Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my colleague for the statement.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in honoring the exemplary career of a constituent and fellow Coastie. After 26 years of service, Captain Daniel MacLeod, originally of Hanover, Massachusetts, will be retiring from the United States Coast Guard on June 29, 2007. Captain MacLeod's extended resume boasts an impressive list of accomplishments. After Graduating the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1981, Captain MacLeod served as First Lieutenant aboard USCGC VALIANT and then as a Navy Exchange Officer aboard USS GRIDLEY. Captain MacLeod then served as executive officer of TACLET Miami conducting counter-drug operations. While serving as Operations Officer for USCGC RUSH (WHEC- 723), Captain MacLeod received TAD orders to the Persian Gulf with the first group of Coast Guardsmen to participate in Operation Desert Shield. After a tour at Coast Guard Headquarters as part of the Deepwater Mission Analysis Staff, Captain MacLeod spent two years as Executive Officer of CGC TAMPA (WMEC-902). Then, in January of 2000 Captain MacLeod was assigned as Commanding Officer of USCGC FORWARD (WMEC-911). Both the TAMPA and FORWARD completed numerous counter-drug, homeland security, alien migration interdiction operation patrols. In June 2002, Captain MacLeod was assigned as Chief of the Marine Protected Species Division. While assigned, Captain MacLeod headed up the Maritime Homeland Security and General Law Enforcement Division. On October 1, 2007, Captain MacLeod will be retiring from the United States Coast Guard as Chief of the Deepwater Human Systems Integration Office. As a former Coast Guard Reservist and co-chair of the Coast Guard Caucus, it is an honor to recognize Captain MacLeod's many years of admirable service. I wish him all the best in his retirement and know that his courage and leadership will be missed.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts-- our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are also a vital part of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. In New England, the Corps is responsible for maintaining 171 ports and harbor channels, yet the Bush Administration budget includes funding to take care of just one. That is because the rules for Army Corps projects were changed by the Bush Administration to now favor large, commercial waterways. This constitutes an abandonment of Federal responsibility and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities all over the country, putting lives and the economic health of coastal communities at risk. The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with ``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are critical to the economy and public safety. When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops-- sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search and rescue'' because they can't move--literally. Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight- foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available, vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers, fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most likely to run aground. Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors. When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and Cuttyhunk--the waterways carry all the necessities for local citizens, everything from food and water to lumber and heating oil. In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions of dollars are at risk. Each year it is now a fight to keep the fishing industry on Cape Cod in business. It's the same thing with Green Harbor in Marshfield, where we have the second highest lobster catch harbor in New England. In Woods Hole, we have a major Coast Guard station which launches many cutter search- and-rescue missions a year. Without regular dredging, that emergency equipment is land-bound. In that same harbor, the Federal government has invested millions in a state-of-the-art NOAA research vessel, the Bigelow. But, these WHOI vessels and Navy vessels cannot do essential research because the harbor is clogged with sentiment. For coastal communities, our waterways are critical to their economic well-being. I urge my colleagues to support this Amendment and support our mariners, our fishermen, the Coast Guard, and small coastal communities throughout the country.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Today, American workers' freedom to form unions is not only at risk. It is in serious jeopardy. We've seen lax enforcement of labor laws. Judicial decisions under- cutting organizing protections. Administration interference in collective bargaining efforts. At the same time, business interests have aggressively worked to strip overtime protections from millions of workers. Corporate America has pushed through trade deals sending American jobs overseas, further weakening workers' power to organize and bargain. The Employee Free Choice Act is a critical measure that restores workers' freedom to form unions. It protects America's hard-working middle class families. The legislation protects workers against employer interference in organizing drives. It safeguards workers against practices of intimidation. Practices that are increasingly common. This is a deeply personal issue for me. I know what happens when workers have no protection. My grandfather was a Boston police officer who was fired for trying to organize a union. When he worked as a police officer, the work week was 96 hours. There was no vacation or overtime. There were no benefits. Worker rights have advanced in this country only when unions are strong, but today those rights are being trampled. The hard-earned worker protections are disappearing. This should not happen in America, a country built on the efforts of workers across the decades. During our history, the rise in the American middle class has directly paralleled the rise in the number of unionized American workers. The more workers in unions, the larger and stronger the American middle class is. The stronger the American middle class, the stronger our democracy. Today, we are regressing--at an alarming rate. Median family income has dropped every year of the Bush Administration--every single year. American worker paychecks have been flat or declined in more than half of the 65 months of the Bush Administration. When workers are able to make their own decisions--freely and fairly--about whether to form a union, they can bargain for better treatment on the job. The middle class standard of living improves. Workers who belong to unions earn 30 percent more than non-union workers, and they are much more likely to have healthcare and pension benefits. And the American people know it. In a recent survey, 68 percent of respondents believe that unions can make a difference for today's workers. An even higher percentage support the Employee Free Choice Act. Every day, millions of Americans work hard and play by the rules. Yet they still struggle--just to get by. Workers represented by unions are far more likely to have health insurance and guaranteed pensions, access to job training opportunities and higher wages. If we want to improve working conditions for America's workers, strengthen America's families and rebuild America's middle class, we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, ``this is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. And if it's carried out it represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.'' This assessment the Bush escalation policy was made by the Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel--a decorated Vietnam veteran who originally supported the invasion of Iraq. And I concur with his observation. But his conclusion should come as no surprise. After all, this administration's Iraq policy has been a series of mistakes and bad choices from the beginning. The Bush/Cheney team was obsessed with Iraq. In fact, according to former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, their very first National Security Council meeting focused on Saddam and Iraq. Just days after President Bush was inaugurated. And a map, noting Iraqi oilfields and potential bidders for oil contracts, was presented for review. That was in February 2001. Months before 9/11. We all remember that awful day in September 2001. When America was attacked by al Qaeda. Not Iraq. But by al Qaeda. Nevertheless, almost immediately, plans for attacking Iraq were initiated. With the Vice President as its most vigorous advocate. Secretary Powell is reported to have observed that the Vice President had ``the fever''--war fever. Former counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke has described how, even as the smoke was still rising from 9/11, the administration began looking for ways to use it to attack Iraq. The American people were told that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That he was a clear and imminent threat. That he was an ally of al Qaeda. That if we did not invade Iraq, there could be mushroom clouds over American cities. None of that was true. To the contrary, there was plenty evidence that the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein's regime and the religious fanatics of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda were rivals. In fact bin Laden had publicly condemned Saddam as an apostate who had corrupted Islam and repressed Muslims. There was little evidence that Saddam's regime possessed nuclear or biological weapons, or--even if it did--that it would share such materials with an uncontrollable group of apocalyptic terrorists like al Qaeda. But the administration did not listen to those who knew what they were talking about. Professionals like Greg Thielmann, the Director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He told me personally that in his professional opinion, after years of studying the issue, Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program. Instead, the administration relied on the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. An embezzler who had been convicted in Jordan of bank fraud. Who is alleged to have provided Iran with information about U.S. troop movements. And who is presumably still under investigation by the FBI. Chalabi provided so-called ``defectors'' from Iraq who--surprise, surprise--said exactly what the Administration wanted to hear. The most notorious was codenamed ``Curveball''--how appropriate--and was the source of the now-discredited claim about a mobile bioweapons program. The German intelligence agency warned that the man did not live in Iraq and described him as an ``out of control'' and mentally unstable alcoholic. It later turned out that he was the brother of one of Chalabi's top aides. But he was one of the primary sources for Secretary Powell's statement at the United Nations that convinced many to support the war. Furthermore, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, the administration told the American people that it would be easy. That we would be greeted as liberators. That Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction. And that peace and democracy would flourish. None of that was true. The American people were sold a bill of goods. But those of us who raised doubts were ignored. Some even questioned our patriotism. But the responsibility for this mess is not the President's alone. It is shared by the preceding two Congresses, which abdicated their constitutional responsibility to oversee and review the conduct of the war and the occupation. We will never know if serious oversight and insisting on answers over the past 4 years would have made a difference. But we do know that thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died. Billions of American and Iraqi taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The Middle East is on the verge of a war that could devastate the region and the global economy. And terrorist groups are multiplying because of Iraq. Some confuse the war on Iraq with the war on terror. But that could not be further from reality. The fact is that the war in Iraq has severely damaged our efforts to fight al Qaeda and terrorism. That's not just my judgment: that's the consensus judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies. In April 2006, they prepared a National Intelligence Estimate. It represents the consensus judgment of the entire U.S. intelligence community. Here's what it said: The Iraq conflict has become the ``cause celebre'' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has done nothing to stop al Qaeda and its affiliates from launching attacks around the world. I refer you to a Dear Colleague letter sent by two of our Republican colleagues which clearly describes that reality. It includes a list of attacks that plainly demonstrates that terrorism is global in nature. While we are stuck in the sands of Iraq, radical Islamists are launching major assaults everywhere. Because this Administration, as a result of its bungled misadventure in Iraq, has hurt our efforts against terrorism. Remember, we were attacked on September 11, not by Iraq, but by al Qaeda. Which was based in Afghanistan. And we responded, with worldwide support, by going to war against al Qaeda and liberating Afghanistan from al Qaeda's allies, the Taliban. But then what happened? The administration took its eye off the ball. And invaded Iraq. It's as if we had responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico. Even though we had not yet defeated al Qaeda, the administration pulled intelligence and Special Forces assets from Afghanistan in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Now we are in danger of losing Afghanistan to al Qaeda and their Taliban allies. Enough. As Senator Hagel said, this is ``Alice in Wonderland . . . it is folly.'' And the American people know it. It's time to get back to fighting the terrorists. It's time to concentrate on victory in the war on terror. Oppose the escalation. Support the resolution.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Barrow.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis). (Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from California for his insightful and thoughtful remarks and particularly his observation that this is not about micromanaging the war. This is about accountability. And I daresay that if over the course of the past two previous Congresses that there was oversight and that there was more monitoring, we would not find ourselves in this unhappy moment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a new Member of the House, a valued member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and Financial Services, Mr. Donnelly.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask where we stand in terms of the time allocation.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can inquire of my friend and colleague on the other side, I have a speaker that has been waiting here. Understanding that I have 3\1/2\ minutes left before the reallocation, I would like to give her an opportunity to address the House.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would commend to my friends and colleagues who spoke previously that they take the time and review the National Intelligence Estimate that was released by the Bush administration in September of 2006, because the American intelligence agencies found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown. What we want to accomplish is to defeat terrorism, but we are not doing it with this strategy. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth), a new Member of the House and a member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. ELLSWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson), another new Member and a valued member of the House Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern and respect for the families and the soldiers that serve. He should know that there are many that are serving today in Iraq that agree with you. Let me quote from a private in Baghdad who was shot at and who is enduring the vagaries and the vicissitudes of living every day in hell. This is what he had to say in a paper just recently. ``We can go get into a firefight and empty our ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This isn't our war. We're just in the middle.'' And that is Private First Class Zach Clausen. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Bishop.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Rhode Island, a member of the House Appropriations Committee and a valued member of the caucus, Mr. Patrick Kennedy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my friend and colleague from Florida. This is a special country and a special Nation and our men and women who are serving us in Iraq are special to us, to all of us. The article that I alluded to earlier and mentioned the name of Private Clausen, I would like to quote from other soldiers who are in Baghdad currently who are fighting, are in the combat, and their observations, and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides to listen to their words. They get it. They understand. They know what is happening on the ground. They know the reality of Iraq. Lieutenant Antonio Hardy. These are his words: ``To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do. I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it. They get it sugar-coated.'' Sergeant Herbert Gill: ``What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go into a new area, there's somebody waiting to kill us. Once more raids start happening, they'll melt away. And then 2 or 3 months later, when we leave and we say it's a success, they'll come back.'' Our troops get it. I referred earlier to Private Zack Clausen. Let me repeat his words: ``We can get into a firefight and empty our ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much. This is not our war--we're in the middle.'' Listen to these voices. These are not the voices that come and appear before us in congressional hearings. These are our brothers, our children, our sons, our daughters that are serving every day in Baghdad. Let's listen to the troops.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to respond to the query of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act. Energy policy vitally impacts our Nation's security, the strength of our economy, and the health of our planet. Today, high gas prices stretch family budgets. Our addiction to Mideast oil threatens our national security. Increased consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global warming. These issues will dominate the 21st century, our future, and America's role in the world. It requires a new energy initiative, and the Advanced Fuels Infrastructure Research and Development Act is a critical component of that effort. This bill is aimed at improving the Nation's transportation fuel infrastructure, to improve the storage and transportation of biofuels. It will facilitate affordable delivery of alternative fuels to gas pumps throughout the country. It is just one piece of a large puzzle. But it is an important move towards a sustainable energy future. We need this legislation to address specific technical problems that hinder the storage and distribution of biofuels. Many of the country's gas stations are not equipped to handle large increases in alternative fuels. Ethanol and other biofuels have unique chemical properties that make them incompatible with much of the country's existing fuel infrastructure. Despite their enormous promise as a cleaner, homegrown fuel source, biofuels can be corrosive to pipelines and tanks, can clog filters and contaminate water and air with volatile emissions. In the past, these technical problems have created a significant barrier to market acceptance of these alternative fuels. The bottom line is that it would be enormously expensive to modify existing infrastructure to accept ethanol and other alternative fuels. We need a focused, scientific effort to address this problem. H.R. 547 would allocate $10 million in R&D monies on new technologies and methods, including additives, blend stocks, and easier tank reconditioning methods that allow gas station owners to retrofit their infrastructure, significantly reducing costs for businesses and consumers. It is clear that the United States must take meaningful steps to move away from our dependence on foreign oil. I think we all agree that this is merely a first step. But in order to make alternative fuels financially feasible for American drivers and gas station owners, we need to take some of the small steps like this one today. I am proud to support this bill. I congratulate my colleagues and urge swift passage. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in honoring the life and service of one of America's fallen heroes, Sergeant Alexander Henry Fuller, who gave his life to his country while serving in Iraq. I rise so that the House of Representatives can join me in conveying our deepest condolences to his wonderful wife Stacey and to his entire family. Alex died on January 25 at the age of twenty one, while serving in Iraq. He came from New Bedford and was raised on Cape Cod. He soon fell in love with Stacey and together they were married. Today Stacey is expecting their child. Alex had dreams of someday owning a house on Cape Cod, working as a police officer and raising a family. But he was a young man with a mission. He had another priority in his life, to answer the call of service to his country. He loved his country and he loved serving in the Army, and in the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division based in Fort Carson Colorado. Each and every American owes him and his family a great debt of gratitude. The courage he demonstrated through his service will always be remembered. I wish to join with my colleagues in expressing our condolences to his family and friends. We hope and pray that they find peace and comfort during this most difficult time. Sean Gonsalves, a reporter from the Cape Cod Times wrote a moving tribute that I wish to share with you. `We Couldn't Be Prouder' (By Sean Gonsalves) One had a Bible in his hand. The other Army officer carried the news Anastacia ``Stacey'' Fuller and her husband's adopted family had been losing sleep over--wondering if their hero, Army Sgt. Alexander Henry Fuller, was alive. He was not, they were informed late Thursday night. Yesterday, Sgt. Fuller's 19-year-old widow still seemed disoriented, as if the repercussions from the improvised explosive device that killed Fuller and another member of his convoy in Baghdad had reverberated across the Atlantic Ocean, all the way to the Centerville home the 21-year-old soldier had shared with his wife and inlaws. Pfc. Michael C. Balsley, 23, of Hayward, Calif., was also killed in Thursday's explosion, according to the Department of Defense. Stacey Fuller wasn't sure if her husband's remains were in Maryland or Delaware. She wasn't sure when his casket would be brought home to Cape, or when the funeral and burial would be held. All she knew was that the father of her yet-unborn daughter was ``fearless'' and had ``a huge heart.'' Sitting in the showroom of her family's used-car dealership on Yarmouth Road in Hyannis, Stacey Fuller rested her hands on her bulging belly as the small flags lining the awning outside flapped in the winter wind. ``He was very determined. He always said, `I need to help my Joes,' '' she recalled, explaining the love he had for the Fort Carson, Colo.-based 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. ``We tried to talk him out of going because of how dangerous it is, but we couldn't,'' said Fuller's mother-in- law, Irena Zinov. Fuller, who was born in New Bedford and raised in Centerville, saw the Army as the best way to prepare for becoming a police officer. Fuller's legacy was his concern for others, his uncle Robert Mogavero of Millis said in a phone interview yesterday. ``At the same time, he had a great zest for life. Some kids have plans that are a little far-fetched, but his head was screwed on straight. His plans were not beyond his reach,'' he said. Mogavero described Fuller as a soldier ``dedicated to God and country.'' ``As a soldier he was exemplary, and we couldn't be prouder of him as a family.'' Zach Hallet of Osterville remembered his best friend as the toughest, funniest person he's known. ``And he believed in what he was doing. He was proud of being a sergeant and he was proud of being a leader.'' Hallet also described his fallen friend as ``fearless''--a trait his wife said she'll call on in the months ahead as she prepares to give birth in April. Besides his wife and unborn daughter, Fuller is survived by his mother, Linda; a sister, Katie, and two brothers, Christopher and Sean. The family has set up a memorial fund for the benefit of his daughter.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, I am honored to be here. I heard that last evening my name was mentioned here in the House, and I presume that it was mentioned in a way that was kind and generous to a senior citizen, a senior citizen that has the Medicare card to prove that. Talking about Medicare, we are going to address Medicare in this session of Congress, and we are going to do something about that so- called prescription drug benefit program that was passed over the objections of almost every Democrat and a few courageous Republicans several years ago. Because as you know, Mr. Meek, and you know, Tim Ryan, there was a provision in that particular legislation that prohibited the Medicare Trust Fund from negotiating with the large pharmaceutical companies for a discount. In other words, whoever is the director of the Medicare Trust Fund can't go into a room and sit down with the drug companies and say, ``Let's discuss a fair price, because we are going to purchase in large quantities prescription drug benefits,'' for people like myself, ``and we are going to effect real savings, like they do in the Veterans Administration.'' I have seen estimates of savings that range from 30 to 80 percent on drugs where discounts could be made available and effected, drugs that save the lives of people and enhance the quality of life for those of us who have reached the golden years. It is extraordinary in terms of helping people who have worked hard all their lives from not having to make those tough choices between food and heat, or air conditioning in the case of Mr. Meek and the young lady who just became the chair of a very powerful subcommittee here in the House, who is now known as Cardinal Wasserman Schultz.