Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I don't know if the gentlelady saw last evening the interview with former President Bill Clinton. He achieved a bit of notoriety. There was a statement that President Clinton made about if he were President at this point in time, there would be so many more troops in Afghanistan. There would be so many more troops in Afghanistan. The inference is, of course, that we wouldn't be in Iraq. Well, I am not going to speculate, but I thought it was significant that he talked about the reality is that there is just insufficient troops existing. You know what I find particularly interesting, we are talking about active duty army military personnel. It is worse with the National Guard and the Army Reserve. I know we all have Guard units back home. I have a large military reservation that has served this country very well. We have, in my opinion, some of the best Army and Air Force National Guard units anywhere in the country. But the truth is, they are under incredible stress. I will just read this to you. ``More than two-thirds of the Army National Guard's 34 brigades are not combat ready largely because of vast equipment shortfalls that will take as much as $21 billion to correct. ``The comments by Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum came in the wake of disclosures by Army officials, analysts and members of the Congress that two-thirds of the active Army's brigades are not combat ready. ``The problem, they say, is driven by budget constraints that won't allow the military to complete the personnel training and equipment repairs and replacement that must be done when units return home after deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan. ``I am further behind or in an even more dire situation than the active Army, but we both have the same symptoms. I just have a higher fever.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I can take the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), but I certainly cannot replace the leader of our group which we call the ``30-somethings.'' I happen to be the ``something'' of that 30-something group. I am sure that the younger members of the group will join me soon, but they are out right now. If they are watching, I hope they come soon to the floor, where we can talk about the problems with our economy, and clearly there are many. But as I sat here listening to the previous speakers, who are members of the House International Relations Committee, I feel compelled to speak to their remarks. I think the gentlelady who chairs the Middle East Subcommittee spoke about the unified government that now sits in Iraq. Well, her understanding and my understanding of the term ``unified'' I would suggest are irreconcilable. The Iraqi parliament since it was constituted has been unable to agree on hardly any issue. In fact, they have entered into a particularly fractious moment where the continued existence of the government is in some doubt. But what I find interesting is the only issue that they have agreed on, and it is important to understand that there is some 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, is a resolution condemning the State of Israel for defending itself. The language that the Iraqi Parliament used in that resolution was condemning the criminal aggression of the State of Israel in defending itself. Now, clearly we can have a debate on the relationships in the Middle East where we can have differences and we can educate and inform each other, but to say that there is a unified government in Iraq today is simply inaccurate. It is not true. It is very problematic, and both speakers and their colleagues and friends of mine continue to make references to Iran and how we need to have a strong, democratic Iraq to help us as we attempt to navigate the shoals of the political realities in the Middle East. But the problem is what is not spoken about, at least in this Chamber, on this night, is the fact of a growing warm relationship between Iraq and Iran, not the United States and Iraq, but Iraq and Iran. Mr. Speaker, this is irrefutable. There are some in the Iraqi Parliament today who are stridently adversarial to the United States. Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite leader, who has at his disposal a militia that is called Ahmadi Army, has 30 members of that 275-member body who are loyal to him. And maybe it has been forgotten, but it was the United States military that sought to apprehend him on the charges of murder some several years ago. We cannot make it up, Mr. Speaker. We have to speak the truth, the unvarnished truth, and stringing together platitudes about democracy does not cut it, Mr. Speaker. What is the reality today in Iraq? Well, this photo to my right speaks to that reality. To the far right is the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, and with him is the President of Iran who spoke yesterday in the United Nations, spoke in the United States in New York at the U.N., who I hear many in this Chamber demonize, and with some cause. He is a Holocaust denier, but who he is shaking hands with, Mr. Speaker? He is shaking hands with the Prime Minister of Iraq. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, we invited the Prime Minister of Iraq to come and address the United States Congress, which he did right in this very Chamber, and a week or two later he is in Tehran, shaking hands with the President of Iran. Now, that is not the full story, Mr. Speaker. There is more. There is much more. Now, I am not suggesting that there is an alliance yet between Iraq and Iran, but do not let it go unnoticed that many in the current government in Iraq spent years in exile in Tehran. There are relationships between many of the political figures in both of these countries. Let us not continue to paint this rosy scenario that simply is inaccurate. It is not true. I am not suggesting anyone is intentionally misleading, but these are the facts. This is the picture. Now, one might say, well, they are neighbors and there has to be some rapport that benefits everybody. I do not necessarily disagree with that; but go back to 1980-1988, they were 8 years at war, Mr. Speaker, a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies, and today, Mr. Speaker, we have a handshake; but, like I said, we have much more. The Iranians, not the Americans, Mr. Speaker, but the Iranians are building an international airport near Najaf, which is a major Shiite city in southern Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian Government is providing $1 billion worth of credits to the private sector in Iraq. But this is the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae, Mr. Speaker. Iraq and Iran, which dominates the conversation here in Washington, which is part of the front-page news daily in this country, Iraq and Iran have consummated a bilateral military cooperation agreement, Mr. Speaker. Can anybody explain that? I cannot explain it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot. I cannot figure that out. But what I do see is the reality of almost 3,000 American soldiers dead in Iraq, in excess of 20,000 wounded, many of whom are severely wounded, whose lives are forever impaired by some permanent disability. I see the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' hard-earned income in Iraq. And what is the progress that I see, Mr. Speaker? Well, I see the handshake, I see this relationship, and I see a bilateral military cooperation agreement, Mr. Speaker. Can you or somebody from the majority side please explain what that is all about? I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information came to me from the Congressional Research Service, and Mr. Speaker, realize that that service is a bipartisan agency, created by Congress to provide Members unvarnished, factual information. So we stand here on the floor and we talk about how good it is and we are for democracy, but you know what, Mr. Speaker? What kind of democracy are we getting at the cost of thousands of lives of American soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars from the hard-earned income of the American taxpayer? Is this what we are getting? Does this serve our national interests? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I do not know. But I have to tell you something. I do not think anybody in this body knows, and that is an indictment, Mr. Speaker, on the wall of this institution because the majority party ought to have insisted, in the course of the exercise of its oversight role and responsibility, on answers to these very simple questions. But oh no, let us ignore them and get up and talk about democracy. My friend from Michigan, a very erudite, very thoughtful gentleman, has an interesting view of history, is conversant with history, and history gives us context, but to ignore what the reality is on the ground, I see my friend from Florida walked in. I want to welcome him. I know he has had a busy evening. It is good to have Mr. Meek here finally.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not really delivering a positive message. What I am is expressing a concern about the lack of oversight and the lack of accountability or calling to account the actions of this administration by this Republican Congress. We have a right to know. It is a debt that is owed us. It is a debt of blood and hundreds of billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. There is a long list of emerging relationships and agreements between these two countries. Iran and Iraq just recently signed a memorandum of understanding, under which pipelines would be constructed to allow Iran to import Iraqi crude oil from Basra. Under the agreement, Iran is to finance the three pipelines that will be built to implement the agreement. Again, this is from a report from the Congressional Research Service dated June 14, 2006. That is before the famous handshake. To say or suggest that things are going well in Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker, is a disconnect from reality, and the American people deserve the absolute, full truth as to what the reality is. Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing today in International Relations. Its focus was Afghanistan. It was extremely disturbing, Mr. Speaker, because 5 years later, Afghanistan is heading quickly in the wrong direction. President Bush says we are winning the war on terror. And I will stipulate not on Iraq, but our invasion of Iraq, which I and every other Members of Congress voted for, was about the war on terror. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to win the war on terror, we need to change Commanders in Chief and have a Congress that will hold these people responsible, because I will tell you something, we are doing everything to lose Afghanistan. It has become a narcostate. In the year 2001, there were 73 tons of opium, which is used to make heroin. This past year, there were 6,100 tons of poppy and opium.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield for just a minute. I was here listening to several of our colleagues on the other side speak about these various issues, and I just felt the need to put out what the realities are rather than simply talk in terms that are hopeful and optimistic, but in a world apart from what the reality is. If this administration is sincere, of course it is, about winning the war on terror, there has to be a dramatic change in direction. Listen to this just for one moment, if you would. If you would, Mr. Meek.

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is in contrast to what was said earlier here on the floor: United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. Afghanistan faces its highest levels of violence and corruption since its liberation. Drug money continues to finance terrorism. That failure, coupled with the aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threatens to destroy Afghanistan's democracy, a free government that Americans and coalition forces have died to support. Mr. Meek, Mr. Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the words of the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, in a letter that he sent this week to President Bush. So please don't come down to this floor and paint a rosy picture. We are in trouble. The world is in trouble. And if we are going to win the war on terror, we have got to change direction and develop a strategy that will accomplish that after 5 years. It is 5 years since 9/11, and Afghanistan is back to ground zero.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Before you go any further, I have a quick point to make. I think we should acknowledge, and I would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that our friend and colleague from Ohio is here tonight playing hurt. He is a real trooper. I understand, and maybe Mr. Meek can elaborate on this, and yes, bring out the crutches. But last night Tim Ryan and Kendrick Meek, along with a bipartisan group of Members of this House, played a football game against the Capitol Police, and Mr. Ryan went down fairly quickly, I understand.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is inviting danger for the American soldier, the American service personnel. And by the way, testimony before the Senate by the senior serving JAG advocate said we don't need it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Meek, let me interrupt one more time. To be serious for a moment, I want to acknowledge both of you for participating. I would add that those who are watching should understand that this is an effort by both Republicans and Democrats for a tremendous cause. The men and women who serve in the Capitol Police, as well as the men and women who serve in this Congress, some of whom are behind us right now, are dedicated professionals. They do an extraordinary job. It is difficult. In the case of those two Capitol Police who were killed, what we can do for their family is something that we all participate in, and we owe a debt of gratitude to them. Great job.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that is the result.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may offer another theory, another hypothesis. It is about politics. It is about retaining power. What happened in the Committee on the Judiciary today was on the issue of the detainees. The President has come out with a proposal and that proposal was summarily rejected by three prominent U.S. Senators, all Republican. One was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner; John McCain, who was imprisoned during Vietnam for years, who understood what it means to serve his country in the most dire of circumstances, and exit a hero; and Lindsey Graham, a lawyer who served in the military as a military lawyer; because they understood that if the President's proposal is accepted, it will put at risk American service personnel. And what we did today, in effect, was to turn our back and not listen, not just to them, but more than 40 retired generals, admirals, men and women who have served this country, including the former Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said this is a mistake in a letter endorsing the proposal to John McCain.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Ryan, the military doesn't want us to do it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The military, because they know that the men and women that serve will be put at risk, they will be in danger, that is why they don't want it to happen.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I would say that I think what is being revealed to the American people is that this administration is really driven by politics. We hear now about immigration and border protection, but for 6 years they have been the majority in this body, they have been the majority in the Senate and have owned the White House, they had an opportunity to vote and to support Democratic proposals which would have strengthened border security. And a comparison, I think, is in order here right now. The average number of new Border Patrol agents that were added per year during the Clinton administration was 642; during the Bush administration, 411. Immigration fraud cases that were completed in 1995, almost 6,500; in 2003, on the average, 1,300. And what I find particularly fascinating is those cases that were filed against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, in 1999 there were some 417. In 2004, there were three. The reality is the resources were never provided to enforce the existing laws that would have served us well, and now we are hearing about border protection. There is no other conclusion that one can reasonably reach other than it is great politics in an election year to energize the so-called base. But it is not fair to the American people on an issue that really needs to be debated in a respectful and civil way and analyzed appropriately.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my friend from Connecticut, and, just to set the record straight, it was others, of course, that founded the Out of Iraq Caucus. But Mr. Inslee and I, many, many years ago, it appears, now, or at least it feels this way, came here with our colleagues, Ted Strickland from Ohio and Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, and spoke about these issues. I was just chatting with Jay Inslee, and we were reflecting on where we were and what we have done, what we have accomplished. I think it can really be summed up by these posters, these photos to my right. To my far left is the President on the aircraft carrier, and behind him that banner is ``Mission Accomplished.'' I would suggest this, that this administration, along with the Republican majority in this House, have achieved something that defies the imagination that no one would believe. It is truly remarkable. I think that is best summed up when you examine the photo to my near left. For those who are unaware, this gentleman that I am pointing to now is the current Prime Minister of Iraq. His name is Maliki. In fact, he spoke in this very Chamber, to the American people, and to Members of Congress. He was given that honor. He came here just recently. He visited with that President. Less than a month later, where is the Prime Minister of Iraq? He is in Tehran. One only has to recollect the words of President Bush, right here again in this Chamber, when he described Iran as one of the original members of the axis of evil club. I would put forth that nothing, nothing that I am aware of, has changed in terms of the administration's position vis-a-vis Iran. Here we find the Prime Minister, reflect on that a moment, the Prime Minister of Iraq is clasping hands with the President of Iran. What is particularly interesting is the agreements that have been reached between Iran and Iraq. These were two nations that fought an 8- year war. But what we have accomplished is to enhance the influence of Iran in the Middle East. Take a look.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. The President of the United States has achieved a remarkable, an absolutely remarkable, accomplishment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I don't think it was ``friend.'' It was not ``friend,'' but it was even more intimate. I can't find the quote right now, even though this is a story that came out today where the Prime Minister of Iraq, after his meeting with President Ahmadinejad, he then goes and meets with the Supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the terms that they use are brothers, brothers. Now, I wonder, is this an effort to unify?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I think he rethought that statement, because of the reaction, actually, from Democrats in this House. Because we were not going to tolerate it. But, I will tell you, he is shaking hands with the President of Iran who described the Holocaust as a hoax. In other words, our ally, I am not quite sure we should describe them as an ally now, but the gentleman that is the Prime Minister of Iraq is shaking hands with the Holocaust denier, the President of Iran. By the way, it wasn't just a handshake, because you know what else was done? Agreements were signed. Agreements were signed, border agreements and bilateral military cooperation agreements were signed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what is happening in Iraq, according to military personnel? They are telling us, in reports that appear in the media, that it is unraveling in Iraq. But the Prime Minister has time to go to Iran, and, actually now, Iran is giving the Prime Minister some advice. What he is suggesting is, everything will be good, the region will be stabilized. Let's just get the Americans out. That is his answer. After hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of more than 2,600 American personnel, this is where we are at: Mission accomplished, Mr. President. Right. Mission accomplished by finally doing what you said you would do. But you missed the wrong country. It isn't this country that you are uniting. You are dividing this country and uniting Iran and Iraq in a situation that portends danger for American national security. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT. With the end game being the forging of an alliance between Iran and Iraq, what we have done is, the policies of this administration, without a single question being posed by this majority, we have created a hegemony in the Middle East, and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Don't think that this photo is the last time we will see these gentlemen together. The current prime minister during the Saddam Hussein years spent considerable time in Tehran and in Syria. I am not even blaming him. Where is the administration? Where is the House International Relations Committee, which I serve on with my friend and colleague from California, Diane Watson? Why isn't there hearing after hearing after hearing asking these questions?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know when this picture was taken? This picture was taken today, today. So with the loss of almost 2,700 American military personnel, Madam Speaker, in the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, what is the reality in the region today? There is the reality in the Middle East today. Take a good look. The Prime Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister of Iran with their hands firmly grasping each other. Need we say anything more?

Mr. DELAHUNT. The President of Iran. Do you know who the gentleman is next the too him?

Mr. DELAHUNT. They talk tough.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Would you tell me who he is?