Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman yield again? The Washington Post, which has editorially supported the war in Iraq.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let us just keep right on with what we are doing here. We are analyzing the situation in which American troops are in harm's way and any accusation that this has anything to do with Republicans or Democrats is not only entirely beside the point, but undermines the dialogue and discussion that has to take place when we are in a situation of war. As the gentleman well knows, this Member has disagreed publicly and privately with the President of the United States when it was Bill Clinton and it was a Democrat. This gentleman, I can tell you, has never taken a position on the basis of who was President of the United States, but rather what the position of the United States should be in the consul of world powers in terms of the peace and welfare of the planet and the United States' role in it. Whether it is a Democratic President or a Republican President, we have to be accountable.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. ``Iraqis have made it clear they want limits on the authority of the interim government,'' Mr. McClellan said. We are in a situation where presumably authority is being transferred the 30th of June to an interim Iraqi government when we are writing an annex, which is a fancy word for saying we are writing an addendum, we are adding another codicil, another provision of this transitional law.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman yield? I serve as the ranking member on the subcommittee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). And I can tell my colleague that back in the time of President Clinton's administration when the Kosovo and Bosnia issues were there, I was privileged to go with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and other Members in a joint Democratic and Republican congressional delegation to the area because of disagreements we had in the way we were conducting both our foreign policy and military operations there. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), I believe, is also a supporter of the fact that we went to war with Iraq. So his admonitions here are based on his perceptions, I am certain, serving as his ranking member and counting myself as among his good and personal friends in this body. I have deep affection and respect for him both personally and as a colleague in this body. If he is making these statements, he is making them because he believes as a supporter of this war effort that this is, in fact, in the interest of the troops and the interest of the Nation. So this is something that is not partisan in nature. This is something that has to be addressed by all of us as our responsibility of one of 435 people in this body representing the interests of this Nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to point out that that story is in the Washington Times. Again, if someone wants to think that this is a partisan situation, everyone knows the Washington Times is in favor of this war, that the Washington Times represents itself to be a conservative voice. This is a report from the Washington Times.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And the incompetence that has taken place up to this point is to continue. How is it possible that the ambassador designee says, I am not clued in, even on the most fundamental addition to the transitional authority law that will set the circumstances and boundaries for how the United States military, let alone its diplomatic function, is to take place in a presumably sovereign Iraq?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield, both he and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) have made the point over the last several minutes that a lack of planning, a lack of clear-sighted planning has brought us to the present path. I would like to cite an article in The Washington Post for summary purposes made just yesterday. At the confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where Mr. John Negroponte, Mr. Bush's nominee to be ambassador to Iraq, was being questioned, the summary in the story by Walter Pincus and Colum Lynch is as follows: ``Panel members expressed confidence in Negroponte while voicing skepticism that the United States had a clear enough strategy in place for Iraq.'' Let me be a little more specific, specific in the words of Mr. Negroponte with respect to his assuming the ambassadorship in Iraq and planning for what is going to happen to our troops and what is going to happen to Iraq in terms of its sovereignty: Under questioning by Senator Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, when asked what would happen if there was disagreement between Iraqi authorities and the United States military over how to handle a situation similar to the unrest in Fallujah, that would require, ``a real dialogue between our military commanders, the new Iraqi government, and, I think, the United States mission as well,'' Negroponte said. Think about that. Can you imagine a combat situation such as is faced right now in Fallujah. It has nothing to do with the competence or incompetence of the United States military; it has everything to do with the competence or incompetence of the political policies that put the military in that situation. We are now faced with circumstances in which military action becomes the political policy, that in order to support the political policy, you have to support military action, whatever it might be. Going on, in the end, however, Negroponte said, ``The U.S. military is going to have the freedom to act in their self-defense, and they are going to be free to operate in Iraq as they best see fit.'' Operate in their self-defense. Mr. Negroponte, perhaps unconsciously, recognizes we are not on the offense. We are not accomplishing any mission. What we are saying is, what I have said on this floor, that on June 30, the United States military is going to set adrift in a desert sea of political anarchy where our military action will be self-defense. Is that what we are sentencing the United States military to? A daily round of defending itself? For what? Under what circumstances can we justify the continued presence of the United States military if their sole military purpose according to the ambassador nominee to Iraq is to defend themselves? Continuing, what is more, he said, Iraqi military forces ``will come under the unified command of a U.S.-led multinational force. Negroponte emphasized the interim government will not need law-making authority because it will just have two prime functions: running 25 government ministries and preparing for next year's election of a transitional national assembly. Among the most sensitive aspect of the U.S. transition plan has been what has been called the transitional administration law devised by the United States and its appointed Iraq governing council.'' At the White House yesterday, Mr. Scott McClellan, the press secretary, told reporters, and I am quoting from the article ``that an annex to the transitional law is being written that will limit the interim government's power.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman yield on that point? I just read something from the Wall Street Journal, an investigative report of the Wall Street Journal. I hardly think that the Wall Street Journal can be called a tool of the Democratic Party.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, it remains for us to thank you for your patience and forbearance tonight. I believe at this opportunity we can indicate to our colleagues and to those watching us and participating with us tonight on C-SPAN broadcasts, these very valuable Special Orders that the House prepares to enable Members to speak to the broader American audience and elsewhere across the country. Thank you and thank them. At this time, pending our next session of Iraq Watch, we would move to adjourn the House.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). As one can see, the aura that he exudes when he comes to speak about Social Security must have been so powerful that the rays literally leapt out and said to me, say that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is coming.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman the point that international robbery from pharmaceutical companies is right up there next to, if not parallel exactly, with the oil cartels.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentlewoman from Texas made a very, very strong point of the necessity, I believe I am quoting her correctly, that we have to find a way. We have to find a way to get this message out. We have to find a way to get our message, we have to find a way to engage the American people in a discussion and a dialogue. That is what we are trying to do here. To the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), if you would indulge me for a moment in yielding, I think it might be apropos that we do take upon ourselves the admonition of the gentlewoman from Texas. We have to find a way. This is our way. Not everyone may understand what it is. They may be going up and down the television and see what is going on. This is called Special Orders. Special Orders means the regular business of the House, that is to say the scheduled business of the House, is completed for the day. This is our opportunity as Representatives, this is the opportunity of the 435 of us, who have had the faith and trust of our constituents placed in us, to come to the floor and engage in a dialogue not just with ourselves, but with the American people. Because part of the difficulty has been is the American people are watching this on television, or reading it in the newspaper, participating, if you will, at a distance, as to what is taking place, unless and until, of course, it hits you full force because a loved one has been hurt or harmed or killed, or someone that you know has had that experience. So it happens sporadically, and, from the point of view of the cosmos, indifferently around the country at various times. So we are here on the floor, and I might say to those tuning in, we are here on the floor of the House of Representatives, surrounded by the galleries. In fact, our good friend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the distinguished gentleman from Illinois has a group of his constituents in this gallery right now observing our proceedings. He is explaining to them as we are speaking now what it is we are doing on the floor here. It does not matter that the Chamber is not filled right now. We spent our time this afternoon naming post offices. I was happy to do it. A good friend of mine had one of the post offices named after him. I was pleased to cast my vote for it. A wonderful opportunity to show our expression of what we would say in Hawaii is ``aloha'' for our good friend and others. We were happy to do that. But our business here in these Special Orders is to engage the American people as best we can with that which we have before us. And as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) now is talking with his constituents here in the gallery, this is the freedom granted to us by the Constitution that we need to take advantage of, that we were obligated to take advantage of. So the regret to me is, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) no doubt has pointed out, right behind me here is the press gallery. Empty. Night after night empty. Now, maybe they can say, well, they are watching on television, if they care to. But who wants to pay attention to Special Orders? Well, I will tell my colleagues what happens in Special Orders. Not just this kind of discussion, but my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), night after night engaged in a conversation on the Social Security trust fund, what it takes to make the Social Security trust fund. In fact, he just walked in right now. That is synchronicity. I did not know he was coming. Did my colleague happen to hear what I had to say? I do not know whether the cameras are on us or not. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has just come in. I cite him as an example, as a prime example of someone who has faithfully come to the floor to explain his position on the Social Security trust fund, the implications of it for our country. That is the kind of thing that needs to be done. That is what this is about. This Iraq Watch that we have faithfully committed ourselves to since the beginning of our concern that this war was going off on the wrong track, that this was taking place, that is why we are here. That is why I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I appreciate the fact that our good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), and his constituents have observed us this evening, have seen democracy in action. I am here to tell you as far as this gentleman is concerned, that I am going to take advantage of this opportunity that we have here on the floor and continue to exchange in the kind of dialogue that I hope will illuminate the issues of our day so that we can get a resolution on behalf of these brave men and women who are serving our country.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman agree then that that is a draft by default?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In that context, I can tell Members as someone who was part of the first group to go into Iraq right after the initial attack on Baghdad, going from the Baghdad airport to Saddam Hussein's palace where Mr. Bremer was being installed and displacing General Garner, and we were there the day after he had taken control there, we said to him at that time, you can have all of the equipment in the world, but as I said to him, Mr. Ambassador, driving from the Baghdad airport to Baghdad itself and to this palace that we now occupy, you are going to have to have 10,000 soldiers who guard that highway. I do not care what kind of equipment and armor you have, you do not arm a Humvee and then send somebody out to play lottery with their lives. No matter what the equipment is, when you only have a strip of tar coming across the desert, no lights, no protection, nothing, I said it is going to take 10,000 soldiers. The plain fact of the matter is when General Shinseki, who had responsibility for the well-being of his soldiers, indicated as chief of the Army that it would take hundreds of thousands of soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Army and Marine personnel and support in order to initiate and sustain such an attack and deal with the aftermath, he was entirely correct. We need not just more equipment, we need a political policy that provides a foundation to bring this to a resolution. And in order to accomplish that, we have to have sufficient personnel unto the date, and the Secretary of Defense and the President consistently have denied this to our people in the field and indicated to me shamefully all along if they wanted more, all they have to do is ask. We know what the message is. The message is they are not here; they cannot be there. And why? I will tell the Members. Because many members of our committee, Republican and Democrat alike, and when I say our committee, the Committee on Armed Services, have tried for several years now to increase the number of people in the Army and the Marine Corps, that is to say that can be recruited and retained as active-duty forces. It is called end strength. What is the end strength? The end of the numbers that we have in the Armed Forces. We said, absent a significant increase in the number of Army troops and Marines available, we inevitably would have to call on Guard and Reserve. I beg to differ with the gentleman's remarks and the gentlewoman's remarks in one sense only, the phrase ``our young men and women.'' Let me tell my colleagues something. Tune into the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer every night on PBS, and respectfully and with dignity they close every program in silence with the pictures and short biographies of the people who have been killed, and chills run down my arm as I reach out to say it, and we see over and over again sergeant so and so, 43 years old; master sergeant somebody, 50-something years old; 38 years old. These are teachers. These are police officers. These are fire fighters. These are Guard and Reservists. They are not young men and women. Not that being young in itself makes one a candidate for these pictures, but that is who we tend to think of. This is a volunteer force, and the Guard and Reverses are volunteers, and they are being shamelessly exploited in this sense. We now have a draft in this country. We have a draft by default because the Guard and Reserve are being pulled into active-duty service and their terms of enlistment are being extended arbitrarily by the Department of Defense. Therefore, I conclude, and thank the gentleman for yielding, by saying, yes, we have to provide the equipment; but we have to provide the people and the policy behind it that will allow us to resolve this issue.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the answer would be, as has been enunciated in a series called The Spoils of War on Marketplace. Members may be familiar with the program Marketplace. It is on the radio and follows the National Public Radio news, All Things Considered, the afternoon edition of it. There is a business broadcast called Marketplace which reviews the market decisions, the business activities of the country, and in their series entitled The Spoils of War, Members will find that the money which otherwise might have been spent, according to the contract that your company represents, to provide armor for the Humvees is now going out at the rate of tens of millions of dollars a week, perhaps a month, in graft and corruption through the Bank of Iraq, with nothing in the way of any kind of accountability under the Provisional Authority, Mr. Bremer's Provisional Authority. This is being done today. They are done with DGs, or director generals, of the various Iraqi ministries. They are the equivalent of under secretaries. They go into the bank and walk out with cardboard boxes full of cash. Corruption is in the hands of clerks who simply rubber-stamp the action, and the American companies that are over there taking the money are paying bribes, are involved in mass corruption, and this is where the money is going. This is what the Provisional Authority is involved in. This is what is happening. We cannot respond to you and your constituents in Ohio and those people in Ohio who are capable of providing armor for our troops because we have to make sure that those who say they were on our side, those who say they were the sources of Iraqi information and intelligence and upon whom we could rely are the very ones who are involved up to their eyeballs in corruption and graft in Iraq and Baghdad itself to the detriment of our own troops' capacity to be able to defend themselves.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield a moment on that, I just want to ask a question at this point: Would the gentleman agree then that the President of the United States is all for free trade, unless it happens to be with oil, and in that instance then he seems to have no problem at all with a cartel being able to decide how much it is going to produce, when it is going to produce it and how much it is going to charge for it? Would the gentleman agree that when it comes to free trade, that is a foreign term to the President, that is a foreign term to the free trade people in this country, who want us to be able to send our jobs overseas, want free trade and the free circulation of international funds for the purpose of that trade, except when it comes to oil and the oil cartels?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not dispute that. We did not dispute it in committee. When the issue was raised in committee, what I said is that this issue does need to be resolved so that access is possible, ``Is this the best way to do it?'' Inasmuch as we had to make a decision on the spot, my contention was, and I believe many of us who are forced now, we are forced because the bill is on the floor under a closed rule, I have no choice but to try and oppose it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield further, that is precisely the point. In the context which you mentioned of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, indicating that we should pay the closest attention and give the highest credibility to the idea that links, and those are the phrases of choice of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, links on the most peripheral basis, links on the periphery must be nonetheless taken very, very seriously. I hope the gentleman agrees that is a fair characterization of what Vice President Cheney has been doing, that the most elliptical connections must be taken with all seriousness. At the same time, he denies his links and connections to the Halliburton Company, to the oil companies that he has served slavishly throughout his career, have anything to do with the decisions that have been made with respect to Iraq, with the decisions, political decisions, made with respect to invading that nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield further, the people from Poland may be having second thoughts after today's activities. I do not know if the gentleman is aware that in Iraq today, those soldiers, part of the contingent from Poland, came under assault from those who, and I almost hesitate to say because it sounds as if I am making an ironic comment, and that is not really my intention, the situation speaks for itself, they were assaulted by those who are complaining that their applications to be police officers were not being properly processed. So, apparently, the people who want to be the police officers are now engaged in gang assaults in Iraq; and in this instance it happens to be against those who have been sent there from Poland. I think this is only a precursor of those things which are to come.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman might find it interesting, with regard to the points that he has just been making and the possibility of oil exploration, I believe was the phrase that was used, mapping of fields, potential drilling areas and so on. Well, does the gentleman recall that while we were unable to prevent looting, mass looting not just of the Baghdad museums, the history of the entire Middle East, really the Mesopotamian history there, but unable to stop looting in virtually every area of Baghdad and throughout Iraq, hospitals, schools, businesses, everywhere, was it not interesting the Oil Ministry was guarded? And I wonder how that took place. I wonder what the emphasis was. Would the gentleman be interested in a story from USA Today of March 29, Monday, as follows: ``In 2002, troops from the Fifth Special Forces group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment in Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures. The CIA was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate, and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from Afghanistan in an effort to ensure Iraq was covered.'' USA Today added, ``Those were just two of the trade-offs required because of what the Pentagon and the CIA acknowledged is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism,'' not the engagement in Iraq, the war on terrorism that we hear about all the time. ``The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al Qaeda and the other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.'' Troops with the capacity to hunt Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan were removed and sent to Iraq. Now I believe the gentleman will observe there is a renewed emphasis on catching and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden, as if this had been put into limbo for some period of time. I wonder if the gentleman would observe, as I do, that there may be more than a coincidence here with respect to what he has just been sharing with us?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, perhaps he could spell the word democracy for me. I believe it is spelled O-I-L. I believe they are synonymous with the gentleman to whom you are referring.