Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. We didn't do that in Afghanistan.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I know we have been joined by several of our colleagues, Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Van Hollen, and of course I see Mr. McDermott over there also. And I know Mr. Van Hollen has expended a considerable amount of time and effort in becoming conversant, an expert, if you will, with what is occurring in Afghanistan. But before I yield to either him or to Maxine Waters, let us just take a look at USA Today. This is dated June 20 of 2006, more than 4 years after we invaded Afghanistan. The headline reads: ``Revived Taliban Waging Full-Blown Insurgency.'' I know that all of us who are interested in this particular issue can tell you that what is happening in Afghanistan today is very dangerous for stability, for the very fragile, extremely fragile democracy; that Afghanistan has become a narco-state that is providing 90 percent of the world's heroin. What have we wrought with this policy?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment, I would like to just quote another statement by Michael Scheuer that I really think tells it all in a very concise way. All of us should listen because this was an individual who participated in that group of experts, by the way, again bipartisan, many well-known Republican foreign policy experts who served in the Reagan administration, and this is what Michael Scheuer had to say, the man who headed the unit in the CIA to track down Osama bin Laden. His comments were really about Iraq and its relationship to Afghanistan and what has happened as a result of the Bush policy, supported by the majority in this Congress, to the war on terror. We are clearly losing today, Mr. Scheuer said. Today, bin Laden, al Qaeda and their allies have only one indispensable ally, the United States foreign policy towards the Islamic world.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, before you yield to Jim McDermott, I think it is important to follow what Congressman Van Hollen just talked about in terms of the diversion of resources. Several weeks ago, the foreign minister of Afghanistan came to this country and made a statement, and it was reported in the Washington Times, that the government forces, the security forces, the army and the police, are being outgunned and outmanned by the terrorists in Afghanistan. In response the administration said, Well, we will double the assistance to the security forces. This is more than about 5 years, I daresay, since we invaded Afghanistan. This just simply goes to the point that in Iraq, with Katrina, with Afghanistan, with just about everything, we have seen a level of incompetence and mismanagement that is simply mind-boggling. Last week, they are talking about increasing military assistance to the security forces in Afghanistan. In the meantime, it is going very badly in Afghanistan.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know we all remember when President Bush made that surprise visit to Baghdad to meet with the Iraqi leaders. And on the way back, he was on Air Force One, and he brought some reporters in. He had this to say about his conversations with the Iraqi leaders: There are concerns about our commitment in keeping our troops there. They are worried, almost to a person, that we will leave them before they are capable of defending themselves. And I assured them they did not need to worry. But I guess when he is referring to just, I think his words were, ``almost to a person,'' he did not mention that the Vice President of Iraq came to him and said, please, Mr. President, would you provide a time line for the withdrawal of American troops, the clear inference being, until you leave, we are not going to be able to resolve the issues because you are fueling this violence by your presence. What was interesting was that the President of Iraq, the Kurdish leader Talabani, corroborated this request by his Vice President and said that he supported it. They want us out. Those that want Americans soldiers there, I would suggest to you, have a motive that is dark, because they realize that with the presence of American troops, they have an excuse, they have an excuse to commit violence. They have a rationale to inflame passion. And what is the result? We have seen it over the course of this weekend and today with hundreds being executed, murdered, in a situation that is clearly a civil war. We hear terms like low-grade civil war. I guess that is something like being a little bit pregnant. I mean, it is just simply----

Mr. DELAHUNT. 50,000 civilians who have died. So my point is, to go back to where we began, all of us want to win against terrorism, which we can agree is scourged. However, the rest of the world--there was another poll that was taken; 34 out of 35 countries, this was commissioned by the BBC, and this poll found that in 34 out of 35 of those countries more people believed, 60 percent believed that the war in Iraq increased terrorism, and 15 percent disagreed and said it impacted terrorism and led to a decline. Sixteen percent to 15 percent, and yet this administration, this Republican leadership, is tone deaf to that. I am convinced we all, everyone in this Chamber, everyone in this government wants to defeat terrorism. It is just they do not know how to do it.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is unfortunate that the United States did not participate in the establishment of the Human Rights Council. We were one of four nations out of over 170 that did support it who opposed it. But following the elections to the Human Rights Council, the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Kristen Silverburg, had this to say: On the whole, we think this demonstrates some progress. Those are her words. And the truth is that the Human Rights Council is an improvement over the discredited Human Rights Commission. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it does require candidates to be elected for the first time by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, not through selection. It also requires that those who serve on the council have their human rights records regularly reviewed and allows the human rights abusers to be suspended from the council. And the reality is that the only member of the council that is on the list of state sponsors of terrorism is Cuba. Sudan, Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea were kept off. And the dominant majority of its members are democracies. I note that my friend and colleague from Texas, the proponent of the amendment, sent around a ``dear colleague'' about his amendment, and therein was a statement that a council that includes China does not signify reform. Well, I would submit that that puts him at odds with our ambassador to the United Nations and the Bush administration. Because Ambassador Bolton has initially suggested that the five permanent members of the Security Council, which clearly includes China, automatically be given membership on the Human Rights Council. And the administration subsequently, through Ambassador Bolton and Secretary Rice, have publicly committed to work with the council to make it effective. If the United States turns its back on the council, it will condemn the principal international human rights forum to failure and allow the handful of bad apples that remain in the body to dominate it. Instead, the United States should work with the 37 democracies elected to the 47-member council to strengthen and depoliticize it and ensure future elections to the council exclude members that commit human rights abuses. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that it is not a perfect mechanism. Would I have preferred to see a pure and pristine body created? Of course. But the truth is, and the gentleman has acknowledged it, we live in an imperfect world; and I would suggest the best example of that is the allies that this Nation has brought into the coalition of the willing. Let me just cite a few: Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan, headed by an individual by the name of Islam Karimov, who is responsible for the massacre of almost 1,000 innocent civilians in Andijan. Part of our coalition of the willing includes Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, where the son of the president recently came and visited with President Bush in the White House. Read our Department of State's human rights reports on Azerbaijan. Another traditional ally of the United States, Egypt. Go read the Department of State's human rights reports on Egypt. And the gentleman is correct to talk about Saudi Arabia, where women don't have the right to drive. We are in a world that is imperfect, but there is no doubt that this particular council represents an improvement and has the support of the Bush administration.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. What I find interesting is ever since, well ever since before the invasion the administration has not been forthcoming, has not played it straight with us and with the American people. And I just got in from Boston, my plane was late, I am sure that many of you encountered those kinds of difficulties. But I had an opportunity to listen to my friend, Mr. Inslee from Washington. And he talked about the Iraqi people not wanting us to stay, if you can accept the results of that poll, which presumably are valid. And you make a point about the prime minister talking about a timetable. And yet during the course of, I do not want to call it a debate, but during the course of the speeches that were given here last week regarding Iraq, we heard a term like ``cut and run,'' you know, cut and run. Well, I find what is interesting is that now there is some cutting, or there appears to be some cutting. But you know what was unsaid during the entire conversation that was held on this floor? It is not just the Iraqi people that want us to leave, or at least to provide a timetable, but maybe President Bush was not hearing what the prime minister and the vice president and the president of Iraq had to say when he made his visit there a week or 10 days ago. Because flying back on Air Force One with the media, this is what he had to say, ``There are concerns about our commitment and keeping our troops there. They are worried, almost to a person, that we will leave before they are capable of defending themselves. And I assured them they did not need to worry.'' But I guess when he says ``almost to a person,'' he is not referring to the vice president and the president of Iraq. Because it was reported in the Associated Press last week that the Iraqi vice president had asked President Bush for a timeline for withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq. And that was confirmed by President Talabani, and in addition, President Talabani agreed with that request. So it was not just Democrats and others that were interested in a timeline for when we are getting out of there, but it was the Iraqi president and the Iraqi vice president. And yet we hear terms like cut and run. Cut and run. The only thing we are cutting here are taxes for the super-rich and running up a deficit. That is what we are cutting and running here in this institution. Everyone recognizes there is a responsibility, but we did not get into this mess. Should we trust this administration? We were told by the Vice President that we were going to be greeted as liberators. False. The Secretary of Defense said the war would not last more than 6 months. False. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction from oil revenues. False. We heard from the Vice President and everyone else that there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. False. False. False. And now we are told that, well, we cannot put out a timeline or a timetable to withdraw. The Iraqi people want it. I dare say the American people need to know about it. It is in the best interests of our national security, because what we are doing there is we are creating terrorists. We are eroding the efforts against terrorism worldwide the longer we stay there. We are viewed by the world as occupiers. All you have to do is take a look at the recent polling data, the most recent one being from a very reputable foundation, the Pew Foundation, 33 out of 35 countries have a negative image of the United States. Our own Government Accountability Office that my friends on both sides of the aisle know is a nonpartisan agency of the U.S. Congress has said this: anti-American sentiment is broadening and deepening and is a threat to our national security and will hurt our efforts against terrorism. And, of course, there is a possibility and a real potential that it will hurt us in other areas, and furthermore it could very well erode and hurt our commercial interests.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And the American taxpayer.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I would conclude by asking a question, which is that, ultimately, what has occurred because of our invasion of Iraq? Let us project 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. We hear so much talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Well, you know what I see, I see an emerging relationship between Iraq and Iran. I already have noted that there is a bilateral military cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq. In my memory, please help me, wasn't Iran one of the original members of the access of evil club? And just recently, I noticed where the prime minister suggested that the international community ought to leave Iran alone and drop its demand, drop its demand that Iran prove that it is not developing nuclear technology for purposes of a weapon. Now, what is happening here? Are we going to end up with the legacy of this loss of American lives and American taxpayer dollars with a more influential Iran? I mean, please, has anybody even talked about this or considered it? Do we hear this as part of the debate and the discourse even among think tanks, even among the popular media outlets?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course. They are in the rebuilding mode.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could interrupt my friend, it was very reminiscent of the glory days of the Boston Celtics. In the old Boston Garden and in the new Garden they hang, I think, 16 flags representing world championships won by the Boston Celtics, and I hope at some point in time the Miami Heat does as well.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me give a very concrete example that was reported Saturday in my hometown newspaper, one of them, the Boston Globe. The headline read: ``Cost of college piling debt on Massachusetts families.'' ``Massachusetts families fell a total of $562 million short of being able to pay for college in the State last year, according to State officials, highlighting the struggle for families to afford higher education in Massachusetts.'' Now that $562 million represented the portion of college costs a family cannot afford to pay that is not covered by Federal, State or institutional grants or loans. And when aid falls short, many students make up the difference with private loans they have trouble repaying. Here is a quote from a young student: ``My dad had to take money out of his 401(k) twice because during the semester we weren't given enough in grants and student loans to meet the amount we had to pay.'' The article goes on to say that students are covering the funding gap with higher-interest private loans, credit card debt, and too many hours of work outside of school. Now I sat on the Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary where for 5 or 6 years we reviewed the proposal for the so-called bankruptcy law. I was always struck by the number of solicitations that were going to students to utilize their credit cards. Some would send a check. I remember in the debate bringing a blown-up posterboard of a check that my daughter received for $2,500. And as part of the solicitation, there was an opening salutation that said: ``Have a good spring break.'' Well, the truth is that those credit card solicitations were putting in the hands of students credit cards that carried with them 18 percent, 22 percent, 26 percent, 30 percent interest rates. So what we are doing is not only creating a culture where credit card debt is an acceptable norm for paying significant loans, but we are graduating our students with average debts of about $10,000 on which they are paying these exorbitant credit card rates.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would suggest that this particular study illustrates exactly what you said. Rather than cap loans that students can take out, or that parents can take out in their behalf, what we are doing is forcing these young people, our future, to go to private sources such as credit cards, and private lenders at rates that would make the Mafia blush. They ought not to be called interest rates. They ought to be called the vig. That's what the Mafia charges for a loan. So what happens? We graduate young people, and for years they are carrying around this debt that is impossible if they are going to go on and get married and have a family of their own. It is like graduating from college and having a mortgage that you are paying off at some ridiculous rate of interest. And forget about owning a home, forget about taking a chance and initiating your own small business if that be your choice.

Mr. DELAHUNT. One can only imagine that young person graduating from college with this debt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But being 30-something, things were better.

Mr. DELAHUNT. For you when you were 20-something than your 30- something.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But the point that you are speaking to, I think everybody understands, is that the country is heading in the wrong direction. In the space of 15 years, people that were in your situation, as you just described it with your husband, newly married, in a short period of time being able to afford a down payment, no tuition debt, and prospects for a bright future. That is not happening today. And a lot of our friends can understand it because they continue to talk about, well, the economy is growing. I guess the question is who is it growing for? It is not growing for the middle class. It certainly isn't. It isn't growing for low income. In fact, it is not even growing for those who are affluent. It is growing for the superwealthy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet we have not begun to even address the real issues of rebuilding the Gulf States, of taking care of the people in Mississippi and Louisiana, and allowing the insurance companies in those States to tell people that, sorry, you are not covered, despite the fact that they were told early on. Thankfully, we have leaders, and I am particularly proud of someone like a Gene Taylor and others from the Gulf States that stand up and speak to these issues, and Members on the other side of the aisle, for that matter. I was listening to Senator Lott just recently speaking about this issue. But the truth is, you are right. The consequences of the plan of the Bush administration and the Bush Congress has resulted in $3 per gallon of gas, a deficit that is a Hall of Fame record, a dependence on China and Japan and the United Kingdom and OPEC countries to finance our debt, a decline of the median income for a middle-class family in this country, and housing that is not affordable today for most Americans, and as you suggested, Tim, a health care system that is, to call it a system is hyperbole. It just is not a system. And this is what we have. We finally have seen the plan, and the plan is being rejected by most Americans because it is clear that it is taking this country in the wrong direction, and if it continues in this way, we will become a second-tier Nation.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And let us remember, Mr. Speaker, who is running the government. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that this administration for the past 6 years has been run by a Republican President, a Republican Vice President. All of the Cabinet members, with one exception, are Republican. The House has been run by the majority party, which is the Republican Party. On the Senate side, Mr. Speaker, the majority party has been Republican. So what we are seeing and what we are getting is Republicanism, but not really the traditional mainstream Republican Party that has made significant contributions to this great country.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just digress for one moment?

Mr. DELAHUNT. We had a 10-hour, I don't want to call it a debate because it was not a debate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It was a long Special Order about Iraq. And I thought what was particularly striking was, as people spoke even on the other side, the references that were made specifically to Secretary Rumsfeld. Now, if you had a CEO of a business that was running the business into the ground, that was being exposed by his own subordinates again and again and again, what would happen in the private sector? And just look back at what the administration had to say. I mean, I always think of what the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had to say about the Vice President. He said the Vice President was so obsessed with attacking Iraq, that it was as if he had war fever. Well, you know, the problem with fever is that you become delusional and you see things or hear things that aren't necessarily there no matter how true you want them to be. I mean, it was the Vice President himself who said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. I think that lasted for maybe 1\1/2\ days. Rumsfeld himself said that the war wasn't going to last any more than 6 months. Wrong. His Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, said that Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction from its oil revenue. Wrong. We were told that the administration had a coherent plan for reconstruction and bringing peace to a nation that had experienced the brutality of a Saddam Hussein, a coherent plan. Wrong. It just goes on and on. The truth is that the administration's incompetence, absolute rank incompetence, has set back our efforts to deal with terrorism all over this planet. And you don't have to take our words for their incompetence. If our staffer is present, I would like to just put on some of the quotes, not coming from a partisan Member of Congress, but from people who served their country. Here is one coming now.