Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding his time, and I want to compliment my friend from Florida, Mr. Meek, because he just did something that is rare in Washington. He acknowledged that there was an error; that there was a mistake. Because you will never hear that on the floor of this House. But the American people, I would submit, want their elected officials to acknowledge when a policy has failed and come up with another idea and be forthright about it. I mean, when I hear about all of the problems that haven't been solved because of a minority party, I begin to wonder, is there an alternative reality there? As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority has owned this Chamber for 12 years. Where have you been? Now you are talking about fiscal responsibility. And the reason you are talking about it is because there is 100 days to an election. That is why you are talking about it. And you talk about the direction of the country. You know, we talk about a new direction and a change in direction, Madam Speaker, because there is no alternative. If we continue to go and continue to chart the same course that the administration and the Republican House and the Republican Senate have charted for the United States, we will be in serious trouble. And let me just give you four statistics: Since the Republicans have controlled both branches of Congress in the last 5 years, and President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, college tuition has increased by 40 percent, health care costs to the American people have increased by 55 percent, and gas prices have increased by 79 percent. But Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you know what has gone down in this country? Madam Speaker, you know what has declined in this country? Median household income. A family of four in this country, since the Republicans have governed here in this institution for 5 years, the average American family has experienced a decline of 4 percent in their income. On top of all the escalating costs that are eating away at their security, everyone in America knows that retirement security no longer exists. They know that their health care plan can be canceled at any time. They know that they won't be able to afford to send their children to college because they can't afford the loans. I mean, the list goes on and on. We have got to change the direction of this country. With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We talked about stem cell research.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Just stop for one moment. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq has been going on for years. Every day we pick up a newspaper and learn about the loss of American lives. Every day we hear about the rampant corruption that goes on in Iraq. Every day we hear about the escalating costs of the military deployment in Iraq. And now we know from the Comptroller General, not from the administration, that the $30 billion that we have already spent in Iraq is not enough to rebuild the country. It is going to cost us $50 billion more. And you know what, Madam Speaker? We ought to be having a hearing on a weekly basis, every committee, every single committee who has some jurisdiction, and yet nothing happens. Why are we losing ground in Afghanistan? Why? But we do not dare ask the question.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman from Ohio would continue to yield for one moment, we all know that there is much public discourse about whether the violence in Iraq is of such a magnitude that it should be called a civil war. There are no figures that are ever released by the administration, but the United Nations just released a report in the last several days that indicated in the months of May and June, 6,000 Iraqis were killed because of political violence. Will somebody please explain to me, is that enough to make it a civil war? Of course it is a civil war going on there, Madam Speaker. Please stop using semantics with something that is so serious that the American people deserve to be continually informed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I add to that?

Mr. DELAHUNT. What do you think an American mother feels as she sees this administration embroil us, embroil us, in wars, sectarian strife all over the world? Does she become concerned that at some point in time her child will be compelled to serve in the military? I found it fascinating reading some articles in the Weekly Standard, which is, if you will, the gospel of the neoconservative movement, suggesting now is the time to bomb or strike Iran. Just another war. Just another war. And, of course, the original frontier in terms of the war on terrorism, Madam Speaker, was Afghanistan. And you know what is happening in Afghanistan? The Taliban is back, the group that gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, because of the distraction that was foisted on the American people by this administration with the complicity of this Congress and putting us into the quagmire of Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I do.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, do you know who really said it the best? The NATO commander who was taking over the NATO force in Afghanistan. He happens to be a British general by the name of David Richards. And he said this: You know, we were distracted. We took our eye off the prize, and that is why we have the problems that we have now. We became too focused on Iraq, and we forgot about Afghanistan, and some would have us already hitting into Iran. When does it end, Mr. Meek? When does it end?

Mr. DELAHUNT. What happened to the $89 billion in Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I really found it interesting. I ran across this article today in the Washington Post, and much of what we have said is repeated here. The Iraq war didn't work and we didn't prepare for peace. The response to Hurricane Katrina was a monumental failure of government. You don't go to Congress to become the party that you have been fighting for 40 years, the spending, the finger pointing, not getting bills passed. Just shut up and get something done. Now, that was the quotes of a candidate, but it was a Republican candidate. It was a Republican candidate. I think that tells you something about going in the wrong direction, Madam Speaker. I find it interesting that the frustration level is so profound now that the former Speaker of the House that sat in the Chair that you, Madam Speaker, are currently occupying, summed it up like this: ``We just ought to start firing everyone.'' That is what he said. And yet we continue to go in the wrong direction. We continue to hear that, you know, if the Democrats would only help us. I mean, we do not even get invited to committee hearings. They don't tell us where a hearing is if it is a significant hearing, and I am referring to, specifically, I am referring specifically to the Medicare prescription drug legislation that was passed several years ago. We couldn't find the room where they were meeting to discuss an issue of such great consequence. I mean, it is unbelievable.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what we have accomplished with that? We have strengthened Iran.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We have increased the number of terrorists. What I find interesting, tomorrow in this Chamber the Prime Minister of the newly elected government will be addressing the body. And this is what he has to say. He is referring to Israel's action after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and began shelling northern Israel, but he is referring to Israel: ``I condemn those aggressions and call on the Arab League's foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop Israeli aggression.'' No reference at all to the actions of Hezbollah. None whatsoever. And the Speaker of the House in Iraq, Madam Speaker, again the exact position that Mr. Hastert holds in this House, uttered anti-Semitic remarks that every American would deplore and find unacceptable. May I quote what he had to say. He is referring to the terrorist acts against other Iraqis. And this is what he claimed, and I am quoting him: ``These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew, and a 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. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.'' That same speaker said this, Madam Speaker: ``The United States' occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice.'' And understand that there has been a bilateral military cooperation agreement signed by Iraq with Iran. What have we done? We have got over 2,500 Americans killed. Tens of thousands seriously wounded. And is this what we expect? No. It is not what we expect. It is certainly not what we deserve. And now Iran has become the hegemon in the Middle East.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think what he said in a quote that appears here, really, is the summation, if you will, of his disgust with what is occurring in the American political system. He described it as a broken system. These are his words, Newt Gingrich's words: ``The correct answer,'' Gingrich said, and he is speaking to the remedy, ``is for the American people to just start firing people.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. That should be put on the Web site. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to consume all of the time. I thought that I was going to be joined by my colleagues from the 30 Something Group, but it would appear tonight that only the ``something'' is here and the 30s have taken the night off. But I had listened to my dear friend from Iowa earlier, and I thought that I would stay for a few minutes to make some observations. He spoke eloquently and sincerely about anti-Semitism. I know he decries anti-Semitism, as I believe every Member in this body does. But he specifically alluded to western Europe and anti- Semitism. I think it is important for us to note the remarks just recently of the Speaker of the House of the new Iraqi Parliament. Those remarks, I dare say, can only be interpreted as anti-Semitic, and they are in my judgment disturbing, and, yes, even dangerous. So while we speak of the new Iraqi Government and what we are told they are about, I think it is extremely important to listen, to educate ourselves, and inform the American people. I, myself, and several of my colleagues will be introducing a resolution condemning, condemning the remarks of the Speaker of the House of the new Iraqi Parliament. Mr. Speaker, let me read what he had to say. ``Some people say,'' these are his words, ``we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing. In the end we even started killing 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 a 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 agent and cheap project. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.'' The same Speaker by the way, had this to say. Listen carefully to these words, Mr. Speaker, ``The U.S. occupation is butcher's work, under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice''. This is the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, our ally, whose prime minister has been invited to speak to this House this week. I dare say he ought to immediately, upon landing in Washington, D.C. condemn these words. I find them disturbing and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all of our colleagues will find them disturbing. I am also disturbed by the words of the Iraqi foreign minister who had this to say, Mr. Speaker: Iran doesn't claim that they want to obtain a nuclear weapon or a nuclear bomb, so there is no need that we ask them for any guarantee now. Every country has the right to have its nuclear technology, every country like the Islamic Republic or any other country. I also find that disturbing. We ought not even to pose the question to Iran, according to the Iraqi foreign minister. And let me finally note the words of the prime minister of Iraq who will address this House this week. And, again, he said these words in reference to the Israeli response after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed others, as well as for 2 days continued to fly their rockets into civilian Israeli communities on the border between Lebanon and Israel: I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression. Mr. Speaker, is this new Iraqi Government an ally of the United States? We should reflect on that. Particularly since we have spilled the blood of thousands of Americans on Iraqi soil, where we have given, not loaned, Mr. Speaker, as some of us recommended, but rather given to date $30 billion in the reconstruction of Iraq. And just this week we are told by the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, that some 50 billion additional dollars are going to be needed simply to restore the oil facilities and the electric grid in Iraq, and that the American taxpayer would have to pay for all of it. We ought to be thinking carefully about this, Mr. Speaker. These are facts, where the military deployment of Americans has cost in excess of $300 billion and is escalating every day with no end in sight. My friend from Iowa talks about Iran. We ought to be aware, Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a special relationship now evolving between Iran and Iraq. There has been agreement after agreement concluded between Iran and Iraq, and the Iranian foreign minister has visited in Baghdad and consulted with the new Iraqi Government. Iran has agreed to construct a new airport in Iraq; they have extended loan credits in the amount of $1 billion to Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, I think this is especially important for the American people to know, they have concluded a bilateral military cooperation agreement. Yes, Iran and Iraq have concluded a military agreement. And this week we will be hearing from the Iraqi prime minister. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it was important after listening to my friend and colleague that I introduce new information for us to reflect on and to analyze and be honest with the American people. It is not going well in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. We heard from General Abizaid just this week where he said there has been serious sectarian violence, and our ability to control it is very much in doubt. So when we discuss the issues that implicate the Middle East and beyond the Middle East, it is important that we put forth all of the facts.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we get it right. When we do, it's worth celebrating. Next week on Cape Cod, in my congressional district, leaders of the Wampanoag Tribal Council will sit down with officials of Mashpee, Massachusetts, to discuss the future of the town--together. Just a few years ago, such a meeting would have been inconceivable. The chasm between the aspirations of the Wampanoags and the fears of other local residents resulted in a generation of ill will among neighbors. Today I take to the floor of the House of Representatives to salute the people--all the people--of the Town of Mashpee for finding the higher road. As my colleagues may know, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs recently granted preliminary approval to the Mashpee Wampanoag's petition for tribal designation. After a public comment period now underway, it is expected that the BIA will authorize full tribal status next spring. This designation has national significance for the tribe that originally welcomed the Pilgrims to our shores. Closer to home, its anticipation could have salted old wounds. Instead, it has inspired new collaboration. When town and tribal representatives meet next week, it will affirm our collective respect for the quality of life that has long defined Cape Cod--weaving diversity with common purpose. This is uncharted and perhaps challenging territory, but it is an opportunity that most communities never enjoy. It begins with the considerable financial benefits--for the Tribe, for the Town and our region--that accompany tribal status. However, the decision of the Town and the Tribe to embrace this opportunity will also yield a benefit less tangible but at least as valuable: a spirit of renewal as a community, in the name of all Mashpee residents and their families. As the following newspaper editorial outlines, ``Federal recognition . . . is not simply for tribal members . . . it's about Mashpee, and that can be good for all of us. It's hard to contemplate a firmer foundation for . . . the months and years ahead.'' [From the CapeNews.net] Mashpee Editorial: A Most Encouraging Letter Since March 31, when the Mashpee Wampanoag received initial recognition as a federal tribe, Mashpee selectmen have been eager to get talks underway to find out what full federal acknowledgment next year will mean for the wider community. As weeks passed without any tangible response from the tribe, selectmen became a little impatient and also a tad wary, asking why tribal council members seemed unwilling to talk. From the tribe's standpoint, the lack of response was more akin to: ``What's the hurry? We've waited 30 years for federal recognition. Be patient, talks will happen in due time.'' Then, on May 10, Town Counsel Patrick Costello had an initial discussion with William McDermott, an attorney for the tribe, at Mr. McDermott's West Roxbury office. A month passed before the next exchange. On June 12, Mr. Costello wrote a letter to Mr. McDermott laying out seven topics the selectmen want to discuss with the tribal council. Mr. Costello wrote: ``I believe that, most, if not all, of these topics are typical subjects for discussion between federally recognized tribes and neighboring local government entities.'' Perhaps so, but the dominant theme was land. What was the tribe going to do with its own land in Mashpee? What were its plans for acquiring additional land in town? What role would land claims play in acquisition? Tribal council members have repeatedly said that there would be no return to the land suit days and that Mashpee property owners have nothing to fear from federal recognition. They have also promised that they would not bring casino gambling to Mashpee or anywhere else on Cape Cod. But selectmen believe they have a responsibility to get these two issues formalized. Town Manager Joyce Mason and the selectmen released Mr. Costello's letter and we published the full text June 16. This public airing took Mr. McDermott by surprise because he said it was his intention to keep the initial talks private. What comes into play here is something that can add perhaps unintended tension: the very different standings of the town and the tribe. The Mashpee Wampanoag have both political and cultural leaders. They are a large extended family and a private corporation. Meetings of the tribal council are not open to non-tribal members. They don't have to make their every move public. While selectmen can and do meet in executive session, the substance of those meetings is known in outline, whether it's litigation, for example, or a personnel issue. But outside of his carefully defined framework, selectmen are bound to conduct the town's business in public. As political leaders, they also have a vested interest in the public's knowing that they are acting responsibly in regard to the $42 million town budget and the approximately $5 billion worth of property in Mashpee. Releasing Mr. Costello's letter may not fit into the tribe's more private way of conducting business, but it lets Mashpee residents who are skeptical of unwritten agreements know that town officials are taking their fiduciary responsibilities seriously. If the tribe's delay in wanting to open talks raised concerns at town hall, these must have been somewhat alleviated Monday with the arrival of a letter from Mr. McDermott to Mr. Costello. At the selectmen's meeting Monday night, there was an almost palpable sense of relief at the most encouraging tone of Mr. McDermott's words on the tribe's behalf. In response to the selectmen's seven topics for discussion, the tribe lists six of their own: affordable and stable housing; local public education; police and fire protection; healthcare; transportation infrastructure; and preservation and conservation of lands and waters. The encouraging and positive tone is set in Mr. McDermott's first sentence. The six issues detailed in the letter are ones ``the tribe believes are mutual objectives for the both the town and the tribe, and should be discussed when the two meet.'' Mr. McDermott's second sentence gets to the nub of selectmen's concerns: ``First, however, the tribe has asked me to reiterate, in response to Items 3 and 4 in your June 12 letter, the tribe's prior commitments that it will not conduct gaming activities in the Town of Mashpee or on Cape Cod, and that it will not make any claims to private lands or file suit asserting such a claim in connection with the tribe's efforts to acquire lands within the town.'' The discussions, which can begin ``any time during the week of July 24 that is convenient for the town,'' Mr. McDermott writes, ``can lead to a mutually cooperative framework between the tribe and town to improve the quality of housing, education, law enforcement, fire protection, public safety, health care, transportation, and preservation of lands and water in a way that will improve the life of all residents of Mashpee.'' In essence, with these words, the Mashpee Wampanoag are bridging years of tension in a wonderfully generous and inclusive manner. Federal recognition and its financial advantages is not simply for tribal members, they are saying, it's about Mashpee, and that can be good for all of us. It's hard to contemplate a firmer foundation for the private and public talks and conversations in the months and years ahead.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Two years ago this May, people in Massachusetts, my home State, woke up thinking and talking about same-sex marriage like everyone else. You could not avoid it. It was on the cover of every newspaper. It was a national issue. Now, since then, 9,000 gay and lesbian couples have been married in Massachusetts. And you know what the news flash is? The news flash is that there is not a news flash. The sky has not fallen. The tsunamis have not come. Everyone is going through their daily lives. Mr. Speaker, the average American family does not wake up every morning worrying about same-sex marriage. Instead, they are worried about the price of gas that they have to put in their vehicle to take their kids to school. They worry about whether their kids are getting a decent education. They worry about health care. They worry about mortgage rates and whether they will ever be able to retire. And if they are worried about any marriage, I would suggest it is their own. There are plenty of threats to marriage out there today. We are all aware of them. Trying to find time to spend with their families, the pressures of making ends meet, all the challenges that we all know exist. But what is not a threat is gay marriage. In Massachusetts gay couples are not masterminding acts of terrorism. They are not cutting Medicaid. They are not putting a hole in the Medicare prescription drug program. They are not running up the Federal deficit. They are doing what everyone else does. They are getting through life. Others have alluded to the constitutional issues. There are States everywhere, Mr. Speaker, that are addressing this through the constitutional means available to them as States, and that is fine. A recent ruling in Massachusetts from the Supreme Judicial Court that entered the famous decision that has provoked some controversy said that if the people of Massachusetts want to overrule the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, they can via their own State constitutional mechanism. Let them do it if they want to. As others have said, this is an area that has been reserved continually through our jurisprudence to our States. But, no, it is an election year. We know it is an election year and we know you have to do it. You have got to energize the base. But the American people are not stupid. They see through this. They know what is going to happen. I remember when the President came to office pledging that he would be a uniter, not a divider. And what we are doing here today is divisive and dividing Americans. Let us experience a sense of tolerance.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Meek, I want to commend you on that eloquent exposition of the issues that I know resonate with the American people. Could you do me a favor? Could you hold up that last book once more?

Mr. DELAHUNT. The last one. Hold it up, will you.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware, and again I know we are changing subjects here, but I do not know if you are aware that there has been a decline in the number of enforcement actions against employers for hiring undocumented workers.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Three, one, two, three.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut. It is good to be joined by my other colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) and Chris Van Hollen from Maryland. Madam Speaker, I would like to speak for just a moment regarding what is happening in terms of the war on terror. We should all be alarmed. We see the events of recent days unfolding in Lebanon, Israel, in Gaza. And it is clear that terrorism is spreading. It is not declining. I would submit that those events were inevitable, the law of unintended consequences, if you will, that many of us predicted when the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq came to the floor. I dare say that in the Mideast today there is an awareness on the part of world opinion that the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world. A recent poll that was commissioned by the BBC, and again, this was a poll that was taken in some 35 countries, found that 60 percent of the world believes that the threat of terrorism has increased some 60 percent, while only 12 percent believed that it has declined. And the nexus was the war in Iraq, and the conduct of the war in Iraq. They saw the war in Iraq as an impediment to the defeat of terrorism. And the experts agree. There was a survey done of more than 100 individuals with extensive foreign policy experience and national security backgrounds. And what was particularly disturbing is that among the experts, 84 percent said that the United States was not winning the war on terrorism, and some 86 percent said that the world was becoming more, not less, dangerous in terms of terrorism because of our involvement in Iraq. This is extremely frightening. And let me put forth a premise to you, to my colleagues. I would suggest that it is not unrelated that we see Hamas and Hezbollah asserting themselves today, in the past several weeks, because there is a growing awareness that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, and that world opinion in terms of the role of the United States in Iraq is highly negative. And what do we see in terms of the new Iraqi government and its relationship with Iran, a sponsor of Hezbollah and a sponsor of Hamas? We see exchange of diplomats. We see a billion dollar line of credit coming from Iran to Iraq. We see a military corporation agreement between Iran and Iraq. Iran, the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas. That is what we see. That is what we are seeing. And we are listening to the foreign minister, the foreign minister of Iraq when asked about the United States pressuring Iran to disclose where they are in the development of nuclear technology, to disclose whether any of those efforts could be utilized to develop a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon. And the Iraqi foreign minister is saying, do not pressure the Iranians; accept their word. I mean, what is happening? Are the American people aware of these particular events? And then of course at the same time, the forgotten war, if you will, the country that harbored al Qaeda, that was ruled by a radical Islamists sect called the Taliban is on the verge of unraveling. The Afghan defense minister recently made this statement: we need five times the number of security forces to address the issue of a resurgent Taliban. Without them we are in real danger of collapse. So everywhere we look in terms of the Middle East, we see danger and we see danger to Israel, we see danger in the entire region. And we hear, ``Stay the course.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. What I am suggesting is that we should participate in training Afghans to meet those particular numbers, because we had set a benchmark of some 70,000. And that benchmark has been revised downward, downward from 70,000 to under 50,000. And the defense minister in Afghanistan says we need more resources. In fact, I am sure the gentleman is aware of this, but President Bush just recently said that he would take under consideration, Madam Speaker, doubling the $2 billion that were appropriated so that more training could be provided. My problem is we should have done it 4 or 5 years ago.