the Iraqi people don't like Americans is lying to you. And then he said with even greater emphasis, Iraqis love Americans and, particularly, he added, the American soldier. I don't have his words precisely correct, but it was very moving to this small-town boy to hear a man roughly my age living in this war-torn country who was now risking his life to stand with his own nascent government, the al Maliki government, and to stand with U.S. and coalition forces.

We are forward deployed. Much of the strategy that I described in Baghdad we were told in Ramadi is being employed in Ramadi. But I think something else is happening in the al-Anbar province: tribal sheikhs cooperating with American and Iraqi forces to fight al Qaeda, providing highly specific intelligence. We have sent more troops to the al-Anbar province with these significant changes where presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the city has declined significantly in the past 6 months, as evidenced by these charts.

But it would be important to note, as I return to my original graphic, that al Qaeda responds to these changes with sickening brutality. But the local Sunnis in al-Anbar province and in Ramadi are refusing to be intimidated, and they are stepping forward to drive out terrorists.

We are cracking down on extremists also gathering in other parts of Iraq, but as I conceded on a news program this afternoon, one of the concerns that I heard, Mr. Speaker, from General Odierno in Ramadi and General Petraeus in Baghdad was that as we move U.S. and Iraqi forces into those major cities with a special emphasis on Baghdad, number one, the enemy will fight back, and the horrific bombings of the past few weeks are evidence that this enemy will not go quietly. But, number two, the other, and we are seeing evidence of this already, is that the al Qaeda and the insurgent elements, to the extent that we are able systematically neighborhood by neighborhood to drive them out of those major cities, that they will move into the outlying province, and we are seeing evidence of that.

But let me say again the strategy here is not to go neighborhood by neighborhood to secure the entire city of Baghdad. The President's surge strategy is a clear hold-and-build strategy designed to provide enough security in Baghdad and a critical area in

Ramadi to allow a political solution to take hold.

We can assume our enemies will continue to fight back. These are ruthless, blood-thirsty killers who not only desire the power that would come with a nation-state in Iraq, but they desire to do us harm and to do harm to our posterity. They will continue to fight back. But I believe there is evidence that this strategy to clear areas, to hold them with the joint operating centers, again, 26 joint operating centers throughout the city of Baghdad where American forces and Iraqi forces are living and patrolling 24/7 is a strategy where we can provide the kind of stability to facilitate the political and economic progress that will make a lasting peace possible.

And let me speak to that. As we increase our troop levels, it is vital that we also strengthen our civilian presence, provisional reconstruction teams, organizations that restore basic services, stimulate job creation, promote reconciliation.

I was at USAID yesterday. I met with Ambassador Tobias and learned about the extraordinary efforts that are taking place to meet real and human needs on the ground. I met in my office today with the head of the Iraqi Red Crescent organization, an admirable organization modeled in effect after the American Red Cross but built on the Muslim tradition of the Crescent. The Iraqi Red Crescent is an organization that day in and day out is answering the humanitarian crisis on the ground in this violent and war-torn country.

Military operations are beginning to open up a breathing space, though, for political progress, and therein lies the real hope, Mr. Speaker. As we sat down with the foreign minister, seven members of the cabinet, and the Vice President of Iraq over a long and lengthy and brutally frank dinner in the ambassador's headquarters in the Green Zone at the end of our day in Baghdad, we emphasized the need to move forward on reconciliation, to move forward on an agreement that would distribute the oil revenues equitably between all the ethnic groups in Iraq. And, truthfully, as they reminded us, the Iraq legislature has met some key milestones, met one benchmark by passing a budget that commits $10 billion for reconstruction. The Council of Ministers recently approved legislation that would provide a framework for an equitable sharing of oil revenues.

Now that legislation will go before the Iraq Parliament for its approval. The government has formed a committee to organize provincial elections. And I want to say of the al-Anbar province, with Sunnis now in the Iraq Awakening movement beginning to stand with U.S. and Iraqi forces and the al Maliki government, we urged them very strongly to move as quickly as possible toward provincial elections with the expectation that Sunnis in the al-Anbar province and in other provinces of the country would, in many cases for the first time, participate and take ownership in the electoral and the governing process.

The Iraqi cabinet, as they reminded us, are all taking steps to finalize toward agreement on a de-Baathification law. And in a conference in Egypt next month, Prime Minister Maliki will seek increased diplomatic and financial commitments for Iraq's democracy.

Ultimately, let me say as clearly as I can, during these difficult days for the war in Iraq, the answer in Iraq is not exclusively military, but we must provide the military support to give the al Maliki government and this nascent democracy the capacity to defend its capital. To defend its capital is at the very essence of the credibility of any government. And given the opportunity to provide basic services and basic security in Baghdad, we believe that all of these objectives could move forward, not only internally in Iraq. The de-Baathification law, oil revenue sharing agreement, provincial elections, all of which would contribute to a widening sense of ownership in this new democracy, but also it would provide an opportunity where Iraq could begin, as it has just recently begun, to reach out to its neighbors with the United States already at the table. Even with countries greatly antagonistic to our interests in the region, the United States has been willing to sit down and begin to facilitate the achievement of a diplomatic solution.

The truth is that giving up on Iraq would have consequences far beyond Iraq's borders, and there may be time before the end of this week and before the end of this debate to expand on that. But let me just say emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that withdrawal is not a strategy. Withdrawal would do nothing to prevent violence from spilling out across the country and plunging Iraq into chaos and anarchy.

In fact, when I asked the leader of the Iraq Red Crescent movement today what a precipitous and early withdrawal of U.S. forces would mean, he painted a frightening picture of a humanitarian crisis, true civil conflict and strife, potentially widening into a wider regional war generated by the instability and uncertainty in Iraq.

But that being said, let me speak, if I can, in my time remaining, of the proposal that we will consider this week on the floor of the Congress. And that is what I have described in the past as the Democrat plan for retreat and defeat in Iraq. I wanted to come to the floor tonight, Mr. Speaker, to basically share what General David Petraeus shared with me in Baghdad and just the seedlings, the very beginning of hope, that the President's planned surge is beginning to produce modest progress in Iraq.

But let me say again at the outset, it is easy to be understood in this debate, it is a tough time in Iraq; but despite a recent wave of insurgent bombings, this war is not lost, and Congress would do well to reflect very deeply on the real facts on the ground, not the images in the media, but the real facts on the ground that I have recited tonight, that General Petraeus will recite to Members tomorrow, before we make a decision to embrace a plan contemplated by House and Senate agreement, a $124 billion spending plan expected to come to the floor with the goal of bringing U.S. troops home beginning July of this year and ending U.S. combat operations no later than March of 2008.

When I think of the Democrat plan in the midst of this hard-fought effort, street by street, the sacrifices that American and Iraqi soldiers are making, and the fact that both in Baghdad and in Ramadi sectarian violence is down. Despite the horrific bombing, sectarian violence is down. Cooperation in the form of tips is increasing. We are just beginning to see the inklings of hope in Iraq. And yet the Democrat majority will bring forward a proposal that would micromanage it, deadlines for withdrawal. For all the world, that makes me think of George Orwell, who said: ``The quickest way to end the war is to lose it.'' And I really do believe the Democrat plan is a prescription for retreat and defeat.

Now, let me speak about the proper role of Congress in this context. And I think it speaks of the great wisdom of our Founders that Congress, as a body of 435 otherwise well-intentioned men and women, is not particularly well suited to the conduct of war. In fact, at the Constitutional Convention, almost no issue was more summarily dealt with than what our Founders referred to as war by committee. They feared it. Their experience was derived from stories of the Revolutionary War as General Washington was chased from New York all the way across New Jersey, facing almost certain defeat in the Philadelphia suburbs across the river, the Delaware.

Every single night, General Washington would later record that he would sit in his tent and write letter after letter to Congress asking for appropriations, asking for support, asking for details.

As our founders put together the Constitution of the United States, they said there would be one Commander in Chief, and that would be the President of the United States of America; and that we would not have war by committee. And the Constitution is more clear on no other fact. Congress can declare war, Congress can choose to fund or not to fund military operations, but Congress cannot conduct war. In fact, those times in American history where Congress has intruded itself on the purview of the Commander in Chief have been marked as summarily perilous times.

I am recently reading up on the committee in this Congress during the Civil War. I think it was loosely entitled ``The Committee on the Conduct of

the War.'' And it was a committee in Congress that did not just attend itself to President Lincoln's use of public assets and funding of the war, but it involved itself well into recommendations about military operations and the like. It would be none other than Robert E. Lee, the leader of the Army of the Confederacy, who would say, ``That committee in Congress was worth two divisions to me.'' Robert E. Lee, leading the Army of the Confederacy, would say that the Committee on the Conduct of the War, functioning in Congress, was worth two divisions to him. And yet, we will see this majority bring forward a measure that I believe violates both common sense, the Constitution and our history with a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. And a message of withdrawal at a time when we are just beginning, in the midst of horrific counterattacks by the enemy, where we are just beginning to see evidence of modest progress from the surge, I think is precisely the wrong message to send.

But on this constitutional argument it is worth noting that it would not simply be my reading of history and the Constitution that would criticize the plan for a timetable for withdrawal included in the war funding bill this week, but let me quote, if I may, Mr. Speaker, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times that was published in the month of March under the heading, ``Do We Really Need a General Pelosi?'' Their main point was, in effect, ``Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.'' That newspaper went on to say, and I am quoting now the Los Angeles Times, ``After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw troops from Iraq by 2008.''

The L.A. Times said, ``The plan is an unruly mess, bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, President Bush says he will veto it, as well he should.''

They go on. ``It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval, it's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict.'' They add, ``Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings; or if in 1863 President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War by the following year.''

``This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy,'' so wrote the left column lead editorial in the L.A. Times in March. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the editorial board of record in the home State of Speaker Pelosi.

And about the same time the Washington Post, really another lion of the liberal media in America, wrote in a lead editorial entitled, ``The Pelosi Plan for Iraq,'' the following: ``In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is now an attempt to impose detailed management on the war without regard to the war itself.'' ``Congress should rigorously monitor the Iraq Government's progress on those benchmarks.'' ``By Mr. Bush's own account, the purpose of the troop surge in Iraq is to enable political progress.'' They wrote, ``If progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered, but aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to a flexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress, or in 2008 at the polls.'' So wrote the editorial in the Washington Post.

You know, it really is amazing sometimes how politics, common sense and the Constitution can make such strange bedfellows. I don't think I've ever come to the floor of this House and quoted in any length the lead editorial in either the Washington Post or the L.A. Times, but I do so approvingly this evening. In both cases, these newspapers identified what I asserted at the beginning, that the Democrats should heed the call of the Constitution and common sense and reject the Pelosi plan for retreat-defeat in Iraq. They should reject it on the basis of our history and Constitution, but they should also reject it because, as General Petraeus will describe to our colleagues tomorrow, in the midst of horrific counterattacks by our enemy, there is evidence of modest progress on the ground. Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad and Ramadi. Cooperation among civilians is up. And I say once again, where there once were four forward operating bases in the fall of 2006 in Baghdad proper, now, like the joint security station I visited on April 1st in downtown Baghdad, now there are 26 joint operating stations throughout Baghdad, almost as many, I'm told, in Ramadi, where U.S. and Iraqi forces are living together 2 weeks at a stretch and deploying and patrolling neighborhoods 24/7. This is exactly not the time to embrace arbitrary timetables for withdrawal, or for Congress to tell our generals on the ground how to conduct the war.

I believe in my heart of hearts that the American people know that we have but one choice in Iraq, that victory is our only real option. And let me say this again; if I am repetitive tonight, Mr. Speaker, it is intentional. I mean to be understood.

This is a tough time in Iraq. As General Petraeus comes to Capitol Hill this week, I expect that he will tell our colleagues what he told me and Members of the House and Senate on the streets of Baghdad just 3 short weeks ago. And that is that, despite a recent wave of insurgent bombings, counterattacks by the enemy responding to our surge on the ground, this war is not lost. In fact, because of the President's surge and the brave conduct of U.S. and Iraqi forces on the ground, we are making modest progress in Iraq.

In Baghdad, despite the recent bombings, sectarian violence is down. Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of 26 joint operating stations where U.S. and Iraqi forces are deployed. And as I mentioned earlier, the extraordinary developments in Ramadi, which has seen a precipitous decline in the last 2 months in sectarian violence, and also has seen 22 of 24 Ramadi-area Sunni tribes now cooperating and supporting U.S. forces and supporting the new al-Maliki government is truly an extraordinary development, to say the least.

I believe in my heart that the American people know that victory is our only option. And I just began recently, Mr. Speaker, rereading a biography that you might well approve of. It is the David McCollough biography of President Harry Truman. I have appropriated a few quotes by President Truman that I found particularly compelling and particularly appropriate at this time, and I will quote them with respect because I think they speak to our time, which is a tough time in Iraq, and a hard time for an American people that have little interest, almost at the level of our DNA.

We are not a Nation interested in foreign entanglements. We are not an empire-building Nation. And throughout our history, we have quickly grown weary of long-term foreign entanglements. So this is a hard time at home, it is a hard time on the ground. We are taking the battle with the enemy with the President's surge, and the enemy is fighting back.

President Truman faced such times, difficult days both in his personal career and as a wartime President. So I will reflect on his words and that of a leader of another country in difficult times as I reflect what I think is very close to the character of this Nation. Harry S. Truman said, ``Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive, and don't ever apologize for anything.'' That was advice he gave to Hubert Humphrey in September of 1964.

In 1945, President Truman said, ``I wonder how far Moses would have gotten if he had taken a poll in Egypt. What would Jesus Christ have preached if he had taken a poll in Israel? Where would the Reformation have gone if Martin Luther had taken a poll?'' President Truman went on to say, ``It isn't polls or public opinion of the moment that counts; it is right and wrong, and leadership, men with fortitude and honesty and a belief in the right that makes epochs in the history of the world,'' President Harry Truman said in 1945.

And for those who would embrace withdrawal as a means of achieving peace, President Truman says out of history, quote, ``A reminder: The absence of war is not peace.'' And I would argue the absence of U.S. forces in Iraq is not peace; it is a prescription for anarchy.

I would also appropriate from history as I speak to what I truly believe in my heart is at the very core of the American identity, and that upon which we

must avail ourselves during this time of testing in the war on terror, and they are the words of Sir Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England, and a man considered by many to be the greatest leader of the free world in the 20th century. He gives us words that I believe speak to our time. And I quote, ``Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on a strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to the war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy, but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.''

Winston Churchill would also say, ``You ask, `What is our policy?' I will say it is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalog of human crime. That is our policy.

``You ask, `What is our aim?' I can answer with one word: Victory-- victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be. For without victory, there is no survival.''

And of our time, where many of our countrymen would wish away this war-torn part of the world, I can't help but think that this quote is appropriate. Sir Winston Churchill said, ``One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger or try to run away from it. If you do, that will double the danger; but if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce it by half.''

These are difficult days in Iraq. Sacrifices that American forces and their families are making are deeply humbling to me and to every Member of Congress and, I believe, of the American people. But I believe that, despite the recent wave of insurgent bombings, this war is not lost. In fact, because of the President's surge and the bold leadership of General David Petraeus in Baghdad and General Odierno in Ramadi, our U.S. forces on the ground, in combination with Iraqi forces, we are beginning to see modest progress in Iraq.

In Baghdad, despite recent bombings, sectarian violence overall is down, and the same is true in Ramadi. Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the deployment of 26 joint operating centers throughout the city. A city where there once were simply an International Green Zone, the Baghdad Victory Base, and four forward- operating bases in Baghdad, now throughout the city, in form when I visited them on April 1 in Baghdad for all the world looked like neighborhood police stations. They call them joint operating centers, where U.S. and Iraqi forces live together, work together, eat together and deploy together, in 2-week rotations. And it is making a difference on the ground.

In the al Anbar province in Ramadi, it is extraordinary to say 22 of the 24 Sunni tribal leaders, led in part by Sheikh Sattar, with whom I spent one of the most memorable hours of my life on April 2 earlier this month, Sunni leadership is standing with the al Maliki government, standing with the American soldier, rejecting the insurgency, rejecting al Qaeda, and reclaiming their city and their country for peace and security.

We have a long way to go, but not that long before we know whether this new surge strategy will work. I believe it is imperative that Congress give General Petraeus not only a willing ear tomorrow when he comes to Capitol Hill, but I think it is high time that we sent the President a clean bill, take out all the micromanagement of the war, all the unconstitutional benchmarks and datelines for withdrawal, for that matter, take out all the pork-barrel spending that has nothing to do with our military, and send General Petraeus and our soldiers on the ground the resources they need to get the job done and come home.

You know, I was asked by a soldier in Ramadi, a soldier from Indiana, he looked at me and he said, Congressman, I just want to ask you an honest question. He said, When is it going to be enough? When are we going to have been here long enough? And I said to him with great humility, I said, Son, I will answer this as straight with you as I can: I think we have to stick around here until these people can defend themselves, and not a minute longer.

That is what we need to accomplish, Mr. Speaker. We need to stick around long enough to help Iraqi security forces provide the basic stability in their capital and in the critical al Anbar province, and particularly in Ramadi, in order that the political process and the diplomatic process regionally can go forward. And then, like Americans of past generations, we can pick up and go home, and only ask for a debt of friendship in return.

It is a time of testing for our country. It is not a time for shrinking back. But based on the evidence, the facts that General Petraeus shared with me in Baghdad and will share with us on Capitol Hill, it is time to give the surge a chance to succeed.

The Congress will likely pass a supplemental bill that will have unconstitutional benchmarks and datelines for withdrawal. The President of the United States will keep his word. He will promptly veto that legislation. But my hope, and, candidly, Mr. Speaker, my prayer, is that after we have gone through this exercise and Congress has made its importance felt, we will get our soldiers the resources they need and we will give them the time and the freedom to succeed in this surge.

But there are no guarantees. We are up against a ruthless and brutal enemy, who even this very day claimed American lives in another ruthless suicide car bomb attack.

I believe it would be a stain on our national character that we would not wipe off for generations if we were to walk away now; if we were simply to say to the good people of Iraq, hundreds of which I have had the chance to meet and to speak with over my five journeys there over the last 4 years of this war, it would be a stain on our national character to that generation of Iraqis to leave them unable to defend themselves, to harvest a whirlwind of sectarian violence, revenge killings, and to leave them to become a part of a country that would become subjugated by the blood-sworn enemies of the United States of America. And it would be a stain on our national character to leave Iraq, in effect, worse off than how we found it.

As bad as it was under Saddam Hussein, I can't help but believe that if those who fight us in the form of the insurgency and al Qaeda today gain the reins of control in that Nation, that we will, as Winston Churchill said, we will double the danger, and our children and our children's children will pay a price we dare not imagine.

So we are faced with choices today, and my challenge to my colleagues and to any looking on is to listen to the facts, not the adjectives, not the ``spin,'' as it is referred to in the popular debate, but listen to the facts. And the facts are that it is a tough time in Iraq. We are facing a determined enemy. But that despite a recent wave of insurgent bombings, this war is not lost.

In fact, because of the President's surge and the extraordinary courage of U.S. and Iraqi forces, we are making modest progress in Iraq. In Baghdad, despite recent bombings, sectarian violence is down. Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer because of the presence of more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi joint operating centers. And now 22 of 24 Sunni sheikhs and tribal leaders have come together in Ramadi and the al Anbar province to support the al Maliki government and U.S. forces.

Let's give General Petraeus a willing ear. Let's listen to the facts. And then let us reject timetables for withdrawal, pork-barrel-laden spending bills, and simply provide our soldiers the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe.

I believe that we can secure victory for freedom in Iraq, and in so doing we will deliver a victory for freedom, not only for the Iraqi people, but for ourselves and our posterity. We will unleash, as the President has spoken so eloquently, the forces of freedom and stability in a part of the world that has known little of either. That is my hope, and that is my prayer.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the great mothers of Indiana, Mrs. Jean Marie Slough McIntosh, the late mother of former Representative David McIntosh of Indiana, my predecessor. Mrs. McIntosh dedicated her life to the service of others as a nurse and judge, but more importantly as a mother and faithful wife.

Jean McIntosh was born on December 20, 1925 in Bourbon, a small town just off the beaten path of US Highway 30 in northern Indiana. She graduated from Bourbon High School as the Class of 1943 valedictorian. Mrs. McIntosh then moved to Chicago where she studied nursing at the Methodist Hospital School of Nursing. After completing her training in nursing, she moved to San Francisco, California where she met and married Norman Benjamin and started their family of four children. After the death of her husband in 1964, Mrs. McIntosh returned to Indiana where she remarried and raised her family in Kendallville, Indiana.

While in Kendallville, Mrs. McIntosh compassionately served her community as a nurse, and then as a two-term Kendallville City Judge beginning in 1971. After moving to Charlestown, SC in 1981, she completed her nursing career at the Psychiatric Institute of University Medical Hospital. She also taught English as a Second Language courses at Our Lady of Mercy Church.

Mrs. McIntosh is survived by two brothers, Robert Slough and James Slough; two daughters, Beth Vanderbeck and Liliane Heller; and two sons, former Congressman David McIntosh and Malcolm McIntosh.

Mrs. McIntosh left a legacy of service and compassion, and through her son, David McIntosh, served the residents of the Sixth District of Indiana. Thank you, Mrs. McIntosh, for the strong foundation of service that you laid as a faithful wife, mother, nurse, and judge. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the late Jean Marie Slough McIntosh.

Mr. Speaker, despite the best efforts of the abortion rights movement, 34 years since Roe v. Wade, more Americans embrace the sanctity of life than ever before. Yesterday, thanks to the leadership of the Republican Congress and this Republican President, the United States Supreme Court echoed that moral awakening.

I rise to commend the United States Supreme Court for affirming, in a 5-4 decision, the constitutionality of the ban of the barbaric procedure that has come to be known as partial birth abortion. I commend President Bush for signing the bill, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported it, and Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio, its principal author.

Life is winning in America. In big cities and small towns, American women are listening and learning. It's not a choice; it's a baby. American women are choosing life as never before.

To all who labor in the cause of life, I say in the wake of yesterday's decision, press on. Your labors on behalf of the unborn are not in vain.

No. I thank the gentleman. I am pleased to take time from the minority side. I thank the chairman. But I also thank very deeply the gentleman from Virginia the courtesy of yielding me time.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007.

The fact that more than half a million Americans living in the District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong.

The single overarching principle of the American founding was that laws should be based upon the consent of the governed. The first generation of Americans threw tea in Boston Harbor because they were denied a voting representative in the national legislature in England. Given their commitment to representative democracy, it is inconceivable to me that our Founders would have been willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a throng of Americans in perpetuity.

But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to act. Under our

system of government, Congress may only take action which is authorized by the written Constitution. I do believe in my heart that H.R. 1905 is a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong, and I am not alone in this thought.

Judge Kenneth Starr, the former Independent Counsel and U.S. Solicitor General observed: ``There is nothing in our Constitution's history or its fundamental principles suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great democracy that they founded.'' None other than Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984 that the seat of government clause of the Constitution gives Congress extraordinary and plenary power over our Nation's Capital. Judge Starr observes: ``The logic of that case and that reasoning applies here.''

Congress has used this power in the past. It was in a 1949 case that the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to the Federal courts even though article III expressly limited jurisdiction to the courts to suits brought by citizens of several States. None of which argues for the District of Columbia ever to be granted the right to elect Members to the Senate. In a real sense, the House is derivative of the people, the Senate is derivative of the State.

It is my privilege to stand today, albeit in opposition to some of my most cherished colleagues, and stand in support of the D.C. Voting Rights bill.

Mr. Speaker, with the report of rifle fire, America changed on the campus of Virginia Tech yesterday. A prestigious campus nestled in the mountains of Virginia became home to unspeakable acts of evil at the hands of a 23-year-old English major from South Korea.

The Bible tells us to mourn with those who mourn, and to pray for one another that we may be healed. I simply rise, very humbly, on behalf of the good people of eastern Indiana to assure the grieving families and community of Virginia Tech that we in Indiana are mourning with you and praying for you.

May God grant mercy to all those affected by this tragedy and grant wisdom to leaders in law enforcement and higher education as we apply the tragedy of Virginia Tech to protect our children and campuses in the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I have always believed that government should live within its means. No one was a harsher critic of runaway Federal spending under Republican control than me. When our majority faltered, I said we didn't just lose our majority, we lost our way. But thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin, this Republican substitute budget alternative should be entitled ``Lessons Learned.''

The contrast between the Democrat plan and the Republican plan is startling. Under the Republican budget alternatives, no tax increases, period; a courageous freeze on non-defense/non-security spending; $279 billion in savings through commonsense reform of entitlements; and real budget process reform.

The contrast? The Democrat budget allows for the largest tax increase in American history. It includes $22 billion in increases in non- defense spending and completely ignores budget process reform or the looming entitlement crisis that our Nation faces.

Mr. Chairman, the voters spoke last fall. Democrats promised voters a return to fiscal discipline and reform. But this budget proves only one party got the message.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Democrat majority's effort to return us to the tax-and-spend policies of the past and vote ``yes'' on the Republican substitute budget.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the new Democrat Congress, it is the 1970s all over again. Think about it. We have hostages in Iran, Congress is making plans to withdraw from another unpopular war, and the Democrats return to the floor of Congress with plans to tax and spend once again. Higher taxes for working families, small businesses and family farms to finance billions of dollars in new spending with absolutely no reform of entitlements, the real threat to our children and grandchildren.

The GOP budget alternative will balance the budget by the year 2012 without tax increases, without raiding Social Security and with truly historic entitlement reform.

I say, Madam Speaker, say ``no'' to bell bottoms, disco and the tax- and-spend politics of the 1970s. Say ``yes'' to the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding; and I express strong support for his leadership and remarks concerning the Joint Economic Committee.

I also would echo the sentiments of the chairman who expressed on this floor, moments ago, the importance for pursuing a ``more sensible course for economic policy.'' And, as she did, I will reflect on the fact that that begins with the Federal budget.

We are in the midst, Mr. Chairman, of considering the Federal budget; and I rise this evening to reflect on that, however briefly. But I must tell you, I have a strong sense of deja vu as I come to this floor. It seems like it is the 1970s all over again.

I mean, seriously, if you think about it, there are hostages in Iran; Congress is making plans to withdraw from another unpopular war; the Equal Rights Amendment is about to be considered in the Congress, once again; and the tax-and-spend policies of a liberal Democrat majority are about to beset Washington, D.C.

The contrast between the Democrat plan for tax and spend and the Republican plan to balance the budget by 2012 could not be more startling, and I would like to speak about that this evening.

On taxes, under the Democrat budget that will be considered tomorrow, we find the largest tax increase in American history. Despite hollow promises, the tax hikes are in the numbers, and in a budget resolution the numbers don't lie.

The Republican budget, no tax increases, period.

On the spending side, the Democrat budget includes a $22 billion increase in nondefense spending above the President's request on top of $22 billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion in the omnibus. More taxes and more spending.

Under the Republican budget, we see a courageous effort to freeze nondefense, nonsecurity spending, while providing additional funds for veterans, the war on terror, CDBG, the National Institutes of Health and Science and Technology.

And perhaps most grievous and most startling a contrast, Mr. Chairman, is under the Democrat budget that will be considered tomorrow, we see a majority party in Congress that is prepared to ignore the trillions of dollars in unfunded obligations in entitlements altogether. The Democrat budget ignores the Nation's looming entitlement crises and allows unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security to actually grow by an additional $25 trillion.

Again, the Republican alternative includes $279 billion in savings and commonsense reforms to entitlement programs to preserve our social safety net for future generations. And on budget process reform, believing, as I always have, that we must change the way we spend the people's money, the Democrat budget relies on gimmickry and hollow promises of reserve funds and PAYGO strategies that will only chase higher spending and higher taxes.

Under the Republican plan, we see legislative line item veto and PAYGO for all congressional spending.

So the contrasts have been startling, and it does seem like deja vu. But who will pay the price? Well, under the Democrat plan, working families in Indiana will pay an additional $2,700 per year. The Democrat budget resolution will increase marginal tax rates for all Americans, eliminate the new 10 percent tax bracket, increase taxes paid on capital gains and dividends, reimpose the death tax, cut the child tax credit. And that is just a start.

The GOP budget alternative will preserve tax cuts, will protect Social Security, and will balance the Federal budget by the year 2012. It is truly an historic recommitment by this Republican minority to the principles of fiscal discipline and reform.

It is, in fact, the 1970s all over again. But I would say very humbly, Mr. Chairman, let's not, as a Nation, relearn those lessons. Let's rather say ``no'' to bell bottoms, to disco, and to the tax and spend policies of the 1970s; and say ``yes'' to the fiscal discipline and reform reflected in the Republican budget resolution.

Madam Speaker, I was granted a leave of absence. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Rollcall No. 157 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 138)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 158 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. R. 658)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 159 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 839)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 160 (On Agreeing to the Resolution on H. Res. 254)-- ``Nay'';

Rollcall No. 161 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Con. Res. 42, as amended)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 162 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 759)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 163 (On Approving the Journal)--``No'';

Rollcall No. 164 (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1227 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas) ``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 165 (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1227 by Ms. Biggert of Illinois) ``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 166 (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1227 by Mr. Al Green of Texas) ``Nay'';

Rollcall No. 167 (On the Motion to Permit to Proceed in Order on This Day)--``Nay''; .

Rollcall No. 168 (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1227 by Mr. Neugebauer of Texas) ``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 169 (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1227 by Mr. Price of Georgia) ``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 170 (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 1227 by Mr. Al Green of Texas) ``Nay'';

Rollcall No. 171 (On the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1227 with Instructions)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 172 (On Passage of H.R. 1227)--``Nay'';

Rollcall No. 173 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 835, as amended)--``Nay'';

Rollcall No. 174 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 327, as amended)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 175 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 797)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 176 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R.1284)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 177 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1130)--``Aye'';

Rollcall No. 178 (On the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 740)--``Aye''.

Mr. Speaker, I support the war in Iraq and the President's call for reinforcements. I made every effort to support our troops in the field, but I cannot support the Iraq supplemental because it is fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally flawed.

Emergency war spending bills should be about emergency war spending. In addition to much-needed support for our troops, this legislation contains billions of dollars in domestic spending that have nothing whatsoever to do with our national defense. And this bill is constitutionally flawed.

Under the Constitution, it is very clear; Congress may declare war; Congress may choose to fund or choose not to fund war; but Congress may not conduct war.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally flawed. The American people expect this Congress to send our soldiers the resources they need to win in Afghanistan and Iraq with no strings and no pork. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, consider carefully what you will do today. The American people want our troops to come home, but they want them to win and come home. Let's give them a clean emergency spending bill, and give them a chance to do just that.