Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it has come to my attention that a long and exceptionally distinguished career will soon come to an end. RADM Stanton Thompson of Higginsville, Missouri, will retire from his position as the county executive director for the Farm Service Agency on November 14, 2008.

Rear Admiral Thompson grew up in Saline County, where he graduated from Slater High School. Following that, Mr. Thompson received two degrees from the University of Missouri--Columbia.

In 1977, Rear Admiral Thompson began his career with the Farm Service Agency as the Caldwell County executive director. With the support of his family and friends, he was able to carry on a successful career spanning 30 years as the county executive director of both Lafayette and Caldwell counties. In 2002, Rear Admiral Thompson's office was nationally recognized when it received the FSA Administrator's Award for efforts to educate women landowners. Thompson has directed a comprehensive overhaul of the state's management training program, utilizing his experience of training over 100 county operations trainees. As director of the Farm Service Agency, Rear Admiral Thompson helped issue millions of dollars in Federal agricultural program benefits to over 3,000 customers.

In addition to his accomplished business career, Rear Admiral Thompson is a retired two-star Admiral in the U.S. Navy Reserve, providing our Nation with over 35 years of service. He is it veteran of the Vietnam war, First Gulf war, and the global war on terrorism.

Madam Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to RADM (Ret.) Stanton Thompson for his outstanding career and dedication to his country and in wishing him all the best as he enters the next stage of his life with his wife, Sandy, and with his loving children and grandchildren.

I thank the gentleman.

I thank Majority Leader Hoyer and Minority Leader Boehner for crafting this elegant, bipartisan resolution today, solemnly marking the tremendous tragedy of 9/11 and honoring the thousands of Americans who have worked since to recover and stop a similar event from happening again.

And although the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks will resonate for generations, the terrorists' cold- blooded violence will never break the American spirit, alter our values, or shake our resolve.

The job of protecting the American people is a perpetual responsibility. We are blessed with dedicated men and women in uniform and civilian roles who serve our Nation with honor here at home as well as abroad.

As we remember the fallen today, all of us must renew our commitment to do all that is necessary to protect our families, our communities, and our Nation.

I cannot say enough in recognition of the incredible sacrifices being made by military families around the world. Time and again, we grow concerned that the burden for them will be too great, and yet they've continued to amaze us with their dedication to country and devotion to service, not to mention their unsurpassed skill.

I still worry that we have asked too much of these few Americans and too little of the rest of us. But I cannot be prouder of those in uniform and their families.

Seven years ago, al Qaeda terrorists intent on destroying symbols of American power ruthlessly killed thousands of innocent people. The genesis of the 9/11 attacks emerged from al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. I remain deeply concerned that the United States has not given the war in Afghanistan the priority it deserves. That concern was only reinforced yesterday by the testimony of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the House Armed Services Committee. Admiral Mullen testified that the United States is not yet winning in Afghanistan. This is unacceptable, particularly when military and intelligence officials predict that this volatile region is the most likely source of a future attack against our country.

On this day of memory for loss and sacrifice, my resolve to do my part in performing Congress' unique and necessary role in preventing a recurrence of such attack only grows stronger.

Madam Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I inform the House of the death of Mr. S. Lee Kling of Country Life Acres, Missouri.

Mr. Kling was born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended the New York Military Academy and graduated from Washington University, St. Louis. He served in the U.S. Army from 1950 to 1952.

Mr. Kling had a commitment to political service that broke the boundaries of partisanship. He worked as finance chairman for the Democratic National Committee and served as treasurer of President Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign and treasurer of Congressman Richard Gephardt's presidential committee. He received the Democratic National Committee's Distinguished Service Award in 1982. Mr. Kling also held fundraisers for several Republican candidates, and in 2006, Governor Matt Blunt appointed him to the Missouri Veterans' Commission, as well as the Missouri Development and Finance Board in the spring of 2008.

Mr. Kling's political dedication also extended to the international level. In 1977, he represented President Carter at the funeral of the president of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios III. He co-chaired a committee for the ratification of the Panama Canal treaties. In 1979, he served as an economic adviser during the peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt. He was also a civilian aide to Secretary of the Army.

Mr. Kling was appointed by President Clinton to head the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 1995. Three years later, Gephardt asked him to head the Amtrak Reform Council. In addition, Mr. Kling was the chairman of the board of the Bames-Jewish Hospital Foundation and chairman of the Kling Co., an insurance, consulting and investment firm.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Kling was a valuable leader, businessman, philanthropist, and public servant. I know the members of the House will join me in extending heartfelt condolences to his family: his wife, Rosalyn Kling; his four sons, Stephen, Lee, Allan and Frank; and his two grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, we need to begin planning now for the issues our country must focus on when the new President takes office.

This will be the first presidential transition to occur during a time of war in many years. In addition, the next administration will face enormous budget pressures and national security challenges that will require sustained spending and the partnership of the Congress. Let me take this opportunity to discuss what I believe will be the top defense challenges for our next President.

First, we must develop a clear strategy to guide national security policy. Since World War II, the United States has been the indispensable Nation. But our Nation's ability to sustain this leadership role is jeopardized because we lack a comprehensive strategy to advance U.S. interests.

The next President must collaborate with Congress and the American people to formulate a new, broadly understood and accepted strategy to advance our national security interests. The next Quadrennial Defense Review of the Department of Defense must translate this strategy into a clear roadmap for organizing the Department and setting priorities in the next 4 years.

Second, we must restore America's credibility in the world. The full range of threats to our national security can only be addressed through the consistent and determined efforts of multiple nations working together. The new President will set the tone, but the U.S. can only lead and help reinvigorate international institutions if other nations believe we are credible, just, and intend our efforts to serve interests beyond our own.

Third, we must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Violence by the Taliban and al Qaeda is rising. Attacks against the coalition are increasing. And, safe havens in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region are thriving. The genesis of the 9/11 attack was in Afghanistan, and any future attack on our homeland is likely to originate in Afghanistan or in the border region with Pakistan.

Until our country is prepared to lead and act decisively and persistently, problems in Afghanistan will continue to fester. Our efforts in Iraq have diverted resources and focus away from the war in Afghanistan. We must refocus our efforts, and work with the international community to provide the necessary leadership, strategy, and resources to Afghanistan to ensure success in that mission.

Fourth, we must responsibly redeploy from Iraq. The men and women of our Armed Forces have done a magnificent job in Iraq, but the citizens of both the United States and Iraq agree that it is time for the U.S. military to come home. Our challenge is to manage that redeployment and to ensure that it reduces further strain on our military without jeopardizing the gains made in Iraq.

We must continue to protect U.S. citizens in Iraq, pursue terrorists, and help train and equip the Iraqi Security Forces. U.S. combat forces must be freed up to begin the process of resetting, rebuilding, and also refocusing in Afghanistan. The United States will face new challenges to our security and our interests in the future, and we will need the military units that are in Iraq to be returned to their full capability to effectively address them.

Fifth, we must recruit and retain a high-quality force. Our forces are the most highly trained and educated in the world, but we face serious challenges to maintain the quality of force we have today.

The cost to recruit and retain servicemembers has skyrocketed in recent years. And the tendency of Americans to serve in uniform has significantly declined as fewer young people are exposed to the military experience. Finding men and women who are physically and mentally qualified and willing to serve is an ongoing challenge.

Sixth, we must ensure a high state of readiness for our forces. Our troops have been engaged in combat operations for nearly 7 years, and it has strained our military to the breaking point. Restoring readiness will take a significant investment of time and money, easily exceeding $100 million, but it must be done if we are to expect our military to respond ably when we need them. We are already at risk. Either we fix our readiness problems immediately, or else risk emboldening those who would seek to do us harm.

Seven. We must develop a more comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. With the al Qaeda and affiliated groups still presenting a major threat, the United States must apply ``lessons learned'' and be open to the advice of our allies. The key is to fight smarter and not necessarily harder by more effectively utilizing a range of tools beyond just the military-led, kinetic approaches to counterterrorism.

The new administration must more aggressively pursue strategic communications strategies, intelligence and policing work, targeted development assistance, and a range of other counterinsurgency and irregular warfare tools.

Eight, we must strike a balance between the near-term fixes and long- term modernization.

Each of the military services will have to address the fundamental imbalances in their current plans to simultaneously modernize and reset equipment, grow the number of ships in our Navy.

Nine, we must reform the interagency process.

And, ten, we must deal with the looming defense health care crisis.

With increasing defense health care costs, difficulties in recruiting and retaining medical professionals, and the overwhelming demand placed on the medical system as it attempts to support thousands of men and women returning from combat, as well as their families, there is a perfect storm brewing, and in the next few years, that storm will be upon us.

These and other national defense challenges will confront our Nation in the months and years ahead, and Congress and the administration must work together on a bipartisan basis to seriously address these issues. The security of the American people is at stake.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Ann Kutscher on being Empowered Woman of the Present by Missouri GFWC members.

Ms. Kutscher has dedicated her life to service. In addition to her committed efforts in the 4th Congressional District's Jefferson City office, her accomplishments include 22 years of leadership as President of the Missouri Girls Town Board and many other community service organizations. Her award was announced at the Mississippi Valley Regional Conference in Bloomington, MN.

Madam Speaker, I am certain that the Members of the House will join me in congratulating Ms. Kutscher for her achievement and in wishing her luck in all her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize the long and distinguished career of GEN Richard A. Cody who is retiring after serving our nation's military with distinction for 36 years.

General Cody was born in Montpelier, Vermont. He is a graduate from the United States Military Academy. General Cody's military education also includes the Command and General Staff College and the United States Army War College. General Cody is a Master Aviator with over 5,000 hours of flight time and is an Air Assault graduate.

General Cody has received numerous decorations and badges for his outstanding efforts in the United States Army. These decorations and badges include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit (with four Oak Leaf Clusters), the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Air Medal (with numeral device ``3''), the Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Army Achievement Medal, the NATO medal, as well as various other service awards.

General Cody became the 31st Vice Chief of Staff, United States Army, on June 24, 2004. He and his wife are also very proud of their two sons, who both are serving as commissioned officers in the United States Army.

Madam Speaker, I know that Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to GEN Richard A. Cody for his exceptional commitment to his fellow soldiers, the United States Army, and the safety and security of America. As he prepares for the next stage in his life, I am certain that my colleagues will join in me in wishing General Cody, his wife, and their two sons all the best.

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about how the United States can best advance its national interests by adopting a new strategy. In my prior speeches, I have asserted that we currently lack an effective strategy and that the next President should engage in a focused effort, in concert with Congress and the American people, to identify and adopt a new strategy early in his Administration. I have noted that we live in a time when the U.S. is the world's preeminent power, but also in a time when transnational events are increasingly significant and in which several large nations, and some entire regions of the world, are returning to prominence. All of this stresses the international system.

I have asserted that the U.S. should continue to accept the challenge of world leadership, serving as the world's indispensable nation, just as we have for the free world since the end of the Second World War; that we should fulfill this role not to seek or to maintain power for power's sake, but by earning the mantle of leadership. We should advance our national interests not at the expense of others, but wherever possible in cooperation with them, as part of an international system that offers fairness and opportunity to all nations.

So, I advise the next President, whoever it may be, to embark upon a process modeled on President Eisenhower's Project Solarium in order to develop a new strategy for America. In Project Solarium, President Eisenhower selected three of our Nation's top strategic thinkers to gather teams to study, propose, and report back to him on a national security policy. Should our future President follow this model, I recommend that he judge those new proposals against a simple set of principles:

1. The first priority of the Federal Government is the protection of the U.S. homeland and its citizens.

2. The foundation for continued U.S. leadership is the strength of our economy and our commitment to our values and principles.

3. Do not let an outside power dominate Europe or the Western Pacific, and in addition maintain freedom of the seas.

4. U.S. world leadership should be earned by virtue of the esteem other nations hold for us, engendered by our productivity and moral leadership, and not through a self-justifying hegemony which views the peaceful rise of other nations as an inherent threat.

5. Insulate the Western Hemisphere from hostile outside powers with a collaborative approach.

6. Transnational events that can undermine States and challenge or dislocate large numbers of people--the AIDS pandemic, terrorism, and global climate change to give a few examples--should be addressed by international coalitions coordinating globally, using the full range of national power.

7. Our military strength serves as both a source of deterrence for would-be aggressors, and reassurance for our friends and allies, but military action is a last resort. When it is used--whether multilateral or unilateral--strict adherence to the essential strategic tenets propounded by Sun Tzu and Clausewitz is mandatory.

These principles do not in and of themselves define our strategy, for they leave many questions unanswered. What kind of international institutions, coalitions and alliances are essential? What red lines should trigger a certain U.S. response, even if it must be a unilateral response? How do we define what constitutes a fair opportunity to advance for those nations which perceive their current share of the world's resources as inadequate? And what transnational events require a concerted international response? These are judgments for the next President; he should make them with input from a wide variety of sources. I ask all of my colleagues and all of those who have listened to these speeches to take part in a dialogue to help forge a new national consensus on a clear cut strategy that fulfills our principles and helps us answer these hard questions, ultimately guiding us to policies that are wise and just.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to continue my series of discussions about the future of American grand strategy. Last week I suggested that we strive to remain and even bolster our role as the world's indispensable nation, and that should guide our thinking as we consider the imperatives that define our national interest.

Indispensable nation is a term with significant potential for misunderstanding, particularly in this time when our global credibility has ebbed. We must be careful how we explain our intent. Most importantly, we must ensure that our actions meet our words.

Just as a person cannot demand respect, only earn it, so it is for nations too. So we should define indispensable to mean that we inspire by our standards, not coerce, with our demands. We should strive to be indispensable, not because our wrath is feared, but because our strength is valued.

The point is, it's a fine one but essential nonetheless that our role as the world's indispensable nation cannot come by internal proclamation, but rather by external validation.

The engines of our claim to leadership in the future are the engines that made this country great in the first place, our robust economy that provides opportunity while connecting us with the rest of the world in productive partnerships and in our unceasing pursuit of what is right, fair and just, even when we fall short of those ideals. To the extent we veered off course in those areas, whether because of crippling energy dependence, unprecedented levels

of foreign debt, our departure from sound constitutional practices, or even when and how we marshal our forces for war, we must refocus internally to address those challenges and master them once again.

If we redouble our efforts, we can recapture the international prestige that more than anything else translates our unmatched power into the ability to alter the course of world events. As part of this course correction, we must recall the essential truths about war and international relations that were stated so well by Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. I mentioned several of these to our current president in 2002, but we lost sight of these truths in Iraq.

As we do that, there is no reason why we cannot gain the confidence to understand that the term ``challenge,'' even in the international context, need not always have an adversarial meaning. In our daily life we are challenged by those around us, and we come out the better for it.

We are challenged by our professors to be better students. We are challenged by our coaches to be better athletes. We are challenged by our clergy to be better people. We are challenged by our spouses to be better partners.

All of these relationships help refine us, and, in so doing, enrich our lives so that all benefit. We might regard many of our international challenges in much the same way. In the free marketplace of ideas, are those ideas that the United States exemplifies clearly superior? Do we remain the guarantor of liberty and the natural ally against tyranny? Do we provide the best economic and social opportunities for all people with whom we interact?

We need not see that as solely an external challenge. It's also a challenge within ourselves, and we should not miss the opportunity to refine the good things about America so that we remain the obvious, the indispensable choice for a continued global leadership role.

Madam Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to Robert Blosser of Jefferson City, MO, who was recently inducted into the Missouri Newspaper Hall of Fame.

In 1932, Mr. Blosser began his lifelong career with the Jefferson City News Tribune at the age of 18. For a 30 month stretch, Mr. Blosser left for WWII as a combat photographer. Upon his homecoming in 1945, he faithfully returned to the News Tribune. With time, Mr. Blosser became the company's president and also served as president of a local television station owned by the News Tribune. Mr. Blosser's leadership was recognized by the Missouri Press Association when he was elected president of the association in 1976. After numerous years with the News Tribune, Mr. Blosser retired in 1984. He continued to serve on the News Tribune's board of directors until earlier this year when the company was sold.

In addition to these accomplishments, Mr. Blosser served on the board of Chamber of Commerce and Salvation Army in Jefferson City. He has delivered Meals on Wheels for more than 20 years. Mr. Blosser also is an active Lion's Club member and served on the board of the United Way. Still today, at the age of 93, Mr. Blosser mentors at East Grade School in Jefferson City and serves on the board of the Senior Nutrition Center where he frequently volunteers. On top of these achievements, Mr. Blosser and his wife, Marge, have three children.

Madam Speaker, Robert Blosser has distinguished himself as a valuable leader of his community and as a role model for young Americans. I know that members of the House will join me in wishing Robert Blosser all the best.

In matters of national security, we should be forthright and not engage in political back-and-forth. This is a replay of what we experienced with the national security bill, named after our friend Duncan Hunter from California.

I just think it's a play on words. The word ``promptly'' kills the bill. If it were to say ``forthwith,'' it would be a more proper word and we could proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to discuss the need for a comprehensive strategy to advance U.S. interests in the world. Last week I delivered two addresses on this topic. In the second speech, I argued that our understanding of the role the U.S. should play in the world is a foundation of our strategy. It will define our vital interests, and it will condition the means we use for advancing those interests.

Today, the United States is the world's dominant economic, political, and military power. There is no peer or near-peer competitor to us, nor does one appear likely to emerge in the near future. Some have characterized the U.S. as a hegemonic power or as the world's policeman, both those who approve and those who disapprove of such a state of affairs. President Clinton, echoing Winston Churchill, eloquently described a vision of the U.S. as ``the indispensable nation,'' not a world hegemon but a consistent and ever-present ally and arbiter acting around the world.

Still others advocate that the U.S. withdraw from a place of central prominence on the world stage to avoid the costs and implicit responsibilities of that role. I believe the U.S. should remain the world's indispensable nation and in a later speech, I will discuss the

ways in which this role should inform the formulation of our comprehensive strategy, but first let me discuss the other options.

Those who would have us significantly reduce our role on the world's stage cannot provide a credible description of who or what would replace the U.S. in the role of world leadership. The U.N. is not up to the task, nor is there any other international organization. As already mentioned, there is no other country in a position to fill the role of world leadership.

To embrace such an approach, we would have to accept that significant portions of the world would simply be left to their own devices. Yet we know that places as remote as the Hindu Kush are home to those who would attack us and our allies. What other corner of the world, then, do we judge to be so distant and so remote as to be beyond our interest? And how would world fault lines, such as the Taiwan Strait, the India-Pakistan Line of Control, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict respond to a world leadership vacuum? The answer is, not well. In short, for the U.S. to abdicate its position of world leadership would be highly detrimental to our national interest.

What then does accepting a role of world leadership entail? And if it is a current necessity, is it an inherent good to be indefinitely maintained? In other words, should the U.S. view our position as world leader as so necessary to our security that we act largely to maintain this position, which is the primary characteristic of a hegemonic power or empire? Again, the answer is no. To do so is to put our national interest in opposition to the national interests of much of the rest of the world. It is inconsistent with the desires of the American people, with the extent of the costs they're willing to bear for world leadership and, I would argue, with our sense of morality and fair play. Our vital interests should be defined as suggested by President Clinton, by our role as the world's indispensable nation: taking a leadership role in advancing and protecting our interests around the world in concert with our friends and allies as part of an open and evolving international system that is fair to all nations. To do so, we must restore the prestige and credibility of the United States, and repair and rebuild the relationship with our major international partners. With this role as our goal, we can define those interests critical to achieving it, and develop and adopt an appropriate strategy.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we recall that our Nation has been at war for over 6 years. It is often in times of conflict that our uniformed services are called upon, as in wartime now, to extraordinary duty.

It is their families that we seem from time to time to forget, but the support of their families is so very important. They are a very special group. Military families regularly face months of separation, one, two, three, and in some cases, four deployments. Children being born--I recall, Mr. Speaker, not all that long ago coming into port and then helicoptered out to the USS Harry S. Truman and seeing a good number of sailors being allowed to leave the ship first to meet their family and to meet the newborn children of those families that they had never seen before. Stories of children being born, of precious moments like graduations and birthdays being separated.

I think it is important that we in Congress recognize the importance and give moral support and comfort and thanks to those military families who bond together in times of crisis and help each other. And I think it's incumbent upon every American not only to say thanks and show appreciation to those we see in uniform but to do the same thing for the spouses and the children in those wonderful families.

I thank my friend from Connecticut for yielding and take this opportunity to mention the fact that my fellow Missourian, President Harry S. Truman, on the 26th day of July, 1948, signed Executive Order 9981 establishing the ``policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services with regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.'' That executive order also established the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in our armed services.

On the 23rd of this month, our Congress will recognize the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the process of integration for our military.

African American men and women have served this Nation with honor, courage, commitment, even as they were denied the basic constitutional freedoms promised to all Americans. Their successful integration of forces paved the way for further integration of women, Asians, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities.

The cosmopolitan make-up of our armed services is a testament to the American value that we hold dear, that all men are created equal. It is also a reflection of our society that we should treat all individuals, regardless of their race, their color, or national origin with respect and with dignity. And with these days of conflict, our forces, our military forces of our country, are an example of what can be achieved by respecting one's differences and working together to achieve a common goal.

House Concurrent Resolution 297 recognizes the 60th anniversary. I applaud those who have sponsored it, and I applaud the fact that we are taking it up today and recognizing the importance of this anniversary.

Madam Speaker, yesterday I rose to speak about the need for America to embark upon a process to develop a comprehensive strategy to advance U.S. interests in the world. Today I rise to continue that theme; I want to take the conversation a bit further.

A strategy, as I said last night, describes the way we employ all elements of national power to advance our critical interests. Ultimately, determining these critical interests depends upon the place America occupies in the world. What do we see as our role? Who do we want to be, and how do we want to interact with the rest of the globe's inhabitants to get there? That's the fundamental question, of course, but we are not ready to answer it yet.

Instead, we must first consider the domestic and global contexts within which we must act. As our vision of where we want to go evolves, we must have an ongoing dialogue about the effort and the sacrifices we are willing to make. We must also look at the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be, and we must acknowledge that much of the world does not necessarily see us as we would see ourselves. We must look clear- eyed beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Only with that understanding can we determine where we want to go and how we want to get there. But as this vision develops, we must keep in mind that it is no good if we cannot provide the means to achieve it, nor is it useful if it is not a realistic fit with the rest of the world.

The global environment is ever changing. While we cannot control the sea swell of change, we must prepare ourselves to navigate those waters. Regional power is shifting; some large nation states, such as China, India, Brazil, to name a few, are ascending and verge on global power status. Russia may already be there, again. Do their interests conflict or coincide with ours? Is their rise a challenge to oppose or an opportunity to engage? Some of our traditional security arrangements may fade in importance as others take on new meaning. But nation states are not our only concern. It's clear that a number of transnational issues will challenge us while others may provide positive potential. Fundamentalist terrorism and the proliferation of dangerous weapons are obvious examples of serious challenges, of course, but what about climate change, the fragility of increasingly connected world financial markets, or the outbreak of pandemic diseases? These are challenges that present themselves without any malicious intentional human action.

The point here is that the world around us bears significant scrutiny because it represents the context that binds whatever strategy we choose. This is not to say we cannot strive for an ideal. We can and we should. It's how this Nation was formed. The ability to conceive a vision that is breathtaking in scope and heartbreaking in its beauty is America's gift to the world. But while the goal may be the ideal, our understanding of our environment and our selection of the means to reach it must be firmly rooted in realism.

With that thought I close, Madam Speaker. In my next speech addressing these issues, I will talk about the need to return to the fundamentals of strategic understanding, a return to Sun

Tzu, to Clausewitz, to strategic thought rooted not in slogans but in enduring principles.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a fundamental problem affecting the national security of the United States which has not received the notice and consideration it deserves.

The United States suffers from the complete absence of a comprehensive strategy for advancing U.S. interests. This strategic void detracts from almost every policy effort advanced by the United States Government. As a result, major policies are inconsistent and contradictory in different areas of the world and across different policy realms. We find ourselves unable to agree upon and set national priorities for addressing the major challenges of our time. We suffer from a splintering of national power and an inability to coherently address threats and reassure and cooperate with allies.

What do I mean by a comprehensive national strategy? The word ``strategy'' has military roots, coming from the Greek word for ``generalship,'' but the concept of a strategy extends well beyond just the military context. In the context of this speech, and others that I intend to deliver on this topic, it means a commonly agreed-upon description of critical U.S. interests and how to advance them using all elements of national power: economic, diplomatic, and military.

The next President will have a unique opportunity to develop a successful strategy for the Nation. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower took office, he commissioned the Solarium Project to review strategies for dealing with the Soviet Union. After a competitive process in which three teams of advisers promoted the merits of three strategies, President Eisenhower decided to continue the policy of containment developed by President Truman, and did so with a largely unified administration.

Over the course of our history, the U.S. has had numerous successful strategies. During the Cold War, both major political parties supported a strategy of containment for confronting the Soviet Union. During World War II, the United States had a widely-supported strategy of focusing first on the war in Europe and deferring some effort from the war in the Pacific until the Nazi threat was contained. At other times in our Nation's history, we have pursued less successful strategies, such as a strategy of isolationism during the period between World Wars I and II.

The next President would be well advised to engage in and personally lead a Solarium-type approach to determining a strategy for today's rapidly changing world. To ensure that a new strategy for America can truly develop support across the political spectrum, Congress should be involved in the process, and to ensure that a new strategy is one that the American people can support, the general outline of the debate should be shared with and involve the American people.

This speech is the first in a series. In the future I will discuss the objectives and challenges that a new U.S. strategy will need to contend with; some of the means by which the U.S. will likely need to pursue its objectives and their ramifications for the national security apparatus of the United States Government; and some of the options that a Solarium-type review of a strategy by the next President would need to consider.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in urging the next President to address this problem and join with me in a conversation, both in Congress and with the American people, about what today's strategy should be.