John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I thank you, Mr. Delahunt, for your comments; and as you point out, we have been joined by several of our esteemed colleagues. Maxine Waters has been in the forefront of making sure that the message continues to get out across this Nation with regard to the current situation in Iraq. She has been forthright in leading the Out of Iraq Caucus in the Democratic Caucus, and also has embraced wholeheartedly Jack Murtha's proposal. And, with that, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Because of the word of Ahmad Chalabi. So what has become the Chalabi-Cheney nexus has led us into this quagmire that we find ourselves into today. And as you point out, we have diverted the necessary funds that are needed to combat terrorism. We still do not have Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. They are still at large. And we need to make sure that if we are going to send a strong message around the world that this kind of terrorist act will not be tolerated, that we refocus and regroup. It is also pointed out in several articles over this weekend that we still can prevail in Afghanistan if we put the resources there and support President Karzai and make sure that we regroup and redetermine our effort to put down the Taliban and to focus on weeding out those elements of al Qaeda that still exist along the Pakistani border and throughout Afghanistan that has become once again overwhelmed with warlords.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. We did not.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, to your point, you know, if we go back to the outset of the invasion of Iraq, we can trace it back to the summer of 2002, with the President's address at West Point, where he announced the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism. And as you will recall, who were the staunchest critics of the President at the time? It was not Senator Kennedy. It was not Senator Byrd. It wasn't Bill Delahunt or Jim McDermott or Maxine Waters or myself. It was Scowcroft, Eagleberger, Baker, Kissinger, because they understood the perils present in this kind of foreign policy, to abandon the precepts of Casper Weinberger and saying the United States should never enter into a military conflict unless its vital interests are threatened. And we knew that that was not the case, and the Powell corollary to that which is, if we go in, we go in with overwhelming force and secure the country.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, again we come to the floor this evening as part of what we have come to call the Iraq Watch. And first and foremost, as my distinguished colleagues have in previous occasions, I note that we want to distinguish first and foremost the war from the warriors. The men and women who serve this great country of ours deserve our unending respect and support for the kind of valor, the kind of job that they perform on a regular basis. Having said goodbye to far too many of them, many in our Reservists and National Guards who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed and then redeployed again, it is gut wrenching and heartrending to see what their families are going through. And so our thoughts and prayers are always with them, along with the support of this Congress. I further would like to say that it is important to distinguish the war from the warriors so that we have an opportunity to lay out policy for the American public. I want to start this evening with a policy that I believe sends a very strong message to the men and women who wear the uniform and their families here at home that are caring for them and caring about them. We have introduced a resolution that directs the President to send a clear message to the Iraqi Government that during this time of insurrection, a time when the Pew poll most recently indicates that 47 percent of the Iraqi people believe that it is okay and justifiable to kill American soldiers, it is unacceptable; and we must send a clear message to the Iraqi Government that American soldiers who have been killed, maimed, wounded, kidnapped, tortured, that we will not, in any shape, manner or form, tolerate amnesty for those who have perpetrated those acts against these brave men and women. In my humble estimation, there is no reason why this shouldn't be a bipartisan resolution. We have over 100 Democratic signatures on the bill. We would like to get this bill passed before we adjourn for the August recess. We have been able to bring so many incidental bills to this floor by unanimous consent. Surely we can bring a bill to the floor that sends a clear message to our troops that we are putting the Iraqi Government on notice that it is not okay to kill, maim, kidnap, torture American men and women in our armed services. And so it is my sincere hope, and we have had some overtures from the other side of the aisle, but so far, no movement. And this should be a nonpartisan issue where we bring this resolution to the floor and take it up and pass it, and send it on to the President so that he can send a very clear message. More important than sending a clear message to the Iraqis is also sending a message to our troops that we here in this country stand behind them and their sacrifice that they have made and will not see this all go for naught being waived with an amnesty provision in the midst of an insurrection of paramount proportions that is currently going on within Iraq. So I want to start there. And then I would like to quickly just segue to a quote. This quote was put together by Graham Allison, and Mr. Allison is a Harvard professor who had this to say that ``with regard to the current situation that we face in Iraq, it is clear that we have diverted essential resources from the fight against al Qaeda. We have allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan, fostered neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat, undermined alliances critical to preventing terrorism, devastated America's standing with every country in Europe, and destroyed it with the Muslim world.'' Mr. Allison goes on to say: ``Are we any safer today from the threat of nuclear attack, especially by way of a dirty bomb, than we were on September the 11?'' His conclusion is, no. And he says: ``It can be summed up in one word as to the reason why we are not safer: Iraq.'' And with that, let me acknowledge and yield to my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has, from the outset of this war, through public forums and discussion, been on record of having protested the sending of our troops into Iraq.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Washington State makes a very good point when he says, as the viewers all across this country tune in, and they see people coming down to this floor and speaking from their hearts and their heads about the situation we find in here, the one thing we want the people of this country to know is that the main purpose that we come down to this floor is because of love of country. The gentleman from Washington State loves his country, as do the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Maryland. And yet we found ourselves in this situation here where oftentimes our voices are muffled. We do not get an opportunity, even in a nonbinding resolution, to present our alternative point of view. This is a one-party town where the other side of the aisle, our erstwhile Republican colleagues, control the Presidency and all of its agencies and both Houses of these Chambers. And it is because of love of country and a concern to make sure, as we said from the outset, that we distinguish the warrior from the war, that we have an obligation to come to the floor and speak truth to power. That is why I commend all of you for coming down to the floor, as you have since the outset of this war. And again pointing out this evening that we need a new direction, a thoughtful, provocative direction that all of you have expressed this evening. Articulated by the gentlemen from Maryland and Maine and Massachusetts and Washington is the sense that the American people intuitively understand this and are yearning for their Nation to leave. But our inability in the minority to break through causes us to come here evening after evening in the hope, in the silence of this great hall, in this great room, that our message reaches out across this Nation and is heard by people who love this country. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle love their country as well. But our patriotism and our belief in this Nation stem from the fact that we are a nation configured through the rule of law. And that is why I am so proud to stand here with each and every one of you this evening. Thank you so much for again coming out for Iraq Watch.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Washington State.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine, as always, for his very thoughtful comments; and I want to make a statement consistent with what the gentlemen from Maryland and Massachusetts have said and ask the gentleman from Washington State to join us as well. But clearly, as the gentleman from Maine points out, our continued presence in Iraq only helps to fuel the insurgency and prolong instability between Iraq's regional and sectarian factions. Instead, our Nation needs a new direction that redeploys our forces to win the war in Afghanistan, tracks down key al Qaeda leaders, and refocuses on fighting the war on terror, something the gentleman from Maryland articulated so well. Instead, we get nonbinding resolutions that come to this floor when virtually this entire Chamber was united in the effort to make sure that we went after those criminals who perpetrated the acts of September 11, and instead, we have abandoned this front in Afghanistan. Astoundingly, as the gentleman from Maryland points out, the CIA is disbanding the unit that was focused on going after Osama bin Laden and allowed the Taliban to continue to regroup in Afghanistan. Talk about cut and run. Where is the debate on this issue? On the front line of terrorism, as Ms. Waters pointed out, with what we know is a regrouping of the Taliban, and where we know the funding of terrorism comes from the source of opium trade and that it is allowed to flourish and, in fact, expand and grown since 2001, it is time for a change in policy. With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland for remarks and then we will go over to the gentleman from Washington State.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the parallels of history are so important, and to think now as you point out so well that we have nearly abandoned the effort in Afghanistan and find ourselves imperiled in Iraq, much in the same way Russia found itself imperiled in Afghanistan, with the rest of the world watching as we continue to expend our resources, over $400 billion, and our most precious of all resources, the men and women who serve this country; and in the meantime, Afghanistan has become the forgotten front on terrorism, something the gentleman from Maine knows about as well as anybody in this great body of ours, and I yield to him.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from Maryland is so on point with his comments. I would like to read some remarks by former assistant Secretary of State James Rubin. He says that the Bush administration, that they have allowed Afghanistan to become the forgotten front on the war on terrorism, the forgotten front on the war on terrorism. As the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, these were the individuals who took down the World Trade Center, who hit the Pentagon, and but for the bravery of the people on board that heroic flight, the other plane ended up in Pennsylvania, in the fields of Pennsylvania. Afghanistan is the central front on the war on terror, and yet this administration does not have a long-term strategy for success in this crucial fight. They have allowed a war of choice in Iraq to distract from our critical mission in Afghanistan, a point the gentleman from Maryland articulated earlier.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I would like to further substantiate what she had to say before about the trafficking of narcotics, especially opium poppies. Since 2001, it increased from 200 metric tons to over 4,200 metric tons in just 2004. And our colleague from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, has written in the Washington Post and, I think, given very insightful comment on the situation in Afghanistan; and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, when you say ``poppy fields,'' you are referring to drug trafficking, correct?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. While the gentleman is getting his chart, I would just like to comment again and commend him, and also commend him in the bipartisan nature and nonpartisan way that you have come down here. I say that with this in mind, because you have heard me talk about the nature of this being a one-party town and what it means in terms of stifling debate and dialogue. And yet we do have plans and we do have ideas and vitality. And so one has to ask himself, Why is it that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to stifle, to cut off debate, to be seemingly uninterested in the proposals that Democrats put forward? The answer I believe lies in what Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to say about our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: it is not that they aren't good people. They certainly are. It is not that they don't love their country as we do. They do. But he said that they seem to be frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Frozen in the ice of their own indifference. Indifference towards making sure that there is a workable, living minimum wage. Indifference to working people, indifference to the men and women as Mr. Delahunt has pointed out time and time again who are lined up along the highway to Crawford, Texas, seeking only an audience with the President of the United States to talk about their sons and daughters who have given their lives. Indifference, as Ms. Jackson-Lee has pointed out, to the senior citizens of this country who have become refugees from their own health care system and have to travel to Canada to get prescription drugs that they can afford. Indifference to what we are doing to college students today, cutting back the funding that they so desperately need. Indifference to what happens at the gas pumps where people who are struggling to make a living and have to get back and forth to work find themselves. And I thank you for combating that indifference here on the floor every single night. It is our direction, the new direction that Leader Pelosi is taking this party and this country into is what this Nation desperately needs, and that is why I am so proud to be down here with you.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank you and the 30-something Group for the enormous work that you have done on this floor. Again, as you rightfully point out, we do not have and are not provided the opportunity. You would think in this great democracy of ours there would be ample opportunity for these issues to be debated, but unfortunately time and time again we are not allowed the opportunity even to provide a countervailing measure on something as important as Iraq. Or we find the Voting Rights Act all of a sudden mysteriously is shunted off the floor. The Voting Rights Act, something where there is near bipartisan, almost unanimous approval that is worked out. And you would think in the spirit of this great Chamber that we would be able to proceed. But unfortunately, as I said before, this is a one-party town. And when the Republicans control the House of Representatives, as they have for the last 12 years, and the United States Senate and the Presidency, in their arrogance they believe I guess that we shouldn't have a say, that there shouldn't be this discourse and dialogue. And that is why I am so proud of the 30-something Group that has consistently come down to this floor. And I am proud to say also that so many people in my home State of Connecticut have called and written and said that they have heard you. And your message is getting through. And I commend you as well for linking up with a number of the blogs around the country who tune in on a regular basis so that they get an opportunity to hear from you and Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz and the way that you are able to articulate these issues. I see that we have been joined by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, another individual who has been able to on so many occasions come to this floor in the silence of this Chamber, in the din of the night because we are not allowed the opportunity during the day to express our concerns.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, in my opening remarks, this is confusing to American citizens, because Karl Rove, the Sunday prior to the debate that started here in this House, was in New Hampshire; and he laid out the strategic vision for the Republican Party. It was a political gathering, but he laid out that strategic vision. I can understand why the public gets confused, because he said very publicly that what we have to do is ``stay the course,'' and then it was the Democrats who wanted, to use one of their slogans, ``cut and run.'' But they were going to stay the course. Then that was followed by the majority leader's talking points that were disseminated on the floor here which, of course, was again discrediting Democrats, and most notably Mr. Murtha, about cutting and running. Then it becomes even more confounding, because the debate that ensued was, as you point out, I think uplifting in some circumstances, because it was trying to define where people stand. Ninety-nine percent of them felt very strongly that we ought to stay the course, while 78 percent on this side felt there ought to be a new direction. So people became somewhat confused. And that was all sandwiched in between the President's flight and photo-op to Iraq and the White House picnic. Then, lo and behold, last week, the debate in the Senate, where it even reaches a feverish pitch, and we have had more plans hatched and looked at by the Democrats, including the Murtha proposal, as Maxine discussed, and the Levin plan in the Senate, as well as Ike Skelton's proposal and David Price's proposal down here. It goes on and on. So people can get confused. Then, as you are chronicling these events, all of a sudden the Iraqi security adviser says they have a plan; and their plan includes, as Mr. Inslee pointed out, that the Iraqi people want us out of there. Eight- seven percent want us out of there. Eighty-seven percent believe that they are better off taking control of their own destiny. And now you are telling the American people, though, that, look, this really doesn't have anything to do with all of that. This is about an election. Not their election.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This evening I come to the floor to continue the discussion that this Congress has had with respect to our policies as it relates to Iraq. I was fortunate this past weekend to attend yet another ceremony, in this case, with the 1048th Tankers Division from the State of Connecticut who was being deployed to Iraq. We in this country continue to owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who wear the uniform and who have served this country so valiantly and with such courage. But we also owe a deep debt of gratitude to their families in what has become gut-wrenching ceremonies as you watch young children and mothers and grandparents say goodbye to their loved ones who are going over to Iraq, including a mother who has three sons that are now over there, and another mother who saw her son off and her husband had just left the week before. So it is very disconcerting when you find that the only people that we have asked to make a sacrifice in the war on terror have become the men and women who serve in the front lines and their families who are left behind. Our hearts go out to all of them. And what they deserve, more than anything else, is a Nation that will level with them, that will provide them with a plan, that will tell these troops, especially in the case of the National Guard and the reservists who have been deployed, redeployed, deployed again, their stays more so than at any other point in the history of this country, and they do so with a salute and they follow orders. How grateful a Nation we should be. And yet here at home we hear, just in the previous hour, discussions that center on a tax cut and how important a tax cut is. I have never met anyone that didn't favor tax cuts. But it is disconcerting when you look out at these families and you see that this Congress focuses on tax cuts for the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent, making sure that we ladle on more tax cuts to those already impoverished oil companies who are experiencing unprecedented profits. Yet I look out into that audience in Connecticut, in the State armory and see these families, many who will struggle during this time, many whose gas prices will rise during the time of this 18-month deployment. So you say to yourself, well, where is the plan? What is the exit strategy? What do we owe these individuals? Do we not at least owe them the truth? So there was a debate enjoined on this floor 2 weeks ago, a nonbinding resolution, in essence, a conversation, a conversation where 99 percent of the people on the other side of the aisle said, stay the course, while the Nation and while this side of the aisle clamors for a new direction for America. When I looked out into the eyes of the audience of those families and I saw their concern and need, they want a new direction for the country, especially as it relates to Iraq. Isn't it amazing that they can get a plan from the Iraqi government, that they can get several plans from Democrats, whether it be Jack Murtha's bold plan that, well, seemingly the Iraqi government agrees with, or whether it be Carl Levin's plan, well, that seemingly now General Casey agrees with? So we find the Pentagon and the Iraqi government, Jack Murtha, Carl Levin, and several other Democrats offering thoughtful plans, and the Republicans saying stay the course and a President still unable to level with the American people and unwilling still to meet with parents who have lost their kids, who line the highway on the way to Crawford, Texas, or wait patiently outside The White House for an audience. It amazes me that, while the Iraqis can say that they have a position and they know that they have to take on responsibility, that we will somehow let the Iraqis determine the faith of our brave men and women, so much so that there has even been talk of amnesty, amnesty for those who have killed, maimed or kidnapped American soldiers or citizens. There can be no amnesty for that. There is no honor in the great sacrifice that our men and women have provided. No matter what the Iraqi government might say, we, as the United States Congress, have an obligation to our men and women and the citizens that are in Iraq working on behalf of this country to make sure that that cannot stand. And what do we get from our erstwhile colleagues on the other side of the aisle and why was this debate conducted in the manner that it was? Well, let me tell you why. Because Karl Rove hatched a plan in New Hampshire. You see, he went there and laid out this strategy; and the strategy was a very simple one. It is one that they used before. They just dusted off the playbook and said, you know, it works when we attack Democrats. We attack them for their patriotism. It worked successfully against Max Cleland. We were able to take that man, who gave three of his limbs for this country, to make him appear to be unpatriotic and go after him personally. It worked against John Kerry. We were able to swift boat him during the Presidential campaign, to tarnish his service and the medals he earned. And it is working against Jack Murtha, they think. So that we can turn around and tarnish him as well. And Karl Rove launches his strategy, and then John Boehner rolls out the talking points for the caucus, and then the debate is neatly sandwiched in between the time allotted, with no Democratic alternative being allotted, and the White House picnic, just in time for the President to take a surprise trip to Iraq for a photo-op and to return home. The Nation deserves better than that. If the Iraqi security advisors can provide us with a plan, why can't Donald Rumsfeld provide us with a plan? No wonder, in the Washington Post today and the New York Times over the weekend, people are wild over the fact that, if all that debate and discussion was truly about a course for this Nation, how is it that General Casey's plan sounds identical to Carl Levin's plan? And how is it that the Iraqis can acknowledge what Mr. Murtha acknowledged last November? On this side of the aisle, we have come to know what it is all about. It is about the continued hypocrisy as it relates to leveling with the American people and, more importantly, leveling with our troops, with the National Guard and reservists and their families and the kind of sacrifice that we have asked them to do, and we have prevailed upon them, and they have done with honor. And yet we can't level with them? We find ourselves right now with the congressional Republicans that have no plan for Iraq, a flawed plan for going in, a failed plan to win, and no plan to get out. Stay the course is the slogan. And that is all it is, a slogan, not a solution. It is a prescription for an endless occupation of Iraq. The Democrats are united on the need for a new direction in Iraq. 2006 must be a year of significant transition. Iraqis must take control of their security and begin a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops. There has been no person who has addressed that issue more eloquently on this floor and back home in her native California in the city of the Angels than the gentlewoman from California, who has led a task force here in this Congress that focuses on a meaningful plan for an exit strategy from Iraq. At this time, I would like to yield to the distinguished lady from California, Maxine Waters.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman; and I just want to buttress her point here. In The Washington Post, first, Carl Levin, our distinguished Senator and brother of Sander Levin here in the House, one of the sponsors of the resolution, said that ``probably the worst kept secret in town is that this administration intends to pull out troops before the mid-term elections in November. It shouldn't be a political decision, but it's going to be with this administration. It is as clear as the nose on my face,'' he said, ``that it is all about November and this election.'' And as the gentlewoman pointed out, it shouldn't be. Jack Murtha has said over and over again only the Iraqis can solve the problems in Iraq. They are fighting with each other, and our troops are caught in between. And no one less than Iraq's National Security Advisor said, ``Iraq has to go out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems.'' Repeating again exactly what Mr. Murtha has been advocating. I want to now also turn to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee), who has been part of the Iraq Watch and from the very outset of this war has come to this floor almost on a regular basis to talk about the concerns that so many Americans in this country care deeply about, most notably the men and women who serve this country. I yield to Mr. Inslee.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington State again for his insightful comments and pointing out the new direction that this country needs to forge and that certainly that the people of this country desire and, as you so eloquently pointed out, as importantly, the people of Iraq. But I would also add that this is something that the generals of this country who have come forward and spoken out with great clarity also feel strongly about. Lieutenant General Greg Newbold: ``What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures.'' Major General Paul Eaton: ``Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our Armed Forces. His failure to build coalitions with our allies has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. He has shown himself to be incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically.'' Lieutenant General John Riggs: ``They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda,'' speaking on National Public Radio about the Bush administration. ``They only need the military advice when it satisfies their own agenda.'' General Wesley Clark: ``They pressed for open warfare before diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic blunder.'' General Anthony Zinni: ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of planning were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand. These were strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here by this administration.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Briefly reclaiming my time, could it be that one of the reasons they are not speaking out as forthrightly as they should, and I am just surmising this, is because part of this reconciliation that has been discussed is the granting of amnesty to Iraqis who have murdered or kidnapped American soldiers or civilians? We have put forward a resolution here. It was debated during our discussion here, but not a nonbinding resolution. We put forward a resolution that will actually bind the Congress to instruct the President to send a message to the Iraqi Government that that cannot stand; that we, this Congress, and the American public will not stand by and let them recuse people who have taken American lives, who have kidnapped and tortured and mutilated Americans. We will never stand by and let that happen. Could that be part of the reason?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Someone who has sent that message consistently also hails from Washington State, the senior member of the delegation, Jim McDermott, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. One gentleman who has been doing that consistently is the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, who, along with Mr. Inslee, headed up the Iraq Watch from the inception of this war, and who always provides us with insightful observations. I am sure he is intrigued, as both Mr. Inslee and Mr. McDermott are, with the developments of this past weekend with General Casey's proposal, et cetera. I would yield to him at this time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. One of the reasons that we come to the floor this evening, and Mr. McDermott alluded to it, is making sure that we do not sit idle to miss the so-called debate that Mr. Delahunt suggested took place both here in this Chamber, a nonbinding discussion, if you will, and in the Senate. Because in the past, charges have been made and leveled, slogans tossed out, and they have not been responded to. We are not going to stand by, because the American public desires a new direction, and more importantly desires people who are willing to speak truth to power. That is why Jack Murtha is so celebrated across this country. It is not so much for the particulars of his plan, but for the fact that he had the temerity to speak truth to power. And so we will not stand idle, and we will come to this floor on successive evenings to drive home the point to the American people. Mr. Delahunt, you articulated so clearly the need to level with the American public. And I started this evening talking about saying goodbye to the Reservists and National Guard of the 1048th Truckers Division from the State of Connecticut, a very painful thing. And most important is the need to level with our own troops and the families, who, as you point out, are the only ones who have had to make a sacrifice since September 11. The only people that our government has requested sacrifice of are the men and women who wear the uniform and their families.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I think Graham Ellison has stated it most eloquently. He said ``Americans are no safer from nuclear terrorist attack today than we were on September 10, 2001.'' He said, ``A central reason for that can be summed up in one word: Iraq. The invasion and occupation have diverted essential resources from the fight against al Qaeda, allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan, fostered neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat, undermined alliances critical to preventing terrorism, devastated America's standing with the public in every country in Europe, and destroyed it in the Muslim world.'' That about sums it up, where we were and why we need a new direction. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for joining me this evening.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will yield.