John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Are any of those issues going to be brought to the floor? Those recommendations, those outstanding recommendations, will any of them be brought to the floor before we adjourn for elections?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. And we are approaching the fifth anniversary.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. What is the Congress's report card again?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from New York started and began this conversation by talking about what has transpired, and the gentleman from Maryland talked about the President and his calling over the last several days, both he and the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President have been out there, along with the Secretary of State, talking about this new agenda, and I believe the gentleman from New York has some thoughts on that.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Maine who has been to the floor several times to talk about this very subject recently traveled to New Orleans also where he traveled with the Army Corps of Engineers where he saw firsthand what was going on there. As the gentleman from Washington states, one of the many salient points he made is the lack of accountability and the corollary between what has happened here domestically with Hurricane Katrina and Iraq. I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Is the gentleman suggesting that the more than $9 billion that is unaccounted for, that this Congress actually ought to go and find out what happened with those no-bid contracts, $9 billion?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The President has asked to engage, and the gentleman made several good points and one of them was about a new dialogue, long overdue, and I think welcomed by the American people. But as the gentleman from Maryland points out, a one-way street. Certainly no one knows better than the gentleman from Washington State. No one was vilified more, both on this floor and in public, because of love of country and speaking out, than Jim McDermott. I recognize the gentleman from Washington State.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So how is it then, given all that you have said, that with the world behind us in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, that we would, if you will excuse the phrase, why did we ``cut and run'' in Afghanistan and then focus on Iraq? As the gentleman from New York pointed out, people are able to distinguish between the enemy who actually knocked down the Twin Towers in New York, struck the Pentagon, and, as Tim Roemer pointed out yesterday, were it not for those brave souls on Flight 93, would have hit this Capitol. How did we go from the whole world being behind us, abandoning what has become, as Mr. Van Hollen often points out, the forgotten front in Afghanistan, take our eye off the prize and expend the amount of money, and, most importantly, our most precious resource, our men and women who serve this country in Iraq?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I would like to ask the gentleman a question: What you are telling me and you are telling our viewing audience this evening, you voted, and I believe the vote was near unanimous in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to invade Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom; is that correct?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. We have been joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I think for a number of our listeners, really the whole idea for coming to this floor came from Bill Delahunt. The idea really wasn't hatched here on the floor of the House of Representatives. It was an idea that was hatched in town hall meetings in Nantucket and on the Cape that Bill Delahunt held. He encouraged other Members, including myself, who had them in West Hartford and Manchester, Connecticut, and from there, because our voices were muffled. Or if you spoke out against the war, you were deemed unpatriotic. But it was because of his efforts in organizing an Iraq Watch that this has persisted and the truth has been able to continue to come out with regard to our involvement. At this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the founder of this great movement.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will let me ask a question, knowing you are from New York and knowing specifically you are from Long Island, and, of course, with a solemn date approaching us of September 11, do most citizens in New York understand, in your estimation, the difference between the war on global terrorism and the war in Iraq and see them as different subject matters, or, as Ike Skelton on the Armed Services Committee has been so nobly trying to demonstrate, the difference between the insurrection and civil war in Iraq and the war on terror? Or has the administration's attempts to blur the lines confused people? What is the sense of New Yorkers?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as we come to the floor again as part of what we have come to call our Iraq Watch, and I am grateful that we are joined by several colleagues this evening, Mr. Bishop from New York, Mr. McDermott from Washington State, and others that will be joining us throughout this early part of the evening. Now, let me start, as we always have, by recognizing the valiant service of the men and women who wear the uniform. And as our leader Ms. Pelosi often says, our men and women who wear the uniform deserve a leadership that is worthy of the sacrifice that they make on a daily basis. I am proud of this Congress, inasmuch as it has been able to distinguish the warriors from the war, and so we continue to honor those brave men and women who wear the uniform of this country and who sacrifice daily on our behalf. And yet, as events unfold around the globe, but specifically in the Middle East as it relates to Iraq, what we find is even amongst those who initially favored the war, such as pundits like Thomas Friedman, who now have come to say that we have got to come to the realization that we are no longer midwifing democracy in Iraq but, in essence, babysitting an insurgent civil war. So this evening we come here to discuss Iraq from the context of the mistakes that have been made and the need for accountability, starting with the resignation of the Secretary of Defense. At some point, somewhere along the line, there has got to be accountability for the actions that have transpired in Iraq. We were wrong about the information that led up to going into the war. In fact, the strongest critics against us going into the war were people such as Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Kissinger and Baker, hardly left-leaning liberals, but people who understood international policy and the severe consequences that would result if we ended up going into Iraq without the full support of the world. And so Americans everywhere kind of have to scratch their heads and say, how is it that we had the entire world with us when we invaded Afghanistan and end up virtually with no support in Iraq. It is clear from discussions with policymakers and former generals that a series of mistakes have been made, not the least of which was going against our own national policy, the Weinberger Doctrine, which stated very clearly the United States should never go to war against another country unless its vital interests are threatened; and the Powell corollary to that, if we do go in, we should go in with overwhelming force. In both cases, that doctrine and corollary were rejected in favor of the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism, which has left our allies looking at us as we twist slowly in the winds of Iraq, as Friedman says, babysitting an insurrection and civil war while our most precious of resources, our men and women who serve this country, are in harm's way. We need a new direction. We ought to send a very clear signal to the world, to the people in this country that it is time for accountability; that it is time to say that mistakes were made and then move on. And we can start with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stepping down, as he should. The head of the 9/11 Commission has indicated to both Republicans and Democrats alike that we need to continue to adopt those resolutions and recommendations that they have found in their studies, 20 of which still aren't implemented, which is over half. And so in order to prosecute the war on terror, we have got to be able to accomplish those goals. But without a Congress that wants to hold the President accountable, that is not going to happen. A gentleman that has been doing just that and speaking out in his district has been Tim Bishop of New York, and at this time, I would like to yield to him.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Was not the rest of the world united in that effort with the United States?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the First Congressional District lost a great friend, supporter, and leader this past week. George Bahamonde, President and CEO of the United Way of the Capital Area, died suddenly on Thursday while on vacation in Maine. George moved from Cuba to Bridgeport, Connecticut with his family when he was 11. He placed great value on education and received his bachelor's degree from the University of Bridgeport and earned a master's degree in business administration from the University of Miami and a master's degree in education from Fairfield University. He stressed the value of education throughout his career in public service and was especially proud of his work introducing the Girls and Boys Town Well-managed Classroom training model to the Hartford school system. A five-year assessment of the program showed that academic achievement had increased and school suspensions had decreased in the schools where it was implemented. In 1970, George began a career in human service that lasted the remainder of his life. He started as a caseworker for Catholic Family and Community Services in Bridgeport, then joined the United Way in 1972 at the United Way of Eastern Fairfield County. He also served the United Way of Puerto Rico, the United Way of Portland, Maine, the United Way of Aurora, Illinois, and the United Way of Greater Los Angeles. Connecticut was fortunate to see George return in 1994 to become President and CEO of the United Way of the Capital Area. His vision for the forty towns served by the United Way was to improve the lives of children and families and better community conditions. To this end, he created numerous initiatives and partnerships and worked tirelessly of their behalf. George worked as easily with nonprofit organizations as he did with corporate donors. What truly made George special though was not just that he cared about the communities he served, he cared about each individual in those communities. He was a great friend to many and will be remembered for his quick smile, his wit, and his professionalism. He was always willing to share a laugh, talk baseball, or offer words of advice and encouragement. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in expressing condolences to George's wife Jenny, his son Matthew, and the rest of his family. The Hartford area has lost a truly caring person and a quietly effective leader. However, George's work will be carried on by those who believe in his vision that we can make each person's life better.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 347, a resolution honoring the National Association of State Veterans Homes and the 119 State veteran's homes nationwide who serve the health care services to our Nation's veterans. The long and distinguished history of the Connecticut State Veterans Hospital can be traced back nearly 140 years of 1864 when Benjamin Finch opened the first veterans' home in the Nation, Fitch's Home for Soldiers and Their Orphans in Darien, to care for veterans of the Civil War. Now located in the First Congressional District in Rocky Hill, the modern day State Veterans Hospital has served Connecticut veterans since 1940. Over the years, the State veteran's hospital has grown to include nearly 40 buildings on the 90-acre Rocky Hill campus, including a domicile providing rehabilitative care and other health care services. In addition to serving the general health care needs of the State's 280,000 veterans, the hospital provides other critical services meant to help veterans in all aspects of their lives, including substance abuse treatment, education and vocational assistance, and job skill development and training. While the staff of the State Veterans Home provides unmatched professional care for their veterans, the hospital's core facilities and campus infrastructure are almost 70 years old and is struggling to meet the needs of the veterans they serve. That is why I worked so hard in helping the State obtain a $22 million grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs' State Home Program to fund the first new construction on the Rocky Hill campus in nearly 65 years. This funding will be used to build a new state of the art facility with five new residential wards, a 25-bed Alzheimer's unit, a hospice facility, and an occupational and physical therapy department. In addition to improving service for current residents and veterans, this new facility is especially important as more soldiers in need of medical and mental health treatment return home each day from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our veterans have given so much to our Nation and they deserve the highest quality of care in return for their service. Even after 140 years, the Connecticut State Veterans Home remains an essential component of our long-term veterans' care and helps fulfill the promise of quality care for those who have proudly served our country. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our State Commissioner of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Linda Schwartz, and her staff to ensure that they have the resources they need to serve the veterans of our State and our Nation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 908, which congratulates the Italian national soccer team for their 2006 FIFA World Cup championship. The World Cup is a true testament of nations of the world putting aside their differences to come together in competition and athletic excellence. Following Fabio Grosso's goal in penalty kicks sealing the Italian victory, people around the globe joined the people of Rome, Naples, and Milan in celebration of Italy's return to World Cup glory. Even back in my district, Italian Americans took to the streets of Franklin Avenue in the south end of Hartford with Italian flags, jerseys, face paint, and smiles in jubilation of the Italian victory. I join my fellow colleagues, those back in my district, and Italians around the world in congratulating the Italian national soccer team on their undefeated tournament run and their incredible achievement of the Italian nation's fourth World Cup victory.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman makes an excellent point. Every time I travel back to my district, the question that more often than not is raised at every forum, every community gathering, every town hall meeting is, How is it that the United States could go from a position in the aftermath, the immediate aftermath of September 11th, with having the entire world on our side, to the point where we are today where so many are opposed to our policies? What is it that took us down that perilous course? How could it be that the former President, Bush the first, if you will, and his advisers, were the most outspoken critics about going into Iraq, warning this current administration of its folly, of its danger? I can remember very distinctly being in Saudi Arabia with Jack Murtha and talking to our Ambassador there, and saying to him that, oh, it seems as though you have a gathering storm here in Saudi Arabia, in August of 2002. He said, gathering storm? He said, Congressman, you are from New England, aren't you? I assume you either read the book or saw the movie. He says, we have over 35 percent unemployment. We have a median income that has dropped from 28,000 to under 7,000 per household. What we have here is not a gathering storm, what we have here is a perfect storm. If we preemptively strike this toothless tiger in Iraq, we will unwittingly accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. We will create a united Islamic jihad across the Middle East and drive it into chaos. The voices of reason, the voices screaming out at the time were Snowcroft, Eagleburger, Baker, Kissinger, all warning against this folly. Yet as you point out, we persisted.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his insightful comments, many of which were echoed by Paul Krugman in a New York Times article today called March of Folly. With that I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, the gentleman makes a great premise that he asks us to respond to. But what I would like to do, if I could, is respond by quoting from a column in the New York Times yesterday by Frank Rich, who said: ``The Bush doctrine was a doctrine in name only, a sales strategy contrived to dress up the single mission of regime change in Iraq with the philosophical grandiosity worthy of FDR. There was never any serious intention of militarily preempting either Iran or North Korea whose nuclear ambitions were as naked then as they are now, or striking the countries that unlike Iraq were major enablers of Islamic terrorism. `Axis of evil' was merely a classier brand name from the same sloganeering folks who gave us compassionate conservatism, and `a uniter not a divider.''' Madam Speaker, with that I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield? The gentlemen, I think, words of both my distinguished colleagues from Massachusetts and Maryland are summed up very well in Frank Rich's article yesterday when he said, This Presidency never had a vision for the world. It, instead, had an idea fixed on one country, Iraq, and in pursuit of that obsession, recklessly harnessed American power to a gut-driven improvisation and PR strategies, not doctrine, that has not changed, even now. And with that, let me at this point recognize our colleague, the distinguished lady from Texas, who has also come to the floor this evening.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for joining us again and again pointing out that she, like so many of us, has said good-bye to troops, mainly to Reservists and members of the National Guard who have been deployed and redeployed, and our hearts go out to their families and, as we have at the outset at the end of every one of these Iraq Watches, spoke about the difference between the warriors and the war, and we continue to salute them. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. We only have a few more minutes, and I want the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentlewoman from California to have the opportunity to close. But I do want to thank the Members for coming down here from New York and Maryland, Texas, California, and Massachusetts and say to the American people that we come here out of love of country. It is because of love of country and because we are more often than not denied a voice on this floor, not only denied a voice on this floor but in the committees, where oversight and review is so important. Why is that so, you might ask? It is so, unfortunately, because this is a one-party town where our erstwhile colleagues on the other side are in control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the executive branch of government. And they are able to shut off debate and stifle this side of the aisle even from coming forward with alternative resolutions on matters so important.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, once again we come to the floor this evening as part of Iraq Watch. We do so this evening with both heavy and somber hearts for everything that is going on as we currently speak in the Middle East. Our hearts especially go out to our great ally Israel, as it wards off vicious attacks by Hezbollah. Once again, it only underscores the need for us in this body to do the kind of oversight and review and have the kind of dialogue and discussion that has been absent on the floor of this House and in our respective committees. Madam Speaker, as we have on so many of these occasions, we begin this evening by once again honoring as well those brave men and women who wear the uniform of our country. They serve this Nation so valiantly. Let me also acknowledge so many veterans and individuals who have played such a key role, especially those from the Vietnam era, in understanding and helping us recognize that it is so important to differentiate between the warriors and the war. So we salute those brave men and women who are in harm's way, who are dealing with untenable situations they are confronted with in Iraq. I especially want to draw attention again to a bill that we have before this body that we are still seeking more signatures to, and requesting and asking the Speaker and the majority leader to bring it to the floor by unanimous consent. I do not believe that there is anyone in this body that does not understand the need for making sure that the Iraqi government does not grant amnesty to those who kidnap, kill, torture and maim American citizens and American troops. And so I think it is so vitally important that this message be sent, especially as the insurgency only intensifies in the region. Brookings Institute and others who have polled find that 47 percent of the people in Iraq believe that it is okay to kill Americans. It is time that we send a clear message. That is why we come to the floor on successive evenings to send a clear message to the American public about what is transpiring before our eyes. We pause, as I said earlier, both in somber and peaceful resolution that this conflict can be resolved speedily and we especially pray for those Americans who need to be evacuated from harm's way. Madam Speaker, I am joined this evening by several of my colleagues who have come to this floor on repeated occasions to talk about a new direction that is needed in the Middle East, a new direction that needs to be taken by this Congress, a new direction that needs to be taken by this President, so we provide an opportunity for this great country of ours to once again move us forward out of harm's way and into a peaceful resolution to what has become consistently a quagmire known as Iraq. With that, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. That is what the General Accountability Office says as well. The GAO report calls for a new direction in Iraq. The GAO report of July 11 says that the administration's national strategy for victory in Iraq is questionable and victory cannot be achieved without significant change in the President's current stay- the-course strategy. It is unclear, it goes on to say, how the United States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq, given the significant changes in assumptions underlying U.S. strategy.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, we have been joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who certainly has embodied from the outset in opposition to this war the voice of reason as it relates to getting us out of Iraq.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, after much delay and hankering by the Republican leadership about bringing this bill to the floor for a vote, I am proud to rise in strong support of reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. As a cosponsor of H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting any poison pill amendments meant to dismantle the broad agreement on this crucial piece of civil right's legislation. No congressional duty is more profound than ensuring and protecting the voting rights of all Americans. As Members of this House, we cannot, we must not, be divided or indifferent in reaffirming America's promise that everyone is created equal. The vote is sacred in this country. Throughout our history, Americans have given their lives for freedom and the right to elect their leaders, from Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, to Seneca Falls in New York, to Selma and Montgomery in Alabama, Americans demand the highest standards; the highest confidence; the highest protection in their right to participate in the democratic process. The fact remains that not too long ago many Americans were denied the right to vote based on their sex or their skin color and in all honesty, many still battle the remnants of this discrimination today. It has been more than 40 years since President Lyndon Johnson called upon Congress to ``extend the rights of citizenship to every citizen of this land'' and pass the Voting Rights Act eliminating illegal barriers to the right to vote. Since that time, the face and even the language of the American voter may have changed, but our government's commitment to protect the integrity of every vote has not. So today, I ask my Republican colleagues to put aside their partisanship and petty political gamesmanship and join me in protecting the most fundamental right of the American people, who are the rightful owners of this American government. I urge the Members of this House to reaffirm our commitment to protect democracy and support the clean final passage of H.R. 9.