Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I think the gentlewoman asks a very legitimate question, but I do not think you were present in the Chamber when I referred to a statement dated July 13 coming from the Afghan defense minister, a gentleman by the name of Abdul Rahim Wardak, who said that the Afghan Army cannot secure the country without at least 150,000 more troops, five times what it has today, and that in his opinion, and he clearly represents the sentiment of the government, it is an opportunity for the United States to double the assistance given to Afghanistan. In other words, we left Afghanistan before we finished the job. What I find particularly interesting is that we do not hear that from this administration, but the new head of NATO, the NATO force in Afghanistan, a British general, David Richards, made this observation: Afghanistan's Taliban rebels have taken advantage of a power vacuum and grown stronger because the world's attention has been distracted by Iraq. How true. I agree with him. I agree with him. And if one looks around the landscape again, I am sure it has not been on the front page, but we all here present in this Chamber today know what is happening in Somalia. Radical Islamist warlords have taken over Somalia. Winning the war on terror, you know, the rest of the world believes that we are losing the war on terror. Many of the gentlemen that were referred to, Eagleburger, Lawrence Cobb, and others that have served in Republican administrations, agree that because of Iraq we are losing the war on terror today and eroding our own national security.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, if my friend would just yield for a moment just to confirm points that were made by everybody, but specifically by Chris Van Hollen, there is a GAO report that was issued in April of 2005 that speaks to the issue of deepening and broadening anti-American sentiment all over the world. We have all seen the polling data. It is frightening. Talk about a world opinion that threatens our national security. And the GAO specifically alluded to the fact that it has the potential to dramatically hurt our commercial interests. One only has to check the price of oil. One only has to look at today's stock market report. Everywhere we turn the implications and consequences of this failed policy is hurting the American people, our national security, our commercial interests and everything that is attendant thereto. Then, when we start to examine the relationship between the new government in Iraq and Iran, why have we spilled the blood of more than 2,500 Americans and already have appropriated taxpayer dollars on the way to $500 billion? And by the way, I am sure if you haven't, that you will find in your mail tomorrow a letter, a Dear Colleague letter from our friend and colleague from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. And she makes the point that on July 7, the Iraqi, not Iranian Parliament Speaker, Mahmoud al- Mashhadani had this to say. He accused Jews of financing acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the Parliament and government so they can install their agents in power. Some people say we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing. In the end, we even started kidnapping women who are our honor. These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with their agents. Is this what we have wrought? These words should be condemned by the President. I am sure we all would join in a resolution condemning the words of this head of the Iraqi Parliament, this Iraqi Government that has executed a bilateral military agreement with Iran. Where are we heading, my friends?

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is an excellent point, my friend, if you would yield for just one minute.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But what is most disturbing is that this House, run by the Republican Party, has failed to ask those questions of this administration, and thereby abrogated its responsibility to the American people to ask the questions that would have made a difference. Did Mr. Pillar come before this Congress? I can enumerate name after name of voices that, well, I could put up a long list of generals, General Batiste, General Eaton, General Zinni, who spoke truth to power, who said, This is the wrong course. And listen, we never had a hearing until just recently in the committee of jurisdiction, the House International Relations Committee. Shame on us. Shame on this institution, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you tell us what that number is, as compared to the 417 under President Clinton?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Just show it. I hope that those that are watching can see the cover. Except I would expand on the title, ``Energy Plan.'' I would add a dash, and I would add the words ``A Blueprint to Win the War Against Terrorism,'' because therein, in that plan, lies the secret, and it shouldn't be a secret, because I think it is obvious to many of us, that if we can adopt an energy plan, no longer will we find ourselves hostage to governments and societies that disagree with our values. And that is the case now. Six years into this administration, and gas has gone from $1.40 a gallon at the pump to now it is over $3. The Middle East is destabilizing. But the reality is, and we spoke about this, myself and some other colleagues earlier, today we are losing the war on terror. At least that is the opinion of people, including the American people, in 34 countries out of 35 where a poll commissioned by the BBC was taken. Just recently, a bipartisan group of experts in foreign policy and national security concluded that we are losing the war on terror. Now, in the previous hour my good friend from Iowa made the observation, why should we care whether people like us or not? Why should we care? Because, again, if you take a look other polls, and not just, by the way, in the Middle East, but on every continent, the image of the United States is poor. We are reviled. As the GAO said, anti- American sentiment is broadening and deepening. Yet my friend from Iowa says, why should we care? I think what he meant is why should we care about those who are sympathetic to or are active participants in acts of terror against the United States, and that makes sense. But we should care, Mr. Speaker. We should care about the rest of the world, because if we are going to have success in the war on terror, we need other people to help us. We cannot do it alone. If I can just cite one example, Mr. Meek, in a story just last week in the Washington Times, Secretary Rumsfeld was in Tajikistan, a Central Asian country, and while he was there he expressed concern about what is transpiring in Afghanistan. This is what he had to say, if I can just ask for your indulgence for a minute. I have to put my glasses on, Mr. Meek. You know I have a birthday coming up.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I didn't want the world to know that, but you let that secret out. The story reads, ``U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to oust the radical Taliban regime. Although the country now has a democratically-elected government, the Taliban has been making a comeback.'' Now to quote the Secretary. This is Mr. Rumsfeld. ``Western Europe ought to have an enormous interest in the success of Afghanistan, and it is going to take a lot more effort on their part for the Karzai government to be successful.'' He was alluding to the President of Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai. But what he is saying is Western Europe has got to help us more. So what we are looking for is help from Western Europe to contribute troops, to contribute resources so that that fragile democracy in Afghanistan can survive. So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is important what the British people think of the United States. Now, again, if you would bear with me, let me go to an article, Mr. Speaker, that appears in the New York Times dated July 3. Now, let's be really clear. This is not Pakistan, this is not Tajikistan, this is not Mexico, this is not Venezuela, this is not President Putin's Russia, this is the United Kingdom, with whom it is written we have a special relationship, Mr. Speaker. Where we have had a relationship between our peoples that is extraordinary for decades. Now, according to this poll, it was asked whether the United States is doing a bad job in Iraq, is indifferent to what the rest of the world thinks of it, and whether it is obsessed with money. Now, according to the pollster, in an analysis by him, this was one of the prominent British papers that commissioned the poll, it indicated that there has never been a time when America was held in such low esteem on this side of the Atlantic. The special relationship that British leaders have long believed exists between their country and the United States may still live in Downing Street and at Camp David, but it has atrophied among the British public. Among the responders in the new poll, Mr. Meek, 77 percent did not see America as a beacon of hope for the world. Asked to rate President Bush as a leader, more than three-quarters described him as either pretty poor or terrible. Seventy-two percent said his foreign policy, instead of being driven by a desire to build democracy, was merely a cover for American interests. About two-thirds of responders said that they believed that American troops were doing a bad job in trying to win the hearts and minds in Iraq. Eighty-three percent of responders said the United States does not care what the rest of the world thinks. We should care. To answer the question that was put forth by my friend and our colleague from Iowa, the reason that we have to care is because we live in a world. If we are going to achieve our goals, we have to do them in a multi-lateral way. We need the British people to support us. We need the Irish people, we need people all over this world. We want to reach out and be that beacon of hope.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt just once more. Of course you are aware that the Republicans have been in the majority in this chamber for 12 years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They have controlled the White House.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They have controlled the United States Senate I think for 10 out of 12 years

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important that people understand that and understand who is Washington, D.C.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That was the year that some started to express concern about border enforcement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I just submit a hypothesis for a minute? You know, one of the leaders in the neoconservative movement, a Mr. Grover Norquist, coined an interesting term called shrinking government, until it practically disappears. This neoconservative ideology, I suggest, is responsible for those statistics. Because what we have done in the past 6, 8 years, is reduced government to the point when no longer are we adequately enforcing our laws as well as our border. So what we see is a real problem that was created by this Republican majority working with a Republican President. Did you have a chance, by any stretch, to reading the lament of the former Speaker of this House, Mr. Gingrich?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you tell me what his solution to the crisis that this country is now facing in terms of its democratic institutions and its relationship between a White House that has acquired incredible power and a Congress that continues to see power to the point where it has become a rubber stamp for a President that has no restraints whatsoever? What does Newt Gingrich say is that solution?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I would suggest that that is a remarkable statement by an individual who led the Republican Party to a majority in this House. When he says it is time for the American people to start firing everyone, that is to me a demonstration that he recognizes that the government is not functioning as it ought to function. We are allowing this institution, this House, to wither. Government isn't withering; it is not government, it is Congress that is allowing democracy to wither. That is dangerous. Unless you have a Congress that stands up and says no, and serves as a true check and balance, then you have a democracy that is at risk.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what, it is time for Congress to stand up and insist on answers to hard questions. Let me go back to Iraq for one moment. I heard a rumor that the Iraqi prime minister intends to come to Washington soon. I think we all deserve an answer to a question that was raised by one of our leaders in the Democratic Party, Jan Schakowsky, who circulated a Dear Colleague today. Maybe you have not heard this yet, but the Iraqi prime minister, where we have spent close to half a trillion dollars and 2,600 Americans have died, the head of their parliament, Mahmoud al- Mashhadani said these offensive words. He ``accused `Jews' of financing acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the parliament and government so they can install their `agents' in power.'' These are his words: ``Some people say `we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.' These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.'' This is what my friend from Iowa was earlier talking about democracy? What kind of democracy would tolerate and countenance that kind of virulent, anti-Semitic remark from the Speaker of the parliament? The same Iraqi government that has a bilateral military agreement with Iran. Does this say something about the policy of this administration that has enhanced the power and influence of Iran in the region, Iran by the way, who is the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah and we know and the whole world knows what is happening today in Lebanon and the Gaza strip?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Where was Mr. Ryan this evening?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I was sitting in the Cloakroom, and I heard my good friend and colleague from Iowa refer to the gentleman from Massachusetts. And I just wanted to clarify for him it was not I that said to stabilize Afghanistan what is needed is 150,000 more troops; that was the defense minister of Afghanistan.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If you continue to yield for just a moment, I do not want to interfere with the gentleman's hour. But I would suggest to my dear friend that the defense minister of the country in question, Afghanistan, should be considered the ultimate expert. And, again, my good friend earlier indicated that there were Members on this side of the aisle that were reluctant, or were critical before we went into Afghanistan. Again, with all due respect, I would suggest that the vote in this institution was something along the lines of 430-1. So that that particular authorization received unanimous support. And I dare say it was a good decision and a right decision. The problems that I and I know some of my colleagues on this side, as well as some of your colleagues on the other side, have is that we left there too early and that is why the expert in this case, who is the defense minister of Afghanistan, said that for the country to be stabilized so that democracy, which we both, I think we all want to see for the Afghanistan people can really take hold, five times the security forces that exist today are necessary.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan for yielding the time. As I was waiting to come over, I had an opportunity to watch our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak about immigration, and I discovered something tonight, and that is that they really have a great sense of humor. Now, we know individual Members over there that are friends of ours, we enjoy them, and they have a sense of humor, but collectively they have a sense of humor. They were eloquent in their comments and their observations, and I noted that they continued to refer to the Senate bill, Mr. Speaker, as the Reid-Kennedy bill. Well, I guess we must be playing some sort of funny game because I am going to ask my colleagues to help me. Whatever happened to John McCain? Did he just disappear? I thought it was Senator McCain, who there is a rumor, Mr. Speaker, that he might be a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, that he had something to do with that Senate bill. Has anybody seen Senator McCain? Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, have you seen Senator McCain?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Congressman Ryan, have you seen Senator McCain? It used to be the McCain bill, and now it is the Reid-Kennedy bill. I mean, who is kidding who? Now, you have a Senator, I believe, from Florida by the name of Martinez, Senator Martinez. I thought that he was involved in the amended version of the Senate bill that eventually passed. Am I correct?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you think it has anything to do with politics?

Mr. DELAHUNT. You are all silent. I mean, can you help me, please? I am just confused, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happened to John McCain? Does he still support this bill, this possible candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008? Whatever happened to Senator McCain?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, yeah.