[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16522-16528]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 16523]]

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 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

[[Page 16524]]

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. 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. DELAHUNT. 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

[[Page 16525]]

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).
  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 mischarac-
terizations, 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.

[[Page 16526]]

  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.

                              {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

[[Page 16527]]

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 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 counterin-
surgency 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,

[[Page 16528]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________