[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23567-23569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EARTHQUAKE RELIEF FOR PAKISTAN

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the people of Kashmir are no strangers to 
hardship. Their beautiful, tragic land has been the arena of full-scale 
warfare between India and Pakistan, a long-running insurgency marked by 
exceptional brutality and penetration by terrorist groups in league 
with al-Qaida.
  On October 8, the people of Kashmir suffered the most devastating 
blow yet: A massive earthquake killed about as many Kashmiris in just a 
few minutes as all the bullets and bombs of massed armies were able to 
kill there over the previous half-century. And unless we act now, the 
casualty count will climb even higher.
  At latest count, the quake's death toll is somewhere between 55,000 
and 80,000. An estimated 3 million people are now homeless. As the 
survivors spend day after miserable day with little food or water, 
little medical care, little protection from the bitterly cold winter 
temperatures that have already hampered relief efforts, the number of 
the dead will certainly rise.
  Residents of the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir were hit 
hard: 1,400 have died, a number greater than the death toll of Katrina. 
But the worst devastation has been felt in the area administered by 
Pakistan, which has borne the brunt of the disaster.
  For Pakistan, the earthquake was at least 40 Katrinas, all rolled 
into one.
  The capitol of Pakistani Kashmir has been largely destroyed. Relief 
efforts will cost billions of dollars, and repairs to the very most 
basic infrastructure will cost billions more.
  American helicopter pilots and other military personnel have 
performed heroically in the rescue operation. The first 72 hours after 
a disaster of this magnitude are vital, since this is the window in 
which trapped survivors have a realistic chance of being brought out 
alive. As of last week, October 17, 442 U.S. personnel and 11 
helicopters were involved in the effort, and the U.S. military had 
evacuated 2,500 survivors. I am proud of our service men and women, and 
I wholeheartedly support President Bush's decision to deploy our 
military assets to this mission of mercy.
  I would like to see far more of our choppers devoted to this vital 
effort: With only 30 percent of the affected villages reachable by 
road, the single greatest need is for every utility helicopter that can 
be rushed to the scene; we've got Chinooks, Blackhawks, and other 
suitable craft right across the border in Afghanistan, and I hope the 
administration will immediately shift more of these assets to the 
short-term mission of saving lives.
  I also support the President's pledge of financial aid for the 
reconstruction effort--indeed, I rise today to urge President Bush to 
send more aid. This is no time for half-measures.
  If there is one thing we all should have learned from Katrina and the 
Southeast Asian tsunami, it is that an effective, rapid, well-funded 
response is necessary to prevent a terrible tragedy from spiraling into 
an uncontrolled disaster.
  As of today, October 24, the total amount of earthquake aid committed 
by the administration has been about $27 million. President Bush has 
pledged ``up to'' $50 million, and Secretary Rice has hinted that the 
total figure might be higher than this, but so far--2 weeks after the 
tragedy--these are still vague abstractions. The costs for tsunami 
relief proved far higher than the initial estimates--or the initial 
U.S. pledge. It is a safe bet that the needs for this tragedy will also 
prove much greater than initial estimates. It is far too early to cap 
our contribution.
  The U.N. has sought $312 million to meet immediate needs but has 
found the world community willing to pledge barely a quarter of this 
amount--and the White House's response has been to promise less than 4 
percent of this modest sum, per USAID fact-sheet of 10/21: $10.8 
million to U.N. flash appeal. Mr. President, we need to do much more, 
to do it much faster--and we need the administration to start telling 
us some answers:
  How much money will we actually spend? And where will it come from? 
Does the administration plan to shift

[[Page 23568]]

funds from existing accounts for Pakistan, in which case the 
President's pledge would look like a bait-and-switch? Would the funds 
come from existing disaster accounts, in which case every dollar sent 
to Kashmir would potentially be a dollar taken from Darfur, Guatemala, 
or Niger?
  With so many pressing needs here in the United States, some may ask 
why send any aid overseas. Let's take care of our own people, some may 
say, leave other nations to take care of themselves.
  But this is a false choice. We can take care of our own people and 
fulfill our moral duty to our fellow human beings elsewhere in the 
world.
  When we were struck by the tragedy of Katrina, 90 nations offered us 
assistance--including a pledge of $1 million from Pakistan. Aiding the 
victims of the Kashmiri earthquake is the right thing to do, and it is 
also in our vital national interest. As we have seen in the aftermath 
of the Asian tsunami this year, disaster relief is one of the most 
effective--and cost-effective--tools in our diplomatic or political 
arsenal.
  Other nations recognize the twinned moral and political need for 
generous humanitarian response. Some 30 countries have sent relief aid 
to Pakistan, countries including Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, 
France, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Iran, Jordan, Syria and 
Afghanistan. Several, including Britain and Turkey, sent specialized 
search-and-rescue teams to pull survivors out of the rubble.
  Others have already established mobile field hospitals that are 
saving hundreds--maybe thousands--of lives on a daily basis. Even 
Pakistan's longtime rival India sent planeloads of tents, medicine, and 
other supplies.
  The U.S. has been generous, but so too have other countries. If the 
administration does indeed follow through on President Bush's $50 
million promise, that would be half the amount pledged by Kuwait, half 
the amount pledged by the United Arab Emirates. Last weekend, Saudi 
Arabia announced an aid package of $133 million. We are not the only 
country involved in this relief effort and our contribution should 
reflect our Nation's true generosity of spirit.
  It is not just nations that are joining the effort: private 
individuals and groups have opened their hearts and wallets. Here in 
this country, NGOs like Mercy Corps, CARE, the International Rescue 
Committee, Save the Children and the Red Cross have collected many 
thousands of dollars.
  In one development that builds upon an encouraging warming of ties 
between Pakistan and Israel, President Musharraf has specifically 
welcomed the contributions of American Jewish charities.
  But there are other organizations whose support is more troubling: 
extremist groups have been in the forefront of disaster relief. There 
is a desperate need for more assistance--and that void is being filled 
by groups hostile to American interests.
  Jamaat ul-Dawa, an affiliate of the terrorist group Lashkar-e Taiba, 
has been operating a major field hospital complete with x-ray 
facilities and an operating theater--a facility so capable that it has 
been treating casualties of the Pakistani military itself.
  More than a week after the earthquake, the U.S. had still not set up 
a mobile field hospital, despite the proximity of resources in 
Afghanistan and the Middle East; I hope that by now such a facility is 
in operation. We have the finest military medical personnel in the 
world, and they are eager to save as many lives as they can.
  Why has the administration been unable to accomplish a vital 
humanitarian task that is currently being carried out by a terrorist 
affiliate?
  And Jamaat ul-Dawa isn't the only extremist group filling this need. 
The AI-Khidmat Foundation, the charity branch of hardline Islamist 
party Jamaat-e Islami, has organized relief convoys, medical facilities 
and camps sheltering survivors.
  The Al-Rasheed trust, a group whose U.S. assets have been frozen on 
the suspicion that it channeled funds to al-Qaida is highly visible in 
a variety of relief efforts.
  There's nothing new about extremist groups performing social 
services. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, and a variety of other 
groups on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list have long bolstered 
their base of support by providing social welfare programs--especially 
where the government has been either unable or unwilling to meet its 
citizens' most basic needs.
  The extremists know that such programs build goodwill among the 
populace. They have learned a lesson already known to every U.S. 
military officer: You can't win a war with bombs alone, you have to win 
hearts and minds.
  Our military professionals know this, but it sometimes seems as if 
the civilian leadership in the White House has forgotten the lesson. We 
had an opportunity to demonstrate our friendship to the Pakistani 
people, to the Kashmiris on both sides of the line of control, to 
Muslims throughout the globe, and instead we have failed to match our 
commitment with our superpower status. Every day we let the extremists 
fill the void is another opportunity wasted.
  The Asian tsunami provides a shining example of the need for rapid 
action, and what we can accomplish when we do things right.
  The initial response from the White House was disappointing: for the 
first week after the tragedy, the administration lagged behind other 
nations, including small countries with far inferior resources than we 
possess.
  But once the administration decided to match America's contribution 
with our superpower status, we leapt to the forefront of the relief 
effort. When the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group and other naval 
assets arrived on the scene, they immediately established us the leader 
of the global response.
  The sailors, marines and other service members did an absolutely 
superb job: They performed an act of public diplomacy more powerful 
than any dollars-and-sense reckoning could calculate.
  They showed that the U.S. military is not merely a fearsome adversary 
but also a powerful friend.
  This effort had an immediate impact: In Indonesia, the world's most 
populous Muslim nation, popular attitudes towards the United States 
profoundly improved, almost overnight. Before George Bush took office, 
75 percent of Indonesians had a favorable impression of the United 
States; by 2003, that number had fallen to 15 percent.
  But in the aftermath of the tsunami, Indonesians saw Americans as 
friends rather than foes. In a survey sponsored by the nonpartisan 
group Terror Free Tomorrow, 65 percent of respondents had a more 
favorable view of the United States after the arrival of the USS 
Abraham Lincoln.
  This public attitude is directly reflected in Indonesian views of the 
war on terror. In the same poll, support for Osama bin Laden dropped 
from 58 percent prior to the tsunami to 23 percent afterward. For the 
first time in any major poll, a plurality, 40 percent, supported the 
U.S.-led fight against terrorism.
  And this isn't merely a matter of poll numbers: Indonesian-based 
extremist groups tried to use their relief operations in the tsunami-
ravaged province of Aceh as a tool for recruitment, and due in large 
part to the strong U.S. response these groups utterly failed to make 
headway. When they tried to preach anti-American sentiments, the people 
of Aceh shut them down cold: The survivors of the tsunami knew better 
because they had seen American sailors and marines saving lives.
  The lesson is clear: Our humanitarian duty and our national security 
interests here are in complete accord. When we use our military and 
financial strength to save lives, we help drain the swamp of terrorism.
  We accomplished a tremendous feat in the tsunami recovery effort. For 
the price of just a few days' operating expenses in Iraq, we bought an 
incalculable amount of goodwill among the 210 million Muslims in 
Indonesia, and improved our standing among many other Muslims 
worldwide.
  Today, we have the chance to replicate our success. We can do in 
Pakistan what we did in Indonesia: prove

[[Page 23569]]

that America is not engaged in a crusade against Islam.
  We can demonstrate--with deeds, not empty words--that we are allies 
rather than adversaries. We can show that we, and not the extremists or 
the terrorists, are the best friends that the people of Muslim nations 
could want to have.
  We can do this, but we can't do it on the cheap. We can't do it with 
just a dozen helicopters and $27 million and a promise that eventually 
we may contribute half as much as Kuwait.
  Mr. President, I urge this Chamber to do more. And I urge the 
administration to immediately match our contribution with the vital 
need at hand: With Pakistan reeling from the worst natural disaster in 
its history, we can't afford to let our response be too little and too 
late.
  Today, Mr. President, our moral duty and our national security 
interest are one.

                          ____________________