[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6718-H6724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REAL SECURITY SPECIAL ORDER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, 229 years ago today, American forces under
the command of General Horatio Gates defeated the British at Saratoga,
New York. This battle and the subsequent engagement at Saratoga several
weeks later turned the tide of the American Revolution and were crucial
in securing the survival of our fledgling Nation.
More than two centuries later, the United States is the most powerful
Nation on Earth, but we face myriad challenges to our national security
that our revolutionary forebearers could not have imagined.
Throughout much of our history, the security of our Nation was an
issue that was above politics. America's leaders put aside their
differences and, working together, ensured that our country remained
strong and free. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that bipartisan
tradition has been cast aside by our GOP colleagues who have sought for
the last three decades to portray the Democratic Party as weak on
defense or insufficiently concerned with defending the United States.
Never mind that this wholly distorts the historical record of Democrats
who have always, always answered the Nation's call to lead in the
defense of our country. It was Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, who led
America during the first World War and vowed to make the world safe for
democracy.
{time} 2115
It was Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, who guided this Nation and the
entire free world through World War II.
It was Harry Truman, a Democrat, who made the tough decisions to use
the atomic bomb against Japan to contain Soviet expansionism after the
war and to confront the North Korean attack against South Korea in
1950.
It was John Kennedy, a Democrat, who went eyeball to eyeball with
Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.
These great leaders and their successors, including Lyndon Johnson
and Bill Clinton, never shied away from the hard fights, and our
friends on the other side of the aisle know it. Nevertheless,
Republicans have continued to try to scare the American people into
believing that only they can protect the country.
This shameful use of national security as a political wedge issue has
reached new lows since the September 11 attacks. In 2002 and 2004 and
again in this election season, Republicans from President Bush on down
have used terrorism as a political issue. In so doing,
[[Page H6719]]
they have up-ended America's long tradition of optimism, self-
confidence and bipartisanship on national security.
In 1933, President Roosevelt told a Nation shaken by 3 years of
depression that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
President Bush has spent the last 5 years telling the American people
the only thing we really have to fear is the loss of GOP rule.
My colleagues, including the distinguished gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), the other distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen), the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), and the
gentleman from my home State of California (Mr. Cardoza) will join
tonight in a message to the American people that we must change course
from the administration's policies which have endangered our country,
and that Democrats will do a better job at protecting the American
people.
Our plan, Real Security, was developed with the assistance of a broad
range of experts, former military officers, retired diplomats, law
enforcement personnel, homeland security experts and others who helped
identify key areas where current policies have failed and where new
ones are needed.
The Real Security Plan rests on five pillars. They involve the
creation of a 21st century military, a smart strategy to win the war on
terror, a plan to secure our homeland, a way forward in Iraq, and a
proposal for achieving energy independence for America by 2020.
Under Real Security, a Democratic Congress will rebuild the state-of-
the-art military by making needed investments in equipment and manpower
so we can project to protect America wherever and whenever necessary.
We have all heard stories of parents throughout the country using
their own money to purchase body armor for their children serving in
Iraq. I have asked Secretary Rumsfeld about the shortage of body armor
and the lack of properly armored vehicles, about holdups in the
development of equipment to counter roadside bombs that have killed and
maimed so many of our troops. Despite his assurances, the last few
months have seen a spike in the number of IED attacks against American
forces in Iraq, and they seem more lethal than ever.
Under Real Security, Democrats will guarantee all of our troops have
the protective gear, the equipment, the training they need and are
never sent to war without accurate intelligence and a strategy for
success.
I have been to Iraq three times, Afghanistan twice. I visit our
troops wounded here at home, there in Germany. I have spoken at the
funerals of my constituents killed in Iraq. I have sat with their
families as they have mourned. These experiences have reinforced my
sense of commitment to ensuring the well-being of America's soldiers
and their families and our veterans.
Democrats will enact a GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that
guarantees our troops, Active, Reserve, retired, our veterans and their
families, receive the pay, health care, mental health services and
other benefits they have earned and deserve.
Our Active military are stretched to the breaking point, but our
Guard and Reserves have also been ground down by multiple deployments,
falling enlistment and reenlistment. This has, in turn, added to the
stress.
I remember meeting one young marine from California when I was in
Iraq who had been there for 9 months and was on his way home. His wife,
also in the service of this country, was on her way to Iraq. These are
the kinds of deployments that are so taxing on our military families.
As a part of Real Security, Democrats will strengthen our National
Guard in partnership with our Nation's Governors to ensure it is fully
manned, properly equipped and available to meet missions at home and
abroad.
The next pillar of Real Security is a broad strategy to win the war
on terror. Four-and-a-half years, five years after 9/11, Osama bin
Laden is still at large. Al Qaeda has morphed into a worldwide amalgam
of discrete cells that are more difficult to track down. When Democrats
are in charge, we will make the elimination of Osama bin Laden our
first priority. We will destroy al Qaeda and other terrorist networks
and finish the job in Afghanistan, ending the threat posed by the
Taliban. We propose to double the size of our Special Forces, increase
our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure that our intelligence
is free from political pressure.
Despite their vow to drain the swamp, the administration has done
little to eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the
economic, social and political conditions that allow extremism to
thrive. Democrats will fight terrorism with all the means at our
disposal, using military force when necessary, but also leading
international efforts to uphold and defend human rights and renew the
long-standing alliances that have advanced our national security
objectives.
Under Real Security, we will confront the specter of nuclear
terrorism by greatly accelerating the pace at which we are securing
nuclear material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon or a dirty
bomb. Our goal is to secure loose nukes by 2010. We will redouble our
efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.
And while Democrats understand that no option can be taken off the
table, we are committed to using a muscular diplomacy as the best
option for curbing Pyongyang and Iran's nuclear ambitions.
The third pillar of Real Security is homeland security. In the wake
of 9/11, there have been numerous commissions and investigations at the
Federal, State and local levels, as well as a multitude of private
studies. All of them have pointed to broad, systemic and other flaws in
our homeland security program. Almost 2 years ago the bipartisan 9/11
Commission published its report, but most of its recommendations have
not yet been implemented.
As a part of Real Security, Democrats will immediately implement the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including securing national
borders, ports, airports and mass transit systems. We will implement
the screening of 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the
United States in ships or airplanes at their point of origin, and we
will take steps to better safeguard America's nuclear and chemical
plants and our food and water supplies.
Democrats will prevent the outsourcing of critical components of our
national security infrastructure such as ports, airports and mass
transit to foreign interests that could put America at risk.
Under Real Security, Democrats would provide firefighters, emergency
medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines
with the training, the staffing, the equipment and the cutting-edge
technology that they need.
While the immediate threats to our national security come from
terrorists, we face other dangers as well. Democrats are committed to a
security strategy that will protect America from biological terrorism
and pandemics, including the avian flu, by investing in the public
health infrastructure and training public health workers.
The fourth pillar, and the one that will have the most immediate
effect on our security and the longest-term effect on our security, is
to chart a new course in Iraq that will ensure that in the coming
months we see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with
the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing
their country with a responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.
Democrats will insist that Iraqis make the political compromises that
are necessary to unite their country, defeat the insurgency, and we
will promote regional diplomacy and strongly encourage our allies in
other nations to play a constructive role. Those nations now are
largely on the sidelines.
As a part of Real Security, Democrats intend to hold this
administration accountable for its manipulated prewar intelligence, its
poor planning, contracting abuses that have placed our troops at
greater risk and have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
Our security will remain threatened as long as we remain dependent on
Middle East oil. The fifth pillar, and one with far-reaching
ramifications for our country and for the world, is to achieve energy
independence for America by 2020.
Under Real Security, Democrats will increase the production of
alternate fuels from America's heartland: biofuels, geothermal, clean
coal, fuel
[[Page H6720]]
cells, solar and wind. We will promote hybrid and flex-fuel technology
in manufacturing, enhance energy efficiency and conservation measures.
All of this we will do, and more, to meet the real national security
needs of our country.
We are joined tonight by the minority whip, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a great leader on national security
issues. I would invite the minority whip to address us this evening,
along with our colleague from Maryland and our colleague from Georgia.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I am
pleased to join him and certainly adopt his remarks, which I think are
fundamental to this debate that will be going on for the next 6 weeks
in our country about how we effect Real Security. That is our
objective. That is our commitment as Democrats.
We believe that terrorism is a real threat. We believe that we have a
responsibility to confront and defeat that threat. That is our
responsibility as citizens, and that is our responsibility as elected
representatives.
I am pleased to join Mr. Schiff, who has been such a leader on
national security issues in the Congress; my dear friend from Maryland
and colleague Mr. Van Hollen, who has a depth of knowledge and
experience in foreign policy issues and national security issues; and
my good friend from the State of Georgia, Mr. David Scott. The State of
Georgia has historically had leaders in national defense. On our side
of the aisle, most recently was Sam Nunn, one of the most
extraordinarily able and thoughtful spokespersons for national
security.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for taking this time.
Our highest duty as Members of this Congress is to protect the American
people, to protect our homeland and to strengthen our national
security. We Democrats are proud of our party's strong tradition of
leadership in world affairs from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt
to Harry Truman and John Kennedy, indeed to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton,
it will be recalled, most recently marshaled the NATO Alliance,
received the imprimatur of the United Nations, confronted the genocide
being led by Slobodan Milosevic, defeated and stopped the genocide,
stopped the ethnic cleansing, and put Slobodan Milosevic in the dock in
trial at the Hague, all without losing a single American life in
combat.
These leaders demonstrated that defending America requires our Nation
to marshal the full range of its powers, economic and moral, diplomatic
and military, to fight for freedom, to foster democracy, and to defeat
tyranny and terrorism.
I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle are committed to
this Nation's security. Any suggestion to the contrary, in my opinion,
is either mistaken or quite possibly malicious partisanship.
Furthermore, I believe that members of the loyal opposition, in this
case us congressional Democrats, have the responsibility to critique
the wisdom and effectiveness of the policies pursued by the majority
party. That is what our Founding Fathers conceived. That is what our
Founding Fathers believed was absolutely essential for the success of
our democracy: A Congress and an executive and indeed a judiciary that
provided checks and balances, provided thoughtful alternatives to
policies being pursued, and provided constructive criticism. The fact
is our Nation and our people are not as safe today as they could and
should be.
{time} 2130
I accept the fact that we are safer, but I repeat, that we are not as
safe as we could or should be. Osama bin Laden, the architect of the
worst terrorist attack on America in our history, remains at large. We
still have not fully implemented the recommendations of the bipartisan
9/11 Commission, for which the commission itself has criticized us
sharply. In fact, Tom Kean, the co-chair, the former Republican
Governor of the State of New Jersey, the co-chair of the 9/11
Commission and the former Republican Governor, as I said, of New
Jersey, recently stated: ``We are not protecting our own people in this
country. The government is not doing its job.'' What powerful words and
what a call to attention are Governor Kean's words.
Meanwhile, the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran have
increased dramatically in the last 6 years. The Taliban is resurgent in
Afghanistan, where roadside bombs have increased 30 percent and suicide
bombings have doubled. And anti-Americanism has unfortunately and
dangerously risen by substantial proportions. Even former Secretary of
State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, who has
served this country so honorably in uniform and as a diplomat, remarked
last week: ``The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our
fight against terrorism.''
That is an extraordinary dangerous condition. We cannot nor should we
fight this war against terrorists alone. We must have allies. We must
have allies who respect us, who believe that our word is credible, and
believe that our leadership is based upon values, insight, good
intelligence, and conviction. Without question, Madam Speaker, our
continuing military action in Iraq has fomented much of this anti-
American sentiment.
Let me add that I supported the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as
the dictator in Iraq. Democrats, however, as the loyal opposition,
believe that we have a duty to honestly appraise the gross
miscalculations and, I suggest, even incompetence that have plagued
Operation Iraqi Freedom from its very start and to offer alternatives.
The administration ignored the advice of top military commanders and
sent far too few troops to accomplish the task at hand. Recall, if you
will, that we sent over a half million troops in the fall of 1990 to
confront Saddam Hussein and his army in the late winter of 1991. We
sent those troops to eject Hussein from Kuwait. We sent a force one-
third, however, the size in 2003 not only to confront Saddam Hussein's
army but to take control and stabilize an entire nation of 22 million-
plus people and to ensure its stability.
As Tom Friedman of the New York Times has stated: ``If we're in such
a titanic struggle with radical Islam and if getting Iraq right is at
the center of that struggle, why did the Bush administration fight the
Iraq war with the Rumsfeld doctrine, just enough troops to lose, and
not the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary
foundation of any democracy-building project, which is,'' of course,
``security?''
The administration, with Mr. Bremer as its viceroy in Iraq, fired
police and security forces and oil workers, which increased, not
decreased, instability. It initiated the war before making alternative
plans when the Turks told us that we could not come in through the
north so we could shut the back door to Baghdad. And as a result, many
of those in the Saddam Hussein armed forces escaped and were a basis
for an insurgency.
In fact, just this month Brigadier General Mark Scheid revealed that
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said he would ``fire the next person''
who talked about the need for a post-war plan. There was no effective
plan for post-Saddam Hussein regime nation-building. As a result, chaos
occurred.
The administration failed to properly equip our own troops, Mr.
Schiff has pointed that out, nearly 2,700 of whom have given the
ultimate measure of sacrifice in this war. All of us in our districts
have lost people in this war.
The administration grossly underestimated the cost of the war at
about $60 billion. Today, the war costs stand at five times that
amount, in excess of $300 billion. All of that has happened, I suggest
to you, Madam Speaker, without significant oversight and appropriate
hearings being conducted by this Congress, which is our responsibility
to our constituents and to our country.
The administration hired inexperienced and unqualified political
appointees for the Coalition Provisional Authority, as The Washington
Post reported on Sunday. And when confronted with concrete evidence of
widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody, the President
failed to hold anyone in his administration accountable.
All of this, Madam Speaker, has undermined the effectiveness of an
effort that I supported. Some did not. But whether you supported it or
you did not, you must lament the fact that the execution of the policy
has been so unsuccessful.
[[Page H6721]]
Madam Speaker, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former
commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, has stated: ``What we
are living with now is the consequence of successive policy failures.''
That is not a Democrat or a Republican but a three-star general
concerned about his troops, concerned about our country, concerned
about the success of an effort given to our Armed Forces.
The current strategy for our military, our security, and the Iraqi
people is neither working nor making us more secure. Our colleague
Congressman Skelton of Missouri has pointed out that there is not a
single Army nondeployed combat brigade currently prepared to meet its
wartime mission. That, Madam Speaker, is an extraordinary assertion and
I suggest an accurate one as well.
Meanwhile, the news in Iraq is equally dire. The chief of
intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq has concluded that prospects
for securing that country's Anbar Province are dim and there is almost
nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social
situation there. Thirty-four people were killed in suicide attacks on
Monday in Tal Afar and Ramadi. Fifty-two bound and tortured corpses
were found across Baghdad on Friday. And just today General John
Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that the U.S.
military will likely maintain or possibly increase current force levels
through next spring due to rising sectarian violence and the slow
progress of the Iraqi Government.
Madam Speaker, I want the Iraqi Government to succeed. I want
democracy to flourish. I want a robust economy creating jobs and hope
for its people to be in place. However, Madam Speaker, the policies
that we have pursued have not accomplished that objective.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, we need a new direction. I believe, as former
National Security Adviser Brzezinski has said, that American and Iraqi
leaders should jointly consult on a plan to transition from active
American leadership and policing and securing Iraq to increasing Iraqi
responsibility.
I do not believe that we should announce an arbitrary timeline, but I
do believe that discussions on this transition should be agreed upon
and jointly announced.
In addition, the Iraqi Government, not the United States, should then
call for a regional conference of Muslim states to ask them to help the
new government establish and consolidate internal stability. I suggest,
Madam Speaker, that is in the interest of every regional state in the
Middle East.
Additionally, the United States should convene a donors' conference
of European states, Japan, China, and others to become more directly
involved in financing the restoration of the Iraqi economy. A stable,
secure, and free Iraq is in the best interest of the entire
international community; and because it is in their interest, they bear
a joint responsibility to effect that end.
Madam Speaker, this is our last best chance, in my opinion, to
salvage success in Iraq. Our commitment there has been unwavering, but
it must not be unending. Our strategy, hampered by gross
miscalculations by our civilian leadership, is not working; and we
believe that we have a duty to advocate for policy changes that will
better serve our security interest and this great Nation we love.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I reiterate, Democrats are committed to
defending America, making safe Americans, and defeating terrorists who
would harm our Nation and undermine our values. Our policies that we
are pursuing have not worked. They need to be changed.
Again, I thank Mr. Schiff for his leadership on this hour.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his leadership.
And I particularly appreciate your comments about the proposal that
Zbigniew Brzezinski has put forward. It is, I think, exemplary of the
new direction in Iraq that Democrats have been advocating.
The administration's policy of stay the course, the sum and substance
of it, is more of the same. Indeed, in a nonclassified briefing when I
asked Secretaries Rumsfeld and Rice, Director Negroponte and General
Pace how are we adapting our strategy given that the sectarian violence
is now more prominent than the insurgent violence, how are we changing
from a counterinsurgency strategy to one that attempts to stop the
civil war, the long and short of it is we weren't. We are simply doing
the same thing we have done all along. The same thing that has led us
to a place, as you pointed out, where Marine intelligence is saying we
lost Anbar Province probably for good. If you keep doing the same thing
and you expect the result to be different, you are going to be bitterly
disappointed.
And I thank the gentleman for his comments and his leadership on
this.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you very much.
Mr. SCHIFF. For a small State, I have to say Maryland produces more
than its share of great leaders, particularly on the issue of national
security.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes.
Mr. HOYER. Of course our small State has given your large State our
leader.
Mr. SCHIFF. That is true.
I now yield to my friend and colleague from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend and colleague Mr. Schiff from
California, thank him for organizing these very important national
security discussions here on the floor in the House. I also want to
thank my colleague from Maryland Steny Hoyer for his terrific
leadership on national security and a whole range of issues, and it is
great to be here again with David Scott, my colleague, from Georgia,
who has also been a leader and a very important voice on these
important issues to our country.
Mr. Hoyer mentioned that we had the important passing about 8 days
ago of the solemn occasion of 9/11. It was the 5th-year anniversary of
9/11 and the terrible attacks that took place upon our country. And I
do think it is important to go back to that time and remember where
those attacks came from because they were launched from Afghanistan.
You had a failed state in Afghanistan run by the Taliban; and in that
failed state, al Qaeda was able to take hold and find a home, and Osama
bin Laden was able to prosper and plot his attacks against the United
States.
And after the attacks took place on September 11, 2001, this
Congress, this country, and the international community were united in
pledging that we would work together to defeat terrorism, to defeat al
Qaeda and bring them to justice. And despite that unity, we have not
achieved the result. In fact, if you look upon the situation today,
there is great division in the world and we have failed to capitalize
on that unity to finish the job in Afghanistan and against al Qaeda.
The President declared way back in 2003, May 2003, aboard the
aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, he had a big banner behind him that said
``Mission Accomplished.'' Well, we haven't come close to accomplishing
that mission because as we gather here on the floor today, Osama bin
Laden is alive and well somewhere along the Afghan/Pakistan border, al
Qaeda continues to plot attacks against the United States. They have
become a franchiser. You know how al Qaeda franchises around the world.
{time} 2145
We have not made progress at totally dismantling that organization.
In fact, what we are seeing in southern Afghanistan is a resurgence of
the Taliban as reported by the NATO Commander there, and our own
commanders on the ground.
What have we done? We have actually reduced the number of U.S. forces
in southern Afghanistan. We disbanded the one unit at the CIA that had
the specific mission of going after al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
You open the newspaper today and see that the opium crop in
Afghanistan is at an all-time high, historic high. And we also know
that the Pakistan Government that we had been really relying on to keep
the Taliban and al Qaeda on the run in the northwest frontier part of
Pakistan, that, in fact, they have now, the Pakistani Government has
entered into a nonaggression pact essentially with the Taliban leaders
and the leaders in the Waziristan area.
[[Page H6722]]
So here we are more than 5 years after those terrible attacks, and we
have not completed the job. We have not finished the mission against al
Qaeda. And instead, in my view, we have actually reduced our commitment
to doing that. And we must make sure that as Americans we are again
united today, making sure we finish the mission in Afghanistan and
bringing to justice and defeating the organization that, after all, was
the organization and the leadership responsible for those attacks of
September 11.
Instead, we did take our eye off the ball. We decided, instead of
finishing the job in Afghanistan, to go into Iraq. And today,
unfortunately, if you look at the situation on the ground, it is a
mess.
You know, the Vice President, it was a little more a year ago, he
went on national television and said, and I quote, that ``the
insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes.''
Well, just a few weeks ago we had a Pentagon report required by
Congress that said that the insurgency, and I quote, ``remains potent
and viable.'' And, in fact, the insurgency no longer is our number one
problem in Iraq. The real problem is the cycling civil war, whether it
is called a civil war, an incipient civil war, incipient of people are
being killed in sectarian violence.
So you have a situation where the administration was wrong on so many
counts. They were wrong on weapons of mass destruction, they were wrong
on the claim that there was a connection between Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein. In fact, we now have a bipartisan report out of the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that said definitively there
was never any relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. In
fact, they were adversaries, they were ideological opposites. They were
wrong on that.
They were wrong on the cost of the war. They totally underestimated
the cost of the war. They gave the American people one number that was
low-balled. In turn it was a much bigger number.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Van Hollen, notwithstanding all of those mistakes in
judgment and execution of the war, I am sure it gave you great
confidence to hear from the Vice President on Meet the Press that if he
had to do it all over again, he would do exactly the same thing. That
must have encouraged you.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It was stunning actually, because what you would hope
for from our national leaders is some reflection, some understanding
that the situation that we encountered in Iraq was not what we
expected, that it was not what he said it would be. And, in fact,
unfortunately this administration has never come to grips with the huge
gap between what they said would happen in Iraq and with what is
happening on the ground. That has exposed, I believe, a great
credibility gap.
So when the administration says, trust us, we know what we are doing
in Iraq; all you people who raise questions, don't you worry about it,
I have to say, that is what they told us many, many years ago. That is
what Vice President Cheney said more than a year ago when he said the
insurgency was in its last throes. So asking questions and trying to
figure out a better way is, in fact, the patriotic thing to do.
But I think one of the things that is most surprising is the fact
that the administration did not really have a postwar plan. They
thought things were going to just go so swimmingly in Iraq, that you
did not have to plan for really the postinvasion period.
In fact, just about a week ago, there was a general from the Defense
Department who not only said that they did not have a postwar plan, but
said specifically that Secretary Rumsfeld would punish anybody who came
up with a plan, because it would send a signal to the outside world
that this would not be as quick and easy as the Secretary of Defense
wanted people to think it was.
And let me just, I think it is important to read this excerpt:
``Rumsfeld Forbade Planning for Postwar Iraq, General Says.'' This is
out of the Saturday, September 9, Washington Post. ``Long before the
United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
forbade military strategists to develop plans for securing a postwar
Iraq, the retiring Commander of the Army Transportation Corps said.''
Brigadier General Mark Scheid said in an interview, that Rumsfeld
said ``he would fire the next person'' who talked about the need for a
postwar plan. And we wonder why we are in trouble today in Iraq. We
wonder when we open our newspapers or look at television sets why we
see such a mess.
You know, the terrible thing is that there were people in the
administration who had worked on a postwar plan. Many people at the
State Department had developed different scenarios for what would
happen and how to respond. But instead of following that plan, the
Defense Department essentially junked it, and Secretary Rumsfeld not
only did not come up with a plan, but now we have a brigadier general
who said that he threatened to fire people who came up with a plan.
We need to do some more firing. We need to hold people accountable.
We need to hold people accountable who made these big, big mistakes.
Now, one of the other things that we have learned recently, and this
may be partly due to the fact that they did not have a postwar plan,
was the incompetence of many of the civilians that they sent in there
to work on the reconstruction phase in Iraq. You know, we recently
passed the 1-year anniversary of the terrible Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita that struck our States in the Southern United States, struck New
Orleans, struck Louisiana, struck Mississippi.
And we know all too well that the people in those regions were hit
twice really. First they were hit by a terrible hurricane, and then
they were hit by the incompetence of a FEMA that was headed up by
people who were not experts in emergency response, but happened to be
political favorites in the administration. Michael Brown, we know that
his primary credential was he had been the President of the Horse
Breeders Association.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Van Hollen, I am sure if there had been an emergency
of a national character involving thoroughbred horses, we would have
been prepared.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, the FEMA job, as we know, is one that we have
to be prepared for all sorts of things, but you are absolutely right,
my colleague. It goes to show, in my view, the kind of disdain that the
administration has with respect to what kind of qualifications are
required for people who are vested with such important national
responsibilities.
And we remember when the President said, ``Heck of a job, Brownie,''
in the midst of the real disaster not just from the hurricane, but in
the response.
But what I think we are learning now, unfortunately, is that same
kind of cronyism, that same kind of cronyism infected many of the
decisions with respect to who we sent to Iraq for that postwar period
and reconstruction period.
You would think that in deciding who we should send to Iraq, we would
send the people who are highly qualified at reconstruction, people who
knew something about Iraq, maybe people who spoke Arabic and the native
language if we had them available. But if you look at a very recent
article from the Washington Post, we learned that it was not those kind
of expert qualifications that made the decision. It had to do with
whether or not you were a big political supporter of the Bush
administration.
And I think this kind of political cronyism, when it comes to the
biggest national security issues we have got, shows an incredible
contempt for the American people and their security.
I just think it is very important to read a little passage from this
article from the Washington Post. This is an article, September, this
past Sunday, September 17. Headline: Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among
Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq. After the fall of Saddam Hussein's
government in April 2007, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-
led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans,
restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development
specialists, and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to
Baghdad, they had to just get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the
Pentagon.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, who is a political appointee who
screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts,
applicants did
[[Page H6723]]
not need to be experts in the Middle East or in postconflict
reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush
administration.
Jumping down a bit: The decision to send the loyal and willing
instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people
involved in the 3\1/2\-year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one
of the Bush administration's gravest errors.
And one of the people who was set up to be, he was the CPA person
over there, said: We did not tap, and it should have started from the
White House on down, we just did not tap the right people to do this
job, said Frederick Smith, who served as the Deputy Director of the
CPA, that is the Coalition Provisional Authority's Washington office.
It was a tough, tough job. Instead, we got people who went out there
because of their political leanings.
He goes on to give a couple of examples of how people with absolutely
no experience in contracts were given responsibilities for a $18
billion construction budget.
He goes on to talk about, you know, 24-year-old political appointees
whose only qualifications were they had been part of the Bush campaign
machine. Those are the people that were sent to Iraq to do a very
important mission for the American people.
And it is extremely disturbing to discover that the qualifications
for those people had nothing to do with their ability to do the job,
their expertise to do the job, their past background to do the job;
that what it had to do with was whether they were a big political
booster of the Bush administration. It points out that many of them
were big political contributors to the Bush administration.
Taking that kind of license with our national security, I think, is
scandalous. It is important that we begin to hold people to account.
Let's begin to have a real national conversation, not just a one-way
discussion that the President wants to have.
Let's have some real hearings on Capitol Hill. Let's begin to have
some accountability, because we all know that when you have a system
that rewards people who fail, that gives a pat on the back to the
people who constantly got it wrong, and yet at the same time penalizes
the people who got it right in this administration, the people who said
we needed more troops on the ground, the people who questioned some of
the decisions, it turns out that people who questioned the decisions
were ignored or penalized. People like this general who wanted to do
some postwar planning was ignored. In fact, they threatened to fire
people who did that kind of thing.
{time} 2200
If you reward failure, you are going to get more failure. What we are
asking I think tonight and on other nights is that we just begin to
hold people accountable and that this House of Representatives begin to
do its job, and not be a rubber stamp, not just say yes, Mr. President,
you know it all, when in fact we know from what is going on in Iraq
that they have gotten so much wrong. Let's begin to get it right, and
let's begin to ask the hard questions. I thank my colleague.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank my colleague for his statement tonight and all
your tremendous leadership on this. I am confident with Democrats we
will not only have a new direction, but we will have a functioning
government of checks and balances where there is actual oversight by
the Congress of the administration, which every administration needs,
no matter how good, but particularly when the administration has made
such serious mistakes that have placed this Nation so much in jeopardy.
We need oversight.
I would add only one thing, and this you may have watched, Mr. Van
Hollen, the interview with the President from New Orleans when he went
down for the Katrina anniversary, and Brian Williams asked him, ``Mr.
President, some people have criticized that you have never really asked
for a sacrifice of the American people in the war on terror. Is that a
fair criticism?''
His answer really struck me, because we have been talking about the
American people being brought in and given a chance to contribute to
our security and our success with an Apollo-like project for energy
independence.
Well, the President's idea of sacrifice, he said, ``Brian, that is
not true. The American people have sacrificed. After 9/11, our economy
was hurt, so American people sacrificed. And they pay taxes. They pay a
lot of taxes, Brian.''
That was it. That was the sacrifice he was asking. Now, if he had
been a little more forthcoming, he might have said, ``Now, Brian, they
pay taxes. They pay a lot of taxes, although actually they pay less
taxes since 9/11, thanks to me, so the sacrifice really is they pay
less taxes. That is their contribution.''
And you have to ask, where are the Rosie the Riveters? Who is being
called upon? These troops of ours that are doing these multiple
rotations, they are sacrificing and their families are sacrificing. But
what have the rest of us been asked to do? And in this body, I would
think at a minimum we could move forward with far-reaching legislation
to wean ourselves from reliance on fossil fuels. We could initiate real
oversight with vigor. These are the kind of new directions we need to
take this country in.
I yield now to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, David Scott, a fellow Blue Dog member, who has been such a
superb voice on these issues.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you very much, Mr. Schiff. Of course, it
is great to be here with you again, and my good friend Chris Van Hollen
from Maryland. He is a tremendous advocate for national security. I
have enjoyed his opening remarks and very thought-provoking remarks.
And certainly it is always good to be on the floor with our leader,
Steny Hoyer, who has long been a champion of national security. That is
certainly the issue today.
This is the issue that is on the minds of the American people. This
is prime time, national security. We have got to make sure the American
people not only feel safe, but we guarantee that they are safe. We have
the capacity to do that.
As I stand here, I was observing the remarks earlier about the
contributions that the great State of Maryland and all of our great
States have made to our strong defense and national security, and
certainly I am proud to say that Georgia, my State, is certainly at the
head of the list on that as well.
I stand here on the shoulders of some great folks who have been
strong on national security and helped to secure this country and make
us the superior military power that we are, men like Senator Sam Nunn
and Senator Richard Russell from my fine State of Georgia. I stand here
on the shoulders of those great Democratic leaders who have led the
way.
Mr. SCHIFF. If I can interject, Mr. Scott, because I don't want to do
any disservice to the great State of Georgia, a couple other superb
Members who are contemporaries of ours, Jim Marshall and John Barrow,
great, great advocates and leaders on national security. Jim Marshall
is a decorated war veteran. So Georgia has got more than its share.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Absolutely. Jim and I have traveled overseas
together. He was a decorated war veteran from Vietnam. So we stand tall
as Democrats when it comes to national security, without any question.
I want to start my remarks off, because I think today will go down in
history as a very profound day, starting with the United Nations. Today
presented some very interesting pictures as we watched television. Two
speeches, of course, stand out on this day.
I don't think I can remember in history when the President of the
United States addressed the United Nations, but yet one of our chief
adversaries, one of which he labeled one of the ``axis of evil,'' the
President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, came in prime time, while the President
spoke earlier, not in prime time.
I am wondering how we got to this point? Where did this president of
Iran come from? Five years ago we had never heard of him. Certainly I
hadn't. But here he is at the United Nations, in fact upstaging our
President. If I were working at the White House, I certainly would not
have allowed the President of the United States to be over there on the
same day. I felt that was very, very interesting.
It might do us a little good to understand how we got to this point,
and the
[[Page H6724]]
way we do that, I think, is to start off this discussion by clearly
pointing out to the American people something that they are gradually
beginning to see, and that is this, that we are fighting two distinct
wars; one war is on terror, the other war is in Iraq.
One war is of necessity. It was necessary. That is the war on terror,
which is where we went into Afghanistan to go after the terrorist
organization that attacked us on 9/11. That was a war of necessity, and
we went there because that is where the enemy was that attacked us.
That is where al Qaeda was. That is where bin Laden was, on that border
between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We got the support of NATO and we got
the support of the government of Afghanistan, with their help, and we
went in there.
But then we went into Iraq, and we went into Iraq on a lot of
manufactured, now we know the truth, incomplete information, maybe
false information, perhaps even manipulated information. Those are the
facts. That is what is out there. But, nonetheless, we went into Iraq
in a war of choice.
Now we need to do a cost-benefit analysis, which brings me to the
point I wanted to get to earlier, to segue back in, to show these two
connecting points of what happened today, where the President of the
United States is upstaged by the President of Iran, a president we did
not even know about 5 years ago.
But when you do the cost-benefit analysis on the war of choice, which
is the war in Iraq, not the war on terror, which is the war of
necessity in Afghanistan, and do a cost-benefit analysis, in other
words, look at our cost: 2,600 soldiers, men and women who gave their
lives, who were killed; nearly 20,000 wounded; over $600 billion
expended at a rate of $3 billion every week. That is the cost.
Who benefited? Who benefited? Who benefited? Iraq. When we went into
Afghanistan, although we went in on the war on terror, we went after
the Taliban, doing, again, Iraq's bidding. That was their enemy.
When we went into Iraq, without question the chief beneficiary of
that was Iran. They were the beneficiaries, because Saddam Hussein was
their worst blood enemy. We did the dirty work for Iran. On the other
account, we established a Shia regime there, a Shia government in Iraq.
That, again, was a benefit to Iran.
{time} 2210
They were able to control that.
The other thing, all the while we are doing this, they are busy
developing their nuclear capacity so that now that they have the
nuclear capacity, again, a checkmate and a benefit for Iraq.
So that now my point is simply that because of some of our policies,
most definitely going into Iraq, the major beneficiary of our going
into Iraq is Iran, which now is boosted on the stage and is here this
day, in this country, at the United Nations, giving a speech. And here
is a man who is the sponsor of the very terrorist organization that
controlled the Lebanon situation, as well as the Hamas, which controls
the Palestinian.
All I am simply saying is our national security policies, our foreign
policies have had a devastating impact, and that when we do the cost/
benefit analysis, it certainly benefits Iraq. It has taken us away from
pursuing the goal of finding and decapitating the head of the
mastermind of the terrorist organization that came to destroy us.
That is why the American people are beginning to see this
differentiation, and we are not going to be able to find our way out of
this unless we finally do so we can understand exactly what this
situation in Iraq is doing, and like you, we are not standing here just
talking. We are standing here explaining how we earnestly feel as
Americans, strong, patriotic Americans, who care about this country,
and who resent the President of the United States saying that anytime
we question that, we are not patriotic. We are doing our duty that the
American people sent us up here to do to raise these important issues.
We cannot stay the course, not this course. Sixty-three percent of
the American people say they want a new direction. It is up to
Democrats to provide that direction.
The other issue which concerns me is the state of our military. Not
only must we explain to the American people and help to dramatize and
explain clearly and show how we are dealing with two distinct wars, one
of necessity, one of choice, but the drain on the military, we have got
to correct that. Our military is in a draining state. We are not
meeting our recruiting goals. We are on two and three tours of duty
there.
We are in a terrible hole in Iraq, and we have got to extricate
ourselves out of it. The challenge is to do so with yet the dignity and
the respect that we must do so to honor the sacrifice of our men and
women who have given their lives there, while at the same time putting
the responsibility on the Iraqis themselves to manifest their destiny.
They want democracy. We cannot shove it at them with a gun. They have
to feel it in their soul. They have to go forward and grab it. That is
not happening, and that is what we have to do to get this moving
forward in a way that gives the respect to our military who have given
their lives there.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman very much for your comments, for
your leadership on this issue. It has been a great pleasure and honor
to share a few thoughts with you and our colleague Mr. Van Hollen and
our whip Mr. Hoyer. Once again, I want to thank the great State of
Georgia for sending you to Congress.
____________________