PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2007
States that Congress disagrees with the plan announced by the President on January 10, 2007, to increase by more than 20,000 the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and urges the President to consider the options set forth in this resolution.
States that Congress believes that: (1) the military rules of engagement must allow maximum opportunity for U.S. and coalition forces to pursue the enemy in Iraq; (2) U.S. Armed Forces fighting insurgents and al Qaida terrorists in Al Anbar Province need to be reinforced as determined by military commanders; (3) the Iraq reconstruction effort must focus on projects with a small security footprint; (4) one person in Iraq must have absolute authority and responsibility for reconstruction funding; (5) the United States and its Middle Eastern allies should develop an Iraqi repatriation program; (6) terrorism has been fueled by staggering unemployment rates in Iraq and that the United States with its allies should develop an economic development plan for Baghdad and Al Anbar Province; and (7) the U.S. government should develop a program to open and revitalize the several hundred shuttered state-owned enterprises in Iraq with primary focus on Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.
People & committees
Rep. Rogers, Mike J. [R-MI-8] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1582)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Con.Res.65 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Con.Res.65 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Con.Res.65 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Con.Res.65 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.