Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I come to the House today to express my support for the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

I believe after much consideration that this legislation is a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong. Now, while many have focused on the political consequences of such a move, I believe the only question for a Member of Congress on such matters is this: What does justice demand and what does the Constitution permit this Congress to do about it?

The fact that more than half a million Americans live in the District of Columbia and are denied a single voting representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong, and justice demands that it be addressed. At the time of the adoption of our present system of government, the Federal city did not exist apart from a reference in the Constitution. And when the District of Columbia opened for business in 1801, only a few thousand residents lived within her boundaries. Among our Founders, only Alexander Hamilton would foresee the bustling metropolis that the District of Columbia would become, and he himself was an advocate of voting representation.

The demands of history in favor of representation for the Americans living in Washington, D.C. are compelling. In establishing the Republic, the single overarching principle of the American founding was that laws should be based on the consent of the governed. The first generation of Americans threw tea in Boston Harbor simply because they were denied a voting representative in the British Parliament. Given their fealty 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. As many of my colleagues have eloquently stated, under the principles of limited government, a republic may only take that action which is expressly authorized in its written constitution. In this regard, I believe that H.R. 1433 is constitutional. And I am not alone in this view.

In support of this legislation, Judge Kenneth Starr, 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 they founded.''

Now, opponents of D.C. voting rights understandably cite the plain language of Article I of the Constitution that the House of Representatives be comprised of representatives elected ``by the people of the several States.'' Now if this were the only reference to the powers associated with the Federal city, it would be persuasive, but it is not. Article I, section 8, clause 17 provides that ``Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.

In 1984, it would be Justice Scalia who would observe that the seat of government clause gives the Congress ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over our Nation's capital.

And Congress has used this power to remedy the rights of Americans in the District of Columbia in the past. In 1949, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to the Federal courts to citizens of the district even though Article III expressly limited jurisdiction of those courts to citizens of States. As Judge Starr observed: ``The logic of this case applies here,'' and I agree.

But one caveat, Madam Speaker. None of this argues for the District of Columbia ever to be granted a right to elect Members to the Senate. From the inception of our Nation, this House of Representatives was an extension of the people. The Senate, from the inception of our Nation, was an extension of the States. If the people of the District of Columbia would like two seats in the United States Senate, under the Constitution, they will have to become a State.

You know, the Old Book tells us what is required: do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God. I believe that justice demands that we right this historic wrong. The American people should have representation in the people's House. I believe that kindness demands that we do the right thing for all Americans regardless of race or political creed, and I believe that humility demands that we do so in a manner consistent with our Constitution.

The D.C. House Voting Rights Act meets this test, and I am honored to have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our constitutional Republic ever closer to a more perfect Union.

I commend the gentleman from Virginia and my colleague, the delegate from the District of Columbia, for their yeoman's work on this legislation.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership on this and so many other issues affecting our national defense throughout his career in Congress.

I rise in opposition to this supplemental bill because, simply put, it is fiscally irresponsible and constitutionally flawed.

Mr. Speaker, emergency war spending bills should be about emergency war spending. This bill, with $124 billion in spending, only includes $111 billion in spending that is actually related to the war on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Thirteen billion dollars in this legislation will be spent on unrelated domestic spending; $25 million for spinach, $125 million for shrimp, $75 million for peanuts, $5 million for shellfish. That is not a war spending bill, that is the salad bar at Denny's.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that with the deadlines for withdrawal, retreat and defeat, this bill is constitutionally flawed. Congress can declare war. Congress can choose to fund or choose not to fund military operations. But from the very inception of this Nation, no truth has been more evident, Congress cannot conduct war. In fact, the fear of war by committee was debated and rejected in Philadelphia in 1787.

The Democrats have a plan to end the war. Our Commander in Chief has a plan to win the war. The problem with the Democrat plan is, as Orwell said, ``The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.''

Let's reject the Democrat plan for withdrawal, retreat and defeat. Let's give our soldiers a clean bill, no pork, no strings attached, and let's unite this Nation behind our Commander in Chief's plan to win a victory for freedom in Iraq.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By the end of 2006, most Americans could see that our strategy in Iraq was not working. In January of this year, President Bush outlined his plan to win the war in Iraq. And just last week, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat majority announced their plan to end the war in Iraq. The only problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that, as George Orwell wrote, the quickest way to end the war is to lose it, and I believe that the Democratic plan to micromanage our war in Iraq with benchmarks and deadlines for withdrawal is a prescription for retreat and defeat.

Common sense and the Constitution teach us that Congress can declare war. Congress can fund or choose not to fund war. But Congress must not ever attempt to conduct war. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to heed the call of the Constitution and common sense and reject the Pelosi plan for retreat and defeat in Iraq.

It turns out, Mr. Speaker, that I am actually not alone in my concern about the constitutionality and the commonsense value of the current plan for withdrawal from Iraq being propounded by the majority. The newspaper of record in the home State of Speaker Pelosi, the Los Angeles Times, wrote an editorial yesterday under the title ``Do We Really Need a General Pelosi?'' adding ``Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.'' Allow me to quote further from yesterday's lead editorial in the Los Angeles Times:

``After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.''

The Los Angeles Times editorial board went 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.''

The L.A. Times asked, ``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.''

They conclude, ``This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy,'' adding, ``By interfering with the discretion of the Commander in Chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome.''

And even in today's Washington Post, another lion of the liberal media in America, under the lead editorial headline, The Pelosi Plan for Iraq, they write:

``In short, the Democrat proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard to the war itself.''

The Washington Post adds: ``Congress should rigorously monitor the Iraqi government's progress on those benchmarks. By Mr. Bush's own account, the purpose of the troop surge in Iraq is to enable political process. If progress does not occur, the military strategy should be reconsidered.''

But here is the key line in the Washington Post lead editorial today: ``But aggressive oversight is quite different from mandating military steps according to an inflexible timetable conforming to the need to capture votes in Congress or at the 2008 polls.''

It is truly extraordinary how politics and common sense and the Constitution can make such strange bedfellows. I scarcely think, Mr. Speaker, that I have ever come to the floor of this House and quoted at any length the lead editorial in either the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times. Those two newspapers tend to bookend the country from a liberal perspective in the media. But in both cases, both newspapers have identified what I asserted in the beginning, that my colleagues should heed the call of the Constitution and common sense and reject the Pelosi plan for retreat and defeat in Iraq.

It is the purview of the Congress to declare war. It is the purview of this Congress to vote up or down on whether we should continue to fund military

operations. And I would never question that right. But it is not the purview of the Congress, according to our history and Constitution and tradition, to interpose our will, our decisions, our timetables, on military commanders in the field.

I will close, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying that we do have but one choice in Iraq and that is victory. It is my hope and prayer that after much political debate here in Congress, we will give our soldiers the resources they need to achieve victory in Iraq and bring home a much- deserved freedom for those good people and another victory for freedom for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, in January, President Bush described his plan to win the war in Iraq, and last week Speaker Pelosi described her plan to end the war in Iraq. The only problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is, as George Orwell said, the quickest way to end a war is to lose it; and I believe the Democrat plan to micromanage our war in Iraq with benchmarks and deadlines for withdrawal is just that, a prescription for retreat and defeat.

But common sense and the Constitution teach us that Congress can declare war, we can fund or choose not to fund a war, but Congress should never attempt to conduct war. In fact, this is a broadly held view by some of the leading arteries of America's traditionally liberal media. The L.A. Times yesterday said: ``Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.'' In The Washington Post today, the lead editorial entitled ``The Pelosi Plan For Iraq'' said: ``In short, the Democrat proposal is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard to the war itself.''

I commend these American newspapers for their sensible reasoning. Common sense and the Constitution demand Congress should reject the Pelosi plan.

I thank the gentleman for the compliment.

Today the House is considering the Water Quality Financing Act introduced by the gentleman from Minnesota. And I wish to commend him for his ongoing leadership in this area of the law and the infrastructure needs of the American people.

The bill does do many good and important things, and I believe it is well intended. But I want to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because I have great concerns about the cost, but also, most especially, about the expansion of the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement to construction projects funded under this bill.

H.R. 720 authorizes $16 billion in discretionary spending over 5 years, new programs that contain a significant expansion of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. And therein applies the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage law.

Since 1995, the Davis-Bacon requirement was not applied to construction projects funded through these revolving funds; however, this bill would reinstitute this requirement. Many of the primary taxpayer watchdog organizations in America are opposing this bill on this basis alone, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, just to name a few.

The Davis-Bacon law was signed into law in 1931 during the Great Depression in order to inflate labor rates for workers on government projects. But, Madam Chair, the Great Depression is over and the time for expanding the prevailing wage for projects like these is gone. An honest day's work should be met with an honest day's pay, not an artificial government-mandated

wage rate. Let's say yes to the sacred right of contract. Let's say yes to the best deal for the American people on public projects. Let's say no to the expansion of Davis-Bacon and to the projects under this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote among my colleagues for that reason.

Madam Speaker, it has been quite a week here on Capitol Hill with the unveiling by the Democratic majority of their new plan for a fully funded withdrawal from our presence in Iraq.

The contrast that took place yesterday also was quite striking. General Petraeus, our new commander on the ground in Baghdad, had his first meeting this Thursday with the media in Baghdad, describing what our military leaders were doing in the midst of that war-torn country. And at the same time, on the other side of the world, many would-be generals here in Congress were describing their plans for the war in Iraq.

Democratic leaders, according to press releases from the House Appropriations Committee, outlined a plan for veterans' funding in the so-called war supplemental but also a plan that would set a timeline for bringing United States participation in Iraq's war to an end.

Setting very, very specific dates, the leadership, at least at this point, as we know, has outlined a proposal that establishes a timeline that would end U.S. participation in Iraq's civil war by July 1, 2007. If the President does not certify that the troops have met certain specific criteria that has been released to the media, the troops must

begin at that point an immediate redeployment of their involvement in the Iraq War which must be completed by December of 2007. Other dates, October 1, also are being discussed and other dates, including March 1, 2008. It was a startling contrast, to say the least.

On Thursday of this week, our generals in Baghdad and our ``generals'' here in Congress were describing their plans for the war in Iraq.

But I must say that history teaches that we have but one commander in chief, Madam Speaker. In fact, if you study the minutes of the Constitutional Convention in that balmy summer of 1787, you will find more agreement on no other point than that our Founders believed in the unified chain of command, that there would be one commander in chief and that that power, under article II of the Constitution, would be vested in the President of the United States.

We have a role in this Chamber. Under article I, Congress has the exclusive authority to declare war and to make decisions which will be a part of the aforementioned legislation to determine whether and to what degree we will fund war.

But the conduct of the war on the ground, including the setting of benchmarks, the execution of timetables on the ground and the like, fall within the purview of the commanders and specifically the commander in chief. And I would argue, as something of a student of American history, during the Revolutionary period, that our Founders rejected this because of painful experiences during the Revolutionary War. Our first commander in chief, George Washington, actually would spend every night writing letters in his tent to Congress to ask permission for military maneuvers and almost failed as a result of that micromanagement.

Congress must not intrude on the constitutional province of the President of the United States to lead us as Commander in Chief. Napoleon said it best. He said, ``I would rather face 20 brilliant generals than one mediocre one.''

We must, as we move into this debate, carry before the American people a very simple principle: We must support our troops in the field, provide them with the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe. But in the midst of this debate, with civility, let us also take the case to the American people of whether or not they want one commander in chief or whether they want 435 commanders in chief elected to this article I body of the Congress. I say we have one leader of our military who leads our commanders on the ground. The Constitution says it; I will stand by it.

Mr. Speaker, after waiting for months, the new Democrat majority has introduced their plan for Iraq today, and it can be summed up with one phrase, fully funded withdrawal.

Seeking to micromanage the war, the Democrats have come up with a plan that attaches strings to troop funding in order to seek American withdrawal from Iraq by 2008. This Democrat plan for a fully funded withdrawal could also be described as a well-equipped retreat. A fully funded withdrawal might well be added to that classic list of American oxymorons that includes plastic glass and jumbo shrimp.

Since their election pledge to ``fix the war,'' it has taken our friends on the other side of the aisle 4 months to come up with a strategy in Iraq. But even though their proposal does include funding for our soldiers in the field and our veterans here at home, their latest poll-tested approach for fighting the war in Iraq can best be described as cut and run.

For all the Democrats' furtive back-room efforts and tortured explanations, it is not nearly as complex as they describe. In fact, their strategy could be described by George Orwell: ``The quickest way to end the war is to lose it.''

We don't need a fully funded withdrawal. We need to fully fund victory for freedom in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, if there is anything we learned from the conviction of ``Scooter'' Libby yesterday, it's that the First Amendment and freedom of the press are still behind bars.

The need for a federal media shield bill has never been more apparent.

Yesterday Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. This is reprehensible. Mr. Libby will be held to a high standard and he should be.

However, as the Washington Post editorial page points out this morning, Joe Wilson also lied about who sent him to Africa, what he found there, and about his wife being a covert CIA agent.

The Washington Post today even calls Mr. Wilson a ``blowhard.''

Ironically, while Mr. Wilson was lying to the press and creating a partisan furor, Mr. Libby was telling reporters the truth. Mr. Libby may have later lied to the grand jury and failed to own up to his sources in his testimony, but what he told the press was the truth. And, therein lies the real travesty that this case

brings to light: that freedom of the press is still behind bars.

This case presented us with the long spectacle of reporters being jailed and threatened with jail time for not revealing their confidential sources. As we saw with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, without the same confidentiality protection that doctors, lawyers, clergy and so many others have, reporters are forced either to reveal their confidential sources or go to jail. In her case, Judy Miller honorably chose 85 days in jail.

But many reporters and their sources will not want to have to make the same decision.

Because there is no federal media shield law, the real losers are actually not reporters but the American public. Confidential sources and whistleblowers within the government who expose wrongdoing and injustice in order to hold the government accountable will keep the facts to themselves because the reporters to whom they speak cannot promise them confidentiality. The chilling effect is real, and the American public will suffer.

That is the real tragedy of this case.

It's time to repair the tear in the First Amendment. It's time to pass a federal media shield law. Repersentative Rick Boucher and I will be reintroducing the Free Flow of Information Act soon, and I urge this Congress to act on it expeditiously. Let us free the First Amendment by passing this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything we learned from the conviction of Vice Presidential aide Scooter Libby yesterday, it is that the first amendment and the freedom of the press are still behind bars. The need for a Federal media shield bill has never been more apparent.

Yesterday, Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury. That is reprehensible, and he will be held to the strictest account.

But as the Washington Post editorial page pointed out this morning, his chief accuser, Joe Wilson, also lied about who sent him to Africa, what he found there, and about whether his wife was a covert CIA agent. The Washington Post even called Joe Wilson today a ``blowhard.''

Ironically, while Mr. Wilson was lying to the press and creating a partisan furor, Mr. Libby was telling the truth to reporters, and that is what got him in trouble.

The case presented us with a long spectacle of reporters being jailed and threatened with jail time for not revealing confidential sources. Because there is no Federal media shield law, the real losers in all of this difficult and tragic case are not actually reporters or the press, but the American public.

My own colleague, Congressman Rick Boucher, and I will be reintroducing the Free Flow of Information Act. I urge my colleagues in Congress to take it up expeditiously. It is time to restore the fabric of the first amendment freedom of the press.

Mr. Speaker, I have long believed that how we treat the most vulnerable in society says a great deal about who we are as a Nation. So you can imagine that I, along with tens of millions of Americans, was appalled at the recent revelations in the media about the care at the outpatient facility at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Now, let me say, having visited Walter Reed more than once with my wife to visit injured Hoosier soldiers returning from battle, that there are, in fact, dedicated caregivers at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, doctors and nurses and members of the facility staff who spend their days and nights helping the wounded. But the now infamous Building 18, a decrepit former hotel outside the main gates of Walter Reed, has come to public notice. It housed more than 80 soldiers. With moldy walls, soiled carpets, leaky pipes, mice, and cockroach infested, this facility was a national embarrassment.

I am outraged that our wounded warriors were forced to endure these terrible conditions. Our troops deserve better care, and they deserve it as soon as possible.

But more than the filthy living conditions, Mr. Speaker, the dirty secret of the military health care system in this country is that our injured veterans, after navigating the dangers of the battlefield, must navigate a bureaucratic morass to get the care they deserve. After receiving lifesaving surgeries at military facilities, wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines must negotiate an overwhelming amount of red tape. I have seen it firsthand, working with families attempting to make their way through our veterans' and military health care system.

I was at the President's speech this morning at the 47th annual gathering at the American Legion as the President said that these bureaucratic delays as well as these living conditions must come to an end. The President said, ``It is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to you. It is unacceptable to our country. And it is not going to continue.''

I applaud the President and Secretary Gates for all they have done to hold the entire chain of command responsible for the conditions at Walter Reed, but we must do more to fundamentally bring reform to the system whereby we provide health care services to our veterans.

Today, the American Legion signed an agreement, for instance, with Walter Reed Army Medical Center to establish an office at the facility to assist in the transition of wounded servicemembers from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is a good start. The hope is that the legion office will significantly alleviate the long backlogs in out-processing wounded soldiers. Thank God for these veterans who are willing to help.

As a fiscal conservative, I have long called for smaller, more accountable government. In the area of military health care, we need now, more than ever, more accountable government. I appreciate the President's emphasis on the need to improve the delivery of services and not just throw more money at it. Washington D.C. and especially this Congress under current management and, quite frankly, prior management often solves problems by throwing more money at it. But assuming Congress enacts the President's 2008 budget, the VA health care budget alone will be up 83 percent since he took office.

Money alone is not the answer. We must change the way we serve the medical needs of those who have served us in uniform. We need substantive reforms, and it is my hope that the Dole-Shalala Commission and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs task force that the President announced this morning are able to meet those immediate needs.

The President said, and I would echo today, ``We have a moral obligation to provide the best possible care and treatment to the men and women who have served our country. They deserve it, and they're going to get it.''

But let us not just solve the problem with more money, with changes in the chain of command. Let us work in a bipartisan way in this Congress to fundamentally bring changes to our health care system that serves our military, that serves our veterans, that ultimately will rise to the level that each one of them deserves.

The Old Book says if you owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, then respect. One of the ways that our Nation discharges a debt that we cannot ever fully repay to those who have worn the uniform is to ensure that they receive the medical treatment that they so richly deserve. And I commit myself to that today.

As many Democrats make plans to cut or restrict funding to our troops in Iraq, yesterday before the Foreign Affairs Committee a dissenting voice came from a surprising place. Richard Holbrook was the former Assistant Secretary of State for the Clinton administration and has worked in diplomatic roles for every Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson.

Yesterday, Ambassador Holbrook appeared before our committee and I asked him directly, Do you oppose efforts to eliminate or reduce funding to our troops on the ground in Iraq? Ambassador Holbrook responded: ``I do, I oppose it.'' When I asked him to elaborate, he went on to say: ``I think that if the Commander in Chief has deployed the troops, the ultimate weapon of denying them the resources to carry out their mission only puts them in harm's way, greater harm's way. I would remind you that we cannot cut the troop funding.''

I commend Ambassador Holbrook for his storied career in American foreign affairs and his willingness to speak truth to power, even the power of many in his own political party.

As Ambassador Holbrook said yesterday before the Foreign Affairs Committee: ``We cannot cut off funding for our troops.''

Madam Chairman, I am extremely troubled by what the Democrat leadership has deemed worthy of only one hour of general debate.

The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to snuff out workers' long-cherished freedom.

When the Democrats came to power, they pledged to respect the rights of the minority, but few of the peoples' elected representatives will have the opportunity to debate--let alone amend--this legislation on the floor today.

Madam Chairman, now that a death of deliberation is taking hold in this House, the other side wants to end democracy in the workplace.

Over 70 years ago, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, establishing a system of industrial democracy akin to our nation's proud history of political democracy.

The current system allows employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by a particular union through a federally supervised secret ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. It protects the interests of unions and employers, but most importantly, employees, by ensuring that both sides have an opportunity to make their case, and those employees are able to express their decision in private--free from coercion and intimidation.

The legislation under consideration today, the so-called ``Employee Free Choice Act,'' would in fact end workers' free choice by replacing current law with an easily abused card-check system. Under card check, a worker's vote is openly declared, whereas in a secret ballot election the vote of an individual is by definition private--not public.

Tellingly, the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, which produced this legislation, along with 15 other Democrats, sent a letter to the Mexican government in 2001 denouncing the card-check system.

They wrote: ``We feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.''

Freedom from union intimidation is not only good for Mexican workers; it is good for American workers. We should not be doing away with voting secrecy to give big labor more powers over workers.

Let's keep union ballots secret. Let's vote down this Worker Intimidation Act.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate all week, and I must say I admire the seriousness and the civility of most, if not all, of those who have come to this floor in this historic week to address the issue and express themselves on this resolution. But I rise respectfully to urge my colleagues in both parties to vote ``no'' on this no-confidence resolution.

I support the President's call for a surge of 21,500 forces in Baghdad because the President has not just asked for more troops for more troops' sake. Despite what has been said again and again on this floor, Mr. Speaker, this is a new strategy. It involves new tactics and new rules of engagement on the ground.

This surge of forces in Baghdad, designed to quell violence in that capital city and enable a political solution to take hold, was part and parcel of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which said, as Americans could see for themselves on page 74 of the Iraq Study Group, and as Chairman Lee Hamilton of Indiana said before the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Iraq Study Group concluded that a temporary surge, and they used the word ``surge,'' a temporary surge of forces in Baghdad would be acceptable to them to quell violence.

But while I must tell you that many of my colleagues have no confidence in the President's new way forward in Iraq, I say with respect, I have no confidence in the ability of Congress to conduct war. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said hundreds of years ago, ``I would rather face 20 brilliant generals than one mediocre one.''

I would assure you today, Mr. Speaker, that our enemies would rather face 435 commanders in chief rather than one.

Our forefathers rejected war by committee when they enshrined the power to conduct war exclusively in Article II of the Constitution of the United States. In Article I, where this House finds its home, is the power to declare war. It is the power to appropriate funding and to set essentially military rules of conduct by statute. But the ability and the conduct of the war of the Commander in Chief is exclusively vested in the President of the United States, in that document upon which we all swear our oath of allegiance.

So I stand with our Commander in Chief, but also in a very profound sense, Mr. Speaker, I stand with the Constitution.

Vote ``no'' on this resolution and embrace our Constitution as written.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a beloved son of Anderson, Indiana. Bob Reardon served for 25 years as president of Anderson College, which through decades of executive service and visionary leadership he built from a relatively small Christian university with few resources into the Anderson University we proudly know today.

Robert H. Reardon was born in Chicago on April 27, 1919, but moved later that year with his parents and brother to Anderson. Following graduation from Anderson High School, class of 1936, he attended Anderson College, where he felt the call to ministry and met his wife, Geraldine Hurst, whom he married on August 24, 1941. They have four children: Rebecca, Constance, Kathleen, and Eugene.

After graduation from Anderson College in 1940, Bob went on to graduate from Oberlin Graduate School of Theology with a Bachelor of Divinity and a Master of Sacred Theology. He completed his graduate studies at Harvard and the University of Michigan before earning a Doctor of Ministry from Vanderbilt University.

In 1947, Bob returned to Anderson, where he would spend most of the rest of his life. He served first as assistant to President John Morrison, then vice president of the college, and in June 1957, he was chosen by the Board of Trustees to be the successor of President Morrison. At the age of39, Bob was one of the youngest college presidents in the Nation. He would serve as president of Anderson College from 1958 to 1983.

More than the diverse educational programs and impressive facilities built under his watch, Bob will be remembered by generations of students and faculty as a gifted leader, minister, citizen and friend. His imprint is everywhere after decades of enormously effective leadership, deication to Christ-centered education, love for students and devotion to the church.

In his 1968 president's charge to seniors, Bob wrote: ``Never wallow in mediocrity. Try hard things--for this is where all the fun is. Try to stay green--for this is where the growing is. Once you have heard the call--never give up. You will drink the cup of joy and eat the bread of sorrow. Do so with forbearance in the knowledge that so to do is to be truly human.''

This was the type of man he was, a servant of the community, whose character was a role model for generations.

I thank the ranking member for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the concurrent resolution for the House, and I do so from a position of a humble public servant, one who has not served in Iraq in uniform, as our previous speaker did, and others have who are in this Chamber at my side, but as one who has been there. I rise as one who is charged with public responsibility as the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee.

While this resolution before the Congress today and this week, while this resolution expresses support for our troops in Iraq, the heart of the resolution is a statement of disapproval of the President's so- called surge of troops in Iraq, and I cannot support it.

I see Iraq, as others have eloquently stated, as the central front in the war on terror. I rise today in opposition to this resolution out of a fundamental sense that we have a moral obligation to finish what we started, to confront the enemies of our way of life, and to support our duly elected Commander in Chief as he makes those decisions that he deems necessary and appropriate to achieve those ends.

Let me say from the heart, for a moment, my reasons for supporting this troop surge. A few days before President Bush addressed the Nation, he invited a handful of Members of Congress down to the West Wing of the White House. I must tell you that I had my doubts about this troop surge. In all four of my trips to Iraq, I had heard consistently from our military commanders over the past several years that a large American footprint in Iraq was actually counterproductive to our goals.

But August and the aftermath of 2006 changed all of that. All of that advice predated an extraordinary increase in violence that commenced in the late summer of last year, when it became clear to all of us in this body, and to freedom-loving people around the world, that our strategy and tactics on the ground in Iraq were not working.

Now, I took that skepticism and that counsel into the Cabinet room of the West Wing, and there I heard the President describe a new strategy and new tactics. For all of the world to have read the newspaper accounts, Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed the President was simply sending more troops for more troops' sake. But that was not the case.

Despite what the previous speaker on this floor suggested, this is a new strategy. It is a new way forward. It is an effort on the part of the President to embrace an increase in troop strengths in Baghdad that was initially recommended by the Iraq Study Group, and more on that in a moment.

But let me say that I believe this new way forward, this new approach ought to be given a chance to work. I believe to oppose the President's new strategy in Iraq is to accept the status quo. And the headlines of the last 24 hours should tell every man and woman of good will in this Congress that the status quo in Iraq is not acceptable.

Now, earlier I mentioned that the approach of a troop surge in Baghdad was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I am quite struck, Mr. Speaker,

that the previous speaker who is a freshman Member of Congress from Pennsylvania spoke, as many have in the Democrat majority, quite glowingly of the report of the Iraq Study Group. And I admire this work product greatly.

A bipartisan work authorized during the last Congress, James A. Baker, III, former Secretary of State, Lee Hamilton of Indiana, a former chairman of the House International Relations Committee bringing together a bipartisan group of wise counselors developed the Iraq Study Group report.

While I do not agree with every aspect of it, particularly those that talk about having a dialogue with terrorist states in the region, there is much that recommends the American people to the Iraq Study Group. And again I site in evidence the gentleman from Pennsylvania's glowing reference to that report just moments ago.

Now, let's look, if we can, at what the Iraq Study Group has to say about the idea of a troop surge in Iraq. I would offer very humbly, and maybe startling to some who are looking in, Mr. Speaker, that the very words ``troop surge'' comes from the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

Allow me to quote from page 73 of the book that is available in book stores all over America. The Iraq Study Group said: ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.''

Let me emphasize that again. The Iraq Study Group that the gentleman from Pennsylvania and many in the majority have heralded as an important work that provides us with a vision for going forward says: ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment of surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad.''

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what President Bush called for in January. And it is precisely that which Congress this week is poised to reject in a nonbinding resolution. I submit to you today that if the Iraq Study Group is to be cited again and again by the majority as source authority, and a fount of wisdom, and I believe it is, then let's be clear about the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

It is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that a short-term redeployment or surge of combat forces in Baghdad will solve the present crisis and impasse that we face. It simply is a strategy to quell violence with Iraqis in the lead, to create the conditions of stability whereby a long-term political solution can be achieved.

Now let me say, Mr. Speaker, it was my great hope that the resolution before us today would have come to the floor under procedural rules that allowed for amendments. For my part I spent much of last evening offering an amendment, along with others, that would state that it is the sense of Congress that we should not take any action that would result in the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.

I rise today not to complain about procedure, but to say, Mr. Speaker, I regret that this newly minted majority could not do as the Democrat chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee appears prepared to act.

My amendment that was offered, similar to others, has nearly identical language to a resolution being offered by the distinguished Senator Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And both of us agree that Congress should affirmatively state that it will not cut funding to the troops.

I deeply regret that we were not able to make that declarative statement today. And let me say with great respect to the chairman of this Armed Services Committee, who needs not to hear from me about the deep respect I have for him, that I have to believe that somewhere in his heart of hearts, knowing his extraordinary record of service to this country, that he may well have hoped for a stronger statement as well.

While the Democrat resolution before us expresses the hope that Congress and all Americans will continue to support and protect our brave men and women serving in Iraq, it does not take the next step to show tangible support for our troops in the nature of funding. And let me say this with great sincerity: there is a fundamental difference between pledging to support and protect our troops and pledging not to cut off the funding for our war in Iraq.

It is a specious distinction, and one that is not lost on our colleagues in the Senate. I would submit to you that words have consequences, and ``support'' and ``protect'' do not assure the American people that we will continue to fund our troops in the field.

I believe the American people understand this point, Mr. Speaker. A poll cited this morning in USA Today shows that even though a majority of Americans are opposed to the surge of troops in Baghdad, a majority also oppose cutting off funding for the troops.

The American people do not want Congress to defund this war in the majority, even if they are concerned about the course and direction the war is taking. And Congress should tell the troops and the American people that it will never use the power of the purse to accomplish policy ends in the field of battle.

With this I close. Listening to this debate today and to the opposition to the surge being espoused by the Democrat majority, I have begun to wonder a very simple question: What if it works? I have made it clear that I support the surge and the President's new strategy.

My good friends on the Democrat side of the aisle and, as has been said, some Republicans have made it clear that they oppose the surge of forces in Iraq. And that is their right, and if it is in their heart, it is their duty. And at this moment, it appears that a majority of Americans are with the majority in this Congress.

But what if? What if they are wrong? What if you are wrong? What if the surge and the new leadership of General Petraeus and the courage and bravery of American men and women in uniform and the sacrifices of Iraqis in uniform succeed in the coming months?

You know, it is a snow day back in Indiana today, Mr. Speaker. And my kids are even home watching this on TV. I give my kids some pretty basic advice sometimes. One of the pieces of advice I give my kids when they are facing challenges, I say to them, you know, people don't like losers, but they like quitters even less.

And I think we ought to reflect on that old maxim as we come upon this decision today. If this new strategy in Iraq succeeds in the coming months, what will those who vote for this resolution say? The truth is, we must fight and win a victory for freedom in Iraq. The truth is we have no option but victory.

In their hearts the American people know this, and the American people are willing to make the hard choices to choose victory. Courage. Courage is the key in this moment.

C.S. Lewis wrote that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. Courage then is the answer, not recrimination and retreat. We are at a moment when the American people and the Members of this body will take a stand. This is a moment for courage. Our brave men and women in Iraq exhibit courage and uncommon valor every day.

It is my hope and prayer that we in this House might follow their lead and show them that such courage resides here as well. Let's vote down this resolution and find it within ourselves to lead the American people by bringing forward the resources and the support necessary to see freedom within Iraq.