Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I guess. I am just using a term that we often use here. But she is certainly dressed like a cardinal this evening.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But I have to tell you, I am really proud of the work that your generation has done over the course of the 109th Congress to bring home that message to the American people. You did it effectively. You are helping my generation and you have our profound gratitude. Because it was clear the message that the three of you and other colleagues of ours in the Democratic Caucus spoke to over the course of 2 years resonated with the American people. I am so proud of each and every one of you. Congratulations. I think we can all share great pride in what has been accomplished since we took our oath of office just a week ago. It is extraordinary. There is a new tone. You know what is particularly gratifying to me is to see so many of our colleagues, our Republican colleagues, our good friends, our dear friends, join with us in really moving forward an agenda that benefits all Americans.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think maybe I should yield to the gentleman from Ohio because he wants to say something.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think for those watching we have to explain what the term cardinal means, in terms of a new position.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you amplify on that, Mr. Ryan?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. And I look forward to the proposal that will reduce the interest on student loans, because I know so many families in my district back in the South Shore of Boston and Cape Cod and the islands, where the families and specifically the students themselves take a loan and find themselves graduating from college with a debt, on the average, of approximately $20,000. We know that over time they are catching up for a significant number of years, preventing them from putting that bonus that they receive at the end of the year for a down payment on a home to ensure their future or maybe just putting it into an IRA.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And it comes real quick.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And hope.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I believe there is a palpable sense of optimism for the first time. And I think much of it is predicated on that bipartisanship that we are talking about that was reflected in that vote. Now, partisanship is good in the sense that there is a diversity of ideas, and out of that debate on ideas comes sound public policy. We have had debate after debate, 10 years' worth of debate on the minimum wage. Workers in this country have been waiting for this moment, even if they make more than the minimum wage, because it sends a message that finally the U.S. Congress is listening to them. And so there is hope. And it is not just Democrats. As all of you have indicated, there was a significant minority of Republicans who voted for it. So I think, not only should we be proud, but I think the American people should begin to understand that something is happening. Something good is happening, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to take time. It is not going to be all roses. There will be speed bumps. But finally we are turning into a new direction. And I know that every Member on the Democratic side is excited about working with our Republican colleagues to advance the agenda that will truly impact the lives of most American families.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Tim, could we go back? And, again, I promise I won't interrupt. I know sometimes I have a tendency to do that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But I have to tell you, the fact that one of the first orders of business was to institute the so-called PAYGO rules, which means we recognize that there is a deficit out there that has to be addressed, it is not going to be easy. I know the American people understand that. But again, it goes back to that optimism and that hope that is beginning to emerge. Yes, it is going to be tough, but we are a resilient people. We are a tough people. And we might have to make some sacrifices, but we are going to get back to the time where the deficit and the national debt was declining dramatically and our national economy was booming and the disparity in this country between those that have and those that don't have was narrowing. Narrowing, Mr. Speaker. So the issue of inequality of income and wealth will be addressed. It will be addressed, and we can do it. We can do it together. We can do it in a bipartisan fashion because the Members of this Congress, I believe, have heard loud and clear this past November from the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are waiting.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate my friend from Florida, and I have, it is getting late for me and I am going to have to excuse myself for the remaining 15 minutes. But I want to pick up on something that you just referenced, and that is the American people have to understand that we are now alone. We are now alone with this issue. Just this past week there was a report in the British press that the withdrawal of the troops from the United Kingdom would not be slowed. There are no plans on the part of the British, or anyone else, any other nation, state on this planet, to introduce additional troops as part of this escalation. We are alone. There is no more coalition, if there was ever one to begin with, other than in name only. America is now alone, because the rest of the world has concluded that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a mistake for reasons that I think we all know but are not going to list them here today. But let's remember this, Mr. Speaker. In the past 6 or 7 months, there was a poll that was commissioned by our own Department of State, and the results were painful because this was the conclusion on two questions. The first question was, do you believe it is better for American troops to leave? This was asked in a way that presumably was done in a survey that was accurate. It was commissioned by our own Department of State. And 70 percent of the Iraqi people said, yes, we would be better off if the American troops left. But what was more disturbing and painful was that in excess of 60 percent of the Iraqi people, according to this poll, said that it was okay to kill a member of the American military. What are we fighting for now? What are we fighting for? Saddam Hussein is gone. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were never any links to al Qaeda. What have we accomplished? Well, I dare say that what we have done is we have managed to create an even stronger Iran that has a relationship with Iraq, that includes all kinds of agreements, including a military cooperation agreement between the government of Iraq and the government of Iran. Does anyone ever talk about that? Can anyone explain to me what the terms of that agreement are? What are we fighting for? What are we fighting for? And, with that, I yield to the gentlewoman and ask to be excused.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it's been said that the world goes on because a few people in every generation believe in it utterly, accept it unquestionably, underwrite it with their lives. Leo Diehl was one such man. A community is gathering together in Harwich today to celebrate Leo's remarkable life that took him from Beacon Hill to the Halls of Congress. Those who remember him recall his wit, tenacity, dignity, compassion, irascibility, loyalty, and most importantly, his lust for life. Diagnosed with polio at the age of 6, Leo never let his infirmity get in the way of living. Never one for sitting on the sidelines, he was determined to do all the things the other kids in Charlestown were doing. He was a formidable athlete--pitching 27 innings in a sandlot baseball game or playing goalie for the neighborhood hockey team. He refused confinement in a wheelchair and the pity of others. In later life, he would say the experience of losing his legs and learning to use crutches to walk gave him the grace to understand the struggles that so many poor and working-class families endure on a daily basis. He reminded people that his brain, eyes, ears and, most importantly, his mouth still worked. Leo used them all to right wrongs where he saw them and to speak up, even stand-up, for those who didn't have a voice, who weren't as strong or as brave as he was. Elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in the same year as Tip O'Neill, the two men became fast friends and allies. Later, when Leo would lose his seat, he would begin a storied career in the Commonwealth's tax department, eventually rising to tax commissioner. Then, the call came. Newly elected Majority Whip, and his old friend, Tip O'Neill, wanted him to come to Washington, DC. He needed a good right-hand, a conscience and a confidant. The rest, they say, is history. He dined with kings and queens, prime ministers and cardinals, but never forgot his working class roots. He was a constant presence in this House; a role-model of character and integrity for Members and staff alike. Many called him the ``watch-dog''; lots of other people called him other things--usually behind his back. Regardless, at the end of the day, everyone had the greatest respect for Leo--a man who served this institution well and faithfully. In later years, he would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for charity with his good friend and with the help of those he inspired. St. Luke reminds us that to those to whom much is given, much is required--and should be expected. In the case of Leo Diehl, he gave as good as he got. Now he's in a place, joined with his wife Grace, family and friends; made whole and perfect in His sight--and most likely still helping his friend, his Speak-ah, Tom make the streets of heaven a better place.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Meek, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Ryan. I arrived some 10 minutes ago and had the opportunity to hear some of the remarks of our friend and colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx. She spoke about the truly outrageous comments by both the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, at the United Nations; and I think we all concur that not only were the words offensive and insulting and demeaning, but they had to be responded to. She spoke clearly about the threat that Iran is posing in the Middle East. Yet she talks about Iraq with a view that I don't share in terms of her description. She speaks about progress, moving forward. That is a very hopeful vision, and maybe under new leadership that is a possibility. But that is not what is happening now. And, ironically, the direction that Iraq is going is towards Iran. How ironic. How ironic that a member of the majority party speaks about Iraq as if it were going forward and at the same time decries the threat from Iran. If you look to my right in this particular picture, what you have is a photo that was recently taken in Tehran. The gentleman that is farthest to my right is the Prime Minister of Iraq. He is shaking hands and clasping the hands of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is the President of Iran and whose remarks at the United Nations provoked a response from most Americans and hopefully most members of the United Nations that was deserved. What I find particularly interesting is that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 3,000 American lives have been lost to provide freedom to Iraq, and yet they are going to Tehran. And while in Tehran, according to the Congressional Research Service, there have been a number of agreements between these two governments. Stop and think about that. A joint committee has been formed to prevent border infiltration from Iran into Iraq, a joint committee to exchange information on mine fields left over from the 1980 to 1988 war, cooperation to search for missing victims of the war, a requirement for Iran to devote a part of its reconstruction contributions for Iraq to Iraq's defense minister. And, most importantly, a bilateral military cooperation. What have we done?

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I think you have stated it well, Tim, and that is that despite the reality, because of political needs on the part of the Republican majority, the American people are not getting the truth. I am not suggesting that there is intentional misleading on the part of our colleagues. I think that they hope so profoundly that they have created an alternative reality. How can a Republican Member come to the floor and say on one hand we have got to be careful of Iran and things are going well in Iraq and the only thing that I can see, in addition to the report of the National Intelligence Estimate, is that Iraq is going in the direction of Iran? Some day we could wake up and there is an alliance. There is an alliance. There are connections. The leadership in Baghdad during the Saddam Hussein regime, many of them resided in Tehran, and what we have here is a symbol of the two leaders of both of these countries executing military cooperation agreements. Is that the direction that the American administration intended when they launched a war into Iraq, that we would create a hegemon in the region, in Iran, that would be allied with Iraq? Now, I am not suggesting it is a formal alliance, but you tell me what direction it is going in. Have an oversight hearing on it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But when you don't think through a situation, when you don't plan, you have unintended consequences.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just want to ask Mr. Meek, because I know he serves with great distinction on the Armed Services Committee, can you tell me has there been a hearing, an oversight hearing, in terms of what is encompassed in that bilateral military cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq? Has there been any exercise by the Republican majority in this House of finding out what it is all about? Should we be concerned? Because, if I can for just 30 seconds, I want to read. This is from a think tank in Britain. Sometimes you have to go overseas to get the truth: ``Iran, despite being a part of U.S. President Bush's Axis of Evil, has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. Of particular note is Iran's influence in Iraq. The greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded the United States as the most influential power in Iraq.'' Has there been a hearing in the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, and you are so right. I mean, we really have to be past partisanship at this point in time. And, again, I am not being critical of a particular Republican Member. But to come to this floor and say that things are heading in the right direction is simply inaccurate. It is not intentional, but it is inaccurate. And it is, you know, hope that is founded on an illusion. But there are some Republicans that are speaking out, that are known to be hawkish, if you will, in terms of their view. I serve on the International Relations Committee. And recently we have had a hearing. And before the hearing there was a letter that was sent to the President of the United States who claims that we are winning the war on terrorism, and things are going well. And this is what this letter said. I am just going to read one paragraph. ``The United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. Afghanistan faces its highest level of violence and corruption since its liberation. Drug money continues to finance terrorism.'' The chart shows, by the way, that there was like 44 tons of opium production in 2005.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In 2006 it is estimated to be over 6,000 in this current year, 6,100 to be exact. It has become a narco state. Let me go back to this letter. ``That failure, coupled with aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threatens to destroy Afghanistan's nascent democracy. A free government that Americans and coalitions have died to support.'' That letter was sent to the President by two of our colleagues, one Henry Hyde, the highly respected chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Mark Kirk from the State of Illinois, both Republicans. For the first time, there is a little bit of reality and forthrightness, and I am not going to use the word ``truth'' I will say accuracy, in terms of what the realities are. It is confirmed over and over and over again, wherever you go, whether it is Iran, or whether it is Iraq, or whether the Global War on Terror is being won. And when you have the administration's own intelligence services saying that they conclude that the War in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to countries, we are spreading terrorism all over the world like a deadly virus.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to pose a question to our expert on the Armed Services Committee. Because while we are, as our national intelligence estimate suggests, while we are losing the war on terrorism, and it is expanding, what has been the impact in terms of our military? Is our military stronger today than it was 4 years ago? Because today, Mr. Meek, in the Washington Times, a conservative paper, there is a report by Rowan Scarborough, the Army is studying whether to add more combat units to the rotation plan for Iraq. ``Rather than planning for a big draw down of 30,000 Army soldiers and Marines this year to a level of 100,000 as field commanders had expected, the two services are now trying to figure out how to keep the equivalent of two extra divisions or 40,000 troops in Iraq.'' The Army is facing more demand for troops at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point. What does this mean? Are we eroding the strength of our military?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of the people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I ask you a question, again, in your role as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, there have been general after general that have spoken out publicly in a very courageous way that have made statements. Let me just read one of them. Retired Army General John Batiste, this is what he had to say several months ago, and he was part of the team that actually did the planning. He was involved in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Here is what he had to say: ``We went to war with a flawed plan that did not account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a Secretary of Defense who did not understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who did not build a strong team.'' In your time on the committee, and I know Mr. Ryan, too, also serves on the Committee on Armed Services, has he ever been invited by the majority to come before the committee and explain in detail what the process was? Have you ever met General Batiste in your capacity on the dais of the House Armed Services Committee?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield to me, I think the American people should be aware that whether it was today or yesterday, there was a hearing, we will call it a rump hearing, an unofficial hearing that was conducted by Democrats with three retired senior military officers who came before Democratic members to explain and give their opinions on what went wrong. Imagine, imagine having to do that, that your point about the need to change Congress so that there are no questions, but that this presidency and this White House and this administration is held accountable. It just boggles my mind. Can I ask Mr. Ryan a question. General Paul Eaton had this to say, another retired Army major general, and he is referring to the Secretary of Defense. He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down. Have you ever seen General Eaton before your committee?