Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In that context, then, you have indicated, yes, a Marshall Plan might be in order, but that presumes that the fighting has ended. The fighting has not ended. It is nowhere near ending. You cannot make an investment in somewhere, where again I will quote, most of the city lay in smoking ruins. Another quote: ``Tanks and armored vehicles, their turret guns blazing in all directions, finished the sweep through the city.'' We are destroying everything in our path. And then the only thing that I see is that, well, we will be responsible, the United States is going to have to be responsible for the rebuilding. Who? Another Halliburton? Another series of projects to be laid out? You cannot guarantee that the people who are going to do the building will be safe. So all of this is a fantasy. It is a delusion, that somehow we are going to succeed with this. My final point on that is that it is the military itself then at that point that will have difficulties because we are not going to be able to recruit. Despite the happy face that has been put on this, the Reserves are falling behind in their recruitment and retention. The Guard is falling behind in their recruitment and retention, and those strains and those stresses are going to become more apparent in the days and months to come, and the stress and strain in the days and months to come will manifest itself in the inability of the United States to have the kinds of deployments under the circumstances that would be most ideal to maximize the efficiency of the Armed Forces. It is not that they will not try. It is not that they will not do their best. It is not that they will not give their all. It is that we will be letting them down in the first place by requiring something of them that actually is against the protocols and the standards that we have set up in order to have the best possible military capacity.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, we may be here a few more days than we expected, and I for one am quite concerned about what is taking place and would be interested in coming back if the time is available to us before we leave.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, great interest has been generated by the publication of a document from the 11th of February 2003 entitled ``Topical Agenda''. It involves the Department of Defense Personnel and Readiness Undersecretary and the Selective Service System and its Acting Director. This document appears on the web site of ``Rock the Vote''. The interest is intense because of the content of the agenda. It involves a review of selective service major policy issues since 1973; a synopsis of Department of Defense Policy regarding the draft and a detailed proposal for the renewal of the draft and conditions attendant to it. The participation of the Department of Defense in the discussion associated with the agenda has been confirmed by the Secretary of Defense. The DOD contention is that the meeting on the agenda was for purposes of discussion only and that it took place off Pentagon premises. Obviously, the location of the discussion and the origination of the agenda for discussion purposes is immaterial to the issue at hand. The point is the Department of Defense from the Secretary on down has vigorously denied that any such discussions have ever taken place let alone been contemplated. This document shows that a detailed proposal for a new draft involving men and for the first time women has been under consideration and discussion by the Department of Defense. It also clearly indicates that consideration has been given to drafting not only for military needs but for purposes associated with the Department of Homeland Security. In addition it proposes that the draft age be extended from 18 to 34. It includes a proposition that a ``self- declaration'' of skill sets be required of all potential draftees to be periodically updated until the age of 35. It is not enough for the Department of Defense to say it rejects the proposal and its findings. Saying ``no'' doesn't make it so. Denials that any such consideration has even been given let alone presently extent ring hollow in the wake of the implications of this agenda and the Department of Defense's participation in discussing it. Given the broad and deep concern of the public about the draft and the possibility of its being reinstituted it is imperative that the public be enabled to see, understand and analyze what the Department of Defense has had under consideration. The public, of course, can draw its own conclusions. The ``Agenda'' report follows. Topical Agenda DoD Participants: Hon. Charles S. Abell, Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Mr. William Carr, Acting Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy; Colonel David Kopanski, Deputy Director, Accession Policy. SSS Participants: Mr. Lewis C. Brodsky. Acting Director of Selective Service; Mr. Richard S. Ftahavan, Director of Public & Congressional Affairs. 1. Review 30-year time-line--SSS major policy issues A. Draft ends in 1973; Agency placed in ``Deep Standby'' from 1976 to 1980. Ninety-eight ``record-keepers'' remain to SSS, part-time Reserve Officers kept on board, but no registration, no Board Members. B. 1980--Cold War continues. President Carter decides to revitalize SSS after Soviets invade Afghanistan and MOBEXs indicate need. No draft, but resumes registration program for men. Wants to include women but Congress says no. 10,000 Board Members appointed and trained. DoD sets preparedness goal for SSS: ``Be ready to provide first draftees to MEPS at M+13 and 100,000 by M+30.'' C. 1988--Congress reacts to military medical shortages (``war stoppers''). Language inserted in the Defense Authorization Act telling SSS to develop a ``structure'' which would allow the registration and induction of health care personnel in an emergency. DoD identifies more than 60 health care specialities to include in the SSS Health Care, Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS). Planning calls for first HCPDS draftees by M+42. HCPDS becomes a paper and computer exercise lasting many years. D. 1989-1991--End of Cold War, Desert Storm, no draft, and SSS remains in standby status with flat-lined annual budgets. E. 1893 and 1994--Detractors in the Congress challenge need for continuing to fund SSS and peacetime registration. Section 647(b), FY 1993 DOD Authorization Act requires SECDEF, in concert with SSS, to report on continuation of peacetime registration. This was accomplished, registration is retained, and an interagency task force review was formed, led by the NSC. Conclusion is announced by President Clinton: preserve SSS and peacetime registration in current standby status for three reasons. 1. A hedge against underestimating the number of soldiers, needed to fight a future war; 2. A symbol of national resolve to potential adversaries; and, 3. A link between the all-volunteer Armed Forces and society-at-large. Clinton also instructs SSS to increase operational efficiency. Instructs DoD to update MOB requirements for SSS, re-examine timelines, and review arguments for and against continuing to exclude women from registration. F. 1994--Defense issues new ``post-Cold War'' guidance to SSS: ``provide first untrained draftee to MEPS at M+193; first Health Care draftee at M+222,'' DoD reaffirms that it is not necessary to register or draft women (for a conventional draft of untrained manpower) because they are prohibited by policy from serving in ground combat assignments. SSS recognizes women may have to be included in a health care draft. G. 1998--DoD Health Affairs says health care personnel would be needed earlier than M+222 in a future conflict. Guidance changed to M+90. Today, HCPDS can be implemented, but ability to meet M+90 time frame is doubtful. Program not fully tested and compliance aspects still not complete. H. 1995 through 2000--Anti-SSS Members of Congress almost successful in eliminating SSS through the appropriations process. SSS undergoes structure and program reductions to make ends meet. Readiness suffers. I. 2000 and 2001--DoD and SSS plan and implement joint mailing project to increase peacetime relevancy of SSS and improve timeliness and address accuracy of DoD recruiting direct mail campaigns. J. 2002 and 2003--Administration says use of draft not an option for war on terrorism or potential war with Iraq. Rep. Rangel and Sen. Hollings introduce bills (H.R. 163 and S. 69) call for reinstituting a draft for military and national service. SECDEF adamant and vocal against using the draft for any immediate or likely contingency. Most recently, Reps. Paul, DeFazio and Frank introduce H.R. 487, calling for repeal of the Military Selective Service Act and an end to the SSS within six months of the bill becoming law. Synopsis: With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of Homeland Security planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System's registration program and primary mission. Situation: Currently, and in accordance with the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) [50 U.S.C., App. 451 et seq.), the Selective Service System (SSS) collects and maintains personal information from all U.S. male citizens and resident aliens. Under this process, each man is required to ``present himself for and submit to registration'' upon reaching age 18. The methods by which a man can register with Selective Service include the Internet, mail-back postcard, checking a box on other government forms, and through the driver's license applications process in many states. The collected data is retained in an active computer file until the man reaches age 26 and is no longer draft eligible. It consists of the man's name, address, Social Security number, and date of birth. Currently, 91 percent of all men, ages 18 through 25, are registered, enabling the SSS to conduct a timely, fair, and equitable draft in the event the Congress and the President decide to reinstate conscription during a crisis. However, the Secretary of Defense and Department of Defense manpower officials have stated recently that a draft will not be necessary for any foreseeable crisis. They assume that sufficient fighting capability exists in today's ``all- volunteer'' active and reserve Armed Forces for likely contingencies, making a conventional draft of untrained manpower somewhat obsolete. Yet, Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc. The costs of attracting and retaining such personnel for military service could be prohibitive, leading some officials to conclude that while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis, if too few volunteer. Proposal: In line with today's needs, the SSS' structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and (for the first time) women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills. An interagency task force should examine the feasibility of this proposal which would require amendments to the MSSA, expansion of the current registration program, and inclusion of women. In addition to the basic identifying information collected in the current program, the expanded and revised program would require all registrants to indicate whether they have been trained in, possess, and professionally practice, one or more skills critical to national security or community health and safety. This could take the form of an initial ``self- declaration'' as a part of the registration process. Men and women would enter on the SSS registration form a multi-digit number representing their specific critical skill (e.g., similar to military occupationa1 specialty or Armed Forces Specialty Code with Skill Identifier), taken from a lengthy list of skills to be compiled and published by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security. Individuals proficient in more than one critical skill would list the practiced skill in which they have the greatest degree of experience and competency. They would also be required to update reported information as necessary until they reach age 35. This unique data base would provide the military (and national, state, and municipal government agencies) with immediately available links to vital human resources . . . in effect, a single, most accurate and complete, national inventory of young Americans with special skills. While the data base's ``worst-case'' use might be to draft such personnel into military or homeland security assignments during a national mobilization, its very practical peacetime use could be to support recruiting and direct marketing campaigns aimed at encouraging skilled personnel to volunteer for community or military service opportunities, and to consider applying for hard-to-fill public sector jobs. Local government agencies could also tap this data base to locate nearby specialists for help with domestic crises and emergency situations. With the changes described above, SSS programs would be modified to serve the contemporary needs of several customers: Department of Defense; Department of Homeland Security (FEMA. U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs, INS). Corporation for National Service, Public Health Service, and other federal and state agencies seeking personnel with critical skills for national security or community service assignments. The SSS would thus play a more vital, relevant, and immediate role in shoring up America's strength and readiness in peace and war. II. Are today's SSS capabilities in sync with DoD needs? A. Is there a need to preserve the capability of conducting a draft of untrained manpower? If so, is the time frame still

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I only have 30 seconds here, and this is all I ask of all the Members: Let us not confuse trafficking with terrorism. I understand how they can be concerned about that and why they are trying to do their best. Nobody gainsays them that. But in the process, we are destroying the opportunity or standing the chance of destroying the opportunity to make the necessary differentiations, especially where trafficking is concerned. There are over 50,000, by the State Department's estimation, people who are essentially made slaves today in the United States, who are trafficked, and they could display exactly the same sense of demeanor and the other characteristics that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has been discussing, and the other persons who are opposed to it. Please give the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) an opportunity with this amendment so we can make certain that we do not make that confusion.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 163, a bill to re-instate the draft. I oppose the draft and do not want to see it brought back. I added my name to this bill in order to promote an open, honest public discussion of the personnel crisis facing our military today, and in that sense I welcome today's vote. It is unfortunate, however, that H.R. 163 is being brought to the floor with only a few hours notice, depriving the American public of the extended exploration this problem deserves. It is not a coincidence that today's vote is taking place as public uneasiness is rising with regard to the draft. It is obvious to everyone that the demands of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are narrowing the Administration's options. Our regular divisions and brigades are stretched to the limit. The Reserve and National Guard are being drawn upon to the point where they now comprise nearly half of all U.S. troops in Iraq. Stop loss is the order of the day, holding servicemen and women in uniform past their discharge dates. We're even dipping into the Individual Ready Reserve, calling up people who have completed not only their active duty obligations, but their active reserve obligations as well. Under these circumstances, the growing suspicions of the Administration's intentions in regard to a draft are well-founded. In fact, I have found confirmation of those suspicions. KITV television news of Honolulu reported last night on a February 11, 2003, Selective Service System document which was provided to me recently and which I have shared with several of my colleagues. Judging from its contents, it appears to be a memo prepared for a meeting between the Acting Director of the Selective Service, the Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and other senior Defense and Selective Service officials. The document takes note of critical shortages of military personnel with certain skills and raises the idea of drafting them to alleviate the shortages. Features of this ``bring back the draft'' memo include: --Draft registration for women as well as men; --Registration of all citizens and resident aliens between the ages of 18 and 34; --Require registrants to submit periodic updates of their skills and education up to the age of 35; --Draftees would be sent not only into the military, but also to the Department of Homeland Security, state, and municipal government agencies; and --Suggests the House and Senate Armed Services Committees be asked to pass legislation to bring back this expanded draft. The public deserves the chance to fully consider and discuss these radical ideas and participate meaningfully in any decision to adopt such drastic steps to address the very real personnel needs of our military forces stemming from the demands of multiple deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. Bringing H.R. 163 to the floor for a vote without hearings, without warning, deprives the Nation and the Congress of an opportunity for that full consideration and discussion. Right now we have a back door draft, euphemistically called stop loss orders, that keeps troops in uniform even after their enlistments are over. At the same time, we are putting our National Guard and Reserve under intolerable strain, keeping them on active duty far longer than they or their families could have anticipated. One of the most frustrating aspects of these problems is that they were foreseeable. General Eric Shinseki, then Army Chief of Staff, accurately predicted we would need far more troops than the Administration was willing to commit to occupy Iraq. He was publicly condemned by the Administration for telling the truth. I voted against the Iraq war because, among other reasons, it was clear the Administration was unwilling to send enough troops to pacify that country after the initial military attack. Paul Bremer, the former chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, just confirmed that fact in a speech yesterday. If we are to meet this troop strength crisis, a serious and open discussion needs to take place involving the public, elected leaders, and senior national security officials. The Administration wants to operate in secret in order to hide that discussion from the public. Bringing H.R. 163 to the floor for a vote is a partial victory for public discussion, a reflection of the public's insistent concern over the issue. On the other hand, the furtive way in which it was brought to the floor is a partial victory for those who want to keep the issue in the shadows. We have been dealing with this matter for years in the Armed Services Committee. During the 14 years that I have served on the Committee, the questions have never been as urgent as they are now: --What happens if a quick victory in Iraq is elusive, and we remain there for years to come? --What troop strength levels and mix of active, National Guard, and Reserves will be needed in the coming years? --Can the all-volunteer military keep its ranks filled? --If not, what options does the nation have? --How can we get better pay, benefits, and quality of life improvements to attract and retain enough troops and their families? As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I work on a daily basis with my colleagues and military leaders in the search for answers. It is a long and often difficult process. Its worth is measured in improvements in the lives of our fighting men and women, their families, and our veterans. I was proud to vote for badly needed equipment like Humvee armor protection and stronger body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have championed better military family housing for troops based in my home state of Hawaii and around the globe. I was one of the authors of the Tricare for Life bill, which provides military retirees with the health coverage they were promised when they enlisted. What solutions are offered by those who want to pretend we don't face a military personnel crisis? Do they support the Administration's covert moves--despite public denials--to restart the draft? What do they have to say about the stop loss orders that deny thousands of troops and their families the post-service opportunities they were led to expect? How do they propose to deal with our over-reliance on the National Guard and Reserves, which are already strained to the limit? Most importantly, will they discuss these issues fully and openly, or do they want them decided in secret?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, in accordance with a leave of absence approved earlier today, I was unavoidably absent from the House. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall: 490, Previous Question on the rule for S. 878, ``no''; 491, Rule for consideration of S. 878, ``no''; 492, Simpson Amendment to S. 878, ``no''; 493, Motion to recommit S. 878 with instructions, ``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3479, the Brown Tree Snake Control and Eradication Act of 2004. This measure will not only ensure continued security for Hawaii and Guam, but the entire Pacific region. The Hawai'i Biological Survey has documented that an average of 177 alien species arrive in the State of Hawai'i each year. Out of all the possible alien plants and animals that could make their way to the Hawaiian Islands, one of the most feared is the brown tree snake. The brown tree snake arrived in Guam on military materiel transport from the Solomon Islands after World War II. Because Guam has no natural predator for the brown tree snake, the snakes have been able to flourish and have been recorded as high as 10,000 snakes per acre. The brown tree snake is blamed for the extinction of 9 out of 11 bird species native to Guam. These snakes also cause frequent and costly power outages and are known to bite humans. Like Guam, Hawaii has no native snakes and no natural predators for snakes. Only one pregnant brown tree snake needs to reach Hawaii in order for the State to experience the same catastrophic consequences as Guam. Wildlife Services under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in the Department of Agriculture provides brown tree snake control on Guam by inspecting outgoing military and civilian cargo and providing trapping services at Guam's ports. These services interdict 6,000 to 7,000 snakes annually and have proved to be very successful in keeping the brown tree snake out of Hawaii. For the past 10 years, the funding for these services has remained fixed. The program was able to make up for inflation and increasing costs by stopgap measures that have enabled them to continue services. However, this is no longer possible. Unforeseen vehicle repair or replacement costs, critical travel associated with program delivery, required training for staff, increased costs of operations and growing containment responsibilities are forcing significant reductions in operations. Compounding the problem, Wildlife Services has been informed by Anderson Air Force Base that it will have to begin to pay for in-kind services that have been provided to the program at no cost since 1994. To compensate for this additional unanticipated financial burden, further reductions in staffing are anticipated in early fiscal year 2005. H.R. 3479 would begin to resolve these problems by recognizing the seriousness of the threat posed by the brown tree snake. This legislation authorizes the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to fund brown tree snake interdiction and control efforts and provide grants for these efforts. Just as important, this measure would support research efforts to control and eventually eradicate this harmful species from Guam. Current funding does not allow for in depth research that could lead to less labor intensive solutions than the current bait and trap method. This legislation also requires the establishment of pre-departure quarantine protocols for persons and cargo traveling from Guam. This will ensure that this species is not able to spread to other Pacific destinations. Madam Speaker, this legislation is being considered at a crucial point in time. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for their continued efforts to address the problems of the distant Pacific. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Bordallo and her staff. Without the effort of all of these parties, this legislation would not be before the House today.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, one observes today the discussions taking place in the press by members of the Armed Services with respect to whether or not political considerations are involved in whether we can attack or not attack, whether we retreat or do not retreat, whether we engage in collaborative activity with insurgents with regard to the possible upcoming elections, or whether we regard them as criminals to be taken and prosecuted, perhaps even shot and killed. Those issues do not know a Democratic or a Republican origin. Those young soldiers, and some not so young soldiers from the Guard and Reserve, are not making distinctions between Republican oratory and Democratic accusations with respect to this election. This issue has to be decided on November 2. The people of this Nation have to come to a conclusion electorally as to whether or not they want the present direction to go on or whether they want to move in a new direction. I contend and I tell Members this as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, a committee on which we do our level best to subsumed and submerge our partisan differences, yes, they come forward, I am not going to pretend otherwise or be so naive to think that can always happen, but the plain fact of the matter is when it comes to our votes, we try to figure out what is in the best interests of this Nation and what is in the best interests of the Armed Services. The question arises publicly now as to whether or not our armed forces have to pay first allegiance to political considerations. Whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, Democrats and Republicans voted for the resolution that constantly comes up with respect to whether one supports the war or does not support the war. That is no longer an issue. The issue is the direction it has taken since the war commenced, and that is where I feel we have to make a break. This is what has to be decided November 2. We have to make a fundamental decision as to whether we are going to let the chaos and the destruction taking place today continue, the brunt of that chaos and destruction having to be borne by members of the Armed Services.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is the issue that I raised with respect to November 2. Let us face it. No matter who you are in this country, a vote is going to take place on November 2. That man has to answer and his boss, the President of the United States, has to answer for why in Afghanistan today there is no governmental entity at all other than that which exists under the direct protection of what amounts to a praetorian guard of the United States in Kabul. The rest of the country is under the sway of warlords and the Taliban is resurging, the Taliban is resurging and more opium is being grown, more dope is being sold, more financing for the Taliban is taking place than ever before.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 19, 2004, because of the leave of absence, I was unable to vote on legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 391: To promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam, ``yes.'' Rollcall 392: Concerning the importance of the distribution of food to hungry or malnourished children around the world, ``yes.'' Rollcall 393: Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, ``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked closely with the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) on many issues arising in the Pacific region. The RMI has always been, and continues to be, a great ally of the United States and is dedicated to international peace and freedom. Therefore, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 410. By the beginning of the 1900's, the RMI was annexed by Spain, Germany, and Japan. In 1934, the Allied invasion and occupation of the RMI began. In 1947, the RMI became one of six entities in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands established by the United Nations with the United States as the Trustee. Throughout all these years of being occupied, the people of RMI never lost their self-identity or hope for their own country. This hope grew in the decades after World War II as a local form of self-government was established. This led to the convening of a constitutional convention. In 1979, the people of the RMI adopted a constitution and chose their form of government, a republic. With separation of powers and a Bill of Rights listing guaranteed rights, the RMI is based on the same principals and freedoms that the United States was founded on hundreds of years ago. Similar to our founding, it was the will of the people driving the process and making the decisions. The RMI is now a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, the RMI has aligned itself closely with the U.S., particularly in a number of defense and strategic issues. Recently, we have renewed our mutually beneficial relationship by reauthorizing the Compact of Free Association. This has guaranteed that our alliance will continue for another 15 years. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and recognize the 25th anniversary of the adoption of RMI's constitution. Their commitment and dedication to peace and democracy should be commended.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my chairman would kindly yield to me for 30 seconds.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have about 20 minutes more left in this hour, and I believe that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), myself, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), as well as a couple of other Members have an hour coming up. I found it very interesting, the conversation. Obviously, we may have some differing views on this, but I wonder if the chairman might consider that perhaps next week or the balance of the week at some time, that we could, those of us interested in this issue and have the articulate views, as my colleague and the other Members do, might consider combining our hour sometime and having a discussion?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Maybe we could discuss that off the floor and perhaps we might benefit the whole American public by the kind of discussion that could take place.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am sure with this trio that is here this evening and those we could bring to the discussion, particularly those of my esteemed colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services, I think we might get an audience that might not necessarily be able to follow the hearings that the chairman has put together so far. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and we will talk about it and perhaps something good in terms of dialogue could result.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, the time belongs to the Chairman.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful, Mr. Chairman. I will yield any time to take that kind of compliment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can I leave now?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as you know, and our friends know, we have been engaged in a conversation for some months now with regard to what we have come to term the Iraq Watch; and I was very pleased to note that my good friend and esteemed colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), indicated in the last hour that he and other Members were occupying, that they would be pleased at some point, perhaps in the future, to work out an opportunity for a dialogue, not necessarily a debate, but a conversation among friends with respect to Iraq and its implications for the United States, perhaps even combining hours. I do not know what the rules are precisely on that, and I do not ask for a ruling on that right now, Mr. Speaker; but at some point we hope to be able to do that, hopefully for the benefit of the membership and for those members of the American public and others that may be tuning in to our Special Orders. For this evening's opportunity, however, I wanted to begin our discussion tonight with some references and observations over the so- called handover of sovereignty. I think, Mr. Speaker, you might agree that with respect to Iraq, and unfortunately not only Iraq, there tends to be opportunities for the media in particular to seize on certain phrases. They become almost phrases of art. These phrases then substitute for a whole panoply of analysis that might otherwise usefully take place. In this instance, the phrase that I am referring to is the so-called ``handover of sovereignty.'' Handover of sovereignty, what that means is not clear to me at this stage. What I did observe during our break was a ceremony which took place under very, very strained circumstances. The television news was suddenly filled with the ominous music, the drumbeats, the portentous rhythms that seem to indicate that something of spectacular import is about to happen. Breaking news. Stentorian voices, a sound, and then suddenly we are told, well, we are going to go to the handover of sovereignty in Iraq. It is to take place in secret. It is to take place with a pool reporter there, apparently a pool camera. It is in some secret room somewhere in the green zone, presumably, I guess, in one of the palaces, or what are referred to as palaces, in Baghdad; and, suddenly, there is Ambassador Bremer and some folks there with handshakes and pieces of paper passed back and forth. No real idea of what it is all about other than smiles and handshakes all around. And suddenly sovereignty ostensibly has been transferred or handed over. That it took place in secret, that it took place ostensibly to prevent terrorist activity from disrupting it probably speaks more about what the handover was actually all about and whether or not the word ``sovereignty'' might properly apply. In both instances, I think not. There was no handover of sovereignty. How can there be sovereignty when you do not control your armed forces, when the first pronouncements of your ostensibly sovereign government involve the possibility of imposing martial law on your own people and indications that the governing authority, that is to say the Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr. Bremer, still absent him in person, is going to be in charge of the military activities, presumably, according to this handover of sovereignty ceremony, under some kind of group discussion terminology. Again, I fail to understand exactly how this ``partnership,'' which was referred to between the so-called sovereign Government of Iraq and the Government of the United States through its military, is supposed to take place. It is unclear to me that the questions that I asked of Assistant Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz in our Committee on Armed Services hearings, unclear to me whether these questions were answered. I simply said, ``Who is in charge? Who has the authority?'' And what I got was the usual dissembling and allusions to the idea of group discussions taking place. I am not quite sure how one responds to military situations in the arena of group discussions, but I suppose it is possible. My own thought at that time was, and I said at that time and repeat again tonight, that my perception was that at the turnover of sovereignty, at least as best I was able to understand that term, the American military would be set adrift on a desert sea and would find itself in a situation of being the first responders in an Iraqi crisis and that we would be uncertain as to who exactly was issuing the orders and under what circumstances they would be obeyed. This constitutes, for me, a crisis of another character, a crisis for us to answer; and in that context it is clear to me that the handover of sovereignty amounts to little more than a propaganda device meant to try to distance the political consequences and implications of our occupation from the political realities as the election approaches. Obviously, people will have to make their own minds up on that score; but in relation to that then, among the first pronouncements of this sovereign government was that under consideration was a possible policy of amnesty and that the amnesty would extend to those people who had murdered American troops, those people who had been involved in the insurgency that has taken place since the hostilities or major hostilities were pronounced at an end, i.e., mission accomplished by Mr. Bush some time ago on the infamous aircraft carrier stunt. And subsequent to that, obviously this insurgency, again, this is a term that has been adopted by the media uncritically, has resulted in numerous deaths and woundings. Most members of, certainly, the Committee on Armed Services and other Members of the House of Representatives and members of the subcommittees of the other body have traveled both in their districts and here in Washington and in Germany to hospital situations where we have been able to speak with and, hopefully, bring some measure of comfort and support to members of the military who have been wounded, members of the military and others, including civilian employees. But all that has taken place since this pronouncement that the war was essentially over, that the major activities surrounding the invasion was over; and now we find that this sovereign government is contemplating offering amnesty to those people. Now, if that is in fact what this has come to, I think the implications and consequences are serious indeed. There is no question in my mind that there will be some very serious dialogue taking place in this Nation if that is what this was all about, the opportunity for a government that has come into being solely as a result of the activities of the United States of America subsequent to the invasion, including and subsequent to the invasion of Iraq; and now we find a general amnesty being contemplated. That was never discussed, to my knowledge, with any members of the Committee on Armed Services. It was never discussed, to my knowledge, with members of the subcommittees of Congress generally as to whether or not that was something that we could abide. One would think that at a minimum this sovereign government in Iraq would have the courtesy, if only out of respect for those who have died and those who have been wounded on their behalf, to at least engage in some form of a dialogue with the United States in regard to that possible amnesty. I see my friend from Washington is about to ask for the floor, and I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I wanted to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time, on that note of our analysis of what the domestic questions are that need to be answered in Iraq, it is probably appropriate that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) comes to us at this time, because if anybody is in the heartland of where domestic issues are in the forefront, I would say that it is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), his district and his State; and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, because just before I came back, let me give my colleagues something so that it is not abstract. I will tell my colleagues exactly what I had to deal with and what came up while we were away on our holiday. My staff representing my delegation was briefed by Major General Lee, the adjutant general of the State of Hawaii, on the situation of the 29th Brigade, Hawaii Army National Guard. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army approved the alert of the 29th Brigade for deployment to Iraq. Earlier indications were, of course, that the 29th would be deployed to Afghanistan; but the situation on the ground in Iraq now requires additional soldiers from the 120,000 now there, and the enhanced 29th Brigade is needed. Now, this is happening all across the country; and if anybody thinks for a second that the 5,000 or 6,000 that are going to be involved in this current recall-up, involuntary call-up is going to solve it, I think they are dreaming. The 29th is one of the two remaining National Guard brigades not yet activated. It will perform reinforcing missions. Remember when I indicated here before that when this so-called sovereignty occurred, the United States military would be set adrift on a desert sea. They will perform reinforcing missions, whatever in God's name that means. The expected deployment will be 12 months. The brigade will have to travel off-island to train up, because the normal training entity, the 25th division, of course, is now deployed itself. The brigade may go to Fort Bliss, et cetera; expect the deployment to Iraq to take place shortly. Then what do we have to do? The adjutant general then had to brief all of the mayors that once the alert notice was released in Washington, we had to then discuss what the impact would be on homeland defense and natural disaster impacts back in Hawaii, because the Guard normally is going to address those situations. The National Guard is, of course, the primary backup to civilian authority. Now we are going to have to rely on the Air National Guard since most of the Army National Guard is going to be deployed. Now, this is just in Hawaii. Now, we can imagine what is taking place elsewhere all around the country? Part of our problem area in Hawaii is that the police and fire departments are going to be adversely affected because a major portion of the Army guard are police officers and firefighters and teachers. So there will be about 2,500 soldiers from Hawaii and about 3,500 coming from American Samoa, Guam, and California. Now, that is just one instance; and that is the reality. I want to conclude by saying the impacts on this are considerable, because the employers, whether they are public employers or private employers, have to take into account the absence of these folks at this particular time. What is happening right now is we are denying what the realities of the necessities for troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan and are masking it over with Guard and Reserve deployments; and we are going to have to pay a fearful price for that. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has to his immediate left what amounts to a poster, a picture on the cover of Newsweek, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War'' is the overall title. And in that context I would daresay the answer to the gentleman's observations and questions are that unless there is a change in the leadership that is unlikely to occur. His questions will not be answered except in the negative. His observations will continue, because that gentleman whose picture appears there again to the left of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is the same gentleman whose company and associated companies are the administration, are the ones that are in charge of helping to put this infrastructure together, that is being defended by the American troops. Yet, as a story recently in the Washington Post points out, and I read the headline to you, a story about Ariana Cha appearing July 1, ``Underclass of Workers Created in Iraq, Many Foreign Laborers Receive Inferior Pay, Food and Shelter.'' It may come as a shock not to members of Iraq Watch, but it may come as a shock to the American taxpayer and perhaps some of our American colleagues that what construction is taking place in Iraq is taking place under the auspices of American companies, many of whom receive single source contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars, who are not even hiring Iraqis, who may be hiring some Americans but are, in fact, bringing in wage slaves from the rest of the world and then not even paying them, cheating them at the same time. Not only are the American taxpayers being cheated by American companies but American workers and Iraqi workers are being cheated.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will elucidate a bit more on that. In the story that I indicated I have that I was referring to, the Underclass of Workers Created in Iraq, the opening sentence is, ``The war in Iraq has been a windfall for Kellogg Brown Root, Inc., the company that has a multi-million dollar contract to provide support services for U.S. troops.'' ``KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton Corporation,'' came to employ Indian workers, from India, that is to say, not Native American workers, ``through 5 levels of subcontractors and employment agents. The company, which employs 30,000 workers from 38 countries in support of the U.S. military, said it had been unaware of the workers' concerns until recently.'' This is the kind of thing, Kellogg Brown, Halliburton, is always unaware of, workers problems, because they are too busy having their accountants going to work on the excessive profits they are making. It brings to mind the work that was done by one Senator Harry Truman when, during World War II, he had his committee on a bipartisan basis looking into the question of excessive profit-making from World War II. This is not something that is invented for this time and place by members of the Democratic Party. This is something that was headed up by a Democratic Senator, who was in charge in the United States Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to see to it that profiteering does not take place at the expense of the American soldiers or the expense of the American taxpayer.