[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7397-7404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       REPUBLICAN STUDY COMMITTEE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hodes). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and an 
honor to be recognized to speak on the floor of the United States House 
of Representatives. I bit my tongue over the last hour and listened 
attentively to some of the dialogue that was taking place. It is 
important, I believe, to correct the record at least on the portion I 
was paying attention.
  The issue that was being discussed by the six or seven on the other 
side of the aisle was about the eight U.S. Attorneys who were fired by 
the President. There are great, huge, yawning gaps in the description 
that came out. For the benefit of the people listening to that portion 
of it, I will attempt to fill in the gaps.
  One is the President dismissed eight U.S. Attorneys. That runs about 
85 short that were fired summarily by President Clinton. Talk about a 
chilling effect on your ability to prosecute if you happened to have 
been looking into Whitewater or if you happened to have been the 
prosecutor of Dan Rostenkowski and you found yourself immediately 
fired, and then subsequent to that, your successor achieving a 
conviction in the case of Rostenkowski, and then watching President 
Clinton pardon the very subject of your investigation, I would think 
that would be a chilling effect on a prosecutor.
  But the allegation was made that ``the independence of our U.S. 
Attorneys is the hallmark of justice.'' Well, yes, I think that is 
true, but they serve at the pleasure of the President, and the 
President has the authority and he has the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, 
to ensure that those U.S. Attorneys are conducting their job, that they 
are actually prosecuting cases, locking people up in prison and not 
only taking them out of the crime job market, but also providing an 
example that keeps other people from committing crimes. When those 
prosecutions are not taking place at the pace they need to, if they are 
failing to distinguish themselves, then it is the responsibility and 
the duty of the President and subsequently the Attorney General to 
direct that they be removed.
  The allegation that the firing of U.S. Attorneys for political 
purposes was a statement made by the gentleman from New Hampshire. 
Political purposes. There is no evidence that has been submitted on 
either side of the aisle that says they were fired for political 
purposes. There has been speculation, but that is an allegation that I 
think is a heavy allegation and it is an unjust allegation, and the 
people who make those kinds of allegations have a responsibility to 
come forward with some shred of evidence that they base their opinion 
on rather than wishful thinking.

                              {time}  2100

  This is no scandal, Mr. Speaker. It is not a scandal because it is 
eight U.S. attorneys. Eight U.S. attorneys, and there is not a partisan 
divide here that can be seen. It is not like there were eight Democrat 
U.S. attorneys that were investigating Republicans in office. There is 
no evidence of that. It is more like there were Republicans and 
Democrats who have been admonished in the past and challenged by 
Members of this Congress, at least in one particular case, for not 
being aggressive enough, for not providing the kind of prosecutions 
necessary to enforce our borders.

[[Page 7398]]

  Now, that is something that is essential to our national security, 
and if the allegations that are made here on the floor of this Congress 
and the statements that are made in committee and the witch hunt that 
is going on by submitting and requesting, subpoenaing the White House's 
closest advisers whom the President relies upon to be able to give him 
unfettered counsel, and they cannot be intimidated. Talk about 
intimidation, a subpoena to come before Congress and be questioned on 
the record about your most private advice to the Commander in Chief of 
the United States of America is what is going on here.
  This is an unjust, unbalanced overreach, and it is my advice to the 
new majority to start acting like the majority because you are going to 
have to take responsibility for governing. You have not shifted gears 
from demagoguery of the past into the responsibility to provide policy 
that is going to direct this country into the future. It is high time 
that that happened. Break the mold. Let us go forward with good policy, 
and remember, if you have the gavels, you have the responsibility to 
make statements that are precisely correct, accurate all the way, 
truthful in every way possible, and move this country forward in the 
right direction and provide solutions, not just criticism.
  I expect that subject will come up a little bit more, Mr. Speaker, 
within the next 53 minutes or so. Hopefully that will dispatch that 
subject for tonight.
  But I would raise also there are two more issues before us tonight, 
Mr. Speaker, and one of them is hanging in the balance here in an 
unprecedented move, and that is the effort to provide a voting Delegate 
for the District of Columbia here in the United States Congress. It is 
an astonishing thing for me. It is an astonishing thing for me to be 
one of 435 Members of this House of Representatives who comes down to 
this floor every 2 years, and I bring my own Bible down here to make 
sure I am not short a Bible because I want my oath to go before God and 
country, for God and country, and take an oath to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States, so help me God. I add those words to 
my oath, and I have done so every time that I have been here to take 
that oath.
  I believe that if there is a bill before this Congress, and as we 
analyze it constitutionally, if any of us come to the conclusion that 
it is an unconstitutional piece of legislation, it is our 
responsibility or our duty, our obligation, our oath to uphold such 
unconstitutional legislation. We have taken an oath to do so. Vote 
``no'' and clearly articulate the reasons why that bill is 
unconstitutional.
  So Mr. Speaker, I have clearly articulated that before the Rules 
Committee, before the Rules debate here on the floor, and with the case 
of the bill on the floor, and I will seek to do that again for the 
edification of those that were not paying attention and still think 
that they can come around here tomorrow or next week or whenever it is 
that the majority gets the votes lined up and vote for an 
unconstitutional bill because they think it fits their politics. That 
is not what this oath is about, and so this D.C. district sets this 
way.
  The first unconstitutional provision is this. Article I, section 2 of 
the Constitution says that the Representatives shall be Representatives 
of the States chosen by the people of the States. So if D.C., the 
District of Columbia, is not a State, it is a clear constitutional 
provision that prohibits this Congress from bestowing a Member, a 
voting Member representing the District of Columbia into this Congress 
because the District of Columbia simply is not a State.
  Now, there are a couple of ways to resolve this issue. One would be 
to adopt the District of Columbia as a State, in which case they would 
get a Representative for the House of Representatives and two Senators. 
If that could be done and this Congress could pass it and we adopt 
District of Columbia as a State, that would be a constitutional 
solution.
  Another constitutional solution would be to simply to take the 
populated areas outside our Federal buildings, just a little bit 
outside the Mall, from the Potomac River all the way up here around to 
the east side of the Capitol, set that aside as the District, and the 
balance of the District then could be ceded back to Maryland. That then 
could be incorporated into the redistricting process, and the people 
that lived in the District would be able to vote for a Representative 
in Congress.
  But the arguments made on the other side go something like this, Mr. 
Speaker, and that is, well, we think that it is a violation of the 14th 
amendment, a violation of the equal protection clause, for people to 
live in the District of Columbia and not have a vote, be able to elect 
a Member of Congress.
  I would submit, if that is so compelling that one can ignore the 
Constitution's clear language, then, Mr. Speaker, it is equally 
compelling to demand two Senators for the same region, and some will 
acknowledge that that is the goal, and some will deny it.
  But this Constitution has always been kind of an inconvenient thing, 
Mr. Speaker. What is inconvenient about it is it provides constraints, 
constraints for both sides, Democrats and Republicans, constraints for 
all of us who have a political reason or a policy need that does not 
consider the long-term best interests of the people of the United 
States.
  This Constitution is the law of the land, Mr. Speaker, and I will 
submit that our Founding Fathers considered this when they established 
this constitutional Republic that we are in, and as they considered 
this, they looked at the democracies, the relatively pure democracies 
that they had in the Greek city-states 2,000 and 3,000 years ago, and 
they concluded that in the case of the pure democracy, the result was 
the same effect as if you had two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on 
what is for dinner. The majority rules, and the sheep is dinner.
  So are we going to get let those kind of whims wave back and forth 
across the floor of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, or are we going to 
adhere to a Constitution that we have sworn an oath to uphold? I will 
submit that what I am seeing is the two wolves are taking a vote on 
what is for dinner, and the sheep is the Constitution here, and the 
minority in the United States House of Representatives, and I have 
pledged to uphold this Constitution, I will stand in the way to the 
last breath of an unconstitutional provision, no matter what it is.
  But the arguments that were made here on the other side of the aisle 
primarily, Mr. Speaker, came down to this: That there are two very 
well-respected attorneys that have written opinions that will take the 
position that it is not unconstitutional for this Congress to ignore 
the Constitution and confer a voting right on a Member from the 
District of Columbia. Yet, as I look at those two names, they are high 
and stellar names, Mr. Ken Starr and Mr. Viet Dinh. I have worked to 
some degree with both of them and read their opinions, and I recognize 
that when one goes off to law school, one of the first things they 
teach you, Mr. Speaker, is argue this side of the case, now argue this 
side of the case, take the position on the right side, take the 
position on the left side.
  There are two reasons for being able to argue both sides of every 
issue, Mr. Speaker, and one of them is so if you are hired to argue one 
side, you are prepared to do so; you are not stuck in an individual 
ideology. The other one is, if you want to survive in the attorney 
business, you can provide for billable hours because you are a lot more 
flexible to be able to go on either side of an issue.
  Well, I do not allege that these legal opinions that have been 
produced by Mr. Starr and Mr. Viet Dinh do not have a basis. They do. I 
just submit that it is a weak basis, Mr. Speaker, and as I read through 
that, there is the foundation of the Tidewater case. Their argument 
there is that because a court found in favor of allowing the people in 
the District to have the Federal court protection and conferred that 
kind of utilization of the court on the residents here in the District 
of Columbia, that that implies that they are citizens of a State. Well, 
that is an utterly weak analysis, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 7399]]

  Then the second argument, and that seemed to be even an argument that 
they hung their hat on even more, was the argument that, and believe 
me, the Framers understood there was going to be a District of 
Columbia. When this Constitution was ratified, they knew that. They 
defined it within the Constitution itself in Article I, but what they 
provided for was for the 10-mile-by-10-mile section that was laid out 
to become the District of Columbia for a period of time, that was from 
1791 until 1801, that roughly 10-year period of time, until the Federal 
jurisdiction was applied here in this District, they allowed the people 
that before that time had been residents of Virginia to vote as 
residents of Virginia, and they allowed the people that had been 
residents of Maryland to continue voting as residents of Maryland.
  So nothing changed for the people that were residents of the District 
for 10 years until the Federal jurisdiction was established, at which 
time then they did not have a Representative here in this Congress, and 
have not had all this time for this 200-plus years.
  Well, the argument that was made by the two stellar legal scholars 
was because Congress allowed the people that lived here in this 
District to vote as residents of Maryland or Virginia, as the case may 
be, for 10 years, somehow that established a precedent or a 
constitutional right to have a Representative in the United States 
Congress, an utterly weak argument, and a precedent it was not.
  Mr. Dinh admitted what the analysis comes down to, because there was 
an agreement between the House and the Senate, and the President signed 
the bill and let them vote conditionally for a 10-year period of time, 
that it was no precedent like you would get if the Supreme Court had 
made a decision. The only decision was no one disagreed with, so there 
was no constitutional argument to be resolved. In fact, no 
constitutional precedent was established either.
  We go forward, and now equal protection under the law, Utah, to give 
a resident or a Member at-large so that if you are a resident of Utah, 
you can go and vote for your Representative in your district and the 
Representative that would be the Representative at-large in Utah. In 
fact, if you are a Member or a candidate, you could vote for yourself 
and somebody else to come here and do the same job. That is not equal 
protection under the law.
  There was a case in 1961 called Baker v. Carr that tied this down to 
as close to an individual population balance as you could possibly get. 
That was the beginning of one man, one vote. There was a subsequent 
case in 1964 that speaks to it as well, but Utah also blows this 
Constitution sideways.
  There are many reasons to vote ``no'' on this, and the difficulty 
that the majority has, and now unprecedentedly pulling a bill down as 
it was to go up for final passage and refused to allow a vote after 
days of building up to this with no explanation is unprecedented in 
this Congress, and that violates, I believe, the right of the people to 
be heard and the right of their judgment to be recorded here in a 
recorded vote on whether the District of Columbia will have an 
unconstitutional Member in this Congress or whether they will not, Mr. 
Speaker.
  So that kind of cleans up the air here and gets us to this point 
where we are at the subject matter we came here to talk about, and what 
I would like to do to kick that subject matter off would be to yield to 
the gentlewoman from Tennessee, the tenacious Marsha Blackburn.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa so much, 
and I thank him for hosting our Republican Study Committee hour this 
evening so that we can come here and talk a little bit about what those 
of us in the Republican Study Committee are doing, and certainly how we 
feel about the supplemental budget that is before us, a vote that we 
will take tomorrow. I appreciate the context that Mr. King has brought 
to our debate tonight.
  It is so very interesting to listen to our colleagues across the 
aisle. They talk about how they are going to change things, and when we 
talk, Mr. Speaker, about the change the American people wanted to see 
in November, they were not talking about subpoenas and hearings and 
vilifying people. The Democrats said that was not what they were going 
to do, and we know there are many who would like to make the President 
responsible for every single thing that has gone wrong.
  We understand that, and we accept that, but it is unfortunate that 
when they come down here and they talk about honesty and accountability 
and trustworthiness and oversight and responsibility, their actions do 
not match their words. Their actions do not match their words at all.
  What we continue to see in the supplemental budget, in the D.C. 
voting bill that they pulled from the floor today, and the budget that 
they will bring before us next week are a lot of accounting gimmicks, 
trying to move spending off line, hiding dollars, budget manipulation 
and deception. My goodness, this does not match up to what we hear from 
their rhetoric at all.
  We know that there was all this talk about trying to be certain that 
we kept the spending low, and, Mr. Speaker, it took our colleagues 
across the aisle, as they took the majority, it took them 2 days to 
increase spending and 2 weeks to increase taxes on the American 
taxpayer, on the middle-class families working so hard to make ends 
meet, 2 days to increase spending.

                              {time}  2115

  They have spent well over an additional $50 billion so far. Two weeks 
to increase taxes, and as this budget that the Democrats are working on 
comes to the floor next week, they are going to invoke the largest tax 
increase in U.S. history, $400 billion over 5 years. That does bring us 
to the point of talking about the supplemental, and that is before us. 
Because as we hear all of this rhetoric, what we see is a budget, a 
supplemental bill that is to be there for our troops.
  We all know that there is a lot that our troops need. When it comes 
to meeting their needs, when it comes to meeting their readiness, there 
is a lot they need. One of the reasons for that, when you go in and you 
look at the decade of the 1990s, budget after budget after budget, the 
military was cut. Funding to the military was cut. Funding to veterans, 
funding to veterans health care, funding to programs for the military 
retirees, funding for the active duty, funding for equipment, funding 
for artillery, funding for research and development, cut, cut, cut, 
cut, cut, year after year after year. The Democrats chose to cut that.
  Bill Clinton chose to cut that because they had other priorities. 
They were do the dot-com boom. They were into issues that were other 
domestic issues, but the Nation's security was not a priority. 
Certainly, even the current Speaker of the House was quoted in last 
year's campaign as saying national security shouldn't be a campaign 
issue.
  There is nothing more important than the security of our families in 
this Nation. There is not one thing more important.
  I have so many places I could go to talk about what has happened to 
this budget, to this supplemental bill that is before us tomorrow. It 
is to be the emergency spending bill for the war on terror, for our 
issues in Iraq. USA Today even had an editorial calling this a bad 
bill, because they don't see, and I agree with them, I agree with USA 
Today on this, they don't see an additional $500 million for the Forest 
Service as an emergency spending. They don't see $283 million for the 
Milk Income Loss Contract Program an emergency, or $120 million to 
compensate for the effects of Hurricane Katrina on the shrimp and fish 
industry, or $100 million for citrus assistance, or $74 million for 
peanut storage costs or $64.4 million for salmon fisheries or $54 
million for asbestos mitigation, or $48 million in salaries and 
expenses for the Farm Service Agency, or $35 million for NASA risk 
mitigation or $25 million for spinach growers or $25 million for live 
stock.
  Even USA Today doesn't see that as emergency spending. I agree with 
them, because it's not.
  I bet that many Members of this House had a wonderful mother like my

[[Page 7400]]

mom has always been. My mother was always very good at saying, when I 
was doing something that maybe wasn't appropriate, she would say not 
here, not now, this is not the place.
  Well, as good as some of these programs may be, not here, not now, 
this is not the place. The men and women in the US military are worth 
more. They are worth more than the actions, the actions and the conduct 
that is being carried forward in this budget. It is the wrong place, 
and this is the wrong time to spend $21 billion on discretionary 
spending that the Democrat majority does not want to carry to the floor 
and debate. They want to hide it. They want to keep it out of sight. 
They don't want anybody to know this. They just want to get the 
spending in there. Because, why? They want to circumvent their own 
PAYGO rules and their own budget rules. It is not the time; it is not 
the place.
  Now, if the leadership of the Democrat Party is so into instant 
gratification that they cannot wait to take it to committee and go 
through the proper channels, then I think they need to have a 
reevaluation about what is important. I can tell you what is important 
to my constituents. It is knowing that when they put their head on the 
pillow at night, they are safe. It is knowing when they drop their 
children off at school, they are safe. It is knowing that when those 
children graduate from high school and from college, they are going to 
have a brighter future. It is knowing that as they work hard to build a 
business, that they are going to have the opportunity to grow that 
business. It is knowing that when they retire, that they are going to 
be able to enjoy every single day of that retirement.
  It is knowing that, yes, indeed, they are going to be accountable, 
they are going to support their government, and it is knowing that 
their government is going to be there to support the fundamental 
values, the underpinning of this Nation, and to support the men and 
women who put their lives on the line every single day to go and defend 
this country and defend their freedom.
  You know what, if it were not for those men and women in uniform, if 
it were not for them doing their job, if it were not for the fact that 
they have done their job time and again during the course of this 
Nation's history, you and I would not be standing here tonight having 
this debate.
  There is a price that is paid for freedom. Every penny we appropriate 
in an emergency bill deserves to be spent on the men and women wearing 
the uniform defending that freedom.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. Certainly I 
wish to associate myself with all of her remarks, and I appreciate the 
consistency and the persistence with which Mrs. Blackburn comes here to 
the floor and participates in committee in every way possible to move 
the right agenda here in America.
  I reflect upon a thought that crossed my mine a week or so ago or 
maybe 2 weeks ago in committee, as I was listening to the kind of 
argument and debate that was coming from the other side of the aisle, 
and the discussion was about people who have food anxiety. We 
established food stamps for people who were suffering from 
malnutrition, and then we extended those benefits to those that were 
hungry, and now the effort is to extend those benefits, not to just 
those that, we can't make the argument that people don't know where 
their next meal is coming from any longer, so now the argument is made 
that people wonder where their second, third, fourth and fifth meal is 
coming from, and that is called food anxiety. Food insecurity is the 
more appropriate term they likely use, food insecurity.
  It occurred to me, this Constitution, I waved it around a little 
earlier, provides some constitutional rights: life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness. But as I read back through my history and 
recognize that FDR back in the 1930s made another speech, and it's 
called the Four Freedoms speech. Those four freedoms, as he defined 
them, are etched into stone down in FDR's monument. First is freedom of 
speech, the second is freedom of religion. Those are constitutional 
rights. Speech and religion are one and two, third and fourth are 
freedom from want and freedom from fear.
  Now, those aren't constitutional rights. They are extra-
constitutional rights, as articulated by FDR. But they were used to 
advance an agenda that grew government more dramatically than ever 
before, and it eclipsed the vision of most Americans. But they are 
really not rights. They are not constitutional rights. It's a vision or 
an image to have freedom from want and freedom from fear. Now, I don't 
know how you ever get to that point where you are free from fear. I 
don't think that can be guaranteed.
  But we have gone another step now with the food anxiety or the food 
insecurity part. Now we have gone from our real freedoms, freedom of 
speech and religion, all of our Bill of Rights, to freedom from want 
and freedom from fear as articulated by FDR. Now, because of food 
insecurity language, now the argument is we need to make sure that 
people are free from the fear of want, freedom from fear of want.
  So you should never have to wonder about whether you could pay your 
rent. You should never have to wonder about where your next meal is 
coming from. You should never have to wonder if you are going to have a 
job or if you are going to get fired, because government can be all 
things to all people. Government can take this safety net and turn it 
into a hammock, and no one has any anxiety. Perhaps we could cure 
ulcers if we could just have enough Federal money to do that.
  If we are free from fear of want, we will also be free of the 
ambition to provide for our future wants and needs. If that's the case, 
the productivity in America will go down dramatically, and we will 
watch this work ethic in our culture collapse. One of the things that 
drove me to work my entire life was fear of want and not knowing, 
necessarily, even where my next meal was coming from, not knowing if I 
was going to be in business the next week or next month, but knowing I 
was the one in charge, I was the one in control. I had to not only work 
hard; I had to work smart.
  That has given millions of Americans to succeed, freedom from fear of 
want, a new right in this new Pelosi administration. I offer that 
thought for edification and consideration.
  But I also recognize that the gentleman who represents the vast 
majority of the State of Nebraska and some of those spaces out there 
are, indeed, vast, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your arrival in this 
Congress, the values that you bring here, and the principled stand that 
you take. Often there are many things that tie western Iowa to all of 
Nebraska, and particularly western Nebraska. I appreciate you being 
here on the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you to the gentleman from Iowa. It's 
great to be here. I take this responsibility, not only this evening, 
very seriously, but being elected as a Member of the United States 
House of Representatives very seriously.
  My primary responsibility, I believe, is to protect the freedoms that 
so many Americans enjoy and, perhaps, have taken for granted for a 
time. I think back to the terrorist acts leveled on our country, and 
that is a constant reminder that we cannot sit idly by, that we cannot 
let division sway us from our goal. I believe that one of the 
fundamental sources of our freedom is through economic freedom, and 
that is why I requested a spot on the Budget Committee.
  Incidentally, last night, we had a long markup of the budget. It was 
very enlightening to me as a new Member, and it was very enlightening 
to me, I think, some of the rhetoric and the objectives of a budget. We 
know that so often we want to tell people, yes, in terms of the of new 
programs, of new spending. There comes a time, though, when we are 
going to have to pay for that.
  There was a lot of rhetoric exchanged in terms of what tax relief has 
done for our economy, some would say what it hasn't done for the 
budget. But I don't know if it's just coincidence that the economy 
turned around with tax relief. I don't think it's coincidence, to be

[[Page 7401]]

quite honest with you. But it is interesting how the allegations are 
leveled that the Bush administration tax relief or the Reagan tax 
relief or, quite honestly, the President John F. Kennedy tax relief had 
nothing to do with a rebounding economy subsequently.
  It was very enlightening to me, in fact, when I was visiting the JFK 
Library in Boston, or outside of Boston. This is not the Ronald Reagan 
Library; this is not the Bush 41 or the Bush 43 library. This is the 
John F. Kennedy Library that has an entire exhibit devoted to the 
economic policies of tax relief leading to economic prosperity.
  I believe that it has to do with the very basics of economic freedom 
that individuals, families, you name it, when they have those dollars 
in their hands, they can spend it more wisely on the economy, rather 
than paying it into the government, and then the government doling it 
out as a redistribution of wealth or whatever the case might be.

                              {time}  2130

  But it does amaze me that we are here listening to the need for so 
much more spending. In fact, a high level of spending wasn't enough to 
get enough support, so they made it even higher to bring on more 
support. That concerns me, and I know that it concerns many Americans 
as well.
  But as we were marking up the budget last night in committee well 
into the night, it was interesting how we heard that the majority wants 
to maintain the tax relief relating to the marriage penalty, tax relief 
relating to the child tax credit, but yet the budget doesn't show that. 
The budget does not show that. And it just spoke volumes, I guess, in 
terms of sound budgeting according to the principles I think of 
economic freedoms that should be instilled there.
  But when we talk about something, we politicians kind of get a bad 
name now and then, or maybe more often than that, for saying one thing 
and doing another. That is unfortunate, because this budget says one 
thing and does another, and that is my concern.
  It is interesting that there were amendments proposed for the budget 
resolution last night that would have solidified the tax relief one 
measure at a time. So there was the option of cherry-picking, if you 
will, good parts, bad parts, whatever the case might have been for 
others wanting to support these amendments. If they like the child tax 
credit, but didn't like the dividends reduction in taxes, they have the 
option to choose one without the other. Every single amendment was 
rejected. Every single amendment. That concerns me a great deal 
because, like I said, it eats away at what I believe is a fundamental 
freedom that we should enjoy in America, that being economic freedom.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield, and just inquire as 
you were working through that budget last night, what kind of message 
did you get from the majority party on how much support there was for 
the Department of Defense budget and how much support for military 
spending? We are having this debate here on the floor today and 
starting again tomorrow morning. Did you sense that there was a 
commitment to support our military financially, our troops, and their 
mission?
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. I did not sense that commitment. It would be 
hard for me to speak or to speculate. And I am not here to beat up on 
those with whom I disagree. That is not my job.
  I do believe, though, that this supplemental spending bill, and I 
don't want to take up all of your time, but I do want to touch briefly 
on the fact that this supplemental spending bill with the caveats that 
many would call micromanaging the war is the wrong thing to do. I don't 
think we want to give our enemy any hint of what our plans are. A date 
certain withdrawal is the wrong thing to do. Certainly that was not 
discussed, especially in the spending context that we have heard so 
much here today about and well into the future.
  There is a lot we can worry about in the past, but if we don't focus 
on the future, we are not doing our jobs. And as we look at protecting 
the freedom, I can't help but think how productive we could be with a 
more unified approach. And I believe that military generals are trained 
highly, and that we should entrust in their abilities the objective of 
doing what they need to do so that we can see success overseas. And I 
cannot say that enough, but I truly believe that turning a spending 
bill into a bill to micromanage the war is the wrong thing to do.
  Constitutionally the President is the Commander in Chief. No one else 
is the Commander in Chief. And the Commander in Chief makes the tough 
decisions. And we can again look at the past and perhaps learn from the 
past and apply those lessons to the future, which we must do and can 
do. And if we pay attention to really look at the information and the 
facts and the data, we can do the right thing, and that is availing the 
resources to our military, to those most highly trained, those closest 
to the situation, and allow those folks to make the right decision.
  I yield back, but I certainly appreciate this opportunity and would 
certainly encourage my friend from Iowa to continue his pursuits here, 
because I think it is helpful, and I hope to join again. Thank you.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, a Mr. Smith 
who has come to Washington to stand up for middle-American values, and 
to hold the line on the spending in the Budget Committee, hold the line 
on the constitutional issues with the micromanagement that is coming 
out of here with this supplemental spending bill, this emergency 
supplemental spending bill.
  And I will make no such pledge that it isn't my job to challenge the 
people with whom I disagree with. In fact, I believe it is my job to do 
that, and I intend to step up every time and draw those bright lines 
when I think it is imperative that those bright lines be drawn.
  So here we are with this bill on the floor being debated several 
hours today, with 1 or 2 hours left in the debate for tomorrow. And 
maybe it will go to final passage, maybe the votes won't be there, 
maybe the vote will get pulled down just like D.C. voting was pulled 
down today. They take it all the way through the process, and, at the 
time it is supposed to go up on the board, realize, we lost the debate, 
so now we can't allow a vote. That is exactly what happened here in the 
House of Representatives today. The people's voice wasn't heard.
  We have got a little debate to go tomorrow. People are going to sleep 
on this tonight, and they are going to think about the President asking 
for $99 billion to provide for Afghanistan and Iraq, the surge in Iraq, 
the strategy that was part of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, 
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's recommendation, and the effort to 
succeed in Iraq.
  And it is interesting that the President has retooled our approach 
here. We have a new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates; we have a 
new Secretary, at least an Acting Secretary of the Army, Mr. Geren; and 
we have a new Commander at Walter Reed Hospital, we have a new 
Commander of CENTCOM. And this is a new plan, a new plan put together 
by the individual who wrote the book on counterterrorism and the most 
successful general that I believe that we have seen come out of the 
Iraq theater, and that is General David Petraeus, I believe the most 
impressive military individual I have met in my time here, in fact in 
my life. And his strategy is part of the same strategy that the Iraq 
Study Group put out. And having written the book on counterterrorism 
and being endorsed without opposition for his confirmation for a fourth 
star by the United States Senate, and within a week the United States 
Senate is back trying to jerk the rug out from underneath his plan, 
trying to oppose the surge in Iraq and trying to oppose the 21,500 
extra troops that go in there. And now we are seeing a little wavering, 
a little quavering, and some people going a little wobbly because they 
are starting to see the positive signs in the effort in Baghdad.
  Now, the situation there is kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker. Baghdad 
and

[[Page 7402]]

30 miles around outside of Baghdad is where 80 percent of the violence 
in Iraq is taking place. And it occurred to me, it was actually back in 
December, I was reflecting back upon the 101st Airborne 62 years 
earlier had been surrounded at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge 
in World War II. Bastogne, a city that had seven roads leading to it 
and through it, was the centerpiece of the transportation link. It was 
the key to success or failure in the Battle of the Bulge, and maybe it 
was the key to victory or defeat for either side in World War II, at 
least in the European theater.
  And so, as the 101st Airborne was surrounded at Bastogne, mercilessly 
being shelled by the Germans, and the Germans demanded the surrender of 
the 101st, General McCollum's response is famous, and it should echo 
throughout all of American history when he said in his response to the 
Germans, ``Nuts.'' We understood what that meant, being Americans. The 
Germans didn't. They had to go get their linguists to try to understand 
what it meant, and they still, I don't think, have figured out to this 
day. Well, that was in one word, four letters, the American spirit of 
defiance, the American spirit of perseverance.
  And there they were surrounded at Bastogne, hopelessly surrounded, 
and their response was, ``Nuts.'' We are hanging on and we are going to 
defend Bastogne. And shortly thereafter we had General Patton and the 
3rd Army that came and relieved the 101st Airborne. They argue to this 
day that they didn't need the help of the 3rd Army, that they had the 
Germans right where they wanted them.
  That was the American spirit 62 years ago, Mr. Speaker, and today 80 
percent of the violence is within Baghdad or 30 miles from Baghdad. 
Baghdad is essentially surrounded; it is not a stronghold. We have 
always gone wherever we wanted to go in Baghdad, or any other city in 
Iraq for that matter, even though the press calls it a stronghold. We 
went wherever we wanted to go, and we go more now than we did before. 
Baghdad is significantly pacified, but Baghdad was surrounded by peace, 
a relative peace at least, and the violence was in there.
  Now, if we had pulled out, or if sometime in the future this side of 
the aisle is successful in shutting off the resources so that our 
military can't succeed in their mission, and we pull out of there, I 
believe history will judge us nuts if we do such a thing, Mr. Speaker.
  There is too much at stake. There is no discussion on this side of 
the aisle here about the consequences for pulling out. No one has a 
plan for victory. No one over there will utter the ``V'' word, the 
victory word. No one will define it. They are just a group of 
``defeatocrats'' that can't get it out of their head that America's 
destiny is worth more than marking political points against your 
opposition.
  So we sit here with more than 3,000 lives sacrificed for the freedom 
of the Iraqi people and the destiny of the world, because if we don't 
defeat this enemy here in Iraq, as Prime Minister Maliki said right 
here behind where I am standing right now, he said, ``If the terrorists 
can't be defeated in Iraq, they can't be defeated anywhere.''
  Now, if Mr. Murtha gets his way and troops are deployed out of Iraq, 
the bill doesn't say where, but he has said where: Okinawa. Okinawa. 
Over the horizon is Okinawa, and we can put our troops over there, and 
then we can fly them wherever we need them whenever we need them. I 
would say we might as well take them right to Afghanistan. And I am 
going to explain the reason for that, Mr. Speaker.
  First, this is a poster of Muqtada al-Sadr. He is quite an 
interesting character. He started out in this conflict as a militia 
general, and he wasn't doing very well down south of Baghdad a couple 
of years ago when he suffered huge, huge casualties in the Madhi 
militia. In fact, the casualties were so heavy that he decided to 
become a politician instead of a general, and so he entered into and 
built a little coalition and picked up 30 seats in the Iraqi 
Parliament. He also took over the security on the civilian side of 
Baghdad International Airport, along with one portion of the Shia 
region of Baghdad and some of the area to the south. Muqtada al-Sadr, 
not a friend of the United States, an individual who has empowered 
himself by attacking the United States and denigrating the United 
States and inspiring his followers the same way, and this is how he did 
it.
  And I was sitting in Kuwait City, the date is right here, June 11, 
2004, waiting to go into Iraq the next day, and I was watching al-
Jazeera TV, Mr. Speaker. Now, Muqtada al-Sadr came on, this burly face, 
and he was speaking in Arabic, so I was looking at the crawler 
underneath in English, and it read just like this: ``If we keep 
attacking Americans, they will leave Iraq the same way they left 
Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the same way they left 
Mogadishu.'' That was Muqtada al-Sadr, June 11, 2004. Al-Jazeera TV. I 
attest to that; I was there, I wrote it down; I saw it; I heard it. And 
that is the statement that he made.
  Now, I went back and picked up the book written by General Vo Nguen 
Giap, and it is, ``How We Won the War.'' And he is writing about the 
Vietnam war, how they won the war. And very early in the book he takes 
the position that because the United States did not win a clear victory 
in Korea, they understood that we would maybe not have the will to win 
a clear victory in Vietnam. So their strategy from the beginning was to 
fight the war in such a way that it would break down and defeat 
American public opinion and encourage the antiwar activists all across 
this country and around the world. That was a part of their calculated 
strategy that is in the book, ``How We Won the War'' by General Giap.
  Now, it hadn't occurred to me that because we settled for a truce at 
the 38th parallel in Korea at the place, the same line as the beginning 
of the war was the end of the war. But because we didn't push the 
Communists all the way out of North Korea and draw a new line, they 
believe that we could be defeated because we didn't demonstrate the 
will to succeed.
  Carl Von Clausewitz wrote the treatise on war, and the name of the 
book is, ``On War.'' And he states in there, ``The object of war is to 
destroy the enemy's will and ability to conduct war.'' To destroy the 
enemy's will and ability, Mr. Speaker. And I believe Clausewitz lists 
will ahead of ability because it is more important here. Your will to 
succeed, your will to prevail is more important than your ability to 
conduct war.
  In other words, if you are fighting an enemy, and you destroy their 
airplanes and their navy and their tanks and their guns and their 
ammunition, and they still have the will to fight you, they will come 
at you with IEDs or rocks or fists or boots or clubs, because they 
still have the will to take you on.
  But here in this Congress, there have been dozens, there are scores, 
there, in fact, may be more than 100, there may be more than 200 that 
don't understand that when they stand here on this floor and they speak 
against our military's mission, they are encouraging people like 
Muqtada al-Sadr when he is inspiring his people by saying, ``All we 
have to do is keep attacking Americans, and they will pull out of Iraq 
the same way they did Vietnam, Lebanon and Mogadishu.''

                              {time}  2145

  And if we should do that, Mr. Speaker, I can show you the next poster 
you will see on this floor, the next quote that will show up in the 
news media.
  This is another notorious individual: Osama bin Laden. Where is he? 
We are looking diligently for him. One day we will find him.
  But the lesson from Muktadr al-Sadr, the lesson that needs to be 
understood by the Defeatocrats is that if we pull out of Iraq, we don't 
win there. You have al Qaeda taking over. You have Iran coming in and 
taking over 70 to 80 percent of the Iraqi oil. You have Iran with their 
hand on the valve that could shut off at the Straits of Hormuz, 42.6 
percent of the world's export oil. Doing so let's them control the 
world economy, including that of the United States, including that of 
China, empowering Russia, empowering Iran, intimidating and controlling 
the entire

[[Page 7403]]

Middle Eastern oil supply by Ahmadinejad. That is what is in store for 
us if we don't prevail.
  And so Maktadr al-Sadr has laid it out, and he has got a clear 
vision. His vision isn't hard to figure out. General Giap has figured 
it out, just from seeing that we would settle for a truce at the 38th 
Parallel, and we have got Maktadr al-Sadr seeing that and Vietnam and 
Lebanon and Mogadishu, and several others, by the way.
  But if we pull out of Iraq, our troops aren't going to be deployed to 
over the horizon, Mr. Murtha, or over to Okinawa, Mr. Murtha. They may 
get to go home for a little while and polish their boots, but they are 
going to Afghanistan, because that is the next stop for these 
terrorists that are going to keep coming at us until we defeat them or 
capitulate.
  And so this will be the next quote you will see if we pull out of 
Iraq. It will be Osama bin Laden this time, and he will be saying, if 
we keep attacking Americans they will leave Afghanistan the same way 
they left Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the same way they 
left Mogadishu, the same way they left Iraq. That is what is in front 
of us if we don't have the will to prevail, Mr. Speaker.
  And these kinds of unconstitutional supplemental or emergency 
spending bills that tie so many strings on to the hands of the 
Commander in Chief, that if he adheres to the language that is in here, 
ties his hands so he can't win.
  Now, why would you not be for victory? Why would you send money over 
there and not provide a way for the troops to win?
  This bill pulls us out of Iraq. That is the goal and they have said 
so. Their goal is not victory. Their goal has been defeat for a long 
time so they can say I told you so. To put a stain on this 
administration perhaps. To try to gain political favor, perhaps. But 
whatever is their motivation, I will submit that this appropriations 
bill is unconstitutional because it is micromanagement of the duties of 
the Commander in Chief.
  And so I will submit that this Constitution gives this Congress three 
responsibilities when it comes to war. The first one is to declare war. 
We haven't done that since World War II. The second one is 
constitutionally to raise and equip an Army and a Navy, and by 
implication an Air Force. The third one is to fund the war. That is it. 
No other constitutional responsibilities. Declare a war, raise a 
military, fund military. But the President is Commander in Chief 
because our founders lived through the mistakes of trying to run a war 
with a whole series of micromanagers and trying to do so by consensus 
or majority rule within the Continental Congress.
  The Continental Congress tried to micromanage the war that was fought 
by the Continental Army. And they were so stung by that painful effort, 
and the only thing that preserved them was they had the will for 
victory. They carried themselves through the hardest of times, barefoot 
at Valley Forge, because they were determined that they were going to 
defeat the British and establish a new nation. And that is the legacy 
that the founders have passed along to us. And they drew bright lines 
in this Constitution because they understood you couldn't fight a war 
by committee. You couldn't fight a war if a Congress was going to 
micromanage the Commander in Chief. So they drew the line clearly, and 
there is no equivocation, and there is no historical record about the 
founders wondering about who had what responsibility when it came to 
fighting a war. No. It was the Commander in Chief. And they gave 
Congress the authority, declare a war, raise the Army and the Navy, and 
then, I said by implication, the Air Force, and fund it.
  So if you don't want to support our military, and if you don't want 
to support their mission, then you ought to have enough intestinal 
fortitude to come down here with a bill that unfunds our military and 
face the wrath of the American people and the wrath of the United 
States military, who, by the way, are 100 percent volunteers, not just 
to join the military and put on the uniform, but for the mission that 
they are on.
  Everyone there has had an opportunity to retire from the military in 
such time since the beginning of this conflict. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they 
step forward and they re-up and they volunteer in greater numbers than 
one ever anticipated. These are brave souls that are on a mission. And 
to say to them, after they have volunteered for one or two or three or 
more deployments, well, thanks a lot for the effort, but we are not 
going to let you finish the job, we are going to drag you home.
  Well, I would say to that that I could quote a colonel that I went to 
Iraq with not that long ago, and he said, and I don't know if I will 
find it so I will speak from off the cuff and this will be close. It 
won't be probably an exact quote. He said, don't save me. I volunteered 
for this mission. Don't save me. I am here because I volunteered for my 
children. I am here to fight this war so my children don't have to 
fight this war. You are not doing me any favors if you try to pull me 
out of this mission that I am committed to. And I have children at home 
that I am here to defend.
  Now, I would say, also, that probably the most profound statement 
that I heard from a military person over there was a major from 
Kentucky. And he is a farmer, a father, loved his cows, worried about 
his bull, wanted to see the digital picture of his new bull, and loves 
God. And he said to me, he said, we have everything we need. So when 
you pray for us, meaning the military, pray for the American people. 
Pray they understand the threat, and pray they do not lose their 
resolve. We will not lose ours.
  That is the kind of personnel we have that put their lives on the 
line for the future of freedom in the world, for the safety of the 
American people so that we can ultimately prevail in this long, long 
war against these global terrorists who believe that their path to 
salvation is in killing us.
  It is not going to be easy. It is not going to be over quickly. And, 
in fact, every time we step back and show weakness, it empowers the 
enemy and we are more likely to hear this statement sooner.
  But this is not over if we pull out of Iraq, as General Pelosi and 
Mr. Murtha would like to do. It is not over. They will follow us here. 
And they will be more empowered. They will have a base that is 
protected that they can operate from out of Iraq. And you hand over 
that oil money to the Iranians, they will be spending it to buy 
missiles to deliver nuclear weapons, not just to Tel Aviv, not just to 
Western Europe, but within a few short years to the United States. And 
we will face an enemy that is a lot tougher than the one we are facing 
right now.
  We need to resolve this issue in the Middle East now. This is the 
time to do so. Put the cross hairs on Iran's nuclear and tell them 
cease fighting this proxy war against the United States within Iraq. 
Resolve and pacify Iraq, and turn our focus over to Afghanistan. 
Because if we don't do so, this man and his allies turn Iraq into a 
terrorist base camp, and they turn their effort to Afghanistan to try 
to drive us out of there and destroy the freedom that has been 
established there, where people voted for the first time on that soil 
in all of history.
  That is what we are faced with. This is a long war. We need to step 
up to it. We need to understand that. We need to let our voluntary 
military perform their mission and stand with them, because not only do 
we stand with our military, but we stand with them in their mission. I 
do so on this side of the aisle. I challenge everyone on that side of 
the aisle to do the same.
  It is intellectually inconsistent to take a position that you can 
support the troops and not their mission. And it is constitutionally 
inconsistent, in fact unconstitutional, to micromanage a war from the 
floor of Congress and tie so many strings in there that they can't be 
met, so that it is certain that if this language passes and the 
President adheres to it that there will be an end to this sort of 
victory.
  And I ask the President, Mr. Speaker, to stand on this 
constitutionally. He has the authority to do intra-departmental 
transfers. If the money

[[Page 7404]]

goes to DOD and it is directed to an aircraft carrier and we need 
armored Humvees and Strykers and bulletproof vests, he can mothball 
that aircraft carrier and put the money where it is needed. That is why 
he is Commander in Chief. That is constitutional. This bill is not. And 
I urge that all Members stand up and vote ``no'' on this when it comes 
to the floor tomorrow.

                          ____________________