[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11084-11089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           CROSSROADS IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mack). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is

[[Page 11085]]

recognized for the remaining time until midnight as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, tonight I wish to speak about Iraq, a 
separate and distinct war from the war on terrorism. Those who are 
terrorists with their genesis in Afghanistan have a goal of creating a 
fundamentalist Muslim caliphate all across the Middle East. The 
insurgents are Baathists and Sunnis in Iraq who have as their goal a 
separate and distinct one of toppling the government that is there and 
creating their own.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle wish to confuse the battle 
against terrorists and the battle against insurgents in the country of 
Iraq. Tonight I wish to speak about Iraq because we are at a strategic 
crossroads as a Nation regarding that war.
  I wish to speak about the health of our military that is being 
drained by the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, we are sustaining a 
battalion's worth of casualties every month wounded and killed in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The number of attacks on the American and allied 
forces is at the highest level since the insurgency began despite the 
increase of America combat operations and the introduction of some 40 
new Iraq security forces and battalions.
  An ABC poll shows that 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the 
situation in Iraq. What is responsible for us arriving at this point? I 
have to say a lot of good words about our military, the finest we have 
ever had, they are doing a superb job. I am proud of them, and every 
American should be. But there have been operational strategic mistakes 
sadly made by the administration that has brought us to this point at a 
crossroads in Iraq.
  First, allowing the looting; second, not having a plan for the 
aftermath, although duly warned; by dismissing the Iraqi Army rather 
than giving them a paycheck and a shovel; failure to plan and have 
American civilian professionals from the State Department, 
Transportation Department, Agriculture Department, and Judiciary with 
the right skills to advise the Iraqis when they took over their 
governmental ministries; the failure to react to the wartime collapse 
of the Iraqi military and security police forces; and the decision to 
disband the Army, as I mentioned; failure to have a sufficient number 
of American troops at the beginning and later as General Eric Shinseki 
warned.
  This is a year of transition in Iraq. The bill that we passed last 
year, the defense bill, stated that calendar year 2006 should be a 
period of time of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with 
Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and 
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased 
redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.
  If we are not able to redeploy our forces from Iraq, the health of 
our military will be seriously endangered. We are wearing the troops 
out. Not just the troops, but the equipment. As a matter of fact, Mr. 
Speaker, 13,849 members of the selected reserves have had three 
deployments, and 10,408 have been deployed more than three times. Well, 
where do we go from here?
  We have to do our best to train those Iraqis, let them and their 
government know that the ball is in their court. We have to make sure 
they are properly equipped, and I might also say that the equipment of 
the Army and Marines Corps ground equipment is wearing out. Some of it 
is wearing out from two to nine times the peacetime rate.
  We have global interests, potential threats from elsewhere, North 
Korea, Iran, Taiwan Straits and the like. We must be prepared for any 
future threat. That is why it is important that this be a transition 
year, 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I 
want to commend his efforts as the ranking Democrat on the Armed 
Services Committee for making sure, as other Democratic members have, 
that the men and women who serve this country get the equipment that 
they need to succeed. Many of us were stunned to see so many of our men 
and women put into harm's way without having enough uploaded Humvees 
and Kevlar vests.
  I also want to acknowledge the gentleman for considering the 
casualties that we are taking. I believe the gentleman said a battalion 
per month. A battalion per month.
  What effect is this going to have on the long-term implications for 
national security and our military? One of the things a country has to 
do in a time of war is tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Yet the administration continues to think that the 
American people cannot handle the truth or do not want the truth. We 
experience setbacks. We have strategies that do not work. They continue 
to tell us we should stay the course and everything will be all right. 
We have no accountability on the part of the Congress, either the House 
or the Senate, to hold the administration accountable for what their 
policies are or aren't.
  Members of the Armed Services Committee tonight, Democrats on that 
committee that have served on the committee traveled, I think every 
Democrat has been to Iraq at least twice, will follow me and tell you 
that the administration is simply not being candid, honest and truthful 
with the American people about the situation in Iraq. As Mr. Skelton 
indicated, we went into Iraq without enough troops. General Shinseki 
told us we were going to need a few hundred thousand troops. What did 
they do at the Pentagon, they put him out to pasture as if he did not 
know what he was talking about.
  The reality is that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Mr. 
Skelton talked about the insurgency in Iraq. Ninety to 93 percent of 
the insurgents in Iraq are from within Iraq. There is an outside group 
of somewhere between 8 and 10 percent terrorists that have come over 
the border. It makes you wonder why the President said to every 
terrorist in the world, Bring it on. Bring it on.
  There are more attacks today in Iraq by the insurgency than ever. The 
situation is growing worse because the insurgency is growing stronger. 
Sectarian violence is becoming more common, and violent crime is on the 
rise. I am not just saying these things, the facts support these 
things. Despite the claim that the available combat power of the Iraqi 
security forces is increasing and the operational tempo has 
significantly stepped up, violent insurgent attacks have increased 
every month this year. That is a fact.
  Violent crime in Baghdad is at its highest level since August 2003. 
That is a fact.
  Insurgent attacks have increased every month this year, and that is a 
fact. But we keep hearing about how things are getting better. 
Insurgency is as large today as it has been at any point in Iraq. That 
is a fact.
  The administration has been stressing to us that reconstruction is 
going well and that progress is being made, and certainly in some parts 
of the country that is true. But you cannot look at the totality of the 
circumstances and say that the administration is being honest or 
truthful with the American people.
  While we debate here tonight, residents of Baghdad receive 3.9 hours 
of electricity per day. Let me repeat that: 3.9 hours of electricity 
per day. So it is great that those satellite dishes are up, but people 
are unable to use them. Before the war, people in Baghdad could depend 
on 16 to 24 hours a day of electricity, and this past month, it is only 
17 to 20 percent of the prewar output.
  It is really hard to focus on democratization when you live by 
candlelight and cannot store your food. Drinking water is not readily 
available either. Back in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority 
stated that the goal was to have 23 million of the 26 million Iraqis 
with access to potable water.

                              {time}  2330

  Do you know where we stand today in that goal? Just a little over 8 
million Iraqis have safe access to drinking water. This is 
significantly lower than pre-war levels and about a third of what the 
CPA was aiming at. We have failed to do our jobs in terms of providing 
electricity, providing the water, providing the economic development,

[[Page 11086]]

providing jobs. Any country in the world with a 40 percent unemployment 
rate is going to have an insurgency.
  Now, maybe the administration could point to success in building a 
train station, but we can't have success without providing the 
necessities of life. So the administration talks about how much safer 
things are. But the reality is, if you look at the facts, you see that 
staying the course is just not an option for the United States. We have 
to look at the facts. We have to look at the fact that the challenges 
in Iraq are growing every day. Our military is stretched to the limits. 
20,000 Americans, brave American soldiers have either been injured, 
seriously injured, or have been killed. So what we would like is a 
debate on Iraq, not some kind of political statement that merges Iraq 
with Afghanistan, with Spain, with London, and put it all together and 
call it the war on terror and say we support our troops. We all want to 
win the war on terror. We all want to make sure that we support our 
troops. But we really ought to have a discussion of what is going on in 
Iraq. And there are members of the Armed Services Committee who have 
been trying to get that discussion, trying to get that accountability 
who are here today. And I want to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California to continue this discussion.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think many of us 
find ourselves deeply distressed that we are here to talk about a so-
called week about the war on terrorism when we were promised months ago 
by the majority leader a debate on Iraq.
  There is a convergence here of themes that have been deeply 
disappointing to me for well over the last 2 years, as I saw the 
administration begin to use terms like the ``global war on terror'' to 
begin to cover for what has clearly been a mistake in Iraq. I am here 
tonight because I believe it is high time for a change of direction in 
Iraq.
  I honor the sacrifice of our fighting men and women and their 
families. With 2,498 American deaths in Iraq today since the beginning 
of the military operations, it is time that the Bush administration 
finally levels with the American people. I think we first have to go 
back to where, the beginning, to when, after the September 11 attacks 
and after this House, Democrats, Republicans, along with the Senate and 
the American people, agreed that we had to topple the government, the 
Taliban government in Afghanistan that had harbored the al Qaeda 
terrorists that had attacked us on September 11.
  And after we took that government out and began to move that 
operation toward, hopefully, a successful Afghanistan, we began to hear 
the drumbeat of talk out of the administration that Iraq was a big 
threat to us, that we had mushroom clouds in our future, that this was 
a country with a leader in Saddam Hussein who was an imminent threat to 
the United States. Many of us in the post-September 11 time believed 
that we had to do something more than just fly flights over Iraq and 
deal with those issues that we had to really move and to do things to 
create the kind of coalition of not only the willing but the capable 
that we had when George Bush's father went after Saddam Hussein in the 
first gulf war.
  The real issue right now is what have we done in Iraq to make sure 
that we can actually succeed. And I think that what we have, 
unfortunately, has been a number of mistakes by the civilian leadership 
in the Pentagon. We have heard them all before. The litany is long and 
getting longer. It begins with not really understanding the context of 
Iraq. It begins with not really understanding that we needed more 
troops on the ground after we took Saddam Hussein's government down 
than we actually need to do the taking down of the government.
  It began with not really understanding the context and the construct 
of those, the sects in Iraq and the enmity and the fear and the kind of 
reprisals that you would see if the Sunni minority that had been in 
power during the Saddam time actually had the Shiia come back into 
power and realized how badly they had been treated for 25 years. We 
have had multiple governments in Iraq, and this mission has morphed and 
constantly been redefined by the administration to fit the latest 
catastrophe.
  What I really hope we can do over the next few days is have a 
Democratic position begin to emerge. Our friends on the other side like 
to talk about truth. And Daniel Patrick Moynihan did have that great 
saying about people can have their own opinion, but they can't have 
their own set of facts. Well, my grandmother from Ireland used to tell 
me that saying it doesn't make it so. And what is really clear is that 
we have to have a movement forward by this administration to not only 
admit the mistakes that have been made, but to be sure that we actually 
can bring our troops home sooner and safer. We want to honor the 
sacrifice of our troops, but at the same time we want to bring them 
home sooner and safer.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague from New Jersey who is going to 
continue this conversation, Mr. Andrews.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. The job of the American 
troops in Iraq is to fight for the cause for which we have sent them to 
fight, and they are doing an honorable and brave and magnificent job; 
and we are all proud of them and we all support them. The job of the 
President, as the leader of the executive branch and the Commander in 
Chief is to make policy decisions as to how and where to use those 
forces. And we have grave doubts about whether he has made the right 
decisions in Iraq. In fact, the record shows he has made a series of 
poor decisions that put the country in great trouble.
  But the job of the Congress is to oversee and ask the questions as to 
whether the policymakers in the executive branch, from the President on 
down, are doing the job that we want them to do. This Congress, this 
majority in Congress has failed to do that job, has failed to ask the 
questions that need to be asked:
  Why did the Pentagon ignore the advice of the Chief of Staff of the 
Army, General Shinseki, and send fewer than half the number of troops 
that he recommended? Why did the administration ignore the advice of 
their own State Department experts and immediately disband the Baathist 
Party, the whole thing? Why did they further ignore the advice of those 
experts and disband the Iraqi Army, the whole thing?
  Why did they not guard the ammo dumps that are now providing the fire 
power that is making IEDs that are killing Americans every day? Why did 
they not properly set up supervision of the prisons so that we have the 
national scandal of Abu Ghraib and the grave damage it has done to the 
reputation of this country around the world?
  And I think the central question that vexes us tonight is why have we 
still not organized our intelligence functions on the ground such that 
we can't predict and stop the actions of maybe 25,000 people in a 
country of 24 million people? Why is it that the resistance is always a 
step ahead, that the ability to stop them is a rare occurrence? The 
fact of the matter is the Congress hasn't done the job that it needs to 
do because the majority is serving as a rubber stamp for the policies 
of the administration, rather than as a coequal branch asking the tough 
questions that ought to be asked.
  Let's start with these: Do we have the intelligence forces on the 
ground to figure out where the resistance fighters are, who the 
resistance fighters are, and what they might do next? Have we reached 
out to our allies in the Arab and Muslim world who deal with this 
problem on a daily basis to get the best of their practices and the 
best of their advice? The numbers of Iraqi forces, we were told before 
the 2004 election in this country, that several hundred Iraqi security 
forces were trained and ready to step up and defend their own country. 
Rather than growing, it seems that number is shrinking. It dropped 
precipitously after the 2004 election in this country. It has never 
been predictable. It has never been stable. It has never been 
measurable.
  The job of the Congress is to ask the hard questions and come up with 
the

[[Page 11087]]

right answers. But if you deny the fact that the questions have to be 
asked, as the majority has, you will never come up with the right 
answers. You will lose the faith of the American people, and you will 
undercut the mission of those in the field. We support, respect, and 
admire the efforts of those in the field. That is why we should be 
asking the hard questions.
  I would like to yield to my friend from California who is not only 
asking good questions but providing some of the answers, my friend Mrs. 
Davis.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. I want to raise an issue that I think has 
really not gotten a lot of attention, and that is the fact that our 
troops have been asked to play roles that they really didn't train for. 
One moment our troops are being asked to work with civilians in Iraq 
and with the local governments. They are being asked to teach them 
negotiating skills. And then in the next minute, they are being asked 
to go outside and control the chaos that is swarming in the streets. 
Well, you know what? We know that our soldiers have answered these 
calls, and they do it better than anyone could have ever expected them 
to. But the fact that they have had to perform these different roles is 
disturbing evidence of the way the President and his civilian leaders 
have planned so poorly for this war and the aftermath that we are still 
in today.
  But don't listen to me. Listen to General McCaffrey who has made 
numerous trips to Iraq and to Afghanistan and he has publicly stated 
that that critical interagency coordination that was really important 
to get the kind of provincial reconstruction themes are just beginning 
to emerge now up and running. What disturbs me is not just the fact 
that our military has been asked to perform those tasks; but in the 
place of people who should have been performing those tasks, we have 
very inexperienced and young individuals who really have never played 
that role before.
  So just now we see some changes; we see that they are trying to put 
together the right Foreign Service officers in the field. Even today, 
Secretary Rice said she is still struggling to do that in many cases. 
What was needed was a plan for post-occupation Iraq that honored the 
sacrifices of our troops. And instead they have been given this burden 
unnecessarily and at great cost.
  I join in applauding my colleagues, as we all are, trying to raise 
the facts and the realities of Iraq today. And I yield to Mr. Skelton.
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentlewoman from California. This is the 
year of transition. It is up to the Iraqi people. It is up to the Iraqi 
Government. It is up to the Iraqi forces. They are going to have to 
take it upon themselves with the assistance of the wonderful Americans 
that are there to make this transition work.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, Dr. Snyder.
  Mr. SNYDER. Last week, Mr. Speaker, all 28 Democrats of the House 
Armed Services Committee signed a letter to Chairman Duncan Hunter 
asking for the reinstatement of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. Now why do we do this? Because 10 years ago when the 
Republicans took over control of Congress that subcommittee on the 
House Armed Services Committee was eliminated and the intent was that 
oversight, bipartisan oversight was to be conducted by the other 
subcommittees. That has been a failure and we have seen that as members 
of this committee, some of us for almost a decade now. It has been a 
failure particularly during this time that our Nation is at war.
  Our troops deserve the kind of effective government oversight that 
they deserve. So what are we talking about? We have had corruption, we 
have had fraud, we have had gross mismanagement; and it undermines the 
war in Iraq. Anthony Cordesman, the noted expert from CSIS, concluded 
that we have wasted about half of the $22 billion of U.S. funds that 
have been spent so far in reconstruction, and much of the $34.6 billion 
of Iraqi funds. The Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction 
concluded that ``corruption is another form of insurgency in Iraq.'' So 
what are we talking about? We have spent about $1.8 billion on 
electricity reconstruction projects, but the pre-war capacity has not 
yet been reached for electricity generation.
  We have spent $650 million of USAID money on oil production 
infrastructure, but we still have not reached the pre-war level 
production capacity. We have spent about $690 million of U.S. dollars 
on water and sanitation projects in Iraq, and yet the percentage of 
Iraqis with access to drinkable water has fallen to 32 percent from the 
pre-war level of 50 percent, and the percentage of Iraqis with access 
to sewer and sanitation has dropped from 24 percent to 20 percent.
  Here is the problem: our troops are dying and bleeding to give the 
Iraqi people a chance to do well for themselves and their family, to 
have drinkable water, to have a safe place to raise children, to have 
the kind of electricity and the kind of things they need for modern 
civilization. And yet, because of the inadequacies of the way the 
administration is conducting the war and monitoring the payments of 
these monies, that work is not getting done and the Democrats on the 
House Arms Services Committee are saying tonight we have got to do 
better.
  I would now like to yield to Mr. Rick Larsen from the State of 
Washington, also a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. I rise today as we reexamine why Congress 
and the administration diverted attention from our fight against 
terrorists and terrorism in order to invade Iraq.

                              {time}  2345

  The current administration has gotten too many things wrong in Iraq 
and has totally misinterpreted the lessons of the post-9/11 world. It 
is up to Democrats to get things right in Iraq so we can refocus our 
military efforts to fighting terrorists around the world who want to 
harm us.
  Today I ask my colleagues: Will we realistically confront terrorists 
and terrorism with all the elements of our national power, or will we 
continue to ignore a proven approach to follow a shop-worn, idealistic 
approach that drains our military of its resources and America of its 
good will with the very partners that we need to fight terrorism? That 
is the choice our country faces.
  The administration has made countless mistakes since the start of the 
war in Iraq. As Congress looks to clean up the mistakes that have been 
made, Democrats must speak out against this administration's tendency 
to overlook problems and instead push for a policy that centers on 
oversight of U.S. taxpayer dollars. We must respond to the public's 
frustrations by creating a secure future for our military and 
reestablish a foundation for American efforts to fight terrorists and 
terrorism around the globe.
  We can only do that by confronting and repairing the waste, fraud, 
and abuse that plagues our efforts in Iraq. We need to emphasize that 
our commitment to U.S. taxpayers is equally as important as the 
commitment we have made to the Iraqi people.
  I ask the American people to consider the legacy this administration 
has handed us in the defense budget as we spend billions of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars without the tools and ability to track these dollars. 
Will we tolerate the squeeze that will force choices between weapons 
and warriors because of a lack of administration foresight and lack of 
congressional oversight? I believe the answer is no.
  We must consider the legacy of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq. Why 
are we not getting results for our taxpayer dollars? We do not know 
because the institution endowed by the Constitution that is responsible 
for protecting your taxpayer dollars is practicing overlook instead of 
oversight. Parents who are monitoring their children on the Internet 
are providing more oversight than the United States Congress.
  We learn of events and stories through the media once the waste, 
fraud, or abuses have reached comic proportions. We know that 
Halliburton has overcharged both the U.S. Government and the 
Development Fund for

[[Page 11088]]

Iraq by over $260 million. The Department of Justice brought criminal 
indictments against a former CPA contracting official and a contractor 
for a series of frauds costing taxpayers $13 million, and the CPA lost 
control of $19.6 billion in Iraqi oil funds.
  As Congress overlooks expenditures of billions of U.S. taxpayer 
dollars in Iraq, it ignores responsibility to provide a secure future 
for our military.
  Just in closing, I join my colleagues in commending our U.S. military 
working in conjunction with Iraqi security and Iraqis themselves for 
locating and eliminating Abu Musad al-Zarqawi. His terrorist violence 
is gone. But we have learned in Iraq that fighting a ``classic 
guerrilla-type war'' means that a victory like killing Zarqawi cannot 
be celebrated too long. Much remains to be done in Iraq, and Democrats 
have to make right where the administration has gone wrong. Our 
obligations compel us to ask the tough questions that are currently 
ignored.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Missouri, for yielding.
  This is a very, very important subject. We, the members of the House 
Armed Services Committee, support our troops and we are for victory in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the global war on terror. We welcome the 
recent good news. We are glad that they took out Zarqawi. But there is 
more work to be done.
  I also serve on the House Committee on the Budget. I am particularly 
interested that we pay for this war, that we do not borrow the money to 
support our troops from China and Iran and nations like that because 
those nations are increasingly large creditors of our country at a 
crucial time when we do face a global war on terror.
  And where are we getting so much of this money to fund this war? From 
foreign nations. Where are the war bonds for this war? Where are we 
borrowing from our own people to pay for this war? What are we paying 
with for our troops? It is simply not being done by this 
administration.
  But I am joined tonight by two outstanding military veterans who are 
also members of the House Armed Services Committee. First to speak is 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Solomon Ortiz, who has got terrific 
experience not only in the military but in preparing our troops for 
war.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you so much, Jim.
  Tonight we want to begin an honest discussion about where this Nation 
stands in the war that we are prosecuting. And I think that we owe this 
to the young men and women whose lives are on the line each day, their 
families, their futures.
  Supporting the troops has got to mean more than bumper stickers on 
pickup trucks, my friends. We need to give them what they need. You 
know, it wasn't too long ago when my good friend Congressman Reyes and 
I and about eight other bipartisan Members took a trip to visit 25 
military bases around this country. In 4 days we visited 25 bases that 
were in deplorable condition. We were here in this facility on 9/11 
having a press conference to let the American people know where we 
stood and the conditions of the bases that we inspected, the 
infrastructure. A few minutes after that, a plane struck the Pentagon. 
We never were able to give the American people the conditions of the 
military bases.
  I have been to Afghanistan, and I have been to Iraq. But nobody has 
been to Iraq more than my good friend Congressman Reyes. And I would 
like for him to give us an assessment. He is a veteran. He has been to 
Iraq more than any other Member. My friends, let us be honest with the 
American people and tell the American people what we need to do.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, tonight we start what I hope is the first of 
a series of honest discussions with the American people, something we 
have been unable to do up to now.
  There are a number of issues, a number of problems with where we find 
ourselves as a Nation tonight. One of the biggest problems is we have 
not shared the sacrifice.
  As we speak here tonight, 2,498 of our Nation's finest have been 
killed in Iraq and Afghanistan; 18,000 have been wounded with over 
8,500 unable to return back to duty.
  Do we honor and revere and love our troops? Absolutely. Do we respect 
and honor the sacrifices that their families have made and are making? 
Absolutely. Are we concerned about those that are yet to fall, those 
that are yet to come back with wounds? Absolutely.
  Part of the debate that we want to have on this particular issue is 
to make sure that we do not debate other auxiliary things except Iraq. 
Iraq is the area, ground zero, for the kinds of issues that we are 
dealing with, the kinds of things that my colleagues have spoken about 
tonight. The kinds of things we have failed to do as a Congress in 
exercising our oversight responsibilities.
  I have been to Iraq six times, to Afghanistan 12. I have visited with 
our troops. I have seen them. I have shared the environment that they 
share. As a veteran who served 13 months in Vietnam, which seems like 
in a different era, I can relate to the kinds of things that are going 
on in the theater of combat. But the one thing that has been missing 
for us, in my opinion, has been the ability of this Congress to hold 
the administration accountable, to do the oversight that is necessary 
and so vitally important. That is the debate that we want to have on 
this very important topic.
  So with that, my good friend and colleague, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, Congressman Udall, will now speak.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I know the hour draws near, and 
we have to conclude the day's business. And I want to join my 
colleagues from across the country who serve with me on the Armed 
Services Committee to make the point that this is just the beginning of 
this discussion. We have not had time tonight to talk about recruiting 
and retention and the developments that have occurred in those areas. 
We have not talked about equipment and the need to replenish the 
equipment that not only the active duty force is using and leaving 
behind but the National Guard as well.
  I know my colleague Mr. Cooper from Tennessee hears, as I do, from 
returning soldiers and marines about all the equipment that is not 
coming home that would be available in my part of the country to fight 
fires and respond to natural disasters, to help on our border in the 
southern regions. Just recently I had a chance to visit with the Marine 
Corps leadership; and if I am not mistaken, the number that they shared 
with me that is necessary to replenish all the equipment that the 
Marine Corps is leaving behind is on the order of $5 billion, a very 
significant number.
  So I know we want to leave a little bit of time for Mr. Spratt and 
Mr. Skelton to conclude, but I hope that this discussion will continue, 
particularly that we can focus on the real changes we face when it 
comes to retention and recruiting; and I know my good friend Mr. 
Skelton is well aware of this in the part of our country in the 
Midwest.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Victory in Iraq is of primary importance. But it is really up to the 
Iraqi Government, the Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqi people. We 
are and we have been doing and, of course, we will continue to be of 
great assistance. The primary importance is that the Iraqis assume more 
and more of their own security and of their own destiny.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the mission in Iraq has been plagued from the start by 
poor intelligence, by poor planning for the post-war, and by disdain 
for the advice from our allies and even our officials. Ignoring the 
Army's Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense deployed too few 
troops, failing to foresee the insurgency that followed the war. Many 
of those deployed were not properly equipped with body armor or armored 
vehicles, forced to improvise in the field. The troops were assigned 
duty

[[Page 11089]]

that they were not trained for. But let me add here they have performed 
magnificently. They rose to the challenge. They showed they still have 
that GI genius for field expedience. They improvised.
  But the lack of planning and the lack of preparation has cost us 
dearly; 2,514 Americans have paid the ultimate price: they have died. 
17,774 have been seriously wounded.
  Since this is the end of the debate, let me go to the bottom line. 
First of all, let me say the most important cost we have incurred is 
for the precious lives that were lost, 2,514; 1,774 who were wounded. 
But the costs also are considerable. They are not a determinant, 
obviously. We have troops in the field and are unstinting in our 
support of them. But when the costs run into hundreds of billions of 
dollars, they have to be considered.
  Here is what the cost of the first Persian gulf war was: $61 billion. 
Of that our allies chipped in in kind $10.6 billion, in cash $48 
billion. The total cost to the United States out of pocket was $2.1 
billion. That is what happens when you form a real coalition and have 
allies and do not go it alone.
  Here is what happens when you go it alone. This has been the 
ascending cost of the war in Iraq, Iraqi Freedom: starting out at $51 
billion, it rose to $77 billion in 2004, to $87 billion in 2005, and to 
$100.4 billion this year, the estimated cost. And here is what the cost 
per month is: $8.4 billion. That is what the current cost works out to. 
That is a burn rate in Pentagon jargon; $8.4 billion a month is the 
cost of the war currently.
  Finally, adding all of that up, through the year 2006, you can see 
that the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom has been $318.5 billion. The 
cost is not the determinant. We can afford whatever it takes to defend 
this country. We want to be, as I said, unstinting in support of our 
troops. But when the cost gets to be $318 billion, $8.4 billion a 
month, it has to be a consideration. And that is similarly what we are 
saying tonight.
  The President spoke several weeks ago and said that probably his 
successor in 2010 would be the person who decides whether or not and 
when American troops would be redeployed. He did not even mention the 
cost of the current undertaking. It is not just a dollar cost. It is an 
opportunity cost. For every dollar consumed here is a loss of dollars 
otherwise that could be spent on modernization and on the 
transformation of our forces.
  Last year when we passed the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, the 
House and Senate, and the President by signing the bill, enacted a 
provision that 2006 would be the year of transition, when Iraqi troops 
would begin to take primary responsibility.
  This is simply what we are calling on the President to do, to begin 
moving us in that direction as we resolved we should have done last 
year, particularly in view of the cost.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for allowing us to 
speak tonight. This is a very, very important debate.

                          ____________________