[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 19, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6091-H6097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ WATCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here this evening by two of my
colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). In the past, since the commencement of
military action in Iraq, four of us came together and created what we
called the Iraq Watch, which was an effort to assess the situation in
the Middle East with a particular focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, and
the global implications for our national security and for the role of
the United States in the world.
For some 19 months, we would convene here on the floor and have a
dialogue among us. Some of our colleagues are not here this evening,
but our regulars include the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the same State that is
represented by Mr. Ryan, who is a welcome new addition to the Iraq
Watch. So we welcome the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
I would like to begin by just examining the current security
situation in Iraq and reporting to my colleagues and to the American
people.
Through July 17, 1,764 U.S. soldiers have died, and 13,483 have been
wounded in Iraq since the invasion. Now, I know many of my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle have visited our wounded military personnel
in the naval hospital in Bethesda and at Walter Reed. It is, to say the
least, a moving, poignant, and profoundly disturbing experience; and I
know we share, all of us share the absolute best
[[Page H6092]]
wishes for them as they move forward in their lives. We know that they
have many hurdles and many obstacles ahead of them, but that same
courage and that same heroism that they displayed in the war we know
will be with them as they proceed through life.
But it is our obligation here in this Congress, in this House to make
sure that they have every single benefit that they deserve and that all
of our programs are fully funded. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan) serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and has been a
leader in that regard, and I congratulate him.
Since June 2003, 2,642 Iraqi soldiers and police have died. Estimates
of Iraqi civilian deaths since the beginning of the invasion range up
to 60,800. The New York Times recently cited Iraqi government figures
reporting that an average of 500 Iraqis are killed each month by so-
called insurgents. Over a 10-month period ending in May, that rate had
escalated to some 800 a month.
So those are the statistics. Those are the cold, hard statistics.
Now, I know that my colleague, the gentleman from the State of
Washington (Mr. Inslee), has an obligation in about 20 minutes, so I am
going to call on him and ask him for his observations to begin our
conversation.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. An
issue I would like to address tonight is perhaps one of the most
important ones. Of course, we all share the gentleman's admiration for
our troops. I heard of a young man from Ohio who will be going back in
a month or so for his fourth tour of duty in Iraq, so not only our
admiration for our personnel there, but their whole families who are
contributing to this effort, and it has been very, very difficult for
them as well.
But I want to talk about how we can eventually be in a position to be
able to bring our sons and daughters home, and that involves fulfilling
an activity that might seem obvious to anyone who has thought about
this, but, unfortunately, has not been fulfilled by the administration,
and that is that we need to replace American troops with Iraqis.
{time} 2000
We need to get our sons and daughters home and their responsibility
for the security of Iraq needs to be assumed by Iraqis who will stand
up and toe the line for their countries. And until that happens, we are
going to continue to see the enormous losses that are being suffered by
the Iraqis and our sons and daughters now.
And the reason I want to address this, and perhaps it seems obvious
when I say that, but I wanted to share tonight the abject failure of
the administration to do the very obvious things that need to be done
to train the Iraqi security forces. It is obvious in this country that
we need larger number of troops in the security forces now and in the
future to allow the withdrawal of American troops. But we have found
after doing an examination of what the civilian planners, and this is
not a criticism of the military personnel because frankly it is the
civilian personnel, from the Secretary of Defense up through the
President, who have dropped the ball unfortunately, and what is
required to train these Iraqi troops.
Four months ago an assessment showed that we had less than 40 percent
of the training personnel that was anticipated to be in Iraq 6 months
after the collapse of the Iraqi Army, less than half of the training
personnel were there several months ago. And the result has been a
spectacular failure to train and equip and stand up an Iraqi Army.
I remember the first time I ever heard the term stand up. It was from
Secretary Rumsfeld. And he said we are going to stand up the Iraqi
Army. This is before the war started. This army cannot get on its knees
in Iraq right now.
Now, we have been told by the administration that there are 170,000
troops in Iraq. Well, there are 170,000 names on paper, and maybe there
are 170,000 boots, but at most, at most, being generous, there are
three battalions that can actually go out there and provide security in
Iraq, less than 20,000 people. This army is a paper machet force and
we, the administration, has not provided the infrastructures needed to
train it.
Now why have they not done that? Why you would think immediately
after the collapse of the Iraq Army, of course it did not help that the
administration made what appears to be a major tactical blunder, which
was to disband the Iraqi Army in the first place, without any security
in Iraq to replace it, which led to this horrendous looting, if you
will recall, looting that everyone predicted except the civilian
leadership of the military here, knowing the history of Iraq, the
violence in the ethnic groups. The fact that no security was supplied
after the collapse of the Iraqi Army has put us behind the 8 ball.
In any event. At that point you would think the administration would
push the alarm button to say we are going to speed forward as far as we
possibly can to train and equip the Iraqi Army. Boy, were we wrong. In
fact, it is this bad. In this chamber, when the defense bill came to
the floor here the week before last for the appropriations bill, the
majority party had put in a limitation on what could be spent to train
the Iraqi military force. Now, it seems to me that ought to be the
place we should not be scrimping money. We should not be trying to
artificially limit. That is the place we should put the pedal to the
metal and train these forces to replace our sons and daughters as soon
as humanly possible. Now fortunately we passed an amendment that lifted
that cap. I brought an amendment. I appreciate the Chair accepted it,
and we actually got rid of that limitation. But this has been one of a
long train of failures that follows from a fundamental misapprehension
of the situation. And all of these mistakes that we have talked about
flow from one basic misunderstanding by this administration, and that
was the assumption that they made, that they could put on rose colored
glasses and Baghdad would look like Paris in 1944 and the Shiias and
the Sunnis would break bread together and sing Kumbaya and democracy
would flower without standing up an Iraqi Army, without having
security, without having armored HUMVEES, without having flak jackets
for our troops, without having a provision for the National Guard,
which is now so extented that the governors now, you know, the
governors had a meeting just this week saying how are we going to fight
our fires this summer when the National Guard is not here. This has
been a continuation of the rose colored glasses syndrome that has now
resulted in a continued failure to stand up an Iraqi Army.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to kind of expound on that point a
little bit. It is not like there were not people in the country saying
we know you are going to go to Baghdad. We know you are going to win
the war. We know you are going to defeat the enemy. A lot of us were
saying then what? Then what are you going to do? And there was never
any hard answer on what this administration was going to do. So, you
know it is not like they went in blind. You are preparing for a war.
Sit down and figure out all the options. What if they do not hand us
flowers and Hershey bars? You know, then what do we do? And if that
does not work and something else, then what do we do. You should have
four or five plans. This is just a lack of preparation, and it was that
rush to war that I think caused all the problems that I think you
already stated.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is interesting to go back a bit and to
remember that the Department of State had worked for months on a plan,
a plan that was fleshed out by bringing in experts from outside, by
bringing in those with different perspectives. And yet, because there
was some suspicion on the part of the Pentagon that State was not
enthusiastically in support of the military invasion of Iraq, that that
had to be put aside. And now we find ourselves, obviously, in a real
mess
Mr. INSLEE. I just want to say that, you know, that is history. It is
important to review. But the present and the future are disconcerting
now too. For instance, we now know that we have this paper machet force
in Iraq, and that is all it is, to provide security.
[[Page H6093]]
And until it becomes real, it is going to be difficult to get our
troops home.
But even today, this administration, because they are so wedded to
this go it alone policy, has rejected offers from adjoining nations in
the region to train these Iraqi troops. Egypt, we are told, has made a
specific proposal to train Iraqi troops to expedite that process so we
can replace our people and get our people home and replace them with
Iraqis. And this administration, because of their go it alone attitude
has rejected that offer of other people in the region to train these
forces.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would like to make an interesting observation,
because during the debate tomorrow and during the debate today, and
during the course of our committee hearings, we constantly hear of a
profound concern by this administration and this government about Iran.
If you remember, Iran was described as a charter member, if you will,
of the Axis of Evil club. And there are legitimate concerns about the
development of nuclear weapons by Iran.
And here we are in Iraq, we have already appropriated in excess of
$330 billion. That is $330 billion. Estimates range that by the time we
have discharged our obligation, which is difficult to quantify, we will
be looking at $1 trillion from American taxpayers.
However, while we are expressing this concern about Iran, a story
appears in the Washington Post dated Tuesday, July 12, and the headline
reads as follows: Iraqi official says Iran will not train troops. But
there appears to be some confusion because the Iraq defense minister
reached an agreement, a military agreement with Iran the previous week.
And he claims it does not include any provision for the Iranian armed
forces to help train Iraqi troops. But this was contradicted by his
Iranian counterpart.
So here we are, America. We now have a military agreement between
Iraq, where we have expended billions, hundreds of billions of dollars,
and the blood of more than 1,700 Americans killed in action, and yet
what do we have? We have a military agreement between Iraq and the
Republic of Iran. And tomorrow, I can assure you, as we debate the
reauthorization legislation in terms of the Department of State, there
will be much said about Iran. There will be a pounding of fists and
there will be considerable consternation about Iran.
And yet, here we are, it is publicly disclosed, the Iranians and the
Iraqis have reached an accord in a military agreement. So maybe that
will take care of the training of Iraqi troops so that Americans can
learn. The Iranians can attract them.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield on the question of the cost
associated with the points you made?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course I yield to my friend from Hawaii and one of
the original members of Iraq Watch.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The publication Inside Defense of July 6 reports,
with regard to your estimations as to the cost, this was just prior to
the advent of the meeting between the Iraqis and the Iranians. A group
of advisors, I am now quoting from this July 6 article in Inside
Defense. A group of advisors to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is
preparing a report warning that the huge costs associated with
prolonged bloody operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may become part of
a U.S. adversary's strategy. U.S. led operations in these two
countries, quote, have tapped out the ground services active and
reserve components, unquote, stated June 29, briefing slides prepared
for the working group of the Defense Science Board. The Defense Science
Board, as my colleagues know, is the group designated to report to the
Secretary of Defense on these issues. Quote, we therefore find
ourselves without resources for any other campaign at this scale, a
prospect not long lost on our adversaries, unquote.
The panel was part of the larger Defense Science Board which is doing
a study for the Defense Department on transformation. Further
quotation, the requirements U.S. forces face in the global war on
terrorism to not only prevail in the traditional combat phase of the
military operation and restore stability afterwards, but also to
establishing a functioning free economy and robust democracy are
significant and expensive. Quote, these new goals, that is to say,
establishing the economy and the democracy, these new goals dwarf the
complexity cost and scope of achieving victory on the battlefield,
unquote.
Now, last summer the incremental additional estimated cost for
stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq was estimated at $72 billion
according to the Defense Science Board Panel. That was the previous
estimation.
Mr. DELAUNT. And what is it now?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Now these costs are likely to be at least $500
billion and perhaps close to $1 trillion, unquote. Total military
spending on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 through this
September 2005 is $252 billion according to Steve Kosiak with the
Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Spending on non
military aid in these missions at the same time period is $27 billion
in addition to the $252 billion.
The Congressional Budget Office in January estimated that between the
fiscal year 2006 and 2015, the costs of supporting these operations
could total $393 billion.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Those numbers are mind boggling. And before I yield to
my friend from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I have a question. And I need someone
to at least assist me in trying to understand how Iran, again, and a
charter member of the axis of evil, is now a military ally of Iraq. And
we are promoting democracy in Iraq.
{time} 2015
It also should be noted again, according to this Washington Post
story, that while the Minister of Defense in the interim government
claims that, no, the Iranians are not going to train troops, but he did
acknowledge that Iran has pledged $1 billion in reconstruction aid to
the Iraqi government, some of which would be to the defense ministry.
Is this Allies in Wonderland? Is up down and down is up? The Iranians
and the Iraqis are engaged in a military accord?
This is the kind of information that we tried to bring out during the
course of our conversations once a week. We have just begun them again
after a hiatus of some 6 months. But that to me is inexplicable because
that will give Iran, Iran, that many on the floor tomorrow will say is
a potential enemy and something has got to be done. What is happening?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I am stumped as well. I have no good answer for the
gentleman. What I would like to do is the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) was throwing out some pretty large numbers to the tune of
$1 trillion, if not more. In Ohio alone only $240 million is being
spent on homeland security and $700 million on No Child Left Behind
which is underfunded by $1.5 billion. We are talking trillions. And I
think it speaks to the fact that we are not meeting the needs here at
home while we are spending a tremendous amount of money abroad.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I never said, of course, that we are going to get
any value received for this money. We are going to spend the money, but
as the gentleman well knows and I think the record shows that what we
are getting for the money is corruption, thievery, failure to
significantly alter the infrastructure of Iraq in any significant way.
It does not surprise me in the least that there would be an accord or
an attempt at an accord being undertaken between Iraq and Iran. After
all, they live in the same neighborhood. We do not. What we are engaged
in right now is another one of these false premises that somehow a
military in an inherently insurgent situation is going to be able to
provide political answers through military activity and subsequently
having the military take on the task of helping to provide a civil
infrastructure. It cannot be done. It will not be done.
The only victims of that will be the Guard and Reserve and active
duty military forces of the United States so that the numbers of
wounded, grievously wounded and dead will continue to rise.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The burden is being carried almost exclusively by the
American military and the American taxpayer. And we have been joined by
2 colleagues, our friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson),
and, again, one of the original members of the Iraq Watch, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
[[Page H6094]]
I yield, since he is one of the originals I have to yield first of
course, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and welcome him.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is good to be
with my colleagues as we talk about this important issue.
I would like to share with my colleagues an experience I had over the
weekend involving a real person, a real American. Representative John
Bocerri, a young State representative from my State of Ohio, serves in
the State legislature. He is also in the Air Reserves, and he has
previously been to 3 deployments in Iraq. He flies these big C-130
transport planes.
John has a wonderful wife and 2 young daughters, and just about 4
days ago his third child was born. A little guy named Matthew Bocerri.
They brought him home the day before yesterday, and I was there as this
wonderful family gathered around this newborn, sisters holding him for
the first time.
John Bocerri is leaving Thursday of this week for his fourth
deployment to the war zone. A young father with a child recently home
from the hospital for the fourth time is being sent by this country to
the war zone to fly transport in and out of Iraq from Qatar.
When you talk with someone like John Bocerri, when you see his little
daughters and his newborn child and you talk to his wife you understand
what this war is doing to Americans, to families, to community. The
President has some explaining to do to all of us.
I have here an e-mail from a Marine Corps Civil Affairs officer who
is currently in Ramadi, Iraq. This Marine has received his master's
degree in international policy from Stanford University. He is a bright
guy obviously. And I would just like to read briefly from his e-mail
and then I will be happy to hear from the rest of my colleagues.
This young Marine writes, ``As an Iraq War veteran, I disagree with
how President Bush has assessed the war and how we should be conducting
it. The President has mischaracterized the debate as a simplistic black
and white challenge. Is the sacrifice worth it? That is the question.
But this mischaracterization clouds the debate and avoids 2 essential
questions: What are the real conditions on the ground and what must be
done to win this war?''
He continues, ``Unfortunately,'' he says, ``the President obscures
the truth of the current conditions in Iraq. My personal experiences in
Iraq confirm statements made by numerous officers there, including
General John Abizaid, Commander of the U.S. Central Command, that the
insurgency shows no signs of weakening and its numbers continue to
grow. The Bush administration must first recognize this serious problem
in order to rectify it.''
``Denial,'' says this young Marine, ``is not the path to success. As
a Marine Corps Civil Affairs officer serving for 7 months in Ramadi, a
hotbed of the Iraqi insurgency, my job was to cultivate economic,
governmental and civil society development. This work was part of a
strategy to inculcate Iraqis with the desire and capacity to defeat the
insurgents themselves, allowing America's withdrawal.''
Then he concludes his e-mail with this sentence. ``The gap between
President Bush's rhetoric and the reality that I saw on the ground is
enormous.'' It is time for some truth telling from this President and
this administration. The American people can deal with the truth. But I
say to my friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the American people are
sick and tired of exaggerations, of distortions, of
mischaracterizations, of twisted and distorted intelligence.
The American people and young Americans like John Bocerri that I just
talked about earlier deserve to hear the truth from this President.
I thank the gentleman for allowing me to join him for these moments.
It is good to be back with my fellow colleagues as we talk about these
important issues.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe). The Chair will remind Members to
refrain from personally offensive references toward the President.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentary inquiry, does that
mean that I cannot make characterizations about actions that are taken
by this administration?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. References to the President suggesting he
obscured the truth are out of order.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. STRICKLAND. May I say that the President mischaracterized the
intelligence?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mischaracterizations, without an intent to
deceive, are not necessarily out of order.
Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the Speaker.
I would clarify my statement by saying that I believe the President
has mischaracterized the intelligence and that, in fact, has led us
into a war that in my judgment has not been justified.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for yielding to me and I especially thank
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for his very poignant remarks.
It is clear that the administration has had a very difficult time in
leveling with the American public, and it is also very clear that it
has been the Iraq Watch that has been able on a regular basis, and I am
so proud to see that you once again have taken to the floor to inform
the American public the way you have with regard to what is happening
to our troops in the field and what is taking place here on the floor
of the Congress.
More often than not in traveling home to my district and conducting
forums, people will routinely say, why are people not speaking out in
the United States Congress? And several have commented that it seems
like the only voice they have heard has been the Iraq Watch.
So I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and of
course the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) who was here earlier.
It is rather interesting in listening to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland) speak that Bush the elder warned us very succinctly about
what would happen if we chose this policy of unilateralism and
preemption. He said essentially that if we were to invade Iraq that we
would end up being not liberators but occupiers, and we would
immediately lose our allied support around the globe and turn Arab
nations against us.
As Ambassador Jordan said to us on a trip over to Saudi Arabia, in
essence, we would accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. There
would be a united Islamic jihad against the United States. And so what
we have witnessed in the very cavalier statement of saying that ``we
are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them here,''
oversimplifies the problem that we have created for ourselves. In fact,
it has intensified the insurrection that has taken place within Iraq.
I believe and I am grateful to the Iraq Watch for you constantly
bringing forth these issues that the United States has to be both safe,
secure and strategic with regard to our troops that are in the field.
It is in everyone's best interest to make sure that they have a safe
and secure and strategic return home.
I especially applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) on the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations with respect to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murtha) in making sure that they have categorized a strategy for
success, a strategy that embraces a common-sense approach in a region
where we desperately need leadership that starts with the President's
ability to level with the American people. And most importantly as the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) points out, the need for us to
level with our National Guard and Reservists in terms of their
deployment, in terms of their commitment to this great Nation of ours
and to the American public, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) so eloquently puts forward about the enormous cost that we
are incurring that is unpaid for and is only debt that we are heaping
on the backs of our children.
[[Page H6095]]
{time} 2030
Also, with respect to tough love with our allies in the region, let
us be honest about this. In the Gulf War, the United States expended
$10 billion. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said
earlier, we are already over $330 billion and growing. Ten billion
dollars because we had the support of the entire world with us. Because
Bush, the elder, made sure that we had that kind of support instead of
going off with this new policy of unilateralism and preemption that has
turned the rest of the globe against us.
Many of us stood in this Chamber and voted because we felt strongly
about our commitment to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, and the whole
world joined us only to find we were abandoned in Iraq because of
policies that made little sense and that now, as we learn almost daily
about the concocted reasons by which we went into war with Iraq. Yet,
if the gentleman will allow me, we find we also desperately need
policies in this region that hold the Arab League, Pakistan, India,
China, and Russia accountable for making sure that we bring stability
to this region.
We also need an energy policy here at home, that the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) has so eloquently spoken about, that embraces
alternative fuels, fuel cell technology, and gets us off of this
ensnarled position that we find ourselves in, this awful entanglement
and dependency on foreign oil, when we know we could extricate
ourselves from it if we just embraced the very technology that we can
develop here in our own country, here in both my State of Connecticut
and across this country, that will embrace the hydrogen economy and the
bounty of fuel cell technology that exists out there.
We must also embrace religions around the globe. There should be a
call on the President's part, and also on the part of religious
leaders, to talk about the perversion of terrorism and turning these
young men into terrorists by perverting the great teachings of the
book. It is so important that we embrace these things conceptually and
comprehensively in a manner that will draw the world together in an
understanding about what we have to accomplish in that region.
General Zinni said it very clearly. We need more troops in this area,
but not American troops. We need to take the American face off the
occupation here and get the Arab League, get the United Nations, NATO,
Russia, China, India and all involved in bringing stability to this
region. It is a world responsibility. Our men and women in the services
have done their job and done it extraordinarily well. This country
simply cannot continue to afford both the human capital and the
enormous capital that we are expending, as the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) points out, over $330 billion.
I yield to the gentleman and I apologize for going on.
Mr. DELAHUNT. No, the gentleman's remarks are excellent, and, Mr.
Speaker, they are on point. The tragic reality is that this is an
American war, with some help from the British. This is becoming every
day almost an exclusive American venture, both militarily and in terms
of the reconstruction phase.
A recent report indicated that Italy is prepared to withdraw its
3,000 troops come this fall. This fall is 2 months away. The coalition
of the willing is ``getting out of Dodge.'' That is the tragic reality
here. Because they are hearing from the people in their societies who
are saying we do not want to participate.
We find ourselves in a real conundrum. And my colleague was
absolutely right, in the aftermath of 9/11 every single one of us stood
here and voted in favor of going after al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, along
with the Taliban, and we prevailed. But then, then we became distracted
and we took resources from Afghanistan. What is happening in
Afghanistan? It has become a narco state. President Karzai has a
terrible situation on his hands.
And I know we all remember here that the day after 9/11 the entire
world was with us. The French, their leading newspaper Le Monde, summed
it up when it said ``Today We Are All Americans.'' We had that good
will. And now? And now what do we see because of these policies? Well,
I will tell you what we see. According to the independent nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office, and the American people should know
that that is an arm of the U.S. Congress, this is what they had to say
just this past April:
``Recent polling data show that anti-Americanism is spreading and
deepening around the world. Such anti-American sentiments can increase
foreign public support for terrorism directed against Americans. It
impacts the cost and effectiveness of military operations, thereby
escalating the cost of supporting our troops in the multiple venues
that they presently patrol, and it weakens the United States' ability
to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives and
dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and
products.''
This has huge implications for the American people. It is absolutely
stunning to see some of this polling that has currently become
available. When posed this question, ``Please tell me if you think each
of the following are having a mainly positive or mainly negative
influence in the world,'' and they single out the United States, in
Great Britain, our most staunch ally, 44 percent say it is mainly
positive, with fifty percent saying it is mostly negative. That is
Great Britain.
In Australia, 40 percent say it is mostly positive and 52 percent say
American influence in the world today is mostly negative. Our neighbors
to the north, in Canada, 34 percent say American influence in terms of
the international order is mostly positive, 34 percent, and 60 percent
say it is mostly negative. Germany, 27 percent positive, 64 percent
negative. Japan, 24 percent positive, 31 percent negative. Mexico, our
neighbors to the south, 11 percent mostly positive in terms of American
influence in the international community, and 57 percent mostly
negative.
I could go on and on and on.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will yield, I want to say
as well that I mentioned I conduct forums all the time, and I am most
proud to say that at a forum recently in West Hartford, where over 400
people attended, that one of the questions that came forward from one
of my constituents was in praise of one of our colleagues, one of our
Members, and that is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who
I truly believe, as important and as critical as I think the Iraq Watch
has been, if there is a profiles in courage award that should be given,
it should be for this humble man of conscience.
When residents of the State of Connecticut recognize Members of
Congress, like yourself who have come here, but especially in the case
of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who has gone against
the grain and is merely speaking from his heart and from his conscience
and speaking directly to the American people about his feelings, about
his discussions that he has had with his constituents about this war
that we are involved in, a war that he voted for but has come to the
principled conclusion, and in a safe, secure and strategic manner, as
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has outlined on the
Committee on Armed Services, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Murtha) has called for in terms of very severe and tough
guidelines and deadlines that the President and this administration
must meet, all with an eye in mind of a strategy for success, yet my
constituents say this all the time, where was Congress during all of
this?
Shakespeare said, ``Would Caesar be a wolf if the Senate was not a
sheep?'' And that is so true, but not for the Iraq watch, speaking out
consistently. And not for people like the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Jones), who was able to come down to this floor and talk from his
heart and from his head about what he truly feels and believes.
That is what makes us the great Nation that we are, and that is what
I think gives the American public hope; that people like yourself, who
have been at this for some time and who continue to come down here and
speak in the words not only of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) but of the reservist who is going back to Iraq for the fourth
time.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that
point, my intention is not to take up time
[[Page H6096]]
necessarily on Iraq Watch on the question of H.J. Res. 55, the joint
resolution number 55, but that is the tangible substance of the
commitment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and others
at this point, including myself, to try to put legislation forward that
will respond precisely to the commentary that the gentleman from
Connecticut found in his West Hartford meeting.
The resolution asks the President to develop and implement a plan for
the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq. It makes a
reference, the short version of it, joint resolution 55, as Homeward
Bound. The principal point here, rather than going over it point by
point, the principal point in the context established tonight, and I am
referring to one of two findings here, is that the United States has in
place a timetable for training, equipping and employing Iraqi security
forces to take over the counterinsurgency mission from coalition
forces. That is a statement of fact.
Speaking as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I can say to
you in all candor and openness that we do have timetables. We do have
timetables. We do have benchmarks. We do have indications and timelines
for those indications of what constitutes success, what constitutes a
capacity for the counterinsurgency mission to be taken from coalition
forces by Iraqi forces of all kinds; from border police to interior
ministry, to defense personnel police and armed forces.
In order to explicate that clearly to the American people, this House
passed, in overwhelming numbers, an emergency supplemental
appropriations for defense, the emergency supplemental appropriations
act for defense on the global war on terror and tsunami relief. Public
Law 109-13. In that, a joint explanatory statement accompanied the
conference report, which required the Secretary of Defense to report
not later than July 10.
As we speak, it is now approximately 8:45 p.m. on the East Coast on
July 19, some 9 days past the deadline established by the Congress of
the United States, passed by Democrats and Republicans in overwhelming
numbers. Not with this Member's vote, to be sure. But nonetheless, my
position as enunciated then in opposition to it, to the bill, because I
felt we were not carrying forward on what we said we were doing,
nonetheless the overwhelming majority gave the Secretary of Defense the
opportunity to report to us no later than July 10 and every 90 days
thereafter on measures for security, political, and economic progress
in Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the Secretary of Defense
yesterday indicating they were working hard on this report. I have no
doubt. But we are already 9 days late. We are already 9 days of more
killings, more murders, more terrorism, more grievous wounding, more
terrorism worldwide, and yet we do not have this report from the
Secretary of Defense.
{time} 2045
My plea is that other Members and the audience that may be listening
to us tonight take a look at House Joint Resolution 55 that has been
developed on a bipartisan basis with one of the leading advocates being
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and other Members of the
Republican Party and Democratic Party as well. This is not an
ideological construct, this is not a resolution made to embarrass the
President. On the contrary, House Joint Resolution 55 in some respects
has been characterized by some as saying what are you doing helping
President Bush? We should be in opposition to President Bush, but I
feel the politics will take care of itself in time to come. There is no
question about that. We can make that point later. This resolution is
about backing up our troops now on the mission they have accomplished,
and to get the political side, the economic side, the civilian side of
this moving forward the way we say it should be.
So we set in this resolution the opportunity for the President to
enunciate a plan commensurate with the time tables he has set for the
establishment of a government in December, and to move forward with the
troops that the Secretary of Defense himself has said are being trained
so we can begin to withdraw, bring homeward bound our troops.
So when people inquire of you what is it Congress is doing, we can
look at H.J. Res. 55. It is not perfect. It is a legislative project.
The only perfect set of rules, the only perfect legislation was the Ten
Commandments, and I understand Moses took 40 days to do them. And as he
came down the mountain he said, Well, I got them down to 10. That is
what the legislative process is. You talk things over.
So House Joint Resolution 55 is not a perfect vehicle, but it is a
legislative vehicle to join with the President and make an offer to the
President to join with us in the Congress in setting a timetable and
plan for the withdrawal of these troops commensurate with the mission
as enunciated by everyone.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And hopefully that will also staunch that rising
virulent, anti-Americanism that does such harm to our national
security, that breeds terrorists and directs their anger toward the
United States.
We saw what happened in London. Again, we hear from those in the
Islamic world that by virtue of what we are doing in our policy, why we
speak of democracy and our rhetoric is comprised of the most noble of
word, we are not seen that way because our actions belie them.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, we do no service to the support of our
troops by continuing to have them engage in military activity which
undercuts that which they have accomplished to this point.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may go to that issue of anti-Americanism once
more, it was interesting during the course of the debate today on the
reauthorization of the Department of State when during consideration of
the rule an amendment put forth by myself and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett) was not made in order because I would suggest that the
seeds of that anti-Americanism is a perception that the United States
operates on two different standards, and that is interpreted by many in
this world to be rank hypocrisy.
It was the President that said during his inaugural address that the
United States ``will persistently clarify the choice for every ruler
and every Nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always
wrong, and freedom which is eternally right. America will not pretend
that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will
encourage reform in other governments by making it clear that success
in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own
people.''
Noble words, a noble cause, and we all of course embrace that. Yet
when we put forth this amendment which would have admonished and
required a certification by the President that the thug, the bully, if
you will, that rules Uzbekistan would change his ways, it was not made
in order. One of our partners in this coalition of the willing is the
thug, and I will take a moment here and put his picture up so Members
and the viewing audience can see. This is Islam Karimov. This victim
here was boiled alive in water, scalding water. This is a member of the
coalition of the willing.
According to our own State Department, Karimov heads a regime that
does not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of
elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners, and where
security forces routinely use torture. This is the product of the thug
Karimov's security forces utilization of torture, torture that goes
back to the medieval times.
And then 2 months ago his troops massacred hundreds of civilians who
were simply protesting for justice and for liberty. And yet we continue
to give him military assistance, some $400 million to date. The
amendment that was offered by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett) would have terminated that aid unless Karimov changed his
behavior.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, looking at this picture, it almost makes
me nauseated. What you are telling me is that Americans work hard, pay
their taxes, and this administration, knowing that this kind of
terrible torture and human rights abuses are occurring, still continues
to give our tax dollars to this leader simply because he is willing to
say he is our partner in the war in Iraq?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly.
Mr. STRICKLAND. That is terribly, terribly disturbing, and I think it
does point out what you said earlier, a hypocrisy that discredits us in
the eyes of much of the world.
[[Page H6097]]
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, just think of the message that this sends
to the rest of the world. When crowds were demonstrating in the
Ukraine, we were cheering. We approved. We welcomed the so-called
Orange Revolution. And we speak about bringing the fire of freedom to
dark corners of the world, and yet here is one dark corner of the world
where there is no light, there is no hope, and we do not bring the fire
of freedom. And we wonder why polling data indicates that country after
country, our traditional allies, look at us as having a mainly negative
influence in the world, all because of the war in Iraq. That was the
genesis.
Mr. Speaker, it will have implications for us.
____________________