![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.302083333333333in" height="1.125in"}

# Legislative Bulletin..............................................February 13, 2007

**Contents:**

**H.Con.Res. 63**---Disapproving of the decision of the President
announced on January 10, 2007, to

deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq

**H.Con.Res. 63---Disapproving of the decision of the President
announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
United States combat troops to Iraq (*Skelton, D-MO*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered starting on Tuesday, February 13^th^, subject to a [closed
rule]{.underline} (H.Res. 157). The rule provides for general debate:

-   not beyond midnight on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, equally divided
    and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
    their designees;

-   not beyond midnight on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, equally divided
    and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or
    their designees; and

-   lasting 12 hours on Thursday, February 15, 2007, equally divided and
    controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
    designees.

The rule also provides for one motion to recommit
**[without]{.underline}** instructions. Further, the rule deems the
previous question as ordered to final adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question.

**[In other words, the Minority will not be allowed to offer any
amendment at any time during the consideration of this
resolution.]{.underline}**

On each request of the Majority Leader or his designee, after
consultation with the Minority Leader, it shall be in order at any time
to debate the resolution for an additional hour, equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their
designees.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 63 would resolve that:

-   "Congress and the American people will continue to support and
    protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are
    serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

-   "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush
    announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional
    United States combat troops to Iraq."

**[Related Legislation]{.underline}**: Several RSC Members have recently
introduced legislation relating to the ongoing war in Iraq and the
Commander-in-Chief's role in such war. For example:

-   **Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)** has introduced H.R. 511, "to pledge the
    faithful support of Congress to members of the United States Armed
    Forces serving in harm's way." The bill states several findings
    about the congressional authorizations of military action in the
    Middle East and reaffirms that "Congress will not cut off or
    restrict funding for units and members of the Armed Forces that the
    Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of
    Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom."

-   **Rep. Steve King (R-IA)** and **Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)** have
    introduced H.Res. 147, "expressing the sense of the House of
    Representatives that the United States is committed to victory in
    the global War on Terror and committed to victory on that
    battlefield in the War on Terror that is Iraq." The resolution
    states a variety of findings regarding the necessity that Iraq come
    to "govern, sustain, and defend itself." It then resolves that "the
    consequences of failure in Iraq pose a serious threat to security of
    the American people and the security and economic interests of the
    United States," and "the House of Representatives supports the
    members of the United States Armed Forces and their mission in Iraq
    and in the global War on Terror and is committed to providing the
    Armed Forces with the moral and tangible support necessary to
    complete the mission and secure victory."

-   **Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)** has introduced H.Res. 150, "expressing
    the sense of the House of Representatives that the Commander of
    Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his
    command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to
    carry out the United States mission in Iraq." The resolution would
    assert that "Iraqi political leaders must show visible progress
    toward meeting specific benchmarks." 11 benchmarks are then listed
    in the resolution and the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the
    Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq are urged to report each
    month to Congress on the progress being made by Iraqis toward
    achieving the benchmarks. The resolution gives no benchmark
    instructions to the President.

-   **Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)** has introduced H.Con.Res. 64, "expressing
    the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for
    American troops in the field which would result in undermining their
    safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions." The
    resolution contains several findings about the President's and
    Congress' separate powers in wartime.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: On January 10, 2007, President
Bush announced to the nation a new strategy for the war in Iraq, which
includes sending approximately 20,000 more American troops (primarily to
Baghdad) to work alongside the Iraqi Army and National Police to quell
the sectarian violence in and around Baghdad. Specifically, President
Bush defined the new mission, commonly known as "the surge," as follows:
"to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the
local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind
are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs." The
additional troop levels are designed to help hold the neighborhoods once
they have been cleared of insurgents. In the past, as the President has
pointed out, American troops would help clear Baghdad neighborhoods but
then would have to move on to other areas because of insufficient troop
levels (thus allowing insurgents to return to previously cleared
neighborhoods).

To read the President's announcement of the new strategy in Iraq, visit
this webpage:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html>.

The bi-partisan Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of
State James A. Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton (D-IN), on page
50 of its report, after arguing that a 100,000-troop, long-term increase
is undesirable, stated that, "We could, however, support a shorter
redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or
to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in
Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."
<http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf>.

The new Multi-National Force Commander-Iraq, General David Petraeus, and
the new Combatant Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon,
have endorsed the surge:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012300633_2.html>.

For more information on the Iraq Study Group, visit this website:
<http://www.usip.org/isg/>.

On September 14, 2001, Congress passed S.J.Res. 23 (Public Law 107-40),
authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan. Specifically, the
resolution authorized the President to "use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he
determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
organizations or persons." The resolution passed by unanimous consent in
the House and by 98-0 in the Senate:
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281>.

On October 10, 2002, the House passed H.J.Res. 114 (Public Law 107-243),
authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, by a vote of 296-133:
<http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2002&rollnumber=455>. The
following day, the Senate passed the same resolution by a vote of 77-23:
<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237>.
Specifically, the resolution authorized the President to "use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United
States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

In the cases of both resolutions above, Congress noted that the
resolutions were "intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers
Resolution."

The War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148; November 7, 1973) affirms
that "the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief
to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution asserts that the President would have to terminate
any such introduction of Armed Forces within 60 days (subject to one
30-day extension), if Congress:

-   does not declare war or enact a specific authorization for such use
    of United States Armed Forces;

-   does not extend by law such sixty-day period; or

-   is not physically able to meet as a result of an armed attack upon
    the United States.

To read the full text of the War Powers Resolution, visit this webpage:
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm>.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United States...." To read a thoughtful analysis of the President's and
Congress' powers during wartime, see this paper by the Heritage
Foundation: <http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm1347.cfm>.

More than 137,000 members of the U.S. Armed Forces are currently serving
in Iraq in some capacity.

For more information on the latest events in the War on Terrorism in the
Middle East, visit this webpage: <http://www.defendamerica.mil/>. For
talking points on various aspects of the war and the surge, please refer
to the documents circulated in recent emails by RSC Communications
Director Brad Dayspring, specifically in regards to calls to action on
Rep. Sam Johnson's bill, H.R. 511 (see details above).

**[RSC Bonus Fact]{.underline}**: On December 29, 2006, former Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein was hanged at the 5th Division intelligence
office in Qadhimiya for his role in the 1982 Dujail massacre, in which
148 Iraqis were killed after a failed assassination attempt against the
then-Iraqi president. No non-Iraqis were present at the hanging.

<http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The resolution was introduced on
February 12, 2007, and referred to the Armed Services and Foreign
Affairs Committees, none of which took subsequent public action.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that this resolution would undermine the mission of the
U.S. and its allies in Iraq, demoralize the troops who face the daily
threat of dying in a war zone, unconstitutionally question the authority
of the Commander-in-Chief, and embolden America's enemies, who gain
strength from American weaknesses, retreats, and failures.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: The Administration opposes
this resolution.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution would authorize no
expenditure.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718