Floor Statement on Iraq Supplemental
Washington,
Oct 17, 2003 -
Mr. Chairman, last spring many of us warned that unilateral military action against Iraq would open a Pandora's Box; that the President had not prepared the American people for the sacrifices that would be entailed by such an action; and that to act without the support of the international community would seriously jeopardize our ability to win the post-war peace in Iraq. Regretfully, I fear that we were right. And there is little satisfaction in that realization--because the implications for our Nation and the American people are very serious indeed. Our President and his advisors have backed this country into a corner from which there is no easy escape.
Now the President has asked this Congress--asked the American people--for an additional $87 billion for the upcoming year to pay primarily for our efforts in Iraq. This request comes on top of the $79 billion already appropriated for these purposes this fiscal year and we can be sure that this will not be the President's last request for funds for Iraq. Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction needs over the next five years have been estimated at over $50 billion--without taking into the account the costs of continued troops deployment there.
In deciding whether or not to support this request, I believe we must consider three fundamental questions:
How did we get to the situation we are in today?
In light of the current state of affairs in Iraq, is the kind of investment the President has requested necessary to enhance our security and protect our national interests? and,
If this investment is necessary, has the Administration presented us with a responsible plan that will achieve our key national objectives, both in Iraq and at home?
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Six months ago, the President informed the American people that Saddam Hussein posed such a dangerous threat to the Untied States that we had to wage war in Iraq to protect our national security. The President and his advisors sold the Iraq war to the American people primarily based on the argument that Saddam Hussein was a ticking time bomb; that he posed a serious and growing danger to America; and that the only way to eliminate the threat was to eliminate Saddam Hussein.
The Administration's argument was based on the marriage of two claims. The first was the claim that Iraq possessed an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and would soon obtain a nuclear weapons capability. The second was the claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda. Taken together, these claims painted a very ominous picture. While many in the international community--and here at home--had strong doubts about the nature, magnitude and imminence of the threat posed by Saddam, in its rush to war, the Administration exploited the fears of a post 9/11 America. They portrayed the United Nations Security Council, the U.N. weapons inspectors, most of the international community, and critics here at home as a bunch of spineless procrastinators who wanted to look the other way in the face of a growing Iraqi threat.
It now appears that the Administration's two most fundamental arguments for war were false. After interviewing hundreds of former Iraqi military personnel and allowing more than 1,200 of our own inspectors to roam across Iraq over the last six months, we have failed to uncover any actual weapons of mass destruction. The interim report submitted by Dr. David Kay, the Administration's own arms inspector, provides no hard evidence to support the kind of danger President Bush depicted when he made the case for immediate military action. In the absence of evidence of actual weapons, U.S. officials have shifted their rhetoric to focus on ``weapons programs'' and ``the intent'' of the pre-war Iraqi regime. And while it may be true that Iraq was not in full compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, it also appears that the sanctions regime, coupled with the inspectors deployed under Resolution 1441, was successful at containing Iraq's ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Time has also not borne out the Administration's claim that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein. There is no credible evidence of any collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This argument, made over the objections of many in the intelligence community and most regional experts in this town, was a calculated effort to establish a false link in the minds of the American people between the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the need to go to war in Iraq. This strategy of fear was not based on the facts, but on a desire to do whatever it would take to win public support for the war.
It is undeniable that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. However, the security threat he posed to the United States was grossly exaggerated by the President and his public relations gurus. The question now looms--Having eliminated the regime of Saddam Hussein, are Americans safer today than they were six months ago?
SITUATION ON THE GROUND
By almost every measure, the U.S. post-war mission in Iraq is not going well and the Administration remains deeply divided over the best way to proceed. While it is true that we have removed Saddam Hussein from power, it is far from clear that we have made the American people more secure as a result. The jury is still out on the implications of our actions for the Middle East region, the fight against terrorism and efforts to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraq of today does not reflect the rosy pre-war predictions made by the Bush Administration. The situation on the ground is far from secure. Since the President declared the end of major combat operations, 198 brave Americans have died--sixty more than died during the war itself. Hundreds more have been severely wounded. Every week more Americans are killed, more car bombs go off and more international aid workers leave the country.
Our military forces are stretched thin and our troops are prime targets for former Baasthists and other extremists in a country overflowing with supplies of arms and munitions. The senior American commander in the Persian Gulf region has told us that we are engaged in a ``guerrilla war'' in Iraq. At the same time, the political process in Baghdad is bogged down over security issues, the friction of the occupation and increasingly bitter Iraqi-American arguments over the pace of turning over control and responsibility to Iraq's Governing Council. Increasingly, we find ourselves in a shooting gallery with no real exit strategy.
Terrorist Threat. In one of the terrible ironies of the war, in the name of fighting terrorism, we have increased the level of terrorist activity in Iraq. Administration officials report that Baghdad has become a new magnet and breeding ground for extremists and terrorists from around the region. Even worse, our actions in Iraq appear to have forged a link for the first time between the fanatical Islamic extremists of Al Qaeda and the traditionally secular remnants of Saddam's Baathist regime. These two groups, ideological antagonists before the war, have now been driven together in an unholy alliance to wage war on Americans. While the terrorist attacks attributed to this newly forged partnership have so far been confined to Iraq, this virulent combination could begin to extend their activities elsewhere.
International Community. The Bush Administration's contempt for the international community in the lead-up to the war has seriously complicated our ability to gain the cooperation and assistance of the rest of the world in support of common objectives. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, the entire world stood with us in the war on terrorism. The United Nations and NATO unanimously pledged their support in our fight and multinational involvement in our mission against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was the highest ever. However, today this situation has greatly changed. Our friends and allies have been unwilling to participate in a substantial way in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. Even under the auspices of a new U.N. Security Council Resolution establishing a United Nations role along side the U.S. in Iraq, very little is expected in new troops and financial pledges for the Iraqi mission.
U.S. Credibility. The Administration's misleading statements about the nature and magnitude of the Iraqi threat have undermined our credibility around the world. Secretary of State Powell's report to the United Nations prior to the war relied on forged documents and information we later admitted to be unreliable. The nuclear specter that Administration officials pointed to has been discredited. Even more recently, Administration Inspector David Kay has been forced to back down from post-war claims that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were used for making biological weapons. The huge credibility gap that now exists for the Administration undermines our future ability to sound the alarm based on sensitive intelligence matters. Future claims about Iran, North Korea and others will be viewed with deep suspicion by a more skeptical public and an international community that, as the Economist described, sees the Bush Administration as having its own arsenal of WMD--``Wielders of Mass Deception.''
Regional Stability in the Middle East. The Bush Administration's predictions that the fall of Saddam Hussein would put extremists in retreat throughout the Middle East and spur progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict have not be realized. The Arab-Israeli conflict has gone from bad to worse in the six months since the end of the Iraq war. And while it is premature to reach any conclusions about the long term effects, the Administration's prediction that the fall of Saddam Hussein would trigger a kind of democratic domino effect, spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, looks unlikely in the foreseeable future. The trend is toward more violence and polarization in that troubled region.
Conflict Management. The new ``preventive war doctrine,'' articulated by the Bush Administration to justify our action in Iraq, has set a dangerous precedent in international relations. The Administration's assertion that America has the right to attack another nation based on the perception of a future threat has--especially in light of what we know now to be faulty and hyped intelligence--undermined many of the long existing norms for international engagement. The world will become much less secure if nations with long histories of bitter differences, such as India and Pakistan, should choose to follow our example.
By almost every measure, our virtually unilateral attack on Iraq has, at least in the short term, made American less--not more--secure. The difficult question we must now face is: Where do we go from here?
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
The President's request for this $87 billion marks the culmination of his repeated failures--his gross exaggeration of the threats posed by Iraq in order to justify the war; his contempt for the international community before the war; his inability to gain significant international backing to share the military burden and the financial costs of rebuilding Iraq; his failure to level with the American people about the cost and challenges of ``winning the peace;'' and the list goes on. The Bush Administration deserves to suffer the political consequences of these miscalculations, misrepresentations, and missteps. But that decision will--and should--be left to the American people at the ballot box.
In the meantime, we here in the 108th Congress have an obligation and a responsibility to limit the extent to which the American people will suffer the consequences of the President's bad decisions. These decisons have placed not just the Bush Administration--but our entire county--in a difficult predicament. The terrible irony of the war in Iraq is that, in the name of making America more secure, it has--at least for now--made us less secure.
We cannot turn back the clock. The stablization and reconstruction of Iraq is now a critical interest of the United States, Iraq and the international community. I believe that we must help in the reconstruction of Iraq for two reasons. The first is based on the simple principle: ``If you break it, you fix it.'' The second is based on our security interests in preventing another rogue state from emerging in Iraq or the outbreak of a violent conflict that will further destablize the volatile Middle East region and further enflame Muslim and world public opinion against the United States. Unless we invest in maintaining and protecting our troops, and in helping to rebuild Iraq, we will make a bad situation worse; we will compound the damage done by the reckless actions of this Administration--and make the challenges facing our Nation in the years to come even more difficult.
AMERICAN TROOPS ARE STILL NECESSARY
Over two thirds of the request before us--$67 billion of the $87 billion--is allocated to cover the costs of maintaining and protecting the U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq. These troops are providing the security framework necessary to maintain some semblance of law and order as efforts are made to create a mechanism for writing a new constitution, holding elections and returning sovereignty to an internationally recognized and legitimate Iraqi authority. The immediate withdrawal of American troops would produce tremendous instability and would likely lead to civil war between the three major communities in Iraq--the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds. Just as the precipitous U.S. disengagement from Afghan affairs following the Soviet withdrawal from that country opened the door to the Taliban regime, premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would benefit extremists and terrorist groups. If we don't fill the power vacuum that exists, groups like Al Qaeda and Ansar Al Islam will help fill it.
In addition, the immediate withdrawal of American troops would undermine the status of our country around the world. The President engaged our military in Iraq with strong rhetoric about the type of Iraq Americans wished to enable Iraqis to create for themselves. He made pledges to the Iraqi people in our name. We must do what we can to make good on those pledges. Our hasty withdrawal would likely embolden our enemies in the region and around the world. It would be a setback to our common effort to expand representative government and combat terrorism.
The Administration has been forced to recognize that we cannot achieve our post-war goals in Iraq alone. We must do everything we can to replace our troops with international forces and a new Iraqi police force. However, we must be realistic. We face time and resource constraints. For now, it appears that we will be able to attract only a limited number of foreign troops. Our allies and other nations, still seething from the Bush Administration's pre-war treatment are not yet prepared to provide substantial troops and financial support for the current mission. The Security Council resolution passed on October 16th is unlikely to significantly change this situation. In addition, it will take time to train an Iraqi force that can assume day-to-day responsibility for security. Until that Iraqi force is trained, American forces will be needed to prevent chaos and anarchy.
IRAQI RECONSTRUCTION IS A CRITICAL U.S. INTEREST
About twenty billion of the President's $87 billion request is slated for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This large investment is particularly difficult to stomach given both the mounting deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts weighted toward the super rich and the Administration's gross neglect of pressing needs here at home. However, I strongly believe that it would be short-sighted--and even dangerous--for our country not to do what is necessary to attempt to win--or at least not lose--the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This will not be easy and the outcome is not guaranteed. Our chances of defeating the remnants of the Hussein regime and various extremists elements will be based in large part on our ability to show that the standard of living is better in the post-Saddam era. If we fail to create an environment in which the great majority of Iraqis see themselves as better off, we will open the door to ethnic, religious and regional strife. This could endanger our troops and undermine our efforts to build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors and on the course to representative government.
In the long run, our only chance of salvaging the situation is to make a substantial investment. The cost of not making a substantial investment today will be much greater sums tomorrow. We have opened a pandora's box. Significant funds are now needed to try to extricate ourselves from this difficult situation and try to ensure that over the long term the American people will not have been made less secure as a result of this war. The immediate withdrawal of our troops now is not a viable option. Handing the shattered Iraqi infrastructure, economy and body politic over to a makeshift government prematurely, is only a recipe for disaster. We must now all pay the price of the President's misrepresentations, miscalculations, and missteps.
RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP
The key question facing Members of Congress today, however, is whether the supplemental request before us reflects an effective and sustainable plan for U.S. engagement in Iraq--and one that meets the test, both at home and abroad, of responsible leadership.
The task before us is enormous. To succeed in Iraq we need a coherent and international plan for moving forward. The Administration's record has been poor and they have given us little reason to believe that they understand the mistakes they have made and will make much needed adjustments to the course they are taking.
Experience with other nation-building efforts tells us that the mission before us is difficult and costly. It will require an extended commitment over a long period of time. And, unlike the military campaign, winning the peace will require the help of our friends and others in the international community. The American people are only beginning to realize the enormous implications of our involvement.
The World Bank has estimated Iraq's reconstruction needs at an additional $55 billion over the next four years--not including the costs of the continued military presence in that country. In Bosnia, a country one-eighth the size of Iraq, the international community has spent close to $50 billion over the last 8 years in nation-building and reconstruction--troop deployments have cost an additional tens of billions for individual countries--and the end is not in sight. Let there be no doubt that the request before us today is just the tip of the iceberg.
Given the record of the last six months it is frankly stunning how unwilling the Administration has been to meet its critics even halfway, to address the problems that exist, to provide a coherent roadmap for moving forward together with the international community, and to ensure that the bill for this mission will not be borne by America's children and grandchildren.
First, the Administration has stubbornly failed to admit the serious mistakes that it has made and to address the serious credibility problem that they have created for themselves among the American people, the U.S. Congress and the international community. This was evident most recently in the President's handling of the report on weapons of mass destruction submitted by former U.N. inspector David Kay, now working for the Bush Administration. The Kay report findings seriously undermined key elements of the Administration's pre-war claims. Yet, the President stubbornly sighted them as proof of his case. In a recent interview, Vice President CHENEY suggested a link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th, a claim the Administration had never previously made, and a link which the President himself rejected in statements a short time earlier. Unless the Administration is willing to address the serious credibility issue that exists--or at least not compound it--it will be difficult for the American people to have any confidence in its statement about the situation in Iraq and its assessment of what needs to be done.
In addition, the Administration continues to act as though it has no responsibility or legal obligation to inform the Congress and the people of this country about how they plan to use the money that we approve in this chamber. In recent hearings Administration officials have refused to answer questions regarding the expenditure of funds previously authorized by this institution and to give little or no information on future projected costs. In my own committee I asked Administration representatives about U.S. commitments, financial and other, to the Turkish government in return for deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq and I was not able to get any satisfactory answers. If the American taxpayer is going to foot the bill for Turkish troops--by grant or by loan--they have the right to know. And if we are planning to send U.S. troops to fight--and maybe die--pacifying Turkish-Kurds opposing the Turkish government, then I believe the American people deserve the right to know about that deal.
Second, it has been true from the very start that the President's Iraq policy has suffered from deep divisions within the Administration on the most fundamental issues--dealing with the international community, organizing for reconstruction and interpreting the threat itself. These divisions have been the subject of recent public discussion over the announcement of a new task force headed by National Security Advisor, Condeleeza Rice, with the task of coordinating the stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. This announcement notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence to suggest that little real progress has been made in this area. Recent statements attributed to senior Administration officials are highly critical of the Bremer mission in Iraq and raise serious questions about who is calling the shots, even today, on U.S. policy.
Without a coherent plan that is implemented by a united Administration we cannot succeed. This plan does not exist today.
Third, it has long been clear that we cannot succeed in the post-war mission in Iraq alone. We must engage the international community for both political and material reasons. The Administration badly miscalculated the extent to which Iraqi suffering under Saddam Hussein would translate into goodwill toward America's role in Iraq. We must understand the complex situation we face today in our new role as an occupying force in Iraq.
Fourth, the Administration's actions must match its rhetoric about supporting Iraqi democracy. The $20.3 billion reconstruction budget presented by the Administration was drawn up without meaningful consultations with Iraqis. In addition, we watch as Administration officials arm twist the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq over the strong objections of all three major Iraqi communities--the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunnis. It appears that the Administration has not grasped the first tenet of nation-building--that the Iraqi people must believe that they are rebuilding their own country.
Fifth, the Administration has ignored the importance of its role in accounting for the funds that we approve and preventing corporate profiteering and abuse of taxpayer money. It must take serious steps to allay fears that appropriated funds will be wasted on large favored corporations. In light of the many stories of abuse we have heard in recent weeks, the ``prudent'' transparency mentioned in Mr. Bremer's testimony before members of Congress does not go far enough. The Administration must provide a satisfactory accounting of how funds have been spent to date and how additional funds are being planned for.
Finally, and most importantly, the President is asking us to ignore the enormous budget implications of this request. Let's not fool ourselves or the American people. It won't be just this $87 billion. It will also require billions more in the months and years ahead.
While we have a responsibility to maintain security on the ground in Iraq and assist with the reconstruction of that country, we also have an obligation to level with the American people. The President totally failed to prepare the American people for the true costs of the war and of ``winning the peace.'' Now he seeks to escape responsibility for those costs by putting them on our national credit card and running up huge deficits. Every penny of the $87 billion requested by the President is borrowed money. But we all know there is no free lunch. His ``out-of-sight, out-of-mind'' approach to such important issues will wind up costing our children down the road.
We should not be waging war and peace by credit card. If we are willing to pay any price to defeat the scourge of terrorism, we must pay for it in an honest way. While the President has asked our troops and their families to make the ultimate sacrifice, he has given the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut. That is wrong. It is wrong to pass the buck to the next generation; it is wrong to ask the younger generation, including our troops and their children, to bear the burden alone; and it is wrong to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying their fair share.
We have a huge responsibility gap in our government. It is the gap between those who understand that we have a responsibility to establish stability and help rebuild Iraq--and who are prepared to pay for it now, and those who call upon the country to pay any price in Iraq, but run from responsibility paying that price.
I had an amendment to fill that responsibility gap. It was an amendment to scale back the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to pay their share of the costs of this bill. Incredibly, the House leadership prohibited that amendment from coming to a vote.
This is a difficult time to be asking the American people to invest billions of dollars of their money to build schools, hospitals, roads, electric grids and communications systems. Here at home, our Federal, State and local governments are experiencing huge revenue shortfalls. The President's budget request for this year falls $9 billion short of what was promised by the Federal Government to meet our obligations to America's school children under the No Child Left Behind legislation. Three out of five children eligible for Head Start cannot receive help because of lack of funds. Years ago the Federal Government pledged to cover 40 percent of the costs of ensuring that children with disabilities received a good education, but today we are meeting only 18 percent of that cost. The same shortfalls occur in health programs, our national transportation infrastructure, and a range of other important domestic needs.
We must meet our needs at home at the same time we meet our international responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places around the globe. We as a nation have enormous resources. We can meet both our domestic needs and our international responsibilities. We can help the Iraqis rebuild their country while we construct new hospitals and schools here at home. But we must be prepared to pay for them. If we refuse to pay now for our efforts in Iraq by reducing portions of the tax cut, it will make it impossible to make the investments we must make in education, health, transportation and other needs here at home. Already this year, when many of us called for full funding for No Child Left Behind and meeting our national obligations for special education we were told that we didn't have resources because of the large tax cuts. Adding this $87 billion to the deficit will make it even more difficult to meet those pressing needs. That is why we must pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq. We cannot put everything on our national credit card.
The President has totally abdicated his leadership responsibilities. His job is to level with the American people--to inform us that our international responsibilities require us to pay the price of leadership. Leadership is about setting priorities. The war in Iraq was a war of choice. Regardless of what each of us may think about how that choice was made, we now have a responsibility to pay for the consequences of that choice. The President--by refusing to pay for the war and its aftermath--refuses to acknowledge the real costs of those choices.
There are some who argue that, because the President has refused to scale back his tax cuts to pay for the war and its aftermath, those of us who believe we have a responsibility to provide security and aid in the reconstruction in Iraq have no alternative but to support the President's request for $87 billion without condition; that we have to go along with the President's plan to wage war and peace by credit card. That is an irresponsible position and a false choice. If paying for security and reconstruction is that important--and I believe that it is--then we should insist that we pay for it the right way. To do any less is to abdicate our responsibility to the American people.
THE FALSE CHOICE
Money alone is not the answer to the problems we face in Iraq. The stakes are high and the mission is difficult. For those of us who support making this enormous investment I believe that we have a duty to ask if the money will be spent wisely and where it will come from.
The Bush Administration has treated our concerns, and those of others, with contempt and arrogance--the same way they treated the international community prior to the war. I fear that if we buckle-in to the Administration's demand to do it ``our way or the highway,'' we will simply be acquiescing in the continuation of a fundamentally failed approach to a very sensitive and vital mission. We cannot allow ourselves to be caught in the false choice that we must engage the Administration's way or no way at all.
For weeks I have struggled with this vote. As the son of a U.S. foreign service officer, I have always had a strong personal commitment to our country's international role. It is with great difficulty that I cast a vote against funds requested by a President in pursuit of U.S. policies abroad. However, the Administration's arrogant refusal to consider alternative approaches and, most of all, its refusal to pay now for the consequences of its choices has convinced me that they will not address these issues in a responsible manner until we demand a higher standard of leadership. If the President believes, as I do, that we have an obligation to provide security and help rebuild Iraq, he should have the simple courage to pay for it. Despite all my other reservations, if the President were to present a plan to pay now for the costs of our efforts in Iraq, or if my amendment to reduce the tax cuts to cover our costs were adopted, I would support this bill. The choice is not between doing nothing and doing it the President's way. We have a responsibility to the American people to do it the right way.
|
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
