30-Something Working Group

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Meek, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Ryan.

I arrived some 10 minutes ago and had the opportunity to hear some of the emarks of our friend and colleague from North Carolina, Ms. Foxx. She spoke about the truly outrageous comments by both the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the President of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, at the United Nations; and I think we all concur that not only were the words offensive and insulting and demeaning, but they had to be responded to.

She spoke clearly about the threat that Iran is posing in the Middle East. Yet she talks about Iraq with a view that I don't share in terms of her description. She speaks about progress, moving forward. That is a very hopeful vision, and maybe under new leadership that is a possibility. But that is not what is happening now. And, ironically, the direction that Iraq is going is towards Iran. How ironic. How ironic that a member of the majority party speaks about Iraq as if it were going forward and at the same time decries the threat from Iran.

If you look to my right in this particular picture, what you have is a photo that was recently taken in Tehran. The gentleman that is farthest to my right is the Prime Minister of Iraq. He is shaking hands and clasping the hands of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is the President of Iran and whose remarks at the United Nations provoked a response from most Americans and hopefully most members of the United Nations that was deserved.

What I find particularly interesting is that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 3,000 American lives have been lost to provide freedom to Iraq, and yet they are going to Tehran. And while in Tehran, according to the Congressional Research Service, there have been a number of agreements between these two governments. Stop and think about that.

A joint committee has been formed to prevent border infiltration from Iran into Iraq, a joint committee to exchange information on mine fields left over from the 1980 to 1988 war, cooperation to search for missing victims of the war, a requirement for Iran to devote a part of its reconstruction contributions for Iraq to Iraq's defense minister. And, most importantly, a bilateral military cooperation.

What have we done?

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I think you have stated it well, Tim, and that is that despite the reality, because of political needs on the part of the Republican majority, the American people are not getting the truth.

I am not suggesting that there is intentional misleading on the part of our colleagues. I think that they hope so profoundly that they have created an alternative reality. How can a Republican Member come to the floor and say on one hand we have got to be careful of Iran and things are going well in Iraq and the only thing that I can see, in addition to the report of the National Intelligence Estimate, is that Iraq is going in the direction of Iran? Some day we could wake up and there is an alliance. There is an alliance.

There are connections. The leadership in Baghdad during the Saddam Hussein regime, many of them resided in Tehran, and what we have here is a symbol of the two leaders of both of these countries executing military cooperation agreements. Is that the direction that the American administration intended when they launched a war into Iraq, that we would create a hegemon in the region, in Iran, that would be allied with Iraq? Now, I am not suggesting it is a formal alliance, but you tell me what direction it is going in. Have an oversight hearing on it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, we talked a couple weeks ago about that handshake and how in the years that I was growing up, that Mr. Meek and Mr. Ryan were growing up, in a trillion years you would never have expected this handshake to ever happen. And it certainty is not the culmination of years of hard work and diplomacy. Growing up, these two countries, Iraq and Iran, were bitter enemies locked in a war across their borders that was seemingly endless. And to have predicted that what would bring them together, and certainly Prime Minister Maliki does not hate the United States, but what would force these two countries together as allies, as that picture demonstrates, is the United States' inappropriate involvement in the midst of that region where essentially they have been forced together because of Iran's hatred for us. And the original conflict emanated from Sunni and Shiite tension and hatred, and now the United States has done what thousands of years was not able to do, brought the Sunnis and the Shiites together, united in hatred for the United States.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman from Florida will yield, I think the point here is this: Was this the intention of this administration? Was this the intention? Of course it was not. So we don't want to misstate anything. The intention of the war in Iraq was not to somehow build an alliance between Iraq and Iran.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It was a byproduct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But when you don't think through a situation, when you don't plan, you have unintended consequences.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you. When you don't plan, when you don't follow through, when you don't have an exit strategy, that is what happens. So, my friend, what do we do when you have an administration and a Congress that are so reckless and so ill prepared for what the consequences are going to be that that happens? You have the Iraqi leaders and the Iranian leaders shaking hands and building alliances. We could see it coming. You can see it coming. Do you reward them with re-election? Do you say the people who got us into this position, we are going to ask them to come in and clean it up too?

It has been bad preparation. It has been misleading information up to the point that ultimately leads to this. And no one has been fired. And as Mr. Murtha said so eloquently, not only hasn't anybody been fired, but the members and the architects of this have been promoted. Mr. Wolfowitz, who was Under Secretary of Defense, is now with the World Bank. He got a promotion. Mr. Rumsfeld is still there. All the underlings are still there.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just want to ask Mr. Meek, because I know he serves with great distinction on the Armed Services Committee, can you tell me has there been a hearing, an oversight hearing, in terms of what is encompassed in that bilateral military cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq? Has there been any exercise by the Republican majority in this House of finding out what it is all about? Should we be concerned? Because, if I can for just 30 seconds, I want to read. This is from a think tank in Britain. Sometimes you have to go overseas to get the truth:

``Iran, despite being a part of U.S. President Bush's Axis of Evil, has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. Of particular note is Iran's influence in Iraq. The greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded the United States as the most influential power in Iraq.''

Has there been a hearing in the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. This has now gone far beyond party loyalty. I mean, this is when you take off your partisan hat, and you have to say this is for protection of not only the U.S. troops but also the people of the United States of America.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, and you are so right. I mean, we really have to be past partisanship at this point in time. And, again, I am not being critical of a particular Republican Member. But to come to this floor and say that things are heading in the right direction is simply inaccurate. It is not intentional, but it is inaccurate.

And it is, you know, hope that is founded on an illusion. But there are some Republicans that are speaking out, that are known to be hawkish, if you will, in terms of their view. I serve on the International Relations Committee. And recently we have had a hearing.

And before the hearing there was a letter that was sent to the President of the United States who claims that we are winning the war on terrorism, and things are going well. And this is what this letter said. I am just going to read one paragraph. ``The United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. Afghanistan faces its highest level of violence and corruption since its liberation. Drug money continues to finance terrorism.'' The chart shows, by the way, that there was like 44 tons of opium production in 2005.

Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. 4,475 metric tons.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In 2006 it is estimated to be over 6,000 in this current year, 6,100 to be exact. It has become a narco state. Let me go back to this letter.

``That failure, coupled with aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threatens to destroy Afghanistan's nascent democracy. A free government that Americans and coalitions have died to support.''

That letter was sent to the President by two of our colleagues, one Henry Hyde, the highly respected chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and Mark Kirk from the State of Illinois, both Republicans. For the first time, there is a little bit of reality and forthrightness, and I am not going to use the word ``truth'' I will say accuracy, in terms of what the realities are.

It is confirmed over and over and over again, wherever you go, whether it is Iran, or whether it is Iraq, or whether the Global War on Terror is eing won. And when you have the administration's own intelligence services saying that they conclude that the War in Iraq has made global terrorism worse by fanning Islamic radicalism and providing a training ground for lethal methods that are increasingly being exported to countries, we are spreading terrorism all over the world like a deadly virus.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to pose a question to our expert on the Armed Services Committee. Because while we are, as our national intelligence estimate suggests, while we are losing the war on terrorism, and it is expanding, what has been the impact in terms of our military?

Is our military stronger today than it was 4 years ago? Because today, Mr. Meek, in the Washington Times, a conservative paper, there is a report by Rowan Scarborough, the Army is studying whether to add more combat units to the rotation plan for Iraq.

``Rather than planning for a big draw down of 30,000 Army soldiers and Marines this year to a level of 100,000 as field commanders had expected, the two services are now trying to figure out how to keep the equivalent of two extra divisions or 40,000 troops in Iraq.''

The Army is facing more demand for troops at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point.

What does this mean? Are we eroding the strength of our military?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Very quickly, I just say that here is another article, September 25, 2006, by I believe it is Peter Spiegel. I mean, the bottom line is that the Army has now alerted or withheld or what have you or the Pentagon withheld, we do not know, because even as Members of Congress this has been noted as one of the most secretive administrations in the history of the United States of America. The reason why they have been very secretive in classifying everything is that the Congress has not demanded more, not only for Members of Congress such as myself who serve on two national security committees here, either be Homeland Security Committee as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight or a member of several subcommittees in Armed Services.

So, when we read about these things, we have to read about it in the paper. They did not elect us to come up here and read the paper just like the average American and expect us to govern because we do not have an opportunity to govern here because the Republicans are in the majority, and they continue this kind of atmosphere.

The Army right now, they need additional billions to be able to keep up with what is happening in the war in Iraq and other commitments not only throughout the world but domestically. So, if something were to happen, whether it be China or Iran, there would be serious issues for us.

So, when you see these two leaders of not only Iraq and Iran come together at the U.S. taxpayers' expense, I mean this is something we need to pay very close attention to.

I am going to keep it very simple and I am going to yield because there is not a lot that I want to say tonight because I am truly upset about the fact that this continues to happen. The only disruption in this streamline of policy-making or lack thereof is that we have the majority in this House. There has to be a Democratic majority in this House to bring balance to our democracy.

Stay the course just because they say it does not mean it is the truth. We are winning in Iraq. Okay. They have said it so it means we are winning in Iraq, okay, even though you have national experts as it relates to the clandestine organizations not only in this country but abroad that are saying we are stimulating more terrorism than we are tearing down terrorism.

We have the 9/11 Commission that has put forth recommendations to make America safer, but this Republican majority will not adopt those recommendations.

We have individuals that are on their fifth and sixth deployment, need it be a soldier or a Marine or a Coast Guard or a sailor or a pilot in the U.S. Air Force, on their fourth and fifth deployment, and then we have the administration say stay the course, and we have the rubber stamp Congress say, yeah, yeah, stay the course.

Then we come up with recommendations on redeployment and hopefully working with other countries in securing not only Iraq but telling Iraq, listen, you have to secure your own country. You have on average 60 Iraqis dying a day, three to four U.S. Armed Forces dying a day. And so we are saying stay the course? It is very simple. What more do we need?

We are borrowing more from foreign Nations than we ever borrowed before, $1.05 trillion versus $1.01 trillion, 42 Presidents, 224 years of history before us.

We have got the past Speaker, Republican Speaker, it is not a Democrat, that is saying, ``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government that cannot function.''

Mr. Speaker, Speaker Gingrich is the individual who brought about, quote, unquote, the Republican revolution that is calling the Republican majority ``they,'' and it goes on and on and on, need it be the gas companies that are making record profits. Look, rubber stamp Congress, $113 billion.

Or need it be in congressional increases in salaries like Mr. Ryan pointed out. Individuals are being rewarded for mediocrity, for saying, okay, well, as long as I am with the team and I am loyal to the President of the United States and I am loyal to the Republican majority, I am going to move up in the company. Well, guess what, this is not a company. This is the government of the United States of America.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of the people.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Of the people. The U.S. taxpayer. We have individuals that are being placed in new positions. What do you think in the Pentagon? Well, if you go with your training, with your education and your experience and talk about a post-Iraq plan or talk about standing up to the boss or talk about maybe saying, well, excuse me, I know that you have your plan and all, but you know, we need X, that you are making a career decision in this government?

So just for balance we need a Democratic House. We need a Democratic Congress that will bring balance and will ask the ``but'' question or maybe we need to call this individual in and understand more about things because we are the individuals that are elected to represent the people of the United States of America, not Republican, not Democrats, not Independents, but the people of the United States of America. Until we have that, we are not going to have a true democracy. We are not going to have balance. We are not going to have level thinking. We are not going to have the direction that our men and women need on the ground. We are not going to have the accountability that the Constitution calls for, that Mr. Ryan always talks about in article I, section 1. We are not going to have that until we do away with this Republican rubber stamp Congress.

I do not care if individuals who want to follow me, Mr. Speaker, in a 30-second ad to talk about somebody voted one way or another. The facts are that America is more in danger than it was prior to the invasion of Iraq and fiscally in a worse situation in borrowing from nations that we have never borrowed from at the level that we are borrowing from at this present time.

We can talk about articles. We can talk about all these things. The facts are that the experts are saying one thing. It is like going to the doctor and the doctor said, you know, you have a really bad virus. Are you going to stand there and question the doctor? Are you going to say, well, you know, well, I do not have a virus, Republican majority tells me it is just an allergy, I am going to be okay? No. You are not.

So we have the 9/11 Commission that is saying one thing, that are professionals that spent months and months and months, staff, millions of dollars, had the President and other folks going to testify before them. We have this National Security Council that have pulled themselves together, that have released this report, and we have Members on the Republican side, oh, they do not know what they are doing; it is just a draft report. It is going to be a draft until after the election.

So I think the American people, Mr. Speaker, are going to be paying attention to the obvious. This is not just party rhetoric. We are far beyond that at this point.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I ask you a question, again, in your role as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, there have been general after general that have spoken out publicly in a very courageous way that have made statements. Let me just read one of them.

Retired Army General John Batiste, this is what he had to say several months ago, and he was part of the team that actually did the planning. He was involved in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Here is what he had to say: ``We went to war with a flawed plan that did not account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a Secretary of Defense who did not understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who did not build a strong team.''

In your time on the committee, and I know Mr. Ryan, too, also serves on the Committee on Armed Services, has he ever been invited by the majority to come before the committee and explain in detail what the process was? Have you ever met General Batiste in your capacity on the dais of the House Armed Services Committee?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am just going to put it to you this way. Anyone that speaks the truth, some may say truth to power, those individuals that are trained, that are educated, that have been in the Armed Services as the two-star general has been, and has anything to say about the Pentagon or the direction that we are going in will not and have not, since making that statement, anything to say before the Committee on Armed Services.

Do we want to call them in to kind of learn from them individuals, not the Republican majority? The Republican majority are loyal to the rubber stamp, not to the truth.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield to me, I think the American people should be aware that whether it was today or yesterday, there was a hearing, we will call it a rump hearing, an unofficial hearing that was conducted by Democrats with three retired senior military officers who came before Democratic members to explain and give their opinions on what went wrong. Imagine, imagine having to do that, that your point about the need to change Congress so that there are no questions, but that this presidency and this White House and this administration is held accountable. It just boggles my mind.

Can I ask Mr. Ryan a question. General Paul Eaton had this to say, another retired Army major general, and he is referring to the Secretary of Defense. He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

Have you ever seen General Eaton before your committee?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not recall ever seeing General Eaton.

Because I do not know where to start with what happened on Monday, September 25, 2006, which just so happens to be today with the hearings on the other side from the Democratic Policy Committee with these separate generals who are there, but I want to share with the American people and I want to share with the Speaker and other Members of this House some of the quotes that came out of there. I think this is important because we already have a national intelligence estimate saying that this country is less safe because of the war in Iraq, and then I am going to my friend from Florida who I know has some points to make, too. Less safe, okay, so now we go into what the testimony of some generals who are on the ground had to say.

This is General Batiste, who Mr. Delahunt referenced earlier. This guy used to be the senior military assistant to former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who is now with the World Bank. He got a promotion for his great work in Iraq. He ``charged that Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration `did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq.' ''

``He told the committee, `If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents.' ''

He ``charged in his testimony that Rumsfeld `is not a competent wartime leader' and surrounded himself with `compliant' subordinates.''

`` `Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build ``his plan'' which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq for up for self-reliance,' Batiste said.''

``In addition, Rumsfeld `refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency.'''

The retired general said, ``At one point,'' and this is the apex of incompetency, ``At one point he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan.''

Now, we have all been involved in some form of leadership, whether it was in athletics or in politics or in business or whatever the case may be. To just not plan for an insurgency in a war is unacceptable. But then to say that whoever wants to talk about a plan is going to be fired is the height of incompetence.

Source