[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6625-H6630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I once again thank 
distinguished members who will be joining me here on the floor to 
continue a process that was begun by Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. 
Kucinich, and Mr. Inslee called The Iraq Watch.
  This was formed in the spirit of understanding, as I think the Nation 
has come to understand, that within this Beltway and within this Nation 
and specifically here in Congress, that we have one-party rule. The 
Republican Party controls the administration and all of its agencies, 
it controls the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, 
and in the process, has stifled opportunity for oversight and review 
and a thorough discussion on the pressing issue of Iraq that concerns 
the entire American republic. I commend my colleagues for having 
initiated The Iraq Watch.
  This evening, as in others, we start with an acknowledgement that, 
fortunately, because of the efforts of so many who have served in our 
military, we in Congress on both sides of this aisle have come to 
understand and differentiate between the war and the warriors, those 
brave men and women who serve our country on a daily basis and who are 
in harm's way in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around this globe on our 
behalf. We come here because we desire an opportunity to speak truth to 
power.
  Earlier this evening, one of our esteemed colleagues from the other 
side rose and said, ``What are the Democrats for?'' We are for an 
administration that will level with the American people, starting first 
and foremost with leveling with our troops, especially the families of 
our troops; specifically, the Reservists and National Guardsmen who 
have been deployed, redeployed, deployed, and redeployed again in 
Afghanistan and Iraq with no certainty given to them. And we are for an 
administration that is worthy of the sacrifice that has been put 
forward by the men and women of our armed services.
  Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, ``The only thing we have to fear is 
fear itself.'' And in this very solemn week where we pause to reflect 
on our brave heroes of 9/11, those innocent people who perished in the 
towers in New York, at the Pentagon, and in the fields of Pennsylvania, 
and those brave and valiant first responders who rallied to the call in 
New York, here at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, we are for the 
vigilance of the survivors, and victims of 9/11 who called and 
prevailed upon this body to pass all the 9/11 recommendations.
  We are for passing all the 9/11 recommendations, more than half of 
which have not been enacted by this Congress 5 years after September 
11. We are for accountability, as Mr. Schiff pointed out in his 
comments, because we understand that in a one-party town where there is 
no oversight and review and no one willing on the other side of the 
aisle to speak truth to power, that it falls on the shoulders of the 
Democrats to speak out on behalf of the American public, to speak truth 
where there has been little.
  Graham Allison pointed out that the occupation in Iraq has placed us 
in a situation where we have diverted essential resources from the 
fight against al Qaeda, allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan, 
fostered neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat, undermined alliances 
critical to preventing terrorism, devastated America's standing with 
every country in Europe, and

[[Page H6626]]

destroyed it in the Muslim world. We are for a new direction for this 
country and for America's preeminent position on this globe where we 
have such enormous responsibility.
  We ought to start that new direction and send a very clear signal to 
the world, to Iraq, and to the men and women of our military that it is 
time for accountability. And we can start that, as Jack Murtha 
indicated earlier, with a call for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 
to step down, for, as Mr. Schiff pointed out and the Vice President 
said clearly this past Sunday, if they had to do it all over again, 
they would do it exactly the same way. And the President, in a moment 
of candor, said in fact, the hardest thing that he has found has been 
linking terror with the war in Iraq.

                              {time}  1845

  At this time I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from 
California, Representative Lee, who has stood in this well so many 
times and prevailed upon this body to come to grips with this war in 
Iraq.
  Representative Lee.
  Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and also for your 
leadership and for that very powerful statement. And I want to thank 
you for reminding the country that this is one-party rule, and that 
there are no checks and balances, and that, unfortunately, there is no 
accountability.
  I appreciate the opportunity to participate with you tonight, and 
again thank you very much for calling this special order and for Iraq 
Watch.
  This week has been the fifth anniversary of the tragic terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, and we should be commemorating the lives 
of those who died. We should be coming together as a Nation to grieve 
and to remember the men, women, and children who lost their lives that 
day. We should be honoring the courage and the heroism of our first 
responders and those who put themselves in harm's way to help others.
  But, instead, as we have seen, Republicans are politicizing this 
solemn anniversary by shamelessly attempting to hide the 
administration's failure to make our Nation safer, and, quite frankly, 
failing to hold accountable those who perpetrated the attacks, and that 
is Osama bin Laden.
  Bin Laden is still at large. He is alive and well. The Taliban is 
resurgent in Afghanistan. Why? Because the Bush administration pulled 
troops out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq. But Iraq had nothing to 
do with 9/11. The President, as you said earlier, has admitted this.
  Now, the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus have been saying that even 
before we went into this illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war. There 
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we knew this. During 
the debate on the authorization to use force, if you remember, I 
offered an amendment that merely said let the United Nations complete 
its inspections process. Now, had that amendment passed, lives would 
have been saved, Iraq would not be what it is today, and that is a 
terrorist training ground, and America would not have lost its standing 
in the world.
  Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Congresswoman Woolsey, Congressman 
Hinchey, and many others participated in the Downing Street memo 
hearings, where it was revealed and exposed and demonstrated factually 
that the administration concocted the intelligence and used what they 
had to cherrypick and fix the facts as they saw it to justify this war 
and invasion. Hundreds of thousands of people around our country signed 
petitions. We delivered those petitions to the White House saying this 
war should end; that there were no weapons of mass destruction; that 
this was wrong and that we should get out.
  And last Friday, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report 
refuted one of the administration's key justifications for going to war 
in Iraq; the claim that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had ties in 
planning 9/11. There was no connection between them and, again, the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, bipartisan committee, said that.
  The war in Iraq is a war of choice by this administration. And what 
has resulted? This war and the continuing occupation has created a 
terrorist training ground in the heart of the Middle East. It has 
really created and fueled more anti-American sentiment and has been a 
powerful recruiting tool for terrorists. It has emboldened Iran and 
North Korea. It has diverted our focus and resources from pursuing 
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It has cost us the lives of 2,700 brave 
men and women, with over 20,000 wounded, and Iraqi civilians dead. We 
have committed over $400 billion to this war and this occupation has 
now fueled a civil war. It has left our military overstretched and 
unable to respond to crises in other areas.
  I tell you, the bottom line is our Nation now is less safe due to 
this unnecessary war in Iraq. The 9/11 Commission has given the Bush 
administration and this Republican Congress D's and F's in terms of how 
we have moved forward in keeping our Nation safe and implementing these 
recommendations.
  There can be no ``stay the course'' in a no-win occupation. There can 
be no ``stay the course'' as long as our troops remain the target of 
the insurgency. We must go in a new direction. We have to bring our 
troops home and end this occupation. And when they come home, we must 
make sure that they all come home and ensure there be no permanent 
military bases in Iraq.
  Eighty-four percent of America's top national security experts have 
said that America is not winning this war on terror. So it is time that 
we stop misleading the American people by trying to convince them that 
the horrific events of 9/11 were somehow connected to the war in Iraq 
and to Saddam Hussein. They are not. It is time to bring our troops 
home.
  It is time to support Congresswoman Woolsey's H.R. 5875 and revoke 
the War Powers Act, or the war powers authorization that this House and 
the Senate gave to the President.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman from California 
for once again providing us with very clear insight into the 
ramifications of the administration's failed policy. As our colleague 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) points out, there are two distinct wars 
that are going on. There is the war on terror, more appropriately it 
should be called the war against al Qaeda, where, as the gentlewoman 
points out, America has diverted its resources away from Afghanistan 
and the chief target, the person responsible for bringing down the 
World Trade Center towers and the bombing at the Pentagon and the 
failed attempt to hit this Capitol with the downed plane in 
Pennsylvania.
  I commend the gentlewoman for her remarks and thank her for joining 
us this evening.
  Ms. LEE. Let me just thank you again for your calling this special 
hour and for allowing all of us to participate, and also for reminding 
us that as we promote democracy abroad, especially in Iraq, we are 
shutting it down here in America.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman from California, 
and I would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. I want to thank my good friend and colleague for setting 
aside this hour and giving us an opportunity to focus attention on the 
circumstances in Iraq and the consequences of our response to the 
attack of September 11, 2001.
  This week we marked 5 years, and today 5 years and 3 days, since that 
attack of September 11, 2001, against the World Trade Center, the 
Pentagon, and Flight Number 93 that, as a result of the heroism of the 
people on board, crashed into a field in Pennsylvania rather than into 
this Capitol building on that particular day.
  There is no question that people who were responsible for that attack 
were brutal, devastating, and without conscience. However, the main 
danger that has been focused on our country came about not as a result 
of the attack but more as a result of the response of our government to 
that attack.
  We have seen, for example, that shortly after our invasion of 
Afghanistan to upset the Taliban, which were housing the al Qaeda 
network, after we had taken the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and 
chased the al Qaeda network out of Kabul and Kandahar, how this 
administration stopped the pursuit of the main perpetrators of that 
attack, the al Qaeda network and their principal leader, Osama bin 
Laden. It was a conscious decision

[[Page H6627]]

made by this administration not to go after Osama bin Laden and, 
therefore, not to capture him.

  Now, obviously, one has to ask the question: Why? The only sensible 
answer to that question is this: The administration did not want to 
capture Osama bin Laden, the brains, the main perpetrator behind that 
attack. Because if he had been captured, then the argument of the 
administration that there was a connection between the attack of 
September 11 and Iraq, and the need to invade Iraq, that argument would 
essentially have evaporated. If Osama bin Laden had been captured, 
there would have been no logical rationale for invading Iraq.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will yield, because the 
question has been put forward on this floor on more than one occasion, 
and the query is: How is it that this great country of ours could go 
from having virtually the entire world supporting us, because of 
exactly what happened in your great New York City? In Paris, they said, 
``Today We Are All Americans.'' We join with Americans in the fight 
against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And we went from having the entire 
world with us to virtually having the world opposed to us, devastating 
our standing around the world and ruining it with the Muslim world.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Your point, of course, is a very good one. And what 
caused that, caused the people of the world, who had been united with 
us after the attack of September 11, 2001, but became disunited from 
us, became questioning of our attitudes and actions, all of that came 
about as a result of the falsification of information by this 
administration to the Congress of the United States and the people of 
the United States alleging that there was a connection between Iraq and 
Saddam Hussein to the attack of September 11, 2001, and subsequently 
alleging that Saddam Hussein had so-called weapons of mass destruction, 
chemical and biological weapons, and a nuclear weapons program, when 
all of the major intelligence given to the administration said that 
there was no evidence of so-called weapons of mass destruction.
  And it was clear that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein 
and Osama bin Laden. If anything, the two were enemies, not united in 
any way. They are antagonists, and certainly, then, no connection 
between al Qaeda and Iraq. And the world saw the falsification of that 
information and they began to back away from us. And eventually so many 
people and so many countries around the world turned their backs on the 
United States because of the falsification of information by this 
administration and the perils that they saw our country engaged in in 
the Middle East, and to some extent here at home.
  So we have a responsibility. And I think that that responsibility 
falls mainly on the Democratic Party. Because, as you pointed out in 
your remarks just a few minutes ago, we have here, in effect, a rubber 
stamp Congress, a monolithic government here in Washington, a Congress 
that has abandoned its responsibilities under the Constitution to 
ensure that the administration is behaving in a lawful way; to be 
certain that the administration is adhering to the provisions of our 
law and the provisions of our constitution.
  In fact, we see clearly that this administration is violating the law 
and violating the Constitution, but the Republican majority in this 
House has done absolutely nothing about it. So the opportunity that you 
present here tonight by reserving this hour is an important one, and 
there are other people who will come and speak about this issue also in 
very important ways.
  Everything we do has got to be focused on the illegality of these 
actions and the way in which they are to be corrected so that we can 
begin to reensure the security of the United States and begin to 
reestablish our position in the world of admiration and respect from 
other people around the world. We have a big job to do and we must 
engage ourselves in that job very pointedly and aggressively, and I 
thank you for reserving this time.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from New York for 
his insightful comments. And, again, we all share with you and all New 
Yorkers, as well as people from the Pentagon and in the fields of 
Pennsylvania, Flight 93, a great sorrow at the loss of so many valiant 
Americans. And I want to commend you for your willingness to come to 
this floor and speak truth to power.
  Someone who has done so on more than 170 occasions, from the same 
spot on this floor, is Lynn Woolsey. She has risen and called out and 
has spoken out against the war in Iraq, and so at this time I yield to 
the gentlewoman from California.

                              {time}  1900

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Larson and Iraq 
Watch for what you have been doing to bring attention to the follies of 
what is going on in Iraq.
  I will stay here and talk back and forth, but we have folks here who 
have been so important, Maxine Waters and Donald Payne and I saw Bill 
Delahunt, who are all part of this, and we want everybody to have their 
say.
  What I want to emphasize is that the people of this country, the 
people of this world know that this was a mistake. Our very own 
constituents are ahead of the Members of Congress that they have 
elected to serve them because they know we should leave Iraq. They tell 
us that.
  What they don't know, however, is how to make it happen. Guess what, 
that is not their job. It is our job. It is our job to say, Mr. 
President, commander in chief, stop this war. Put together a plan and 
bring our troops home. You see, that is our job. It is very clear to me 
when you lead, people will follow.
  Just under 2 years ago I believe I was the first person to request of 
the President that he bring our troops home. My request had just under 
20 signatures on a letter to him.
  Then we had a hearing, informal hearing with Senator Max Cleland and 
generals and an Iraqi citizen. It was bipartisan and the room was full. 
We had a little bit of press, not much, but it was a good hearing. It 
was about why we are there and why we shouldn't be there.
  Following that we had an amendment of mine that came to the House 
floor. Some folks asked me not to call for a vote on it because they 
thought it would be embarrassing to all of us. But 128 Members of this 
House, a bipartisan effort actually, voted to tell the President to put 
together a plan to bring our troops home and bring that plan to the 
appropriate committees in the House of Representatives.
  Since then we have written a letter to the President that over 50 
Members signed saying, Mr. President, bring our troops home. Do this in 
a multinational way with multilateral involvement. Work with the Iraqis 
on reconstruction in a nonmilitaristic stance, and work with them for 
reconciliation.
  Then I introduced legislation that I talked about earlier tonight to 
repeal the President's Iraq war powers because that is one way to tell 
him enough is enough. This is not a war, this is an occupation.
  We are going to have another hearing on September 26. This is the 
third forum, and it is on the cost, the human cost, the cost to our 
treasury and the cost to our reputation. I hope many Members will 
attend it. You see, that is what the people of this country are looking 
for and these are the people down on the floor with you that to the 
best of our ability are trying to provide, and that is leadership, 
leadership to catch up with them, the public, so we will indeed do the 
right thing and stop the death and destruction that is going on that we 
are causing because of our very presence over there.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman for her vigilance 
in this matter and in coming to the floor. To her point, as Thomas 
Friedman has pointed out, in Iraq with regard to the occupation and the 
United States' once-lofty goal that was envisioned in terms of creating 
democracy in Iraq, categorized us as no longer midwifing a democracy, 
but in essence baby-sitting an insurrection and a civil war.
  So even people that were slow to come around to your point of view 
and the point of view held by many others have now been joined by no 
less than eight generals, as Mr. Delahunt points out time and time 
again on this floor.
  But also if you go back to the very beginnings and the lead-up to 
this war, who were the most outspoken critics leading up to this war? 
In fact, it was

[[Page H6628]]

not Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee or even Lynn Woolsey, it was 
Scowcroft, Eagleburger, and Baker because they understood as 
internationalists the problem that would be created in Iraq if we 
diverted resources from Afghanistan and didn't pursue the goal of 
capturing and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden, but instead got 
involved in a war of choice that was misguided and misdirected by an 
administration that was blind on two fronts. Blind to the sacrifice 
that would take place on behalf of our brave men and women, and also to 
the policies that they were pursuing and the ramifications of those 
policies both abroad and here at home.
  Someone who understands that and has been an advocate of human rights 
for his entire career here in the United States Congress, someone who 
has traveled all over this globe and addressed the issue of human 
rights is the Congressman from New Jersey, Donald Payne, and at this 
time I recognize him for his remarks.
  Mr. PAYNE. Let me thank the gentleman from Connecticut for taking 
this special order and let me acknowledge your great leadership as a 
leader in the Democratic Caucus. Let me also commend Barbara Lee and 
Lynn Woolsey for their leadership as cochairs of the Progressive Caucus 
where they have continually talked about progressive issues in this 
country and, in particular, the question of Iraq; and to commend 
Congresswoman Woolsey for her record of maybe 100 days consecutively 
speaking out against the war, day in and day out.
  Five years ago, on September 11, we had a tremendous amount of 
sympathy around the world. Everyone was with us. People throughout the 
world said this was a dastardly act. Seven hundred persons from my 
State perished. Flight 93 that left Newark Airport, including Ms. Wanda 
Green, a delightful African American woman, a flight attendant who 
traded with a friend who asked her if she could take her duty because 
of a conflict and she would switch and take Ms. Green's original duty 
which was not on 9/11. Ms. Green passed away on that infamous Flight 
93. I met with her two children at the church in Linden where she 
lived. They are college-age students. Ms. Green was a divorcee and was 
the one taking care of the family.
  So this is very personal with all of us. From my house as I moved out 
to the corner and looked over, the World Trade Centers were both 
visible, the twin towers were very visible. I could see them very 
clearly. So it is very personal to us, all Americans, but especially to 
those of us who were so constantly involved in that area.
  When the President decided, though, to make Saddam Hussein a person 
that he felt should be dealt with and connected him to 9/11, it was 
actually criminal. Osama bin Laden, as we know, was in Afghanistan. We 
had a limited number of troops there. But just think of what position 
we would have been in today if our troops were sent to Afghanistan in 
the numbers that we have sent to Iraq. By this time I am sure Osama bin 
Laden would be behind bars or not alive at all.
  We could still have Iraq contained with the no-fly zone because they 
could not come in or go out. We had Predators watching. We knew where 
Saddam Hussein had lunch every day. It was bombed one day, but he left 
a few minutes early. They were going nowhere in Iraq.
  Osama bin Laden, in fact, talked as badly about Saddam Hussein as he 
did about the United States' leaders. But what did we do? Hans Blitz 
and the inspectors were given full range of the country. And when that 
announcement was made by the Government of Iraq, President Bush said, 
Get out in 48 hours.
  Why would you do that? They knew that they didn't have weapons of 
mass destruction in Iraq. The bluff was over. So Saddam Hussein decided 
to let them go anywhere because I don't have them. And, therefore, they 
will see that the bluff is over. No, the President ordered the strikes.
  I will conclude because there are other Members here and I could go 
on and on and on. However, I was the one who controlled the 2-day 
debate where we debated giving the President the authority to having an 
attack on Iraq, a preemptive strike. I was convinced we should not 
choose war, we should choose diplomacy. Just think, Afghanistan would 
have been settled and we could have contained Saddam Hussein, but it 
was decided that we should go to war. Mission accomplished.
  We are losing lives every day. It was wrong. We need to come up with 
a sane plan to conclude this civil war that is in Iraq and move on to 
making our country a safer place.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and 
I am reminded in the poignancy of his story, having traveled to the 
Middle East several times with Jack Murtha, of a discussion we were 
having with our ambassador to Saudi Arabia who, when I inquired of him 
that it seemed like there was a gathering storm in Saudi Arabia with 
more than 35 percent unemployment and median income amongst the people 
there dropping from $28,000 to under $7,000, he said to me: 
``Congressman, gathering storm?'' He said, ``You're from New England?''
  I said, ``That's right.''
  He said, ``I assume you've either read the book or you saw the movie. 
What we have here is not a gathering storm, what we have here is a 
perfect storm; and if we attack this toothless tiger, whereas you point 
out we had no-fly zones over the north and south, we will unwittingly 
accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. We will create a united 
Islamic jihad against the United States.''
  Someone who understands that more keenly than most is the gentlewoman 
from California who chairs the Out of Iraq Caucus and has been equally 
vigilant in her efforts and leadership on that front.
  I now recognize Maxine Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Connecticut not only for his leadership in the caucus, but for his 
leadership on Iraq Watch. The work that you have been doing and that 
which you do tonight, bringing us here to the floor, to continue this 
discussion, to continue this debate and to focus on what is wrong with 
the leadership at the White House is extremely important work; and I 
thank you for it.
  I am also pleased that we had so many Members come tonight. I am 
pleased that the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, who have been for 
over a year and a half trying to make this a real priority in this 
Congress, I thank you all for this evening.
  Let me just remind the Nation of these facts: As of today 2,671 
soldiers are dead, American soldiers killed in Iraq; 20,113 injured in 
Iraq. The total cost of the war, more than $318 billion. And it will 
cost approximately $370 billion by the end of the year. The cost of the 
war per month at that rate is $8.4 billion per month. The cost per 
week, $1.9 billion. And every day we are spending $275 million a day.

                              {time}  1915

  Now this war has been raging for more than 3 years. We know now, and 
even the President cannot even pretend that he does not know that Iraq 
and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 
The Iraq war has taken resources away from the finding and punishing of 
those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  For example, the administration pulled Arabic speaking Special Forces 
teams who were hunting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and redeployed 
them to Iraq. Because resources have been diverted from Afghanistan, 
and the administration has been distracted by the Iraq war, Osama bin 
Laden is still free, and the Taliban has regrouped in Afghanistan.
  Violence in Afghanistan is going on every day, and much of it 
certainly is attributed to the Taliban. This year more than 2,300 
people have been killed in Afghanistan, including 151 who have been 
killed in suicide bombings; 276 U.S. servicemembers have been killed in 
Afghanistan, and nearly 1,000 more have been injured.
  Let's talk about, for a minute, the growth of the poppy seed, the 
main ingredient of heroin is also growing. The U.N.'s Office on Drugs 
and Crimes say opium cultivation rose 59 percent this year to produce a 
record 6,100 tons of opium, more than 90 percent of the total world 
supply. The U.N. estimates that the revenue from this year's harvest 
will exceed $3 billion.
  In wrapping up, let me just say that last night on CNN they tracked 
from Afghanistan the heroin that went by way of Nigeria into the United 
States,

[[Page H6629]]

into Chicago and into my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. They tracked 
it. At one time we thought that heroin was simply going into Europe. It 
wasn't coming into the United States.
  But now we know it is, and to add insult to injury, Mr. Musharraf, 
the President of Pakistan, who is supposed to be our friend, who we are 
giving monetary support to, has wrapped his arms around the Taliban and 
created a contract and an agreement with them that if you don't attack 
us we won't bother you.
  We are depending on Mr. Musharraf, knowing that not only has he 
entered into this contract, but he knows what's going on on that border 
between Pakistan and Afghanistan where they protect Osama bin Laden, 
where they protect al Qaeda, and now they are protecting the Taliban.
  What are we in for here? The President of the United States has 
misled this country. We are in trouble, and he has placed this country 
at great risk. We are at greater risk now than before 9/11. It is time 
for the leadership of the Congress of the United States on both sides 
of the aisle to say enough is enough. I commend you for helping to 
develop us so we can get to the point where we can proudly all join 
hands together on both sides of the aisle and stop this misdirection of 
this President and this administration.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank her 
also for factually pointing out what is happening, especially with 
regard to the heroin trade, and again how that only furthers and 
fosters the efforts of al Qaeda all around the globe.
  Before I call on the gentleman from New York, Major Owens, who has 
served with distinction in this great body of ours and who represents 
the great City of New York, I want to point out that our next two 
speakers, both Mr. Delahunt from Massachusetts and Mr. Inslee from 
Washington, are the founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus.
  Mr. Delahunt, especially, having heard specifically, going back to 
his district, people often ask what led you to come to this floor and 
speak out against the war in Iraq? Well, it took place in small towns 
and communities where people were yearning for the truth and wanted to 
hear voices that because a majority rule here in a one-party Congress 
were notable to break through.
  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. INSLEE. Well, you pointed out something that I just realized. 
President Bush, when he ran for office back in 2000, said he would be 
the great uniter. Many of us have been disappointed, in fact, that he 
has divided the country like no President in modern history. When we 
were united after September 11 with us and the whole world, he has now 
divided the country.
  But I think finally he has united two ununitable, intractable foes, 
one, an axis of evil, Iran, who we are trying to defeat, in some way to 
prevent them from having nuclear weapons. He has united Iraq and made 
Iran a more fundamentalist Islamic government, a more powerful entity 
on the world stage, more powerful, as he describes them, axis of evil, 
and the President finally fulfilled his destiny of being the great 
uniter.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. The President of the United States has 
achieved a remarkable, an absolutely remarkable, accomplishment.
  Mr. INSLEE. After this conference of Tehran between the axis of evil 
and the new government the President has created in Iraq, one of the 
leaders described the other leader as their, quote, good friend. I 
don't know if it was the President of Iran, the axis of evil describing 
the new government created by George Bush in Iraq or vice versa. Do you 
know which one it was?
  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. LARSON of Connecticut. Is this the same Prime Minister that also 
has said that he will grant amnesty to those involved in the 
insurrection that are killing and mutilating American soldiers?
  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. INSLEE. I want to point out something, why this is such a 
diabolical development that the President has given to the world and 
the United States, and that is it is very simple. We have folks in 
harm's way today, we have lost 2,600 of our finest men and women in 
Iraq, and it is very clear that we are not going to get those people 
out unless the leadership of Iraq and the Shiite factions finally reach 
an agreement regarding oil revenues with the Sunnis and the Kurds in 
Iraq. This picture is a picture of the friendship of the Shiite-led 
fundamentalist Iranian government essentially signing up with the 
Shiite-led faction of the government in Iraq, and this President has 
refused to drop the hammer on the government of Iraq to tell them that 
they have to make a deal about oil revenues right now and refusing to 
continue to keep our troops there in harm's way unless they do.
  Because it is clear that unless this President makes very clear to 
the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds that if they don't reach an 
agreement about oil revenue, which they are arguing about today, and 
have been arguing about for 3 years, we could be there for 500 years 
and not solve the problem. This President has simply allowed them to 
shake hands and not put pressure on them, not drop the hammer on them. 
That is what he has got to do, and he hasn't done it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what is happening in Iraq, according to 
military personnel? They are telling us, in

[[Page H6630]]

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.

                              {time}  1930

  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. INSLEE. I think when we talk about the wrong country, it has been 
the wrong country in two different ways. First, the President has 
united Iran, part of the ``axis of evil,'' with Iraq, rather than 
uniting America. He got the countries wrong in that regard.
  But, more importantly, he got the countries wrong about which country 
is a nuclear threat to the United States of America. He invaded Iraq, 
when the nuclear threat to the United States of America is Iran. As a 
result of Mr. Bush's war, he has made the nuclear threat to the United 
States of America, Iran, more powerful by uniting it with Iraq, making 
Iran a more powerful figure in the Mideast by taking our eye off the 
ball, reducing our ability to build an international consensus to 
impose sanctions against Iran, because he invaded the wrong country.
  Do you know what? I was so astounded that the Vice President of the 
United States made a statement last weekend that made me think there is 
some hallucinogen in the water that people are drinking in this 
administration when he said, and this is a paraphrase, it is not an 
exact quote, even if we knew that the weapons were in Iran, not in 
Iraq, that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and the 
attack on 9/11, that we were going to lose 2,600 troops dead and 15,000 
injured, the destruction of our international coalition, even if I knew 
that all the things we told Americans were misstatements, were 
falsehoods, even with all of those falsehoods, I would have done just 
the same thing again.
  That attitude, as long as that attitude prevails in this country, as 
long as we don't have a Congress to ride herd on those people in the 
White House, including the Vice President, our people are going to be 
in a dark, dark hole in Iraq. That is why we need a new Congress and a 
new government, to get a policy in Iraq, to get our people home.
  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. INSLEE. It is not us asking where Congress has been challenging 
these failures by the administration, it is our constituents. I went 
for a walk last weekend, and I ran across an old friend whose son is 
serving in Iraq today, and he has just been moved to Baghdad because we 
have stripped our forces from Al Anbar Province where they are needed 
to put them in Baghdad, because we have never had enough troops there 
to get the job done, the President has never been willing to do it. The 
mother of their child is also serving in Iraq, so they are essentially 
raising this 1-year-old.
  He asked me this question: Why isn't anyone in Congress insisting 
that the President get serious about telling the Iraqi Shiites to 
strike a deal about oil with the Sunnis so they can finally form a real 
government and our troops can come home? Why isn't there anybody in 
Congress asking that question?
  I said, Hal, I am happy to ask that question. He said, go do it. Be 
vocal about this. Make sure the administration gets their feet held to 
the fire, for my son and everybody else serving in Iraq.
  So we are doing this tonight. But, frankly, we need a new majority in 
this House to do it with hearings. That is what we really need.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Delahunt so eloquently 
pointed out, and has time and again, the Iraq Watch, which you four 
Members initiated along with Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Kucinich, has done 
a great job for the Nation.
  People often ask, why do you come down and speak in what is an empty 
Chamber? And my response is, out of love of country. It is for love of 
country that you get to ask the unwelcome questions to this 
administration. But in a one-party town where the administration 
controls every agency and both Houses of Congress, we can't penetrate 
through, except for all of those meetings that are taking place in town 
halls and at forums and now on the blogs, that people all across this 
country get it.
  Someone who has gotten it throughout his entire career and someone 
who has served his Nation out of love of country and a great city is 
Major Owens. I would like to recognize him at this time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the 
remarks that I have heard made by my colleagues, and I particularly 
think that the point relating to the oil needs to be stressed more.
  The American people are way out there ahead of us. We must run to 
catch up with them and provide greater leadership. We must focus in 
more on the problem of oil.
  What is the problem with the negotiations on oil? Why can't we take a 
position that the distribution of oil should be guaranteed on a per 
capita basis of oil throughout Iraq, so the Iraqi citizens get the oil 
on the basis of where they live?
  Also, understand, I don't know why we are so surprised, but there are 
two major religions in conflict there, Sunni and Shiite. They have 
always been in conflict. We have handed over that region to the 
Shiites, and it is inevitable that Iran will dominate that region. It 
is inevitable now that Iran will become a dominant force in the whole 
Middle East. We have done that. We blundered.
  We should still take John Murtha's advice and get out, redeploy to 
the friendly nations, whatever we have to do, but we should not be 
stuck with more lives lost and more of our taxpayer money down the 
drain.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  For the final word, our former senator and ambassador and now great 
Congresswoman from the City of Los Angeles, Diane Watson.
  Ms. WATSON. Very quickly, I want to thank you, Mr. Larson, for having 
us come to herald the fact that we are indulging in an unwinnable 
battle, because the war against terrorism is a war against an ideology, 
and the only way you are going to change an ideology is to change 
people's hearts and minds. You will never do that at the end of a 
barrel.
  Thank you so much for gathering us.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman from California, 
and my distinguished colleagues from Massachusetts and Washington 
State.

                          ____________________