[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 121 (Monday, September 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7339-H7345]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2245
                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the 
House once again. I want to thank the Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, 
and also the Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, Mr. James Clyburn and 
Mr. John Larson, who is our Vice Chair.
  I must say, there is so much to talk about tonight. Not only Members 
of Congress know there is serious business to discuss as it relates to 
the new revelations on what is happening in Iraq and the war in Iraq, 
but also I think it is a reflection on the lack of oversight here in 
this House.
  I think the American people need to be very concerned about what has 
not happened here on this floor, in committee, in subcommittees, and as 
it relates to the leadership making sure that our men and women in 
harm's way not only have what they need in the field, need it in 
Afghanistan, where they are undermanned and under gun at this 
particular time, but due to the training of Coalition Forces many are 
able to protect themselves, but they need more.
  In the war in Iraq, a number of unfortunate events are taking place 
on a daily basis. A number of Marines were lost over the weekend, and 
we are in our last week of session. I think that the lack of oversight 
and diplomacy at the same time has resulted in a new insurgence that 
has been created in Iraq.
  I must say that Karen D. Young of the Washington Post on Sunday wrote 
about this. I think it is important to read it. It was on the front 
page. I think it is important that Members pay close attention to that 
and provide the kind of oversight that is needed.
  I am glad to be joined by the 30-Something Working Group, Mr. Bill 
Delahunt, better known as Uncle Bill, Mr. Tim Ryan, who is still 
injured but on the floor because this is our last time before the 
election to be able to let the Members and the American people know 
what has not happened in this House. We are also joined by Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, who is my good friend and served in the district 
next to me in Florida.
  I yield to Congressman Delahunt.
  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

[[Page H7340]]

the remarks 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?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  You ask a very important question: What have we done?
  I think that answer came to us in the form of a third-party validator 
in the form of the New York Times on Sunday with the headline, ``Spy 
Agency Says Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat.'' The national 
intelligence estimate, which is a conglomerate report of all of the spy 
agencies that operate inside the U.S. Government, and they attribute 
literally a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than 
that presented in either White House documents or in a report released 
last Wednesday by our House Intelligence Committee. Essentially, it 
asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has 
metastasized, the words in the report, and spread across the globe.
  We are literally in a situation now where we have our good friends on 
the other side of the aisle trying desperately to articulate that they 
are stronger on national security when every day brings more and more 
bad news for them in terms of where we are versus where we were 5 years 
ago.
  If you recall, a couple of weeks ago we talked about on this floor 
everywhere we all went on September 11. Our constituents asked us, so 
are we safer? Are we safer this September 11 and beyond than we were on 
September 11 5 years ago?
  I have not seen a more damning assessment with a resounding ``no'' as 
an answer than this one.
  Add to that your question of what have we done. There are so many 
reports we could spend the entire hour just on the whole issue of the 
lack of troops that we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, the assessments 
that our military experts are doing and desperate messages that they 
appear to be sending to the administration that are going unheeded.
  One colonel said his unit equipment levels have fallen so low that 
they now had no tanks or other armored vehicles to use in training and 
that his soldiers were rated as largely untrained in attack and 
defense. That is one of our colonels fighting in Iraq. That is just 
absolutely inexcusable.
  It would be different under the Democrats. We would implement our 
real security plan. We would make sure that the equipment that our 
troops need would be funded and provided. We would make sure that we 
have a plan to get us through the war, make sure that we stand up to 
Iraqi troops and have a phased withdrawal of American troops, and that 
there would be an end in sight.
  Mr. Ryan, you said it so well the other day when you gave a very 
stark assessment of what is going on with the war in Iraq. I know you 
have some charts here that I am sure you will take us through. We have 
got to make sure that we focus both on security and getting a handle on 
the situation over there and getting a handle on the homeland security 
situation here that is also writhing in disarray inside our own 
borders.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is important. Again, this is a third-
party validation from the national intelligence estimate. This is not 
us talking.
  Time and time again we find out there are these other people that are 
giving us information. This is not information coming out of the 
Democratic Caucus, and I want to read some assessments that are almost 
unbelievable, things that we have been saying, but finally now the best 
and the brightest of the national security teams across the countries, 
the spy agencies, professionals in the business are saying this.
  They are saying that although the intelligence officials agree that 
the United States has damaged al Qaeda, which we have, probably through 
Afghanistan more so than Iraq, the original front that we all agreed 
on, that we disrupted their abilities to plan and direct major 
operations, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.
  We poured gasoline on a fire when we went into Iraq, and we need to 
make that point. Many of the new cells, the NIE conclude, have no 
connection to any central structure and arose independently. The 
members of the cells communicate only among themselves and derive their 
inspiration, ideology and tactics from the more than 5,000 radical 
Islamic Web sites. They spread the message that the war in Iraq is a 
western attempt to conquer Islam by first occupying Iraq and 
establishing a permanent presence in the Middle East.
  What we have to realize here and I think what the President needs to 
realize and the lack of oversight by the Republican Congress, what we 
need to realize here is that it is not our view that matters, it is 
what do they think? How do they see our response? If average people in 
the Middle East see us as being detrimental to their interest, their 
ideology spreads. So this attempt in Iraq has really poured gasoline on 
the fire. I think at the end of the day, it has made us less safe.

                              {time}  2300

  And it is not our saying it.
  I think we need to make this point very clearly. Is Saddam Hussein 
being gone a good thing? Yes. But overall, take a step back and look at 
the big picture. If you are creating thousands and thousands of more 
terrorists who are decentralized and spread across the world who are 
looking to hit the United States and make the bull's eye much bigger, I 
think it is important to say this administration clearly has made the 
United States less safe. And as citizens of this country, we can't be 
afraid to say that. They have made us less safe, period, dot, Mr. Meek. 
Less safe. Not me, not Kendrick Meek, not Debbie Wasserman Schultz, not 
Bill Delahunt, not  Nancy Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not Chuck Schumer, 
but independent professionals have made this assessment and said that 
the war in Iraq has made the country less safe.
  And even those people who said maybe it was a good idea to go in, it 
was the administration and the execution afterwards that has made us 
less safe because we went in there with no plan. We went in there 
without enough troops. We went in there and didn't do the job. We went 
in there without the proper approach to figure this whole thing out.
  And at the end of the day, it is not our saying it, and I take no 
pride in

[[Page H7341]]

saying that we are less safe now because our constitutional obligation, 
when we swear and put our hand up, is to make sure that we protect this 
country. I take no pride in this, but what we have to do is take this 
information and fix it. And the Republican majority has made no 
attempts to try to fix this.
  Everything has been politics, Mr. Delahunt. Everything has been, how 
do we smooth this over? How do we make this look good? How do we come 
out and stay the course and put a banner up ``Mission Accomplished''? 
And when that banner does not work, you put up another banner and then 
another banner, and you have people come to the floor. Things are not 
going well in Iraq. Let us admit that.
  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. I can tell you, Mr. Delahunt, and with Mr. Ryan 
being here, as we are both members of the Armed Services Committee, of 
course there hasn't been a hearing.
  Mr. Delahunt, if I may, I just want to top shelf my rubber stamp 
again. It would be going against the philosophy of the rubber-stamp 
Republican majority to have such a hearing because, A, it would be 
embarrassing for the administration, and at the same time, embarrassing 
for this Congress. Things have gotten so out of control to the point to 
where there is not a great discussion on new members of the coalition. 
Have you heard that recently, that we have new countries that are 
coming to the coalition in the war in Iraq? No. They are not. The only 
new members of the coalition in the war in Iraq are U.S. contractors 
that are there because they are the second largest force there.

  I think Mr. Ryan, when he pointed out this article that was in the 
Washington Post on Sunday by Karen DeYoung, I mean, there is a lot 
here, Mr. Speaker, even in the New York Times and even on television 
and even by active generals that are in the military now and those that 
are retired that are saying we need help, we need leadership.
  When the President and this Congress punts to the military commanders 
on diplomacy, we have General Casey over there being the State 
Department and the Defense Department at the same time. We have career 
service State Department employees that have trained their entire lives 
for working out these kinds of issues. And when we put forth proposals 
as it relates to redeployment, taking the training wheels off the Iraqi 
Government and the military, there are those on the other side saying 
``stay the course.'' Okay. Let us talk about staying the course.
  Mr. Ryan read something and I just want to read it again. It is out 
of this article. You can go on Washingtonpost.com. It is what it is. 
This is not something that we have put together. We have this National 
Intelligence Estimate that is a draft report, Mr. Delahunt, a draft. 
What is going to happen when the real report comes out after the 
November elections? Let me just read some of the things in the article. 
They are stating the obvious. I mean, are you tired? Do you need any 
more? That is obvious here, it is the obvious that they are stating 
here. More than 5,000 radical Islamic Web sites are spreading the 
message that the Iraq war is a Western attempt to take over Islam and 
establish a permanent presence in the Middle East. They are calling the 
United States crusaders because the President is saying ``stay the 
course.'' That is all he is saying, ``stay the course.'' By ourselves.
  Now, I just want to digress here for a minute to say that being on 
the Armed Services Committee, you have to pay attention to what is 
happening in the

[[Page H7342]]

committee. We get our staff that writes reports even on meetings when 
the staff attends staff meetings, and I just remember yesterday, after 
the elections, the administration and our top commanders in Iraq and a 
number of members of the majority said, oh, yes, we will be able to 
take the troop levels down after the election. Yes, we will send a 
number of people back home. General Abizaid came out just a week ago, 
last week, and said that we have 147,000 troops in Iraq right now and 
maybe, maybe by the spring we will send 7,000 back.
  Now, I am going to tell you this right now, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Ryan. I am no prophet and I am definitely 
not a psychic, but I am going to tell you this: if you keep doing the 
same thing expecting different results, it is not going to get us to 
where we need to be. This is the outfit, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as I 
close, that said that we are going looking for weapons of mass 
destruction, that there are weapons of mass destruction out there. So 
under the administration when it was proven wrong, they then flipped 
the script and said, well, now it is the war, the war on terror, the 
global war on terror.
  This is a war in Iraq. The war on terror is in Afghanistan. And this 
report, it is not a Democratic report. These are intelligence 
clandestine experts that are career service individuals that have said 
that we have more terror and it is an incubator for terrorism 
throughout the world.

                              {time}  2315

  So I think it is very, very important that we take note of this. And 
it is very, very important that we do not take this lightly.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, this is not something as it relates to the 
Democrats proving a point. This is not about proving a point. This is 
about America. This is about the United States of America. This is 
about the safety of United States citizens and those that live within 
the borders of the United States and those that are abroad of our 
future, and better yet this administration is saying, stay the course 
with very little or no oversight
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you are absolutely right, Mr. Meek. And we 
have our interests and we have our intelligence experts saying that 
staying the course is the wrong approach because we are getting worse 
not better in terms of the results that we are getting over there.
  We have our military experts, our generals, that I know Mr. Delahunt 
has the commentary from the generals that ran the operations in Iraq 
lined up and ready to walk us through. We try to talk about this. This 
is not, you know, it would be very easy for us to come out on the floor 
and talk about what Debbie Wasserman Schultz's opinion is, Kendrick 
Meek's, Tim Ryan, Bill Delahunt, we are citing the experts, the 
intelligence experts, the military experts.
  Mr. Delahunt, I want you, if you would not mind, to go through that. 
I want to read the opinion of one soldier who communicated my office. 
This is an e-mail that I got from a soldier in Iraq fighting in Baghdad 
now. I want to read you his opinion because he is there.
  He says, ``In truth every day we are over here we become weaker and 
they become stronger, Taliban too. It is not getting worse in the sense 
of more violence and stuff like that, it is getting worse in the minds 
of those over here and those who are going to have to come back over 
here. We are not doing anything over here. The bad guys just have to 
kill one American every couple of days, and that is all they have to do 
to keep things'' expletive deleted.
  ``We could kill hundreds a day and it would not matter. The longer we 
stay the worse it gets. Think about it like this, when Americans came 
back from fighting World War II people said, `thank you for fighting.' 
When people come back from Iraq, people say, `I am so sorry you had to 
do that.'
  They feel pity. Take from that what you will. Whether the Democrats 
or the Republicans are in the White House in a year and a half, America 
is in a seriously bad situation. What happened to Russia after they 
failed in Afghanistan, not to say that that will happen to us, but the 
fact of the matter is that we are a lot worse off than we were 6 years 
ago, a lot worse off.''
  Now that is pretty damning from a soldier on the ground who is 
obviously a patriot and who is doing everything he can to protect 
American interests and to protect the interests of the democracy, the 
fledgling democracy that has been created by hook or by crook over 
there.
  But, let's take that one step further. And look at this chart, Mr. 
Delahunt, and then I would like to yield to you. But let's follow up on 
what this young soldier's opinion is from a snapshot of his on the 
ground, to the reality of our withdrawing from Afghanistan.
  We have the rhetoric versus the reality. We have joined with the 
Afghan people to bring down the Taliban regime, the protectors of the 
al-Qaeda network, and aided a new Democratic government to rise in its 
place. That is the Republican rhetoric.
  The reality is that the national--that is the rhetoric called the 
National Security Strategy of the United States, March 16, 2006. Here 
is the reality on the ground. From 2001 to 2003, the number of Taliban 
attacks amounted to 22.
  From 2004 to 2006 the number of Taliban attacks amounted to 284. How 
about the number of suicide attacks from 2001 to 2004? Nine. The number 
of suicide attacks from 2005 to 2006? Sixty-four. This is in 
Afghanistan, we are not talking about Iraq.
  Goal for numbers of NATO and U.S. trained soldiers in the Afghan 
army? 70,000. The number of trained soldiers in the Afghan army: About 
26,900.
  How about the number of hectares, which is an area, in Afghanistan 
devoted to poppy cultivation in 1999? 51,500. Hectares in Afghanistan 
devoted to poppy cultivation in 2005? 107,000, more than double.
  Estimated opium produced from Afghanistan's crop? 4,475 metric tons, 
and the percent of global opiate supply originating in Afghan is 90 
percent.
  But let's stay the course, Mr. Delahunt. Let's keep going in the same 
direction and repeating the same mistakes.
  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

[[Page H7343]]

being 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. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is so important that we keep going back 
to this national intelligence estimate that was done by over a dozen 
professionals who have been involved in this field, Republican and 
Democrat, overseen by Republicans.
  It says, ``The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement 
has expanded,'' and this is very important, ``it has expanded from a 
core of al-Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new 
class of self-generating cells inspired by al-Qaeda's leadership, but 
without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top 
lieutenants.''
  So what we have done, so what we have done is we have spread this, 
diffused this radical ideology into self-generating cells that will be 
able to look, assess, and potentially attack the United States in a 
very decentralized way, which makes it even more difficult for us to 
try to combat it.
  Now, this is another quote from the article. I believe this is the 
New York Times article. ``In early 2005, the National Intelligence 
Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary 
training ground for the next generation of terrorists.'' So it is now a 
training ground, it is now a practice field for new terrorists, ``and 
that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake al-Qaeda's 
current leadership in the constellation of the global Jihad 
leadership.''
  We now are creating competing interests between al-Qaeda and these 
veterans of the Iraq war. We have turned this into a way for these 
terrorists to go to Iraq and basically become decorated in their way in 
this own demented movement that they have. And we all agree that it is 
demented and it does not make any sense, and they are fanatics and 
everything else.
  But what we are trying to do is say, let's be smart about this. And 
their approach has caused us more grief, created more terrorists, and 
put us at more risk. The United States is less safe today than we were 
a few years ago because of the way this administration has conducted 
this war.
  Now, if we had got rid of Saddam Hussein, and that would have been 
it, and we would have secured Iraq and built this democracy there, that 
is one thing. But that did not happen. Now we have a Secretary of 
Defense, it finally comes out that he said, the next person that asks 
me about a post-war plan will be fired.
  So we have got an estimate saying that this war is actually increased 
the number of terrorists, and then at the same time, and we know part 
of it is because it has taken so long to secure the country. Then we 
found out the Secretary of Defense said, well, the next person that 
asks for a post-war plan is going to be fired. Wrong.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It just does not have to be this way. We have 
a real security plan that we will implement. After November 7, our 
Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, who will be the Speaker, who will be the 
Speaker of this House of Representatives, talks about in the first 100 
hours, we will pass legislation that will implement the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations.
  That we will make sure that we provide our troops with the equipment 
that they need, that we will provide the region with the number of 
troops necessary to get the job done so that we can stand the Iraqi 
troops up and withdraw our troops, and make sure that we begin to 
withdraw from the region and develop a plan to make sure that it can 
sustain itself.
  It is just mind boggling that they support a stay the course concept. 
We have got to implement the plan that is going to work, instead of 
continuing down this path to absolute chaos.
  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.

                              {time}  2330

  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,

[[Page H7344]]

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.''

[[Page H7345]]

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

                              {time}  2345

  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.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Could you give the web site, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something. 
Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something.

                          ____________________