Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may go to that issue of anti-Americanism once more, it was interesting during the course of the debate today on the reauthorization of the Department of State when during consideration of the rule an amendment put forth by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was not made in order because I would suggest that the seeds of that anti-Americanism is a perception that the United States operates on two different standards, and that is interpreted by many in this world to be rank hypocrisy. It was the President that said during his inaugural address that the United States ``will persistently clarify the choice for every ruler and every Nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom which is eternally right. America will not pretend that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making it clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.'' Noble words, a noble cause, and we all of course embrace that. Yet when we put forth this amendment which would have admonished and required a certification by the President that the thug, the bully, if you will, that rules Uzbekistan would change his ways, it was not made in order. One of our partners in this coalition of the willing is the thug, and I will take a moment here and put his picture up so Members and the viewing audience can see. This is Islam Karimov. This victim here was boiled alive in water, scalding water. This is a member of the coalition of the willing. According to our own State Department, Karimov heads a regime that does not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners, and where security forces routinely use torture. This is the product of the thug Karimov's security forces utilization of torture, torture that goes back to the medieval times. And then 2 months ago his troops massacred hundreds of civilians who were simply protesting for justice and for liberty. And yet we continue to give him military assistance, some $400 million to date. The amendment that was offered by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) would have terminated that aid unless Karimov changed his behavior.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. DELAHUNT. And hopefully that will also staunch that rising virulent, anti-Americanism that does such harm to our national security, that breeds terrorists and directs their anger toward the United States. We saw what happened in London. Again, we hear from those in the Islamic world that by virtue of what we are doing in our policy, why we speak of democracy and our rhetoric is comprised of the most noble of word, we are not seen that way because our actions belie them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The burden is being carried almost exclusively by the American military and the American taxpayer. And we have been joined by 2 colleagues, our friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and, again, one of the original members of the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). I yield, since he is one of the originals I have to yield first of course, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and welcome him.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Those numbers are mind boggling. And before I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I have a question. And I need someone to at least assist me in trying to understand how Iran, again, and a charter member of the axis of evil, is now a military ally of Iraq. And we are promoting democracy in Iraq. It also should be noted again, according to this Washington Post story, that while the Minister of Defense in the interim government claims that, no, the Iranians are not going to train troops, but he did acknowledge that Iran has pledged $1 billion in reconstruction aid to the Iraqi government, some of which would be to the defense ministry. Is this Allies in Wonderland? Is up down and down is up? The Iranians and the Iraqis are engaged in a military accord? This is the kind of information that we tried to bring out during the course of our conversations once a week. We have just begun them again after a hiatus of some 6 months. But that to me is inexplicable because that will give Iran, Iran, that many on the floor tomorrow will say is a potential enemy and something has got to be done. What is happening?

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, the gentleman's remarks are excellent, and, Mr. Speaker, they are on point. The tragic reality is that this is an American war, with some help from the British. This is becoming every day almost an exclusive American venture, both militarily and in terms of the reconstruction phase. A recent report indicated that Italy is prepared to withdraw its 3,000 troops come this fall. This fall is 2 months away. The coalition of the willing is ``getting out of Dodge.'' That is the tragic reality here. Because they are hearing from the people in their societies who are saying we do not want to participate. We find ourselves in a real conundrum. And my colleague was absolutely right, in the aftermath of 9/11 every single one of us stood here and voted in favor of going after al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, and we prevailed. But then, then we became distracted and we took resources from Afghanistan. What is happening in Afghanistan? It has become a narco state. President Karzai has a terrible situation on his hands. And I know we all remember here that the day after 9/11 the entire world was with us. The French, their leading newspaper Le Monde, summed it up when it said ``Today We Are All Americans.'' We had that good will. And now? And now what do we see because of these policies? Well, I will tell you what we see. According to the independent nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, and the American people should know that that is an arm of the U.S. Congress, this is what they had to say just this past April: ``Recent polling data show that anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti-American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed against Americans. It impacts the cost and effectiveness of military operations, thereby escalating the cost of supporting our troops in the multiple venues that they presently patrol, and it weakens the United States' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives and dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.'' This has huge implications for the American people. It is absolutely stunning to see some of this polling that has currently become available. When posed this question, ``Please tell me if you think each of the following are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence in the world,'' and they single out the United States, in Great Britain, our most staunch ally, 44 percent say it is mainly positive, with fifty percent saying it is mostly negative. That is Great Britain. In Australia, 40 percent say it is mostly positive and 52 percent say American influence in the world today is mostly negative. Our neighbors to the north, in Canada, 34 percent say American influence in terms of the international order is mostly positive, 34 percent, and 60 percent say it is mostly negative. Germany, 27 percent positive, 64 percent negative. Japan, 24 percent positive, 31 percent negative. Mexico, our neighbors to the south, 11 percent mostly positive in terms of American influence in the international community, and 57 percent mostly negative. I could go on and on and on.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here this evening by two of my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). In the past, since the commencement of military action in Iraq, four of us came together and created what we called the Iraq Watch, which was an effort to assess the situation in the Middle East with a particular focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, and the global implications for our national security and for the role of the United States in the world. For some 19 months, we would convene here on the floor and have a dialogue among us. Some of our colleagues are not here this evening, but our regulars include the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the same State that is represented by Mr. Ryan, who is a welcome new addition to the Iraq Watch. So we welcome the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). I would like to begin by just examining the current security situation in Iraq and reporting to my colleagues and to the American people. Through July 17, 1,764 U.S. soldiers have died, and 13,483 have been wounded in Iraq since the invasion. Now, I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have visited our wounded military personnel in the naval hospital in Bethesda and at Walter Reed. It is, to say the least, a moving, poignant, and profoundly disturbing experience; and I know we share, all of us share the absolute best wishes for them as they move forward in their lives. We know that they have many hurdles and many obstacles ahead of them, but that same courage and that same heroism that they displayed in the war we know will be with them as they proceed through life. But it is our obligation here in this Congress, in this House to make sure that they have every single benefit that they deserve and that all of our programs are fully funded. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) serves on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and has been a leader in that regard, and I congratulate him. Since June 2003, 2,642 Iraqi soldiers and police have died. Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths since the beginning of the invasion range up to 60,800. The New York Times recently cited Iraqi government figures reporting that an average of 500 Iraqis are killed each month by so- called insurgents. Over a 10-month period ending in May, that rate had escalated to some 800 a month. So those are the statistics. Those are the cold, hard statistics. Now, I know that my colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee), has an obligation in about 20 minutes, so I am going to call on him and ask him for his observations to begin our conversation.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would like to make an interesting observation, because during the debate tomorrow and during the debate today, and during the course of our committee hearings, we constantly hear of a profound concern by this administration and this government about Iran. If you remember, Iran was described as a charter member, if you will, of the Axis of Evil club. And there are legitimate concerns about the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. And here we are in Iraq, we have already appropriated in excess of $330 billion. That is $330 billion. Estimates range that by the time we have discharged our obligation, which is difficult to quantify, we will be looking at $1 trillion from American taxpayers. However, while we are expressing this concern about Iran, a story appears in the Washington Post dated Tuesday, July 12, and the headline reads as follows: Iraqi official says Iran will not train troops. But there appears to be some confusion because the Iraq defense minister reached an agreement, a military agreement with Iran the previous week. And he claims it does not include any provision for the Iranian armed forces to help train Iraqi troops. But this was contradicted by his Iranian counterpart. So here we are, America. We now have a military agreement between Iraq, where we have expended billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the blood of more than 1,700 Americans killed in action, and yet what do we have? We have a military agreement between Iraq and the Republic of Iran. And tomorrow, I can assure you, as we debate the reauthorization legislation in terms of the Department of State, there will be much said about Iran. There will be a pounding of fists and there will be considerable consternation about Iran. And yet, here we are, it is publicly disclosed, the Iranians and the Iraqis have reached an accord in a military agreement. So maybe that will take care of the training of Iraqi troops so that Americans can learn. The Iranians can attract them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course I yield to my friend from Hawaii and one of the original members of Iraq Watch.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would be remiss not to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) for his sincere and measured remarks. But I am here today, Mr. Speaker, to speak of Uzbekistan. President Bush stated that the United States ``will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend . . . that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.'' Certainly noble words. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and I offered an amendment that would have provided real meaning to those noble words, but the Committee on Rules did not make our amendment in order, thereby failing the democratic aspirations of the people of a nation in Central Asia called Uzbekistan. One of our partners in the Coalition of the Willing is a bully. His name is Islam Karimov, and he is the thug who rules Uzbekistan. According to our own State Department, Karimov runs a regime that does not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners where security forces customarily utilize torture. Some of their victims have literally been boiled alive, and 2 months ago his security forces massacred hundreds of civilians who were simply asking for liberty and justice. Yet we have given this thug some $350 million in aid. Our amendment would have use that leverage to push Karimov to democratize, to respect human rights, and to accept an independent investigation into that massacre. As Bill Kristol said in the Weekly Standard just recently, ``It would be unfortunate if the spring of 2005 went down in the history books as a turning point, in favor of dictators.'' The choice is simple and we have made the wrong choice today. We are standing with a thug rather than standing for democracy, and I urge defeat of the rule.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts-- our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are a vital part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. Out of the blue, the rules have been changed to dramatically favor larger, commercial waterways. This constitutes complete abandonment of Federal responsibility and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities all over the country, putting lives and livelihoods at risk. The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with ``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are critical to the economy and public safety. When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops-- sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search and rescue'' because they can't move--literally. Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight- foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available, vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers, fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most likely to run aground. Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors. When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket--the waterways carry all the necessities for local citizens, everything from food and water to lumber and heating oil. In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions of dollars are at risk. For the first time in many years, the FY06 budget does not include dredging for Chatham because it does not meet these new criteria. Then there's Green Harbor in Marshfield, the second highest lobster catch harbor in New England. Green Harbor would be shut down next year, costing millions of lost dollars in lobster catch alone, and untold tourist and other fisheries revenue. In Woods Hole, we have a major Coast Guard station which launches many cutter search-and-rescue missions a year. Without regular dredging, that emergency equipment is land-bound. Tell that to the family of a fishing boat crew that can't reach shore. In that same harbor, the Federal government has invested millions in a state-of-the- art NOAA research vessel. It currently cannot dock at its home station, the world-renowned Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, because the harbor is clogged with sediment. For coastal communities, waterways are the arteries. Dredging is vital for the lifeblood of commerce to flow through these arteries for the economic health and safety of our coastal communities.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on June 8, 2005, I inadvertently voted in the negative on rollcall 233 on H.R. 2744. It was my intention to be recorded as ``yes'' on this measure and I offer this clarification for the Record.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would direct the gentleman, the chairman, for whom I have profound respect, to an editorial that appeared today in The Weekly Standard, which indicates that President Karzai of Afghanistan is more than willing to provide the bases necessary that the gentleman alludes to for the global war on terror, and I dare say I would much prefer to do business with President Karzai than with this gentleman here who is Islam Karimov. He is the dictator who runs Uzbekistan, which is a Nation of some 25 million in central Asia, about the size of California. He is a murderer and he is a thug. He holds in his gulag some 6,000 political prisoners. He will not allow opposition parties, making any elections a farce. He restricts freedom of religion. There is no free press, and as my friend from Texas indicated, he recently ordered the slaughter of hundreds of innocent civilians who were protesting the systemic abuse of fundamental human rights, but maybe they were lucky. At least they were not boiled alive in water. This thug has created a culture of torture, and it has been reported in media outlets that the CIA has sent recalcitrant individuals there under the so-called rendition concept, to torture them and to provide intelligence in the war on terrorism. Now we know that Saddam has been alluded to as the butcher of Baghdad. I would suggest that Islam Karimov can appropriately be described as the tyrant of Tashkent. As the gentleman from Texas said, we have a problem. Karimov is a thug, but he is our thug. This photo to my right depicts him with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who has praised the thug's wonderful cooperation with the United States, and it was President Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury who expressed admiration of the thug's, and I am quoting here, ``very keen intellect and deep passion for improving the lives of his people.'' I presume he did not read the Department of State's human rights reports enumerating the abuses that the people of Uzbekistan endure on a regular basis. In his inaugural address, President Bush promised oppressed people that we would not excuse your oppressors, and when you stand for liberty, we will stand with you, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corner of this world. Well, I would suggest that now is the time to go to that dark corner of the world called Uzbekistan and say enough. We can begin by cutting off aid, both military and economic, to this thug. We should begin to walk the democratic walk and not just indulge in the democratic rhetoric because in the end, it is in our best interest as well as the people of Uzbekistan. A recent GAO report said, ``Recent polling data show that anti- Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti- American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed against Americans, impact the cost and effectiveness of military operations, weakening the United States' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.'' Given how we are supporting this particular thug, is it any wonder that we are being charged with hypocrisy and that people doubt the President's words. This perceived hypocrisy hurts us. It undermines our credibility. And as de Tocqueville said, America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good and not express its values, then we lose our greatness.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my colleagues that in the 1980s we dealt with a thug by the name of Saddam Hussein because we believed we had common mutual interests, particularly during the course of the war between Iraq and Iran. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, we allied ourselves with Osama bin Laden against the Soviets, and what did we get for it. Let us be careful.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I support him in his opposition. I point out that the nation of Colombia, for whom we have provided billions of dollars in terms of dealing with the interdiction and eradication of drugs, would fall because they vote against us 90 percent of the time. I presume that most of that aid would be eliminated by this amendment. And I would also point out for those of you who support CAFTA that at least five of the countries I have been able to determine here vote against us, so that if we extend the logic of the gentleman's argument, I would suggest that maybe during the course of that debate, when it comes to the floor, if it should come to the floor, that that should be a precondition to approval of the CAFTA trade agreement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to the observation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and comment regarding the former Speaker in terms of the issue of withholding. It was yesterday that Mr. Gingrich said, and I am quoting again from reports of his statement, ``Withholding should not be our first resort, but should remain as our last resort.'' I would submit that this is precisely the logic that is put forth in the Lantos substitute. One further comment, and I am not going to speak of the Stockholm Syndrome, but with all due respect to my dear friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), his amendment is dangerous because he very well might be jeopardizing investigations, criminal investigations that are ongoing now, because we know what happens when this institution receives information. It appears in the press.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that the former Speaker of this institution Mr. Gingrich considers that this is a moment where reform is attainable without the necessity of mandatory, automatic withholding of United Nations dues. Let me read an excerpt from a press conference that the former Speaker held back on April 15 of this year: ``I know of no occasion where there has been as wide an agreement that the U.N. has to be reformed. I know of no occasion where we have had a Secretary General as open and direct as Kofi Annan has been the last 2 months about the need for reform. And I think the very reason that Senator Mitchell and I were willing to chair this particular project is our belief that this could be a remarkable moment to get some significant things done that will give the world a more transparent, a more accountable and a more effective United Nations.'' Mr. Chairman, I think what is particularly important about the Gingrich-Mitchell task force report is that it does not recommend the automatic withholding of dues. Presumably they agree with those eight former United States Ambassadors to the United Nations, individuals like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who is an icon to many who are of the politically conservative persuasion. And this is what those eight former U.S. Ambassadors had to say, that the base bill would ``create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform.'' Do we just simply want to ignore their warnings? Do we want to proceed in a manner that is going to defeat what is clearly a consensus in this institution about the need for reform? This is being practical. This is about an effort to secure a more effective, more transparent organization. The stars are aligned, I would suggest. Yes, as Speaker Gingrich says, this is a propitious moment for reform, and we, I would suggest, could very well derail that effort. I would like to just make a brief observation about the Oil-for-Food program, and I see my friend, the Chair of my subcommittee, here. Let me suggest that the base bill, and even the substitute for that matter, does not address, if you will, a fundamental problem that very well may be inherent in the institution, because, as I have said over and over and over again, we can reform the Secretariat. I do not think that is a difficult chore. But we ignore the fact that it was the Security Council, the Security Council itself. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that the Volcker action is supported by a former Attorney General of the United States, Dick Thornburgh, in a very thoughtful op ed piece, because he understands what investigations are about. I would describe the amendment put forth by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) as the tip-off amendment. Give the information so that in the course of an investigation, those who might be targets or subjects of an investigation know what you have and can anticipate the questions. I would also comment, and I have never met Mr. Volcker, but I have read the reports to date. They have been extremely harsh and critical and underline the need for reform. At the same time, a comment was made, and I think it has to be addressed. Everyone involved in the independent inquiry under the leadership of Mr. Volcker and the jurists from South Africa is not a United Nations employee. In fact, many of them are former career Federal prosecutors from our own Department of Justice. I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with them. They understand how to conduct an investigation. Let them conclude their investigation, and then I am sure they would be happy to disseminate any documents they might have.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on June 8, 2005, I inadvertently voted in the affirmative on rollcall No. 234 on H.R. 2744. It was my intention to be recorded as ``no'' on this measure and I offer this clarification for the Record.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla 11-08 D1NR for their distinguished service at Air Station Cape Cod. As a former member of the Coast Guard Reserve, and as Co-Chair of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, I know full well the vital role that Auxillarists carry out. They are an integral and valued part of the Coast Guard family. I commend to my colleagues the following article from The Navigator, which showcases the dedicated efforts of Auxillarists like the men at Air Station Cape Cod. [From the Navigator, Spring 2005] Valued Service Cape Cod.--Members of Auxiliary Flotilla 11-08 D1NR just surpassed the one year milestone in their volunteer service to Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. A dedicated team of seven Auxilarists has been providing an extremely valuable service in the Aviation Engineering Department of Air Station Cape Cod since November 2003. By performing administrative tasks, which require meticulous attention to detail and frequent repetition, they freed up over 300 work hours that would have otherwise been a burden on the over tasked active duty workforce. Aircraft maintenance technicians, who also serve as flight crewmembers, are frequently task-saturated with flying duties related to search and rescue, law enforcement, and Homeland Security missions. When they are not flying, the active duty workforce is fully employed with HU-25 and HH-60 maintenance responsibilities. The regular presence of trained volunteers to assume critically important administrative functions has had an extremely positive effect on aircraft and crew readiness postures. Working together in cohesive teams, Auxiliary volunteers dedicate as much as 15 hours per week to administrative tasks related to aircraft maintenance. One of the first and most successful projects this team took on was the monthly audit of the aircraft maintenance logbooks for the eight aircraft assigned to Air Station Cape Cod. Working teams of two, these Auxiliarists compared the computer printed configuration reports of all installed components to the detailed component history reports. Ensuring that the lists of installed components matched the component history reports was an arduous task requiring great attention to detail. An accurately performed logbook audit required that each component be cross checked for the proper serial number and part number against two computer generated reports for all major airframe and engine instillations. With over 240 such components per aircraft, this monthly review normally consumes eight to ten man hours per month. Another vital maintenance support role that the Auxiliary recently performed was a comprehensive audit of the technical publications library. Semi-annual audits of the technical publications library are required to ensure that vital technical publications are updated with the latest revisions. Not only did the dedicated Auxiliary team complete the audit, they also performed several page changes to aircraft technical manuals that are used by technicians on a regular basis. The Auxiliary team drew from their diverse work experience to develop processes that increased the efficiency of each hour dedicated to administrative actions. In the classic case of working smarter to avoid the need to work harder, they created a photographic archive of all tools requiring calibration and cataloged them in an easy to use binder. This made tracking tool locations and calibration intervals much easier. With aircraft tools and avionics test sets distributed among five different shops and two separate hangars, the Auxiliary team had a daunting task ahead of them. Fortunately, their previous work experience lent itself well to the arduous task and they made great progress. One of their first initiatives was to catalog each tool according to its location and function in a binder complete with digital photographs which they took themselves. This greatly eased the burden of sorting through the Precision Measurement Equipment Lab (PMEL) report which lists the items that were due for calibration. By relieving active duty members of certain administrative functions, the Auxiliary team has significantly enhanced productivity and morale. Auxiliary members committed over 400 hours in direct support of aviation maintenance activities. Representing a significant departure from the traditional uses of Auxiliary members at air stations, the innovative management practices of this Auxiliary team made it possible for active duty members to be relieved of support roles and assigned to maintenance or flight related tasks. This was only possible because the highly talented Auxiliary team gained the skill and ability to act autonomously within the scope of their responsibilities after receiving initial training and guidance from active duty members. The Auxiliary members also represent a degree of continuity that, as a result of frequent job rotations within the enlisted workforce, has historically resulted in frequent learning curves. Realizing the impact of their commitment, technicians on the hangar deck accept the Auxiliary members as part of the team that makes Air Station Cape Cod one of the best units in the Coast Guard.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the comments by my friend, the majority whip from Missouri. He references respect for the rule of law, and we all concur. But I think there is a certain irony here, because as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), alluded to, in fact, what we are doing here today, if the base bill should become law, is we are disrespecting the rule of law. We are walking away from our treaty obligation. Now, we have been accused of embracing the concept of unilateralism. I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine what the rest of the world is contemplating as we are here debating whether we simply will abrogate, without a formal process of abrogation, renouncing the charter, just simply not meeting our charter obligations. In many respects, this is not just simply about the United Nations; this is about the rule of law. Do we pick and select and choose what treaties we have ratified and are signatory to, which ones we will abide by? I do not have to repeat the arguments, the eloquent and, I think, accurate arguments put forth by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), but that is what we are doing here, if the base bill should pass. We will preach and speak about respect for the rule of law, which is obviously essential in democracy; but by our action, we will open ourselves to charges of hypocrisy. We do not need that now in this time, where our own GAO is telling us that there is increasing anti- Americanism spreading throughout the world, which puts our national security interests at risk. This amendment, although well intentioned, I think creates that potential. I know the gentlewoman from Florida is conversant with what is happening in the United Nations now. There is a critical mass for reform. There are like-minded democracies that support the democracy theme, that want to achieve the same goals that we want to. Yet not a single one of them is taking the same approach in terms of effecting and bringing about the same reform that we all wish to accomplish, because they know that if we begin to selectively abrogate our responsibilities under international treaties, which we have signed on to, that that creates a very, very slippery slope.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?