John Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman. We are all operating on good faith here. I simply want to establish that there will be a point of order in place before these two bills return from conference.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, then I guess it is my understanding, at least so far as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is concerned, there is no agreement that all future earmarks will be added to the bills at this point in time?

Mr. SHADEGG. I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. The majority party told America that these earmarks would be openly revealed, and that means they have to be debated. It doesn't matter. You can relent now, or you can go on and defend this practice through the press tomorrow and tell them that you want secrecy. You do not want a Member over here to be able to debate an individual earmark. You do not want that earmark revealed to the public today. You do not want that earmark revealed to the public today. You want to put its being revealed off to some point later, when no Member can raise it or object to it, but the American people get it. The history lesson is nothing more than a history lesson. Earmarks in this body must now be disclosed because the Speaker said she would disclose them. That's all we are asking for. We are asking that they be disclosed so the American people can see them, so that our constituents can see them, and so on this floor we can debate them and discuss them. The good ones will pass, and the ones that are corrupt or inappropriate will fail. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Shadegg

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SHADEGG. You can accept those facts tonight and change the procedure. The majority can accept that fact tomorrow and change the procedure. The majority can accept that fact next week and change the procedure, but the procedure will change. I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I admire his energy, his tenacity and his passion. I understand that he believes he has proposed a fair system. I understand that he has just recited for us a history lesson about how earmarks were handled in the past. But I would suggest to you that time moves on. The American people now understand earmarks in a way they did not understand. The American people understand earmarks, and they understand this process, and they cannot be fooled. You cannot take the process for disclosing earmarks and make those earmarks public after the bill has been debated. There is not a constituent of yours that believes that makes sense. The American people understand that some people in this body believe earmarks are very good, and some people in this body believe earmarks can be very bad and very corrupt. They are in unanimity on one point, and that is, they want to know what's in those earmarks. That means those earmarks have to be debated on this floor. Now, I understand that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee believes that he can just vet them, and he can post them in August, but that obviates the most important part of this process. We do not engage in this process by adding language to bills, critical language to bill language that the American people don't get to see or know about after debate has occurred. We didn't tell the American people that we would make the process open this year, that we would disclose every earmark and allow every earmark to be debated, because we don't run the place. You run the place. You're in the majority. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the amendment from my colleague from Colorado. I think it is important that we remind those participating in this debate what that amendment would do. That amendment would strike a grand total of $300,000 from the public affairs budget of the Department of Homeland Security. It would hold the Department's public affairs budget to the same figure that they are living with this year. I would suggest that that is not a shocking proposal. It is one that I am happy to support, and one that I think illustrates the kind of thing we can do in this Congress on this floor to demonstrate to the American people that we get it, that we understand that as a Nation we are overspending. We are spending not our money, we aren't even spending our children's money; we are spending our grandchildren's money. And they, the American people, have told us they do not want us to do that. They want us to stop that practice. They want Republicans to stop that practice, they want Democrats to stop that practice, they want conservatives to stop that practice, they want liberals to stop that practice. They want us to live within our means and to be reasonable. The ranking member of this committee has spoken earlier today that the bill increases spending by 13.6 percent. I want to ask, how many Americans, how many people in this room, how many Members of Congress, how many of your children who have gotten a job this year will get a 13.6 percent raise this year? I suggest virtually no one can answer that question and say they will get that kind of staggering raise. Instead, the ranking member has proposed a reasonable solution which is, in fact, quite frankly, generous in and of itself, and that is a 7.2 percent increase. Not exactly a tiny, not exactly a squeaky cheap amount; a pretty darn generous raise, a generous raise that probably any American would take. And yet, that is not enough. I also rise to express my objections to the earmarking practices that are being condoned and that are proposed to be implemented in this body. The reality is that earmarking has its defenders and can, in fact, do some good. The reality is that earmarking is also susceptible of outrageous abuse and can lead to scandals. Many of the scandals in this body which were talked about by the minority in the last election are scandals that relate to earmarks. And yet, in the face of promises that we would have more sunshine, in the face of promises that the American people would get to see where their money is being spent, that they can hear about it, that it could be challenged and debated on this floor, that it could be vetted and viewed, I happen to believe in sunshine. I came out of the Arizona Attorney General's Office, and we had the most open sunshine laws in the Nation because we believed sunshine would bring cleanliness, sunshine would allow people to see what government was doing. And here we propose to hide that. We propose to hide tens of thousands, I guess the chairman of the committee says 36,000 earmarks are going to be air-dropped into the legislation at the end of this process. That is simply unacceptable to me, and it ought to be unacceptable to the American people. The gentlelady just spoke of the importance of securing the Arizona border, and I believe that is extremely important. But let's talk about one provision of this bill that simply not only makes no sense, it is hypocritical, and it will clearly violate the U.S. Constitution. In this bill we say point blank we are appropriating $1 billion for new high-tech security. And I certainly agree with my colleague from Arizona that every dime of that $1 billion for high-tech security on our border is needed. If we are to secure that border, we need that money. But this legislation says, we appropriate $1 billion, but then $700 million, almost three-fourths of $1 billion, is reserved and cannot be appropriated until a committee in the Congress says so. That is unconstitutional.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It seems to me we are in some danger of forgetting what we are here about. We are here about the second-degree amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). I rise in strong support of that amendment because it would restrain the excessive spending in this bill. But it's more important that we talk about what we are really here about. What we are really here about is the people's business. What we are really here about is how we spend their money. What brings us here tonight, in the middle of the night, is that the majority has proposed a procedure for handling earmarks which is inconsistent with what you told the American people. It is indefensible, and it cannot stand. You can recognize that. You can accept that fact tonight and change that procedure; you can accept that fact tomorrow. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I rise in opposition to this legislation, but I compliment my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). He has, in fact, worked diligently on this issue, and I join him in my concern about prices that are charged to the American people. Indeed, he just indicated he would very much like to see relief at the pump, and so would I. I happen to drive a Ford F-250, which does not get good gas mileage, and I, along with others, would like to see relief at the pump. I certainly commend all those who are cosponsors of this legislation as having good intentions. My concern, however, is that it will not achieve that result. The reality is we do have very high gas prices, and we have prices that have gone up dramatically in just the recent few months. We all want to know the answer for that, and I've spent some time trying to look at it. Unfortunately, I don't see evidence that there is price gouging and that high gas prices are a result of price gouging. What I see is that they are the result of policies of this government, and it seems to me that we ought to be looking at the policies of this government. For example, we as a Nation, this Congress, have imposed a tariff on imported ethanol. We could bring in ethanol produced in other countries at a dramatically lower price than the ethanol we're producing in this country today, but instead, we tax that ethanol and make it even higher priced. Last year, when the prices went up, I voted against price-gouging legislation, but I dropped my own bill to suspend that tariff so that we could take advantage of lower-priced ethanol. Unfortunately, the Congress didn't move in that direction. Two years ago, I went to the commodities market in New York, and they told me the problem with gasoline prices is refineries. We do have a lack of refineries in this country, and I've dropped legislation to encourage the construction of more refineries. I think there is concern that the refinery industry is holding the capacity of those refineries right at the edge so the prices can be the highest possible. But one of the issues you hear is that part of the reason gasoline prices are so high right now is because of the conversion from winter gas to summer gas. That conversion is compelled by government regulations which drive up the cost and by government regulations which spell out precisely how it must be done and that they must draw down supplies. It seems to me, before we start tampering with the free market, which has served us so well, and before we start passing very wide ranging legislation of this type, we have to make a decision. Do we want the government to regulate prices? Do we want a huge new bureaucracy in there looking at a poor mom-and-pop gas station to see if they raise prices? Or do we want to look at the policies of this government which have held down supply and which have not met demand? It seems to me this is simple and straightforward. I understand the urge to do it, but the problem is, if we empower a massive new government bureaucracy, we will not get relief at the pump which Mr. Stupak wants and which I'd like to see. We will indeed just create a large bureaucracy. In my home State of Arizona, we have tried this. We have had attorney general after attorney general, even in my tenure, when I was in the attorney general's office, we investigated price gouging and could not find evidence of it. Let's look at the market forces that are causing these high prices. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I thank my colleague from Illinois for his strong words of support. I rise today in support of H. Res. 223, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Georgia for their support, as well as the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee. This legislation is in fact very important to very many Americans; indeed, to, sadly, too many Americans. I, along with my colleague, Mr. Chabot of Cincinnati, Ohio, introduced this resolution on behalf of murder victims and their families across our Nation. H. Res. 223 does two simple things. First, it recognizes the many organizations that provide services to the loved ones of murder victims. As the two speakers before me have acknowledged, a victim of crime suffers greatly over and over again, and there are many organizations across our country that help them. The second thing this resolution does is it supports the establishment and urges the establishment of a National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims to be held on September 25th of each year. I noted that in our prayer today we were called upon to thank God for our loved ones and our families. This bill is very much about those loved ones and those families who are left behind when a murder is committed and someone is taken from us as a result of violence. On September 25, 1978, 19-year-old Lisa Hullinger was murdered by her boyfriend. Three months after her death, her parents formed the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Parents of Murdered Children earnestly advocates for the thousands of parents who have lost a child as a result of violence. Parents of Murdered Children is one of many organizations that do this work, that help the friends and that help the families to try to cope with the loss of a loved one. Other organizations include the National Organization for Victim Assistance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as well as the National Crime Victim Law Institute. Each of these organizations plays a vital role, and there are so many others. This resolution not only honors Parents of Murdered Children, but all of the similar organizations providing support and assistance to the loved ones of murdered victims. Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of this resolution I have received countless e-mails from all across the country, not just from my district, but from everywhere: from mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives and children of murder victims. All of them have contacted me to say how much they appreciate what the United States House of Representatives is doing for them today. This legislation is indeed important. We all know that there are established days of remembrance for many dark days in our Nation's history. There is, of course, one for 9/11. There is another one for the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. These were both solemn times in our Nation's history, and yet people are murdered every single day. On 9/11, almost 3,000 Americans were brutally murdered. It is worth noting that every 10 weeks in this Nation, another almost 3,000 Americans are murdered. That is why I believe we need to establish a day that not only honors them and recognizes them, but also recognizes and honors the victims they leave behind, the family members, the fathers, the sons, the daughters, all of the others who suffer so much. Each of us has a list of tragedies that we know of personally. My colleague from Illinois recited several. There are way too many. I cannot rise today without thinking of Duane Lynn and his wife, Nila. Duane and Nila lived in a retirement community in north Phoenix after Duane retired from the Arizona Highway Patrol. One day they chose to attend a homeowners' association meeting in their neighborhood. Tragically, a killer walked into that meeting and senselessly murdered Nila. Nila died in Duane's arms. That was a crushing blow to him and a pain that he suffers every day. But Duane took that negative pain and became an advocate for other victims. With his help, this Congress passed the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, Nila Lynn Crimes Victims Act of 2004. I also think of Sally Goelzer, whose brother, Hal, was murdered in a gang initiation killing. Sally took the pain of that incident and went to work to fight for tougher laws against gangs and against gang killers. I am also reminded of the incredible story of Colleen Campbell and her tireless work on behalf of victims, as well as that of her husband, Gary. Colleen tragically has lost not one family member, but three family members on three separate occasions to murder. First, her son, Scott, was murdered. Then later her brother, well- known and famous in America for his work in auto racing, Mickey Thompson, was murdered. And then still later, her sister-in-law, Trudy Thompson, was murdered. Colleen has spent 22 years in and out of various courtrooms in America dealing with the pain inflicted upon her by the murder of these three loved ones. Again, she has turned that negative pain into being a tireless advocate for victims and for victims rights. She was essential to the creation of victims rights legislation in California and she established Force 100, one of the earliest advocates for victims' rights across this Nation. Force 100 sought to create organizations in every single State in America to advocate for victims of crime. There are so many stories. There are too many stories. But these victims and their courageous survivors need to know that we in the Congress, and we as a Nation, remember their tragedy and their courage. Today, this Congress, this House, can do its part. We can say that too many of us have been affected by the horrors of murder, by passing this simple, yet very important, resolution, acknowledging that murdered individuals are not the only victims; that those left behind to cope with the loss on a daily basis are victims also. We can tell them, however, that those family members and loved ones are not alone. We can recognize the many organizations that do invaluable work to help them. That is why this resolution not only acknowledges the murder victims, but also honors the organizations and the people who devote their lives to counseling, crisis intervention, assistance and other help in getting those victims through our criminal justice system. The work of these organizations is so invaluable to so many. The last organization I want to talk about is the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. This organization, recently established, provides legal assistance to the victims of crime, and has established many programs in colleges across our country, and, I believe, in eight different law schools across our country, to help give legal assistance to the families and the loved ones of those murdered who are left behind. H. Res. 223 lets victims, families and friends know that they are not alone, and that we remember their loved ones. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and honoring all of those men and women who have devoted their lives to helping those among us who have to cope with the senseless violence of a murdered loved one.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is an extraordinary moment in American history. Indeed, I would suggest that this is an unprecedented moment in world history. I know of no example in the history of mankind where a Nation at war with troops in the field has announced that on a date certain almost 2 years off it will simply unilaterally stop the war. I don't believe that has ever happened before in human history, and I believe it is a stunning moment. What I do not understand is how you can explain that or defend that to either the soldiers you are asking to fight for the next year and a half or to their families. And I am not the only one who finds this to be a strange policy, a dangerous policy, a risky policy, an ill-advised policy. The Los Angeles Times wrote just a few weeks ago, ``It is one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It is quite another,'' they said, ``for it to set out a detailed timeline.'' It then went on and said, ``This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.'' Those are the words of the Los Angeles Times. Then let's look at another source. In 2005, now majority leader of the U.S. Senate Harry Reid said, ``As far as setting a timeline, that is not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there.'' The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee, Joe Biden, said a deadline for pulling out ``will only encourage our enemies.'' Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said, ``I don't believe it is smart to set a deadline for withdrawal.'' This is a policy that makes no sense, and this is a policy that can do nothing but harm our troops and our Nation.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his taking the time to bring this message here to the floor and to talk about it. I guess my curiosity or my interest is piqued by you talking about the conditions that are placed in this bill. I will tell you that I fundamentally do not believe that you can justify, that any nation could ever justify, announcing, while their troops were in the field in the middle of a war, announcing that on a date certain in the future, we are going to unilaterally stop. It seems to me that the illogic of that should be apparent to everybody, but even perhaps the immorality of that should be important. How do we say to troops, well, fight until August of 2008, and then, by the click of a tock on the arm of a clock, by the hand going one more notch until it now becomes August 2008, the fight is over. To me, that makes no sense. And I think it is important that the Nation have a discussion about whether that policy makes any sense. I would like to discuss it from two points of view. First of all, will withdrawing from Iraq end the war? I think that is a fair question. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, if we withdraw from Iraq, if we so called ``redeploy,'' that will end the war. Well, I think that is worth discussing, and I think that is an important issue. But I think there is another important issue, and that issue is, what do we owe to the people of Iraq? And on that latter point, I want to note that this morning a reporter for UPI appeared on Washington Journal; her name is Pamela Hess. She has written a series of articles that, as you know, in Washington Journal, they have callers call in. And a caller called in and said, look, this is an unjustified war; we are never going to win, all the various arguments. And she said, well, I would like to suggest, and she was not taking anybody's side in the fight; she said, I would like to suggest that it is important for us to recognize that while one can criticize or analyze the reasons why we went to war, and that is one set of facts and circumstances, one can also look at why we are there now. And interestingly, her assertion is one that I have made, and she laid out an explanation. She said, having come into Iraq as we did, having dismantled their army, sent them packing, having dismantled their police forces, sent them packing, having dismantled, disassembled, taken apart their government, we created a situation where there was chaos. Ms. Hess, in her comments on Washington Journal this morning, said, stop for a moment and imagine if another country had invaded the United States and if they had wiped out our Army and wiped out and disbanded our police forces and sent them home and then taken down our government. How long would it take before even here in the United States we began to see chaos, not unlike the chaos you see on the streets in Iraq? And her argument was one that I think is the other important argument which is not being made in this debate. The one, as I mentioned, is if we retreat, if we embrace defeat, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are urging us to do, and say we cannot win in Iraq, let us leave and let us leave by a date certain, my first argument is, we can leave but the war will not end. I would suggest they have already demonstrated they will come to the United States. They will attack us here. They will attack Americans and nonradical Muslims all over the world. They will attack us and other Westerners in Europe, in Spain, in Indonesia. They will attack us everywhere. So I will suggest the war will not end. The second argument is, forgetting how the war started, what obligation do we have to assist the people of Iraq in reestablishing the basics of a government, of a police force and of an army such that they can stop chaos, they can stop lawlessness? One of the ways that you hear people in the Middle East articulate this, and the ambassadors from Jordan and Saudi Arabia came and made this argument to us and I think you heard them talk, they said the United States came into Iraq uninvited; the United States owes it to the Middle East and to the people of Iraq not to leave uninvited. And then you ask them what they mean by that, and they mean the same thing that Pamela Hess said, which is we have an obligation to aid the Iraqi people at least until they can get a government up and functioning, an army up and functioning, and a police force so that chaos does not reign. I think those are the two key arguments. I would insert into the Record articles that Ms. Hess has written since returning from her most recent visit to Iraq that document the things that have changed. Analysis: Loudspeaker Diplomacy (By Pamela Hess) Ramadi, Iraq, Feb. 17.--It's old fashioned. It's low-tech but it works. One U.S. unit operating in Iraq has found the best way to win hearts and minds is to put loudspeakers on police stations. The speaker systems are erected over the police stations. The daily broadcasts are 10 to 15 minutes long. They are timed not to compete with the call to prayers, and the messages are written by the police and local political officials. Some of the speeches are copied onto CDs and distributed around town. The broadcasts include Iraqi top 40 music; news dispatches taken from the BBC and Al Jazeera, speeches by the governor and the police chief, warnings about high threat areas, and the national anthem. ``That's a pretty catchy song,'' said Maj. Dan Zappa, the executive officer of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, responsible for security operations in some of the most contested areas of Ramadi. ``It's interspersed with popular music. We've got video of kids dancing, hundreds of them, jumping around.'' ``We have the police chief in western Ramadi'' Zappa said, ``and he's addressing his family, his extended family and his tribe.'' Said Maj. Tiley Nunnink, a guest staff member of the battalion sent by the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab in Virginia: ``It's a vehicle for Iraqi policemen to say what they need to say to the people.'' The loudspeaker program would be a gamble in a town without a legitimate local police presence. In that case it would just be the overbearing--and clumsily worded--symbol of the occupation trying to co-opt local religious customs, senior commanders said. But they believe the loudspeaker broadcasts are part of what seems to be turning the population in Ramadi against the insurgency. ``The system's working because the local population is approaching the Iraqi police with valuable information to help put down criminal acts--roadside bombs, building IEDs, stuff like that,'' Zappa said. ``Those are definitely the metrics, how does the population respond to this?'' Nunnink said. ``You can hear it in the broadcast. The broadcast says thank you for providing this information. You're contributing to the further security of the city.'' The loudspeaker initiative addresses a huge hole in U.S. warfighting capabilities in Iraq: Insurgents can turn around videos of successful attacks on U.S. convoys, or dead Iraqi soldiers, or doctored or misrepresented footage of events within hours, sometimes before those events have even been reported to American headquarters. The videos show up on racks of bootlegged DVDs and CDs that seem to be for sale on nearly every street corner almost instantaneously. Deployed U.S. forces however, do not have the authority to respond directly on their own; ``information operations'' products and messages have to be approved at high levels in the chain of command. That takes time, and by the time the message is approved, the story has moved on. Score one for the adversary. ``I have the power to call in a lethal air strike but not to respond to an insurgent video,'' one senior U.S. commander told UPI this week. ``We've been getting our butt kicked by the (local) media,'' Zappa said. ``There would be an incident when they would blow up a Humvee and kill two Marines and wound civilians, and they would turn that around and say that we wounded the civilians.'' ``That's how information travels out here, by word of mouth,'' Nunnink said. ``So the question was, how are we going to compete with that?'' Ramadi is notorious as one of the bloodiest battlefields for U.S. forces. ``There are local Iraqis doing great things for the community, innocent civilians, heroes, trying to put down the insurgents,'' said Zappa, a native of Pittsburgh. ``They are out there but they don't have the ability to get the voice that the insurgents do. So that population sitting on the fence doesn't know, doesn't understand because they are not in receive mode of that information.'' For the last four years, U.S. forces have tried hosting daily radio shows or cobbling together television broadcasts to try to win the loyalty of the people. They hand out flyers promising additional reconstruction funds if violence ebbs. None of the delivery methods are really ideal for this culture; the flyers go unread, the television and radio require a recalcitrant public to actively tune in to listen. But one thing everyone listens to is the booming call to prayers from the local mosque's loudspeakers, five times a day, plus a sermon on Friday. Zappa and Nunnink and several other headquarters officers meet weekly to discuss the ``non-kinetic'' campaign--that is, all the non-lethal activities the battalion conducts. ``Our approach was what can we do that is gonna be more effective. We can kill bad guys all day but you're never gonna kill enough of them; They are always gonna create more. So we ask, what do the people really need? What's gonna give a tactical advantage? What's gonna get the Iraqi army, get the police out there? These are the things that drove us,'' Zappa said. ``We realized the opportunity was here if we could convince people the insurgency is not supporting them, it was destroying their city . . . it was just offering chaos, and capitalize on that, and the little successes that these (Iraqi police) guys were bringing to the table.'' It was in one of these meetings they came up with the notion of a loudspeaker campaign of their own. Analysis: The U.S. War of Ideas (By Pamela Hess) Washington, Jan. 5.--As the ``global war on terrorism'' enters its sixth year, the United States government is beginning to rethink its approach to the larger battle--the so-called ``war of ideas.'' The war on terror is, at its heart, a physical fight against extremists. The war of ideas, on the other hand, is a philosophical debate that pits extremist ideology in the Muslim world against tolerance and freedom. So far, however, the United States seems to be losing. A Zogby International poll released in December shows that the vast majority of Arabs in five key countries view the United States and its policies in a strongly negative light. In two countries, Jordan and Morocco, attitudes have declined precipitously in the last year. U.S. government officials are grappling with how to win the war of ideas, and some are embracing fresh conclusions: that U.S. actions speak louder than any propaganda it can put forth; that the promotion of democracy should be a sidecar to providing humanitarian aid and economic development in the Arab world; and acceptance that the United States has only a peripheral role to play in the core philosophical debate central to the war of ideas. ``I think we have to think about influencing people. The way we influence people is not just what we say, but by what we do and who we are,'' a Pentagon official closely involved in the Defense Department's piece of the war of ideas, told UPI last month. ``It is not primarily about messaging.'' For 40 years during the Cold War, the U.S. waged a war of ideas against communism and totalitarianism, and won. ``During the Cold War, that was arguably easier to do because the Soviet Union was oppressing people. It was an easier argument to make, and (in Eastern Europe) we were more or less culturally on neutral ground,'' he said. `` . . . They didn't really know about us because they were in relatively closed societies. They didn't necessarily hate us,'' he said. This new battle is more difficult and requires a different approach, the official said. ``We are starting in the hole,'' he acknowledged. ``In the Muslim world when 70 percent of the people are opposed to the United States, that's a much harder sell.'' It does not help that many people in the Middle East identify their own governments as their oppressors, and the United States as their oppressors' allies. ``We start going in, we go in knowing they dislike us,'' he said. ``It's gonna take a long time.'' He conceives the battle as having two major fronts, and in only one of them can the United States play a major public role. The official said the U.S. should not be trying to counter terrorist propaganda. It should be finding ways to encourage competing visions within the Islamic world. ``In the strategic sense I don't think we need to have a counter-narrative,'' the official said. ``The violent extremists, they have a single narrative. And I think from a purely strategic perspective we just have to make sure there are other narratives--not necessarily our own--that compete with theirs.'' The debate must be engaged by ``protagonists within the Muslim community,'' he said--probably theologians from Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. ``We know that the (Muslim) community is much more diverse than it (seems). We have to find those people. I actually think we would do ourselves a great favor if we worked from the outside in, but look to examples outside of the Arab core.'' There are ``individuals who don't necessarily agree with the United States but who don't agree with violence as a tool,'' he said. ``Supporting that is very important. How we do that is the tough part, because we don't want to taint them by virtue of overt association (with the United States). The government is struggling with how to do that.'' The second front in the war of ideas is one in which the United States can play a direct public role: changing the conditions in the Arab world that feed terrorism--the lack of educational and economic opportunity, poor health care, and repressive regimes. ``Look at the level of despair in the Arab world. It rivals sub-Saharan Africa,'' he said. ``That, plus broken regimes in that part of the world--it's a tinder box.'' The official believes desperate conditions do not cause Islamic extremism. But they are what makes the Middle East so ripe for recruitment. ``They are the kindling of terrorism. They are what terrorists exploit,'' he said. ``I think what the United States can do is essentially remove the kindling.'' Done well, that could have two effects--draining the number of potential terrorist recruits and sympathizers, and demonstrating American good will in the Muslim world with actions rather than words. ``Think about Hezbollah or al Qaida affiliates or . . . (Muqtada Sadr in Iraq). What do they do? They don't stand on street corners only getting out proselytizing. They set up clinics, they give out food. That's their way of getting in,'' he said. ``If you look at the (U.S. response to the) tsunami, to the earthquake in Pakistan, the earthquake in Iran--that's when we got the biggest spike,'' he said. ``Some of the things that have given us the greatest return are not the things we intended.'' The Bush administration's emphasis on democracy building in the region is necessary, he said, but likely to fail if the ``kindling'' is not addressed. ``I do think you have to address the regimes. But I would say that the second-tier efforts, removing kindling (is more important). It's not just about notions, however justified, of democracy alone. It's more broadly about (developing a) healthy society, a civil society and addressing grievances.'' Moreover, what the United States considers a democracy may have to change if democracy is to be embraced in the Muslim world. ``We often ask the question... is Islam compatible with democracy? But we never question the other side, taking the religion as a given and seeing how flexible democracy is,'' he said. ``We pay lip service to the fact that (Arab democracies are) not going to look like us. But I think we very rarely say we ought to revisit what a democracy is, and what role religion can play in it,'' he said. ``If we do that we might be more flexible, and there might be different approaches that might be successful.'' He is disturbed that pundits characterize the war on terrorism as a clash of civilizations. ``That feeds our adversaries,'' he said. ``The reality is I don't see this as a (rift) between Islam or between the East and West. It's a horizontal (split) within civilizations,'' he said. Analysis: Iraq out of Time, Needs Troops (By Pamela Hess) Washington, Dec. 15.--A leading U.S. military analyst is advocating the addition of some 30,000 U.S. forces to Iraq, with a new mission: to protect the Iraqi people. Frederick Kagan, a former instructor at West Point and now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, believes his plan to add seven Army brigade combat teams and Marine regiments to Baghdad and Anbar province early next year could establish security in Baghdad by the fall of 2007. While much of the focus in Washington is on increasing the pace of American training of Iraqi security forces who will eventually take on the bulk of the fighting, Kagan argues the United States and Iraq no longer has that luxury of time. ``Iraq has reached a critical point. The strategy of relying on a political process to eliminate the insurgency has failed. Rising sectarian violence threatens to break America's will to fight. This violence will destroy the Iraqi government, armed forces, and people if it is not rapidly controlled,'' he writes. ``Violence is accelerating beyond the Iraqis'' ability to control it.'' The surge in troops, if it succeeds in turning around the deteriorating situation in Iraq, would pave the way for a major troop withdrawal in 18 to 24 months, he says. But the surge would also mean an increase in battle casualties, now nearing 3,000. ``Short-term increase in casualties is not a sign of failure ... As troops actively secure the population the enemy will surge its attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi civilians,'' Kagan writes. He envisions a four-phase strategy in 2007: surging forces into Iraq by March; preparing for ``clear and hold'' operations by June; clear critical areas by September; and then transition control of them to Iraqi forces. ``These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city. After the neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and Marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security,'' Kagan writes in a new paper for AEI. The clear and hold operation would be closely linked to a U.S. military led-reconstruction package with a fully funded plan in place prior to the battles so they can immediately pick up trash and get water and electricity working, area by area. ``Even large reconstruction efforts are cheap compared to continued fighting,'' he notes. It's an expansion of the tactics used with some success in Tall 'Afar and Fallujah but far more ambitious. Those towns were a fraction of the size of Baghdad and relatively isolated, making them easier to surround, empty and conduct house-to-house searches. Their size and location also allowed the return of residents, and potential fighters, to be managed. Five U.S. brigades are currently operating in Baghdad along with six Iraqi brigades. In Anbar province, there are two Marine regimental combat teams and one U.S. Army brigade combat team. Together, they comprise just 52,500 combat forces in a total U.S. deployment of about 140,000. The remainder are serving in combat service support, headquarters, intelligence and other non-battle functions. Kagan's plan would bring the number of combat troops to 84,000 by September 2007, nearly a 50 percent increase in combat power. Kagan is not alone in advocating a troop increase. Senior military officers who spoke to UPI on condition of anonymity say that having sufficient troops in Iraq to actually quell the insurgency and combat sectarian violence is the one approach the United States has not yet tried. Since the insurgency began in earnest in November 2003, U.S. forces have been playing catch-up, never having quite enough troops to both carry out aggressive offensive operations and to maintain a daily presence in the areas already under control. That has resulted in a nationwide ``whack-a-mole'' strategy, they said. When they have come down hard on one area, the enemy has squeezed out to somewhere they are not. The training of more than 300,000 Iraqi army and police has provided a ``holding'' force but their performance has been uneven at best, and in the case of the police, sometimes counterproductive. And the intervening three years has similarly allowed the insurgent and militia forces to grow as well, diminishing the impact Iraqi forces can have. The answer, according to Kagan, is a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. troops assigned to protecting Iraq's civilian population. To get the number of U.S. troops up, Kagan proposes to accelerate the deployment of the next four brigades, now scheduled from April to February. The remaining BCTs would be extended from a 12-month deployment to 15 months. The Marine regiments would be extended from seven months to 12. That would bring the American troops presence in Baghdad up to nine or 10 BCTs, each with about 4,000 soldiers. The plan would also result in two additional Marine regimental combat teams in Anbar province. Kagan would not pull forces from outside of Baghdad into that fight, Rather, he would leave them in place to continue their daily operations--preventing insurgents and sectarian militias from establishing a foothold in areas previously secured from them. This military version of ``robbing Peter to pay Paul'' has been played out repeatedly throughout the war, commanders have complained. When they have stabilized an area, troops get called on to put out a fire somewhere else--leaving a security vacuum where they came from and inviting new violence. If the clear and hold plan is carried out in Baghdad in 2007, Kagan writes that in 2008 the U.S. military could help disarm Shiite militias, stabilize Anbar or northern Iraq, and/or continue the training mission. Kagan concedes the potential responses to an invigorated American offensive in Iraq, outlining each factions' likely responses, and the most dangerous short- and long-term scenarios, along with a plan to counter them. Kagan also says the U.S. Army and Marine Corps must add at least 60,000 troops to their pay roll in the next two years and the increase must be permanent. It is ``vital to offset increased demand on the ground forces in Iraq, and vital to provide strategic options in many scenarios beyond Iraq,'' he writes. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said Thursday that the most the Army can hope to recruit above the 80,000 a year it does now is 6,000 to 7,000 additional soldiers. Marine Corps officials believe they can add another 2,000 additional recruits annually. However, the Army and Marine Corps could likely retain far greater numbers of troops than they currently do. Re-enlistments and extensions are at all time highs, particularly among combat units deployed to Iraq. Schoomaker also warned that if he does not get additional troops, and more freedom to use reservists to fill out the force, the Army is in danger of ``breaking.'' Kagan says his plan will not break the Army: only four units would be accelerated to Iraq, and they were tapped to go anyway. Moreover, no unit will have less than a year between deployments under his plan. ``Losing now will certainly break the force,'' Kagan writes. Kagan could not be immediately reached for comment. An AEI spokeswoman said he was at a White House briefing. As I mentioned, she has written a series of these articles. She went to Iraq, as she explained this morning on Washington Journal, to look at the question of how is it that our troops in Iraq feel they have such an important mission, feel they are accomplishing things. She mentioned that this was her third, I believe, visit to Iraq, and she said, this time, more than either of the two visits, she felt like our troops were more engaged, working more closely with the Iraqi people, felt a greater kinship with the Iraqi people, and felt like they were making progress. Her purpose was to say, well, this must be just a myth. It must not be true that our troops are really feeling like they are accomplishing something; they are just parroting words given to them from the commanders and higher up. But her pitch this morning was that is not true; that in point of fact, the thing that has changed was in part the attitude of our troops and the enhanced ability of our troops who have now been deployed there two or three times to speak Arabic, but also that the attitude of the Iraqi people has changed. She talked about how the Iraqi people are now rising up, resisting the violence, fighting back on their own and engaged in this battle in a way in which she had not seen before. I believe this supplemental is extremely important to our Nation. I believe our confrontation with radical, militant Islam is the single most important confrontation we will face probably in my lifetime. I think back about the threat to world peace posed by communism, which is the threat I grew up with as a child, and I have to evaluate that threat versus the threat we now face with radical, militant Islam. I have begun to read some of the writings on radical, militant Islam and what they want. I would commend to anyone who cares about this issue a book by a Yale professor by the name of Mary Habeck. Professor Habeck came and spoke, I think you know, to the bipartisan caucus on anti-terrorism and I heard her. I was very impressed. She has written a book called, ``Knowing the Enemy,'' and that book goes into detail on how the radical Islamic wing, the jihadi wing of the Islam faith, strays from the Koran, and how at times they have twisted the Koran, at least in her opinion, and have come to this conclusion that they must reestablish the caliphate, they must stay at a constant state of war, they want to not only reestablish the caliphate in its historical areas, but then expand it and at least require that every nation in the world be under the domination of radical Islam; and that everybody there has to at least be offered the opportunity to live under radical Islam. Then the question of whether or not they have to kill you if you do not remains on the table, but it is an excellent book, and I would urge that people read it. The other book that I would say people should read is a book called, ``America Alone,'' by Mark Steyn. Again, I think the challenge we face from radical Islam and its confrontation of Western society, ours here in America, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Britain, is the single most important confrontation, single most important challenge of our lifetimes for us, for our children, for our grandchildren. I understand the frustration of my colleagues who want us to get out and get out as quickly as we can. It breaks my heart. I have been there three times. I have seen grave errors made in the conduct of the war. I am troubled by the conduct of the war. I am embarrassed by our conduct of the war at times, but that does not answer the fundamental question. The fundamental question is: Can we leave? If we leave, does the war stop? If we leave, does it instead get worse? I would suggest that if we leave Iraq, if we decide we cannot win there now, if we follow what the current draft supplemental proffered this week by the other side says and say in August of 2008, we are out no matter what, I think things do not get better. I would suggest that what happens is that the radical jihadi now in Iraq seeking to kill us there simply pick up their stakes, jump in a pick-up truck and head to Afghanistan, and suddenly we are fighting the same fight in Afghanistan. I heard my colleagues on the floor and in the statement say we should be fighting in Afghanistan, and that is a serious fight, and the Taliban and the insurgency are re-arising in their battle and their challenge to us. I agree with them about that. But the problem is, what have we gained if we just moved the fight from Iraq to Afghanistan? And are we willing to stand up to the radical jihadi somewhere? Because if we do not do it in Iraq, I would submit we are going to have to do it somewhere. I would also suggest that before we abandon Iraq, we need to think about what it is we owe to the people of that society. Having torn down their institutions, having torn down their government, their police and their army, what do we owe them to help them rebuild those institutions before we walk away? And so I think the supplemental is very important. I think it is going to get a lot of discussion and debate. I personally believe that as long as you leave an arbitrary cut-off date in it that says we will be out of there as of a date certain, it is something I personally cannot support; and I would hope the American people would look at what jeopardy that places us in. I think you also hear General Petraeus say, look, I just started this job. I need the troops to be able to accomplish it. There are early signs we are making progress. Give me a chance. I think that is a plea that I hope we do not abandon. I hope that it is a plea we acknowledge. I would agree that we cannot leave it totally open- ended. I thank the gentleman for allowing me some time on this point. I thought it was worth my time to cite this reporter, Pamela Hess, and talk about her because she has just been there. She went with the purpose of trying to find out are things different, and at least as I heard her comments on Washington Journal this morning, she said things are different, progress is being made, and the Iraqi people are kicking in. She cited vastly better than I can examples of that.

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman. You hit upon one of the keys or at least one of the major concerns or arguments that I have over the idea of our colleagues that we can withdraw from Iraq and it will end the war. You touched upon the fact that radical Islam teaches that they must kill all infidels. I make the point that, look, I understand the desire of people who want us out of Iraq to end the war and end the killing and to not have American troops on the battleground dying each day. I want that as well. The question one has to ask is, is that a viable strategy? A lot of people think back to the Vietnam War and say, well, look, we ultimately made a decision that we couldn't win the Vietnam War. Indeed, as your discussion earlier in this hour pointed out, there were Members of this Congress who decided we want out of Vietnam; we are going to cut the funding back; that will bring us home. Some could argue that with the help of this Congress, we did cut off funding for the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War did end. I would suggest for thoughtful Americans looking at this today, we are in a very different world. To my knowledge, and I have asked this of a number of people, I know of no incident ever where any North Vietnamese leader had announced that, if we finished in Vietnam and left Vietnam, that would be insufficient. I know of no Vietnamese, North Vietnamese, leader, Communist Vietnam leader, even leader of Communist China at the time, who said, as soon as we defeat the Americans in Vietnam, then we will take the fight to them in the United States. That is a very, very, very, very different circumstance than we have here. Read Osama bin Laden. Read Ayman al Zawahiri. Read any of the leaders of the radical militant Islamic movement in the world of the leaders of al Qaeda, now thought to be reforming in the mountain areas of Pakistan and reasserting itself in a more cohesive fashion; they have made it clear. They don't want us just out of Iraq. Their goal isn't, if the Americans will leave Iraq, the war will end. They have never said that. What they have said over and over and over again is, we intend to kill the great Satan. You talked about Ahmadinejad. He has given speeches in which he envisioned a world in which there is no Israel and a world in which there is no United States. How does one unilaterally declare peace? I think that is a fair question; could we have said at some point during World War II, you know what, we are losing soldiers in France, we are losing soldiers in the Netherlands fighting this battle, let's just quit, and the war will end? Or had Hitler said, I am going on, I am going forward, my plan is an Aryan domination of the world? This is a different circumstance. The leaders of this radical, militant, jihadist movement have said, we must confront the infidel. As you just explained, they define it: Anybody who doesn't believe and practice Islam the way they believe it and practice it must be killed. I think by announcing, as this proposed supplemental bill does, and the language of it clearly states, we will leave Iraq by August 2008 no matter what. We have to think about the message that sends. That is a very clear message. That message is, if you are Osama bin Laden hiding somewhere in Pakistan or on the border lands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and you hear that message, and you know he is paying attention, and he has heard that message, what do you think? If you are Ayman al Zawahiri and you are his chief lieutenant and you hear that message, it is very clear: Hang tight, lay low, go to the cities outside of Baghdad, keep your profile low, kill a few people on the side as you are going, but don't worry about it, because, in a handful of months, maybe as early as next January, but, according to this measure that the Democrats announced earlier this week, no later than August 2008, the Americans will withdraw from Iraq, gone, finished, out of here. You have just announced to Osama bin Laden: Hang on, hold tight. In August, the Americans will abandon Iraq. In August, the war will end, and you will have control of Iraq, assuming the Iraqis can't defend themselves at that point, and you can take this war forward wherever you want to take it forward. I don't understand the mindset of that. I understand the mindset of somebody who says, end the war tomorrow, let's bring them home. That is safe. If that's the choice of the American public, if that's the choice of the majority in this United States Congress, that is something, get them home and get them home tonight because they are safe. But announcing that they will leave as of almost a year and a half from now, and between then they fight for what, is something I just can't understand. I do believe that Osama bin Laden and Al Zawahiri will understand that message.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak of the importance of the 10th amendment and of a bill that I have introduced each Congress since the 104th Congress, the Enumerated Powers Act. I speak today as a member of the Constitution caucus, chaired by my colleague, Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey. It is a caucus that is dedicated and works tirelessly to illuminate the importance of the Constitution and of the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' Let me emphasize that again. ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' What that means is that the Founding Fathers intended our national government to be a limited government, a government of limited powers that cannot expand its legislative authority into areas reserved to the states or to the people. As the final amendment in the 10 Bill of Rights, it is clear that the Constitution establishes a Federal Government of specifically enumerated and limited powers. For that reason, as I indicated, I have introduced, each year since I have been in this Congress, the Enumerated Powers Act. This bill would require that all pieces of legislation introduced in the Congress, by a Member of Congress, would have to contain a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority granted by the Constitution to the U.S. Congress by which that piece of legislation was to be enacted. This measure would enforce a constant and ongoing re-examination of the role of our national government. The Enumerated Powers Act is simple. It is simply intended to require a scrutiny that we should look at what we enact and that, by doing so, we can slow the growth and reach of the Federal Government, and leave to the states or the people, those functions that were reserved to them by the Constitution. It will perform three most important functions. First, it would encourage Members of Congress to pause and reflect and to consider whether they propose a piece of legislation, whether it belongs at the Federal level in the allocation of powers under our U.S. Constitution, or properly belongs with the states or with the people. Second, it would function to force us to include a statement in the legislation explaining by what authority we are acting. And third, it would give the United States Supreme Court the ability to look at the constitutional justification for each piece of legislation, and if that constitutional justification did not stand up to scrutiny, the courts and the people would find it easier to hold the Congress accountable and to eliminate those acts which are beyond the scope of the Constitution. In 1787, when the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they created a national government with great powers but limited powers, believing that granting specific, rather than general legislative power to the national government would be a central mechanism for protecting freedom while allowing us still to achieve the objectives of a national government. As a result, the Constitution gives the Federal Government only 18 specific enumerated powers, just 18 powers. For the largest part of our history, for the first 130 years, the Constitution served as a bulwark against excessive Federal regulation and against excessive all powerful Federal Government. Unfortunately, the restraint that Congresses demonstrated under that provision of the Constitution has largely been abandoned in the latter half of the 20th Century and now in the 21st Century. Beginning with the New Deal, modern Congresses have displayed a willingness to ignore the 10th amendment in order to greatly expand the Federal Government. Let me be clear. Virtually all the measures which go beyond the scope of the powers granted to the Federal Government by the 10th amendment are well-intentioned. But unfortunately, many of them are not authorized by the Constitution. The Federal Government has ignored the Constitution and expanded its authority into every aspect of human conduct, and quite sadly, it is not doing many of those things very well. The size and scope of the Federal Government has exploded, and there is a belief that the Federal Government can do anything. And yet, that is not what the Founding Fathers intended. For too long, the Federal Government has operated without constitutional restraint, blatantly ignoring the principles of federalism. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting a review and a criticism and an evaluation of the proper role of the Federal Government in order to empower the American people and to distribute power as the Constitution contemplated it.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, I think it is important to sort out what this debate really is about. It is not about union workers and it is not about unions. I understand people who support unions and union workers. What this debate is about is too much power for unions. Don't take my word for it. Listen to The Los Angeles Times. ``Unions once supported the secret ballot for the organization elections . . . Whether to unionize is up to workers. A secret ballot ensures them that their choice will be a free one.'' You simply cannot come to this floor and say this bill is balanced or fair, because it does not treat both sides right. If you want to decertify a union, that is a secret ballot under this bill. If you want to create a union, it has to be by card check. Why isn't it extended to both issues?

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And just to follow up, I was going to actually begin my remarks tonight by noting the tremendous speech I thought that was given by my colleague Mr. McHugh, I believe it was the night before last, in the midst of this important debate. And I think this is an extremely important debate. Indeed, I think this is the most important debate in my 12 years in the United States Congress and I would assert the most important debate this Congress may, indeed, ever have. But with regard to being unpatriotic, I want to make my position clear and I want to reference what Mr. McHugh said. First, I respect every Member on the other side of the aisle, and I respect their right to express their views. And, quite frankly, the other evening when I spoke in this debate, I said I respect and share their frustration, both at where we are in this war and how we got there. But the gentleman pointed out that he hadn't heard anybody labeled unpatriotic. I think Mr. McHugh's comments were quite in tone with what I have heard in the portion of this debate that I have watched, and I have watched a lot. And he said, ``I have listened today with great interest, and I have enormous respect for Members on both sides of the aisle.'' I have that respect. I have the respect for the sincerity of my colleagues on both sides of this aisle. We have, however, an important disagreement which deserves to be aired. I think there is an important question that needs to be asked. That question is, if we do not defeat radical jihadists in Iraq, the radical Islamists with whom we are at war there now, if we do not defeat them in Iraq, then where? And if we do not defeat them now, then when? Let me first start by making a few points about the record and setting the record straight. My colleague from Texas pointed out a few moments ago that we are each entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. I would suggest that there is a fact across this Nation, an accepted fact, which is flat untrue. And it was referred to in the debate here just a few moments ago. And that is the notion that Shia and Sunni have been at war with each other for hundreds of years and killing each other for hundreds of years. Today, the bipartisan Antiterrorism Caucus met, and we heard from an expert from Brookings, and he said that is simply not true. The notion that we are in the midst of a civil war that has gone on for hundreds of years simply is not true. It is not a fact. What is a fact is that we face an extraordinary enemy, an enemy that hates us, an enemy that has been taught a set of beliefs that requires them to kill us; that requires them to kill all Americans, all Westerners, all unbelievers; indeed, a radical jihadist sect that calls for them to kill many Muslims and to do so without excuse. To break all law in doing so. To ignore international law in doing so. I would call my colleagues to read this book, ``Knowing the Enemy'' by Mary Habeck. I read it after she spoke to the bipartisan Antiterrorism Caucus. I want to read a few paragraphs out of this book because I believe it is important to understand: ``Jihadist ideologues use this generally accepted belief to argue that their interpretation of Islam is also intended for the entire world, which must be brought to recognize this fact peacefully if possible and through violence if not.'' We have been told over and over and over and over again that these jihadists, the radical jihadists, hate us. In the debate earlier on this floor I asked my colleagues, I asked anyone on either side of the aisle, if you can name for me a single radical jihadi leader who has said that if America leaves Iraq, if America will pull back from Iraq, the war will end? I have asked that question on this floor at least twice, maybe three times, and nobody has taken it up. And the answer is because that is not what they want. I listened to the debate here tonight and I respect it. As I said, I share the frustration over where we are in this war. But if you listen carefully to this debate, what you hear is: well, if we will stop, the war will end. I am afraid it is not that true. I am afraid it is not that easy. I am afraid it is not that simple. If we were to stop, the war would not end. Listen to the words of al Qaeda, the words of Osama bin Laden, the words of Ayman al Zawahiri. Over and over and over again, they have told us that that would not be the end of the war. Indeed, it would not end their war against us. Let me talk first about Ayman al Zawahiri. Here is his quote: ``It is jihad for the sake of God and will last until our religion prevails . . . The entire world is an open battlefield for us. We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns.'' Osama bin Laden: ``The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.'' Ayman al-Zawahiri again: ``The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals; expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority or amarat, extend the jihad to secular countries neighboring Iraq, and then the clash with Israel.'' And last, Osama bin Laden: ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty. We hope to be rewarded by God for it. I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.'' There is no end to this war simply because we choose to stop fighting. It will not go away. Let me refer again to Mary Habeck and ``Knowing the Enemy,'' which, Mr. Speaker, I hope you have read and all others who participate in this debate will read. ``The three main jihadist ideologues make clear a central point of the ongoing war with falsehood: That it will continue until Islam has liberated the entire world from darkness, tyranny and servitude. Jihadists thus neither recognize national boundaries within the Islamic lands, nor do they believe that the coming Islamic state when it is created should have permanent borders with unbelievers. The recognition of such boundaries would end the expansion of Islam and stop offensive jihad, both of which are transgressions against the laws of God that command jihad to last until judgment day or until the entire Earth is under the rule of Islamic law.'' It would be nice if we could ask this war to go away, but it won't. So I ask again, if you do not want to confront radical jihadists in Iraq, then where? And if not now, then when? This war did not begin in 2003. It began not in 2001 with the attack on the World Trade Center. No. We have been at war with these radical jihadists for decades. In 1979, radical jihadists seized the American embassy in Tehran and held American hostages for 444 days. In 1983, radical jihadists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut; 241 were murdered. In 1988, they brought down Pan Am Flight 103, known as the Lockerbie bombing; 270 were murdered. In 1993, Islamic terrorists attacked the World Trade Center for the first time; six were murdered. In 1996, they attacked the Khobar Towers. I have been to Khobar Towers before it was brought down. I saw where they killed 19 U.S. servicemen. 1998, al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. They killed 212 in Tanzania and 11 were murdered in Kenya. In 2000, the Islamic terrorists attacked the USS Cole and 17 are murdered there. 2001, they attacked New York, Washington and Pennsylvania and they killed 3,000. This war is the heart of the war on terror, and if we do not confront them now, then when? If we do not confront them in Iraq, then where? There have been parallels to prior wars. I would suggest that this debate is similar, very similar, to the debate that led up to our involvement both in the World War I and World War II. Men of goodwill do like not to engage in war. It would be nice to have been able to believe that Hitler would go away, and well-meaning Americans argued that we should stay out of that war. But ultimately we couldn't, because ultimately the Japanese empire attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we recognized that we had to be involved in that war. I would suggest to you that that is where we are now, and I would suggest to you that there is no such thing when you are at war as a nonbinding resolution, and there is no such thing as a resolution that does not do damage to the morale our troops. Let me conclude, if I might, just by pointing out that this resolution may send a message to the White House, and I understand and sympathize with the desire to do that. But the more important message it will send is to our allies around the world that America cannot be trusted, that America cannot be relied upon, that America is an ally that will leave. Osama bin Laden has said it over and over and over again: Attack them, fight them. Ultimately they will grow weak and they will back down.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Pete Hegseth served in both Baghdad and Samarra for a year. He was an infantry platoon leader in Iraq. He fought both on the streets of Baghdad and Samarra, and here is what First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth said about the surge. He never heard the term ``surge,'' but he described the struggle he faced. He said, and I quote, ``America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back.'' ``We simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now.'' That was last October. Discussing his situation in Samarra, Lieutenant Hegseth went on. There in Samarra, he goes on to say, and I quote, ``We had just enough troops to control Samarra and secure ourselves, but not enough to bring lasting stability or security.'' He goes on and says, ``Two things are to blame for our predicament. The first reason is that we did not have enough troops in Samarra,'' and I quote ``the second, because of a lack of troops, American military leaders,'' those on the ground, those engaged in this fight, ``are forced to make a choice between mission objectives and self- preservation.'' He goes on to complain that all too often that choice that they are forced into is protection of our troops, not mission objectives. Let me tell you how he concluded, because I think it is pertinent to this debate, where what we seek to do is to disapprove the surge of 20,000 troops. I believe that the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Pete Hegseth asks, and I quote, ``Why then do we have just enough troops in Iraq not to lose?'' To conclude, he says ``Americans understand a defeat in Iraq would have horrible consequences for America and its allies for decades to come. America has the capacity to win.'' He wrote, ``Why then are we pursuing a bare minimum approach?'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous and ill-advised resolution.

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise to discuss a part of this debate that relates to the Intelligence Committee, and I think it is important that I thank them for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have argued on this floor that this discussion and debate ought to be about more than just Iraq, indeed, that it is about the worldwide jihadist movement to attack us. I have argued and quoted many jihadist leaders who have said their goal isn't just to win in Iraq, but to take that fight to Westerners and, in turn, ``unbelievers'' throughout the world. But I am not alone in that view. This is the language of the National Intelligence Estimate written last April, and it warns America in very simple terms. It sets the case forward in two clear sentences, which I hope all of my colleagues have read and thought through. The first sentence is, ``We assess that . . . perceived jihadist success [in Iraq] there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.'' What does that tell you? If they are successful, if the jihadists who hate us in Iraq are successful there, they will carry that struggle on elsewhere. Ask yourself, where is elsewhere? I would suggest to you elsewhere is Great Britain. I would suggest to you elsewhere is Japan. I would suggest to you elsewhere is the United States of America and the streets of your hometown. I have challenged my colleagues on the other side of this debate to name for me a single jihadi or Islamist leader, name one, name me just one who has said if we withdraw from Iraq, if we pull our troops back, they will stop. Name me one who has said that if we leave Iraq they will walk away and not carry their fight to the rest of the world. But I am not alone in saying this issue is bigger. Let me tell you what the National Intelligence Estimate, written by our Nation's best and brightest intelligence experts in every intelligence agency we have, said next. They said, ``Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.'' That is the national intelligence community giving us a simple message. If we prevail in Iraq, the world will be safer. If we are defeated in Iraq, the world will be more dangerous. Now, I would argue that there ought to be some attention given to the words of the troops in the field, and I want to devote the rest of my remarks to a column written by First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth last October. Mr. Speaker, I would ask to insert this column by First Lieutenant Hegseth in the Record. More Troops, Please--``Not Losing'' Isn't the Same as Winning (By First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth) I've heard President Bush repeatedly state he will send more troops to Iraq if the commanders on the ground ask for them. I think, having returned home from Iraq two months ago, that there must be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. Maybe units on the ground are painting too rosy a picture for the generals. Perhaps the generals aren't asking because it goes against the ``can do'' ethos of the Army. Possibly the military is being squeezed by the Pentagon to do more with less. Or maybe the White House doesn't want to admit more troops are needed. In any case, while I do not have the answers nor do I seek to place blame, it is painfully obvious there's a disconnect. I volunteered to serve in Iraq because I believe in our mission there. I share the president's conviction about the Iraq war--we can and must win, for the Iraqi people, for the future of our country and for peace-loving people everywhere. But I'm frustrated. America is fighting with a hand tied behind its back. Soldiers have all the equipment we need-- armored humvees, body armor for every body part, superior technology, etc.--but we simply do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we need them now. After witnessing two national elections during three months in Baghdad, my Army unit moved north to Samarra, where we spent eight months sowing the seeds of progress. While we had success in uprooting the insurgency and building the local government, it wasn't enough. We had just enough troops to control Samarra and secure ourselves, but not enough to bring lasting stability or security. ``Not enough'' became the story of my year in Iraq. The future of Samarra, and Iraq as a whole, ultimately lies in the hands of her people--their sympathies are the ultimate prize in this war. No matter how many insurgents we kill, city leaders we meet or policemen we enlist, it is all for naught if we cannot provide security and stability. Tribal sheikhs told us that even within Samarra--deep in the Sunni triangle--a vast majority of people just want peace and order and will side with whoever can provide it. Right now Samarrans rightfully question who that will be. The end goal is for Iraqis to do everything for themselves. But their government and security forces are not ready. Insurgents use death threats and murder to assert power over anyone working with the City Council or joining the police force. This atmosphere forces moderate Samarrans to keep their mouths shut, and their silence abets the insurgents who live and fight in Samarra. Despite killing scores of insurgents, we are unable to provide lasting security, and so the Samarran street slips away. Two things are to blame for our predicament, one a corollary of the other. The first reason is that we did not have enough troops in Samarra. The skill and courage of 150 American soldiers prevented chaos, but was never enough to fully secure a city of 120,000 people or maintain the rule of law. The soldiers in the city were preoccupied with defending themselves and conducting night raids, and were therefore largely unable to regularly patrol during the day--thus giving insurgents reign to move freely and intimidate the local population. A visitor in Samarra on an average day would be hard-pressed to point out a single American humvee traversing local neighborhoods. The same is true for Baghdad. Our four-vehicle civil-affairs patrol was often the only American presence deep inside the city and we were frequently greeted by locals with the question, ``Where have you been?'' Americans can't of course be omnipresent; but we should at least be there when it matters. When Americans are there, either the insurgents are not or they are on the losing side of a firefight. Second, because of a lack of troops, American military leaders are forced to make a choice between mission objectives and self-preservation. Many of our leaders are opting to guard supply routes and coagulate on sprawling military bases, rather than consistently moving into dangerous areas and fighting the insurgency. In our case, we had 500 soldiers stationed outside Samarra who made infrequent trips into the city center. There is little reason why most of these troops were not stationed inside Samarra, canvassing every neighborhood with platoon-sized patrol bases and suffocating insurgent operations. Rather than take the risks necessary--like small patrol bases and frequent foot patrols--our unit opted to secure itself and its supply routes rather than commit resources inside the city. And while this approach is safer in the short run, it only prolongs mission accomplishment, ultimately endangering more troops. We often speculated our unit would be back next year, driving the same streets with even fewer guys. I believe that ``the safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.'' Why then do we have just enough troops in Iraq not to lose? Americans understand a defeat in Iraq would have horrible consequences for America and its allies for decades to come. America has the capacity to win. Why then are we pursuing a bare minimum approach?

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mourn the loss of my friend, Charlie Norwood, and to pay tribute to him and his record, and to extend my sympathies to his wife and his family. Charlie Norwood was an extraordinary human, an extraordinary soldier and an extraordinary United States Congressman, and the Nation is better for his service. You have heard it said here, over and over and over again, that he was passionate, that he was a fighter for the cause, whether that was in Vietnam, whether that was in his chosen field, dentistry, or whether that was here in the United States Congress. I worked closely with Charlie on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I believed deeply, as Charlie did, that individual human beings, patients, were being injured by the practices of managed care companies around the country, and that we needed to do something about that. Charlie injected himself in that fight with the kind of passion that Charlie brought to every fight. And I worked shoulder to shoulder with Charlie in that fight, and Dr. Tom Coburn, and learned what a great individual and what an inspiring principled human being he was. But the best thing about Charlie was the twinkle in his eye. When Charlie got into a fight, he would literally light up, and light the room with a twinkle of being able to press forward with his fight and his belief and his passion. We will all miss him. I consider it a privilege to have known him.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I have listened to his eloquent words today about the radical threat we face. I have a fundamental question for the other side. I thought our colleague from New York did a superb job of acknowledging the good intentions of every Member of Congress involved in this debate and the good intentions of the majority. I share his frustration with the progress of the war to date. I share the comments made by my colleagues on the other side who are unhappy at how we got here. But I think that misses what I believe is the essential question we confront now, and that is, where do we go from here? What will this resolution do? And I would suggest that that is a question that has not been examined in this debate. I would suggest that many would like to wish this war would go away, that many would like to believe that if the United States withdrew its troops from Baghdad and withdrew its troops from Iraq that somehow Iraq as a problem would go away. But, Mr. Chairman, you have made the point over and over and over again today: this isn't about Iraq. I would ask my colleagues on the other side can they name a single jihadi leader, a single radical Islamist, who has said if they prevail in Iraq, if we will just leave Iraq, that this will end, that they will no longer desire to conquer the world, that they will back away from all of their rhetoric about attacking all Westerners everywhere? And I suggest you can't name anyone like that. Let me read you just a few quotes to make this point. Ayman al Zawahiri, we all know who he is, a well-known jihadi leader: ``It is a jihad for the sake of God and will last until our religion prevails.'' Not until we abandon Iraq, but until their religion prevails. ``The entire world is an open battlefield for us,'' he goes on to say. ``We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns.'' Ayman al Zawahiri does not say we will attack until the war in Iraq ends, we will attack until Americans pull out of Baghdad, we will attack until they are no longer in the nation of Iraq. He says, ``We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns.'' Again al Zawahiri: ``The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Note that that is only the first stage. ``The second stage: establish an Islamic authority or emirate. The third stage: extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.'' It will not end. If your resolution, if a resolution tonight, could end this war and bring our boys home and our girls home and make the world safe, I would be the first to vote for it. But it won't. Osama bin Laden says it clearly: ``Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.'' We are on notice. I think we have to take them at their word. It isn't about Iraq. It is about our confrontation, a historic confrontation, with radical jihadists who seek to kill us

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 63, the resolution that calls on us to disapprove of the increase in troops in Iraq. I rise to oppose it, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to carefully reflect on what we are doing. This debate may benefit the American people. This resolution will undoubtedly harm America and harm our troops. Every American wants our troops home. Every American wants this war over. But it is not that easy. You cannot just wish this war would end and believe it will go away as a problem for America. Life is never that easy. Let us begin with the text of the resolution. Make no mistake about it, it is very brief, and all of us should have read it. It is two sentences long. It essentially says: stay the course. A resolution which says, we oppose increasing troops, but we support our current troops is a resolution that says, stay the course. It is not a resolution that says withdraw. That might be a morally defensible position, because perhaps we should withdraw, at least some believe. It is not a resolution that says, put in more troops. It is a resolution that says, adding more troops is wrong, but we support those that are there. That is a resolution to stay the course. I would suggest no American believes we should stay the course. I would suggest that the RAND study and the Army's manual on counterinsurgency both suggest that staying the course is wrong. Indeed, it is a recipe for failure. Both RAND and our own counterinsurgency manual say, if anything, we should have between 400,000 and 450,000 troops there. So why would we support staying the course? Now, we all know that many of us, and I included, wanted a change in strategy in Iraq. My colleagues on the other side called for a change in strategy. This surge is the change in strategy. Indeed, and I am mystified, and I am glad some of my colleagues today have made the point, this is the change in strategy, at least one of them, recommended by the Iraq Study Group. I thought my colleagues on the other side supported that. It seems to me that there is also an important flaw in this debate. My colleagues say that this is a nonbinding resolution. I would suggest to you that when you are at war, and when the United States Congress acts with regard to that war, it is not nonbinding. The world is watching. The world is watching every word that is said on this floor. I believe we have a moral duty to finish what we began. Earlier on the floor, my colleagues have mentioned that many leaders in the region, in the Middle East, have begged us not to leave. They have begged us to stay at least long enough to stand up the Iraqi Government so that it can defend itself. They have implored us not to leave. Let me give you their words. They have said, because they opposed our originally going in, the coalition came uninvited, it should not leave uninvited. They are making the point that we have a duty to finish this effort. They have talked about analogies. They pointed out that a heart surgeon who begins a heart surgery is not entitled, halfway through the surgery, to say, you know what, I am tired, I want to leave. On the other side of the aisle many of my colleagues have said this is hard. Indeed, it is hard. But that is not a justification for leaving. The best analogy I heard was one that said, this is like stepping on a land mine, where you put your foot on it, but you know that if you lift your foot off it will blow up. We have put our foot on a land mine in Iraq. But if we lift our foot off before the Iraqi Government can defend itself, it will blow us up, and it will blow them up. You cannot wish this war away. And so I would suggest this resolution is binding. The world is watching. Our allies, if we abandon Iraq, will never trust us again. But why do they want a nonbinding resolution? Because they do not want to accept responsibility. The President does not have that choice. He has responsibility. Those who oppose this war have a duty to take a stand, one side or the other. If you oppose the war, then seek withdrawal. If you do not, then do not undermine our troops. Because make no mistake, this nonbinding resolution hurts our troops. Let me just conclude with this point. In the midst of an ongoing war, it is impossible to support the troops and oppose the mission. Let me make that clear. The world is watching. Our enemies, al Qaeda, and the radical jihadists who hate us and want to kill us are watching. If we tell them we oppose the mission, we are encouraging them. They have guns, rockets, and missiles pointed at our troops. This resolution is a grave error. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. SHADEGG

Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in the Contract with America we offered to the minority 154 amendments. We had a functioning Rules Committee. Every bill in the Contract with America went through the standing committee process. Every bill went to the Rules Committee. The minority was entitled to bring amendments to, I think, all but two of those bills. This was our first effort. This was our first initiative to claim the attention of the American people. We allowed the minority at that time to offer 154 amendments. And in that period, 48 of the minority's amendments were accepted. Now we have been here almost 1\1/2\ months, and we are being allowed the ability to amend only those bills on which there is no controversy. I agree with the minority: the Speaker of the House should be protected. I agree with the minority that whether she is protected or not is an important issue for this Congress. But I do not agree that the minority isn't entitled to debate the expenditure of public funds, as we are doing here. I do not agree that this is an issue where, if the White House says it is a silly issue, we are not supposed to raise it. If that is the rule in this House, then I think there are a lot of things the White House is saying that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are challenging. And it seems to me that if you are unhappy with this debate, then you need to look at the context in which this debate occurs. And I would suggest to you that next week when we begin a debate on the war in Iraq and a debate on the war against the jihadis who threaten our lives in America, who threaten world security, I only hope, I dearly hope, that you will give us an open rule or a rule that allows each of the alternatives to be debated, because if you don't do that, if you continue to repress the rights of the minority, then you are going to have to expect this kind of debate by us whenever we can raise it. It is our duty to our constituents. It is our obligation.

Mr. SHADEGG. Will the gentleman answer the question I asked, though? Will there be an open rule in the debate on Iraq next week?