[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 72 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4471-H4475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1615
                         REPUBLICAN STUDY GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cohen). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PENCE. 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.

[[Page H4472]]

  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.

                              {time}  1630

  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''

[[Page H4473]]

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

[[Page H4474]]

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.

                              {time}  1645

  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

[[Page H4475]]

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.

                              {time}  1700

  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.

                          ____________________