Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I can take the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), but I certainly cannot replace the leader of our group which we call the ``30-somethings.'' I happen to be the ``something'' of that 30-something group.

I am sure that the younger members of the group will join me soon, but they are out right now. If they are watching, I hope they come soon to the floor, where we can talk about the problems with our economy, and clearly there are many. But as I sat here listening to the previous speakers, who are members of the House International Relations Committee, I feel compelled to speak to their remarks.

I think the gentlelady who chairs the Middle East Subcommittee spoke about the unified government that now sits in Iraq. Well, her understanding and my understanding of the term ``unified'' I would suggest are irreconcilable.

The Iraqi parliament since it was constituted has been unable to agree on hardly any issue. In fact, they have entered into a particularly fractious moment where the continued existence of the government is in some doubt.

But what I find interesting is the only issue that they have agreed on, and it is important to understand that there is some 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, is a resolution condemning the State of Israel for defending itself.

The language that the Iraqi Parliament used in that resolution was condemning the criminal aggression of the State of Israel in defending itself.

Now, clearly we can have a debate on the relationships in the Middle East where we can have differences and we can educate and inform each other, but to say that there is a unified government in Iraq today is simply inaccurate. It is not true. It is very problematic, and both speakers and their colleagues and friends of mine continue to make references to Iran and how we need to have a strong, democratic Iraq to help us as we attempt to navigate the shoals of the political realities in the Middle East.

But the problem is what is not spoken about, at least in this Chamber, on this night, is the fact of a growing warm relationship between Iraq and Iran, not the United States and Iraq, but Iraq and Iran.

Mr. Speaker, this is irrefutable. There are some in the Iraqi Parliament today who are stridently adversarial to the United States. Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite leader, who has at his disposal a militia that is called Ahmadi Army, has 30 members of that 275-member body who are loyal to him. And maybe it has been forgotten, but it was the United States military that sought to apprehend him on the charges of murder some several years ago.

We cannot make it up, Mr. Speaker. We have to speak the truth, the unvarnished truth, and stringing together platitudes about democracy does not cut it, Mr. Speaker.

What is the reality today in Iraq? Well, this photo to my right speaks to that reality. To the far right is the Prime Minister of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, and with him is the President of Iran who spoke yesterday in the United Nations, spoke in the United States in New York at the U.N., who I hear many in this Chamber demonize, and with some cause. He is a Holocaust denier, but who he is shaking hands with, Mr. Speaker? He is shaking hands with the Prime Minister of Iraq.

And by the way, Mr. Speaker, we invited the Prime Minister of Iraq to come and address the United States Congress, which he did right in this very Chamber, and a week or two later he is in Tehran, shaking hands with the President of Iran. Now, that is not the full story, Mr. Speaker. There is more. There is much more.

Now, I am not suggesting that there is an alliance yet between Iraq and Iran, but do not let it go unnoticed that many in the current government in Iraq spent years in exile in Tehran. There are relationships between many of the political figures in both of these countries. Let us not continue to paint this rosy scenario that simply is inaccurate. It is not true. I am not suggesting anyone is intentionally misleading, but these are the facts. This is the picture.

Now, one might say, well, they are neighbors and there has to be some rapport that benefits everybody. I do not necessarily disagree with that; but go back to 1980-1988, they were 8 years at war, Mr. Speaker, a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Iraq and Iran were bitter enemies, and today, Mr. Speaker, we have a handshake; but, like I said, we have much more.

The Iranians, not the Americans, Mr. Speaker, but the Iranians are building an international airport near Najaf, which is a major Shiite city in southern Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian Government is providing $1 billion worth of credits to the private sector in Iraq.

But this is the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae, Mr. Speaker. Iraq and Iran, which dominates the conversation here in Washington, which is part of the front-page news daily in this country, Iraq and Iran have consummated a bilateral military cooperation agreement, Mr. Speaker. Can anybody explain that? I cannot explain it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot. I cannot figure that out.

But what I do see is the reality of almost 3,000 American soldiers dead in Iraq, in excess of 20,000 wounded, many of whom are severely wounded, whose lives are forever impaired by some permanent disability. I see the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' hard-earned income in Iraq. And what is the progress that I see, Mr. Speaker? Well, I see the handshake, I see this relationship, and I see a bilateral military cooperation agreement, Mr. Speaker. Can you or somebody from the majority side please explain what that is all about?

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information came to me from the Congressional Research Service, and Mr. Speaker, realize that that service is a

bipartisan agency, created by Congress to provide Members unvarnished, factual information.

So we stand here on the floor and we talk about how good it is and we are for democracy, but you know what, Mr. Speaker? What kind of democracy are we getting at the cost of thousands of lives of American soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars from the hard-earned income of the American taxpayer? Is this what we are getting? Does this serve our national interests? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I do not know. But I have to tell you something. I do not think anybody in this body knows, and that is an indictment, Mr. Speaker, on the wall of this institution because the majority party ought to have insisted, in the course of the exercise of its oversight role and responsibility, on answers to these very simple questions. But oh no, let us ignore them and get up and talk about democracy.

My friend from Michigan, a very erudite, very thoughtful gentleman, has an interesting view of history, is conversant with history, and history gives us context, but to ignore what the reality is on the ground, I see my friend from Florida walked in. I want to welcome him. I know he has had a busy evening. It is good to have Mr. Meek here finally.

I am not really delivering a positive message. What I am is expressing a concern about the lack of oversight and the lack of accountability or calling to account the actions of this administration by this Republican Congress. We have a right to know. It is a debt that is owed us. It is a debt of blood and hundreds of billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker.

There is a long list of emerging relationships and agreements between these two countries. Iran and Iraq just recently signed a memorandum of understanding, under which pipelines would be constructed to allow Iran to import Iraqi crude oil from Basra. Under the agreement, Iran is to finance the three pipelines that will be built to implement the agreement. Again, this is from a report from the Congressional Research Service dated June 14, 2006. That is before the famous handshake.

To say or suggest that things are going well in Afghanistan, Mr. Speaker, is a disconnect from reality, and the American people deserve the absolute, full truth as to what the reality is.

Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing today in International Relations. Its focus was Afghanistan. It was extremely disturbing, Mr. Speaker, because 5 years later, Afghanistan is heading quickly in the wrong direction.

President Bush says we are winning the war on terror. And I will stipulate not on Iraq, but our invasion of Iraq, which I and every other Members of Congress voted for, was about the war on terror. Well, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to win the war on terror, we need to change Commanders in Chief and have a Congress that will hold these people responsible, because I will tell you something, we are doing everything to lose Afghanistan. It has become a narcostate. In the year 2001, there were 73 tons of opium, which is used to make heroin. This past year, there were 6,100 tons of poppy and opium.

If the gentleman would yield for just a minute. I was here listening to several of our colleagues on the other side speak about these various issues, and I just felt the need to put out what the realities are rather than simply talk in terms that are hopeful and optimistic, but in a world apart from what the reality is.

If this administration is sincere, of course it is, about winning the war on terror, there has to be a dramatic change in direction. Listen to this just for one moment, if you would. If you would, Mr. Meek.

This is in contrast to what was said earlier here on the floor: United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. Afghanistan faces its highest levels of violence and corruption since its liberation. Drug money continues to finance terrorism. That failure, coupled with the aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threatens to destroy Afghanistan's democracy, a free government that Americans and coalition forces have died to support.

Mr. Meek, Mr. Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the words of the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry Hyde, in a letter that he sent this week to President Bush.

So please don't come down to this floor and paint a rosy picture. We are in trouble. The world is in trouble. And if we are going to win the war on terror, we have got to change direction and develop a strategy that will accomplish that after 5 years. It is 5 years since 9/11, and Afghanistan is back to ground zero.

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

game against the Capitol Police, and Mr. Ryan went down fairly quickly, I understand.

Mr. Meek, let me interrupt one more time.

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

And that is the result.

If I may offer another theory, another hypothesis. It is about politics. It is about retaining power.

What happened in the Committee on the Judiciary today was on the issue of the detainees. The President has come out with a proposal and that proposal was summarily rejected by three prominent U.S. Senators, all Republican. One was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, John Warner; John McCain, who was imprisoned during Vietnam for years, who understood what it means to serve his country in the most dire of circumstances, and exit a hero; and Lindsey Graham, a lawyer who served in the military as a military lawyer; because they understood that if the President's proposal is accepted, it will put at risk American service personnel.

And what we did today, in effect, was to turn our back and not listen, not just to them, but more than 40 retired generals, admirals, men and women who have served this country, including the former Chief of Staff of the Joint Chiefs, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said this is a mistake in a letter endorsing the proposal to John McCain.

Yes.

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

Again, I would say that I think what is being revealed to the American people is that this administration is really driven by politics.

We hear now about immigration and border protection, but for 6 years they have been the majority in this body, they have been the majority in the Senate and have owned the White House, they had an opportunity to vote and to support Democratic proposals which would have strengthened border security. And a comparison, I think, is in order here right now.

The average number of new Border Patrol agents that were added per year during the Clinton administration was 642; during the Bush administration, 411. Immigration fraud cases that were completed in 1995, almost 6,500; in 2003, on the average, 1,300.

And what I find particularly fascinating is those cases that were filed against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, in 1999 there were some 417. In 2004, there were three.

The reality is the resources were never provided to enforce the existing laws that would have served us well, and now we are hearing about border protection. There is no other conclusion that one can reasonably reach other than it is great politics in an election year to energize the so-called base. But it is not fair to the American people on an issue that really needs to be debated in a respectful and civil way and analyzed appropriately.

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.

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

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?

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.

Do you know what is happening in Iraq, according to military personnel? They are telling us, in

reports that appear in the media, that it is unraveling in Iraq. But the Prime Minister has time to go to Iran, and, actually now, Iran is giving the Prime Minister some advice.

What he is suggesting is, everything will be good, the region will be stabilized. Let's just get the Americans out. That is his answer.

After hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of more than 2,600 American personnel, this is where we are at: Mission accomplished, Mr. President. Right. Mission accomplished by finally doing what you said you would do. But you missed the wrong country. It isn't this country that you are uniting. You are dividing this country and uniting Iran and Iraq in a situation that portends danger for American national security. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

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?

I am sure that yesterday in New York had to be an experience that was poignant and emotional, but I think it is important to set the record straight, because 9/11 was a significant historical event in American history, and I think we have to credit the families of the victims of 9/11 for insisting upon the creation of an independent commission, a commission that was bipartisan, that issued a report that I think clearly most Americans would embrace as accurate and factual.

And it is really unfortunate that the majority of recommendations made by that distinguished group have not been implemented. That is why when we hear a discussion about the war on terror and what kind of action, or let me rephrase that, how we are doing in terms of defeating terrorism, if one looks at the report card subsequently issued by the 9/11 Commission, we note failures and poor grades. And I think it really is unfortunate in light of the spirit you described when the country was united, when in fact the whole world was united in support of the United States.

I am sure you remember the controversies that erupted about a year or 2 afterward between France and the United States. I always note that it was the French paper of record, Le Monde, that had as its headline ``Today We Are All Americans,'' and how that support, that political support has dissipated, has gone. Now we have a country, our own country, where there is a legitimate question as to whether we are being successful in advancing our national security interests in terms of terrorism.

If the gentleman would yield for a minute, and I know that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz will engage, but, you know, what the administration has attempted to do is to confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq. They are totally different.

I think it is very important to note that almost unanimously this House voted to support military action against the Taliban government that existed in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan because they allowed Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda group to train. And they provided Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda group to utilize their territory as a safe haven for attacks against the United States of America on September 11. That is irrefutable.

And where are we today in terms of Afghanistan? Let me tell you where we are today. If you just bear with me for a moment, the Taliban is resurging. Just today, September 12, a letter was circulated by the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, a senior Member of this House, the well-respected gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde. This is a letter that he and another colleague, a Republican, Mark Kirk, also of Illinois, sent to the President:

``United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing.'' I'm quoting from that letter: ``Drug money continues to finance terrorism. That failure, coupled with the aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threaten to destroy Afghanistan's nascent democracy, a free government that Americans and coalition forces have died to support. To succeed in Afghanistan, we need to change our failing strategies.''

Let me submit this as exhibit A in terms of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan where, back before 9/11, al Qaeda trained and was provided a safe haven by the Taliban government that we defeated. It would appear that we only defeated them temporarily because now they are back and we have a British general, Brigadier General Brooks, the head of the NATO contingent there, saying send help quickly or we will lose the moment.

This is being reported today, 5 years after 9/11. The threat of terrorism is greater today than it was on 9/11 and before 9/11, and we left Afghanistan because it was an obsession on the part of this administration to attack Iraq, and we have been mired in Iraq since the invasion in 2003.

And do you know what we have achieved in Iraq, Mr. Meek? Ms. Wasserman Schultz? I think a picture says more than I can say. Let me put this poster so you can both see it with your eyes.

Mr. Meek, do you recognize this gentleman?

Would you tell me who he is?

The President of Iran.

Do you know who the gentleman is next the too him?

Do you know when this picture was taken? This picture was taken today, today. So with the loss of almost 2,700 American military personnel, Madam Speaker, in the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars, what is the reality in the region today?

There is the reality in the Middle East today. Take a good look. The Prime Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister of Iran with their hands firmly grasping each other. Need we say anything more?

What I am suggesting is the greatest beneficiary of the military invasion of Iraq by the United States is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Madam Speaker, you must remember, of course, when the President of the United States in his State of the Union address came to this floor and said there is an axis of evil club out there, and it is Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Well, you know what? I hope the American people take a good look at this picture.

The people in this country need to vote for a Congress that will ask those questions. How did we get him? How did we arrive here?

What is very interesting is that you talk about civil war. There was a story recently, and I had it with me, that described interviews with American soldiers on the ground, not generals, back in headquarters, and testifying before House and Senate committees, but the troops on the ground, and I will find the quote, because there were several of them, that said, there is a civil war going on and we are in the middle of it.

But, if I may, if I may, this picture, it explains it so well, and it explains the report, for example, from a highly respected British think tank.

If I just might take a few seconds just to read certain extracts: ``The Royal Institute of International Affairs concludes that 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. Chatham House argues that the greatest problem,'' listen to this carefully, please, my friends, ``the greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded it,'' meaning the United States, ``as the most influential power in Iraq.''

Their conclusion is that ``in today's Iraq, Iran has more influence than the United States. This influence has a variety of forms, but all can be turned against the U.S. presence in Iraq with relative ease and it almost certainly would heighten U.S. casualties to the point where a continued presence might not be tenable.''

This is where we find ourselves today because of the misguided policies and the obsession with war in Iraq that was embraced by this administration, by the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense.

And today, today, what happened in the conversation between the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq? Well, here is what happened. This is the news report that goes with this photograph: ``Iran offered on Tuesday to help establish security and stability in Iraq after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki held talks in Tehran on his first official visit. `We will give our full assistance to the Iraqi government to establish security in Iraq. Strengthening security in Iraq means strengthening security and stability in the region,' Ahmadinejad told a joint news conference after their meeting. The two sides signed an agreement covering these areas.

``The Prime Minister of Iraq had this to say: `This visit will be useful for cooperation between Iran and Iraq in all political, economic, and,''' listen carefully my friends, ``'security fields.

``Tomorrow Mr. Maliki meets with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, and influential former President Rafsanjani on Wednesday.''

What we see here I would suggest is a new relationship, let's call it an alliance, between Iran and Iraq. Remember, these two countries have signed a military cooperation agreement between themselves. Iranians are building a pipeline from Basra to Iran.

Can I just suggest, just on those two items alone, I would submit that that is disgraceful.

That is the only adjective that comes to mind.

But they are really tough on the borders.

They talk tough.

About a third less; is that fair?

If I could ask a question because I just find this stunning. How many enforcement actions against employers were brought in the year 2000 by the Bush administration?

My math might not be good but that is less than 1 percent.

Less than 1 percent. And this is the crowd, this is the crowd that is talking about border enforcement. We have to enforce our borders. But the truth is that there is a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of hot air, and when it comes down to doing it, Democrats have stood tall and have been willing to put the resources into doing exactly that.

We are glad you made it.

If the gentleman would yield for just a moment.

I think we have got to underscore that the former Speaker was the leader when he served here of the Republican Party.

I have reviewed that particular interview with General Scheid. He goes on to say: ``Just as we were getting into Afghanistan, Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq.'' Scheid remembers thinking, My gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanistan. How can we possibly be doing two at one time? How could we pull this off? It's just going to be too much. The Secretary of Defense continued to push us that everything we write in our plan has to be with the idea that we're going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave.

You know, to think that the President has not demanded from the Secretary of Defense his resignation I think is a statement of arrogance, a statement that the American people are being insulted. And I hear this frequently: If this were done in the private sector, how long would the head or a CEO of an agency the size of the Department of Defense be allowed to continue? I mean, we all know that answer. That is a rhetorical question.

And yet on Sunday, on Sunday we have the Vice President of the United States being interviewed by Tim Russert, and this is what he has to say. Talk about an incapacity to embrace reality and to be honest with the American people. Knowing all that he knows, in retrospect, he concludes that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do; and if we had to do it over again, we would do exactly the same. Russert poses the question: Exactly the same thing? ``Yes, sir.''

I mean, we're refereeing a civil war. Reports are coming out of the Pentagon that western Iraq, we are about to lose western Iraq. This is the intelligence that is provided by a highly respected Marine colonel, and yet this

crowd, these men have the hubris to stand before the American people and say that they would do the same thing again despite what we have learned, despite reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee that unequivocally say that they were wrong when they talked about al Qaeda and links with Saddam Hussein. And even as recently as August 21, the President infers that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi. And the Senate Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan way says that is not the case. Do they think that we are stupid?

But the tragedy is that our colleagues on the other side in the Republican majority refuse to ask those questions, refuse to insist that they come before the congressional committees and answer to these charges made by military personnel, by colonels, by generals, by boots on the ground that have been there and fought there for their country. That is arrogance.

But we left too early.

They are training.

And they are going back.

We won't find ourselves in the same position that Chairman Hyde and Congressman Kirk now discover with their letter of last week asking the President to change the strategy when it comes to Afghanistan.

It is 5 years after 9/11, and they both said United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. That is what the Republicans are saying 5 years after 9/11.

Now we are going to have a visit once more from presumably the President of Afghanistan and we are going to hear the same words and the same rhetoric that we have heard, but we know what the reality is, and that is that the safe harbor and the genesis of where the attacks were planned and fomented and those individuals who attacked the United States train in Afghanistan, that our enemy there, the Taliban, are coming back.

We won't let that happen because we will be asking the questions all along. If it requires one hearing every week on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and what is happening, we will do it. As Mr. Meek said, we will roll up our sleeves and get the job done because I think if anyone looks at this picture and reads the reports, the American people deserve some answers because the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq when asked at a joint press conference following their talks today about allegations that Iran was interfering in Iraq, the Prime Minister of Iraq said there is no obstacle in the way of implementing agreements between Iran and Iraq.

And the President of Iran responded by saying we consider Iraq's progress, independence and territorial integrity as our own. He also said that Iran hoped the United States will leave Iraq soon.

This is the President of Iran. He goes on to say that the triple strength and bilateral relationship Iran and Iraq as two brotherly neighbors will stand by each other and unwanted guests, and that's the U.S. Coalition, will leave the region, he said. The Prime Minister of Iraq described the talks as very constructive and called Iran a very important country, a good friend, and a brother.

Can somebody tell me what is happening? Are we seeing the emergence of an alliance that presumably would be detrimental to the interest of the United States?

What does the President say about this particular photo opportunity? Do you know, Mr. Meek or Ms. Wasserman Schultz? What is the position of the administration? Maybe the Prime Minister of Iraq can serve as our interlocutor with Iran on their uranium enrichment program because we are not talking to the Iranians. We don't talk to them and they don't talk to us because we sided with Saddam Hussein in that war that lasted from 1980 to 1988.

Do you recognize this gentleman? That's Saddam Hussein? And you know who is shaking hands with him? That is Secretary Rumsfeld. That picture was taken in the early 1980s because Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, he was the special envoy from the Reagan-Bush administration to Saddam Hussein.

But now we have a new picture. We have a picture of the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq. What have we done? Can anybody answer the question?

We know this, those questions will never get asked as long as the Republican Party is the majority party in Congress.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think, tragically, and I mean this sincerely, tragically those of us who spoke out early against the invasion in Iraq, because we believed that there was not significant evidence which established that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States and our allies, we have been proven to be correct.

Tim Bishop, our colleague from New York, used the term ``abandoned.'' Accusations have been made that some who have criticized the competence and the rationale of this administration regarding Iraq have ``abandoned'' the war on terror. That is patently false. That is untrue. There is no relationship between the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Now, let me put forth a hypothesis: this administration abandoned the war against terror in a very real way when we were distracted by the neoconservative vision of invading Iraq, because the consequence of the invasion of Iraq was in a large degree the diversion of those assets and initiatives that were necessary to secure Afghanistan, where al Qaeda had been harbored, where al Qaeda thrived, and where there was an opportunity to apprehend Osama bin Laden.

But, no, we were more interested in Saddam Hussein, who was an archenemy of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein an apostate, an infidel, an enemy of his version, his perverted version, of Islam. In fact, in 1994, it was Osama bin Laden who approached the Saudi royal family and suggested they combine forces and depose Saddam Hussein because he was an apostate; he was a defiler of Islam.

So what do we have today? We have a situation in Afghanistan where the headlines now read: ``A Resurgence of the Taliban.'' That government that harbored and gave support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, they are coming back. Another headline in the past 2 days, the British general who heads the NATO deployment in Afghanistan made this plea: ``I need more troops or we will lose Afghanistan.''

So who abandoned the war on terror? Who abandoned the war on terror? Do not confuse the war in Iraq and the war on terror. We all have an obligation to educate ourselves about the differences, the nuances, the realities on the ground. This is too important. This is about our future, and this is about the future of American generations far into the next decades.

I know my colleague from Maryland who has joined us, Chris Van Hollen, has a specific interest in Afghanistan. What is happening today in Afghanistan is a disgraceful example of the incompetence and the legacy of this administration's policy by going into Iraq.

And what have we achieved? We have achieved a resurgence of the Taliban and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan. By the way, what else we have achieved is we have created a new superpower in the region, Iran. Because while we are standing here discussing among ourselves this region in the world, let it be very clear to the American people that there is an emerging warm relationship between Iran and the new government in Iraq. Do your homework, and you will discover that there is a bilateral military cooperation agreement that exists today between Iraq and Iran.

I voted, and, again, with one exception out of 435 Members, there was a unanimous vote here in this Chamber, bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats and Independent, to go to Afghanistan and destroy al Qaeda and find Osama bin Laden and apprehend him.

I have this vivid memory of the day after 9/11, a headline that appeared in the paper of record in France that said: ``We Are All Americans Today.'' We had support in every corner of the world for what we were doing. We would have succeeded in the war on terror by now. But, no. But, no. We invaded Iraq, and clearly that has created implications for our national security.

If I may just for one moment, and I am not alone when I say this, it is interesting, today in the Wall Street Journal a former Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who succeeded in securing a majority for the Republican Party in this House in 1994, was quoted. Remember, this is a Republican, a leader. The speculation is that he is considering running for the Presidency in 2008.

This is what Newt Gingrich had to say. Just consider the following: ``Osama bin Laden is still at large.'' I agree. ``Afghanistan is still insecure.'' I would suggest that it is unraveling. ``Iraq is still violent.'' 3,000 deaths a month. ``North Korea and Iran are still building nuclear weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still occurring in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.''

Those are Newt Gingrich's words, today, in the Wall Street Journal.

Well, if one reviews the memoir of Paul O'Neill, former Republican Secretary of the Treasury, who served in this Bush administration for 2 years, and in that capacity was a member of the National Security Council, you will discover that he was as surprised as anyone when 10 days after this President was inaugurated at a National Security Council meeting, there was a discussion about Iraq and the need to remove Saddam Hussein who, about 6 weeks later on February 22 of 2001, months before 9/11, there was a meeting when Secretary Rumsfeld had a map of the oil fields in Iraq spread out on a table.

The discussion, it was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, and there was a discussion about how those oil fields would be divvied up between nations and various big oil companies.

If I can just go back to a point made by Tom Allen. The lack of accountability, the abrogation, if you will, of this body's constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight.

We serve on different committees. I happen to be the senior Democrat, the ranking member, on a subcommittee of International Relations that is entitled Oversight and Investigations. We have not held one serious hearing relative to Iraq in the past 2 years. And I know that, prior to that, for the past 5 years, Iraq has been off the chart in terms of the committee's considerations. You don't talk about it unless there is good news.

What I wanted to do was to bring before the committee, not Secretary Rumsfeld because we have heard enough from him. He is an F. He flunked. But I wanted to bring before the committee the men that lead our military and have served in the course of their service to this country in roles implicating Iraq, in some cases very directly in Iraq.

Not one of these men have ever been invited to any committee in the Congress so that we would have an opportunity to hear what they had to say.

So one by one, they felt compelled to speak out themselves and educate us and the American people as to the truth and the reality of Iraq and the incompetence of this administration and most specifically Donald Rumsfeld.

Let me just review a few.

Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, he is the top operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was involved in the planning. He is Commanding General, First Marine Division, with Legion of Merit, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medals. He is a highly decorated, well- respected general. He did not seek a promotion because he felt compelled to leave. Here is what he had to say.

``What we are living with now are the consequences of successive policy failures.'' He said that this year.

Major General Paul Eaton, who was given the responsibility but not the resources to train Iraqi security forces, and we know what a joke that has been, here is what he had to say, ``Two and a half more years of that leadership,'' he was referring to Donald Rumsfeld and the civilian leadership, ``two and a half more years of that leadership was too long for my Nation, for my Army, and for my family.'' What an indictment. What an indictment.

Lieutenant General John Riggs, ``They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda.'' When it satisfies their agenda, that is when they would call in a general and say, This is our agenda, what do you think, General?

And then General Wesley Clark, ``They pressed for open warfare before the diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It was a strategic blunder.''

Mr. Speaker, a community is gathering to remember a young man who died far away from his home of Eastham on Cape Cod, in a place made infamous through the fury of war. Today, he returns to the place of his youth, to be mourned and to rest forever where peace holds its gentle sway.

Army Sergeant Mark Vecchione was the typical, all-American kid who had a fear of spiders, but confessed his greatest weakness was seeing a little kid upset. He went to Iraq, not as part of a conquering Army, but to help establish that fundamental human value that all people everywhere--especially children--should never have to live in fear.

As the Bible tells us, ``Blessed is the peacemaker; for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are those who mourn; for they shall be comforted.'' SGT Vecchione was a soldier determined to bring peace to a war-torn land. Now he is in a place to join with Him to bring some comfort to those who gather to mourn his passing.

I ask that all of my colleagues in the House take a moment to read the following commentary that recently appeared in the Cape Cod Times about this young man.

[From the Cape Cod Times]

First Cape Soldier Killed in Iraq

(By Robin Lord and Jason Kolnos)

Cynthia DesLauriers and her daughter, Lori Vecchione, were

sitting on their deck in the evening breeze Tuesday when a

government car pulled up to the house. At first, DesLauriers,

who is a front desk clerk at the Eastham Post Office, thought

it was someone from the U.S. Postal Service. But, when men in

military uniforms stepped out, DesLauriers knew her worst

fears had been realized.

``They didn't even have to say anything. I just said, `No,

no, no, it's not happening,' '' she said yesterday, a little

more than 12 hours after she learned her only son and

youngest child, Mark Vecchione, 25, had been killed in Iraq.

The Army sergeant, who had written on his personal

myspace.com Web page that ``getting home alive'' was his No.

1 goal this year, died Tuesday somewhere in Iraq.

He was killed when the tank he was riding in ran over an

``improvised explosive device'' or IED. As the head gunner in

the tank, he may have been riding halfway out of the vehicle

when it was hit, according to what an Army official told his

mother, The Army official did not reveal the exact location

of his death or his body to DesLauriers, or any other details

surrounding his death, pending an investigation and

report, she said.

Vecchione died exactly two weeks after he had returned to

Iraq from a short leave with his family in Eastham.

He was on his second tour of duty in Iraq, which was due to

end in six months.

Although Vecchione moved to Tucson, Ariz., when he was a

junior in high school to live with his now deceased father,

Guy Vecchione, he is the first person who was born and raised

on Cape Cod to die in the war that began more than three

years ago.

``If you were going to go to war, you'd want to go with

him,'' said Al Cestaro, a retired sergeant in the Army's

501st Airborne Division, who has known Vecchione since

kindergarten in Eastham.

Cestaro called his friend ``selfless and kind.'' As an Army

sergeant, he said Vecchione had ``an undying dedication to

his soldiers.''

Vecchione was honored to be serving his country, Cestaro

said.

``We all knew as soldiers the price of freedom is you have

to see your friends die, or you die. But he didn't want to

die any other way than knowing he was protecting his

family.''

When Vecchione re-enlisted after his first tour of duty,

Cestaro said he asked him why he wanted to go back to the

dangers and the horrors of war. He said Vecchione told him he

didn't want to let his comrades down.

There are about 132,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq. As of

10 a.m. yesterday, 2,554 soldiers have been killed and about

19,000 injured.

Another friend from childhood, Vicki Fulcher of South

Yarmouth, called the Army Vecchione's ``passion.'' Both

Cestaro and Fulcher partied with Vecchione when he was home

earlier this month, stopping at one of his favorite places,

the Land Ho in Orleans, and enjoying cookouts.

To his sister, Lori, Vecchione was her best friend. He was

``very brave, smart, with a heart of gold and nerves of

steel,'' she said. And he was also a hero to her five-year-

old son, Sebastian.

To his mother, he was ``just my little boy who was always

watching out for us.''

With tears welling in her eyes frequently and her face

etched with the numbness and weariness that only sudden grief

can bring, DesLauriers said her son was ``very proud'' to be

serving in Iraq, but ``was afraid at times'' of the dangers.

A glance at Vecchione's myspace.com Web page reveals a man

with a deep love for his family, especially his nephew

Sebastian. He called his late father, who died last year, his

hero.

He listed spiders as his greatest fear, but posted several

pictures of himself holding a 5-foot machine gun in lraq.

And he joked that the club he belonged to while attending

Sahuaro High School in Tucson was the ``Reserved Seat In the

Principal's Office Club.'' He regrets most not doing a better

job while in school. A Catholic man who wanted to be a pilot

when he grew up, he said his greatest weakness was ``seeing

little kids upset.''

When Vecchione left the Cape to live with his father in

Tuscon, he befriended Travis Wilson and his sister Bambi

Anaya.

``He was the kind of person you could talk to about

anything,'' said Anaya, 27, reached at her Arizona home

yesterday. ``He was that spot of sunshine in all of our

lives.''

Wilson, 26, an Army sergeant currently stationed in Fort

Knox, Ky., called Vecchione ``the greatest human being I have

ever met and I'm honored to have had my life touched by

him.''

It was in July of 2001 when Vecchione, Wilson and another

friend all decided to join the Army. Wilson said in addition

to seeing it as a way to help his country, Vecchione saw the

military as an avenue for personal growth before someday

going to college.

At the Eastham Post Office on Route 6 yesterday morning,

patrons were halted in their tracks at the door, where acting

Postmaster Donald Rogers had posted a notice of Vecchione's

death.

``It's a small community where everybody knows everybody,''

he said.

Recent photos of Vecchione in his uniform and with

Sebastian are tacked up on the wall at the desk, as well as

on the computer his mother uses. Customers often asked

DesLauriers how he was doing, said postal clerk Mark Godfrey.

``I got the impression she got a lot of comfort from

that,'' he said.

In addition to his mother, sister and nephew, Vecchione is

survived by an uncle, Donald Vecchione of East Orleans; an

aunt and uncle, Brenda and Jeff Vecchione of Eastham; and a

cousin. Tye Vecchione of Chatham, Services will be held at a

later date.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And as I listened to my friend from Oregon, I was thinking that we are helping the wealthiest of Americans by borrowing from China, by borrowing from China to subsidize that tax cut and further adding to the deficit.

But, Mr. Speaker, by the time I am finished speaking, Exxon will have made $158,160 in profits, as opposed to 17 cents earned for the 2 minutes worked by the gas station attendant. In the hour allotted to the debate, Exxon will have made over $4,744,800. And if you are currently paid the minimum wage, you will have made $5.15. In a 40-hour week, Exxon will make a staggering $189,792,000 compared to the $206 earned by someone on minimum wage. Of course that is before taxes. Welcome to Wonderland, Alice.

It has been 10 years since the Federal minimum wage was last adjusted, the longest period of time in which Congress has refused an increase. During that time, the price for gas has skyrocketed a whopping 136 percent, health care costs for working families have jumped 97 percent, college tuition has ballooned 77 percent, and the price of bread and milk has risen 25 percent.

Far too many families are struggling to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck and going deeper and deeper into debt. It is not about paying at the pump any more, now working families are feeling it in the aisles of the local supermarket or when they visit the drugstore.

We will not have a straight up-or-down vote on a clean minimum wage bill to help our working families, many of whom face a bleak future thanks to the Draconian budget cuts proposed by the administration and passed by this Congress. Instead, if we want to see the minimum wage addressed in this session of Congress, we are being forced to approve tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest among us and the Nation's corporations. That is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. While I have disagreements with some of the provisions in the preamble, and with the accusatory tone of some of the ``resolves'' clauses, what concerns me most is the timing of its consideration. Because a draft agreement between the Drug Enforcement Agency of the United States, and the Venezuelan antidrug office hangs in the balance.

Now, there has been considerable time and effort invested by both sides in this initiative, which I believe and I know others do, would be mutually beneficial to both Venezuela and the United States. But the passage of this resolution puts that at risk.

Because we all know that what we do here tonight will be interpreted in Caracas as a political statement to embarrass and intimidate the Chavez Government. That is simply the reality. And to think otherwise would be naive in the extreme.

Let us be candid. And my friend and colleague from Florida touched on many aspects of the relationship. But every one on the planet knows that the relationship between the Presidents of the United States, and Venezuela is poor. Prior to the coup in 2002, it was practically nonexistent.

But when it appeared to the Venezuelans that the Bush administration appeared to applaud the coup, that relationship proceeded to deteriorate to the point where it can only be described as bitter and hostile.

The rhetoric has become incendiary and insulting. And every action on either side is perceived to be motivated by hostility and political calculation. The unfortunate result is that what has evolved is a relationship that is hardened into profound mutual animosity that is having long-lasting and real world implications, whether it implicates terrorism, or drugs or anything.

We all know that while this resolution will be hardly noticed in this country, its language condemning the Chavez Government will provoke headlines in Venezuela, that will be used by Chavez's opponents in the forthcoming presidential campaign, and undoubtedly there will be a reaction from the Chavez Government.

Without a working, transparent and viable relationship between the Drug Enforcement Agency and Venezuela, there will be serious consequences to both countries. As I just said, I have no doubt that what we do here today will be interpreted in Caracas as yet another insult, which will provoke more inflammatory rhetoric, and make any potential constructive relationship on this particular issue much more difficult to achieve.

Now, let me be very clear. I know that that is not the intention of the chairman who has offered this resolution. But I am also confident, and I hope I am wrong, that this draft agreement will be the victim of this poisonous relationship and atmosphere that exists.

Let me emphasize, I am not giving up on the agreement. Earlier today I had a conversation with my friend and colleague from New York, Representative Meeks. We agreed that this is simply too important. This agreement is simply too important not to make a final effort.

And we will go down, and we will encourage the government of Venezuela to finally sign the agreement, which hopefully will restore a working relationship between the DEA and the anti-drug office in Venezuela.

But I am not hopeful. Because I believe that the language in this resolution, whether it is intended or not, will exacerbate the tension that clearly exists. And the tragedy is that the people in both countries will pay a price, and that is sad.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my friend and colleague who serves on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee and has spent considerable time in Venezuela and is familiar with the nuances of that relationship, my friend, Mr. Meeks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I intend to yield to the gentleman from Ohio, but I am very glad that my friends raise the issue of Iran and Tehran, because the gentleman that spoke here today, that spoke in this, to this House, in this institution, has yet to denounce the military cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq that exists as we speak.

Let me remind my friends, too, that the foreign minister of Iraq by the name of Zebari made this statement to the international community: We should not press Tehran about their nuclear program because they tell us that it is for peaceful purposes. We do not need a guarantee, let us just simply accept, accept what they say.

I am really glad you brought up Tehran because what I am beginning to see is an emerging relationship, if not an alliance, between Iraq and Iran. It is clear that there is a huge Iranian influence in Iraq today, a place where we have lost over 2,500 men and women, where we have expended hundreds of billions of dollars. And yet what do we hear? Nothing about Iran. We hear no condemnation of Hezbollah, none whatsoever.

I am glad you brought up Iran. Go back and check about that bilateral military cooperation agreement. I know one does not currently exist between Iran and Venezuela, but it does between our friends in Iraq and Iran. We have really created a hegemony in the Middle East, Iran.

But also, I think it is important that because the chairman spoke about the DEA, and I am sure they have gone through and I understand they have verified or they have had serious consultations. As a matter of record, if the chairman tells me, I will accept it, does the Drug Enforcement Administration believe that the passage of this resolution will accelerate the signing of this agreement?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Reclaiming my time, there was, and I would remind my friend that there was a very tense issue between Venezuela and the United States regarding air traffic between our countries. Quiet diplomacy, patience, restraint resulted in the resolution of that problem. So that today between Venezuela and the United States, there is air travel, it is working. So accord can happen.

I share the frustration of my friend from Indiana. I know that he is someone who is a very can-do kind of guy, and at times, one might describe his temperament as somewhat impetuous. Unfortunately, diplomacy does not necessarily work that way.

Now, I understand, too, that the State Department INL had this to say. I am quoting from our own State Department. This is after all of the problems that you described between the DEA and the anti-drug officer of Venezuela. This is a quote. ``In spite of the political tensions, DEA continued working with its law enforcement contacts, developing information and leads that have contributed,'' listen carefully, ``have contributed to record seizures by Venezuelan law enforcement.'' The DEA is acknowledging that there have been record seizures, according to their own official report, the INL. ``After decertification, political sniping faded and government officials expressed renewed willingness to cooperate. Government of Venezuela officials have linked cooperation to the signing of a new bilateral counternarcotics working arrangement.''

That is what we all want, and if we can achieve that, we have done something positive. We know the rhetoric is going to fly back and forth. We know there is going to be finger-pointing and all kinds of nasty words spoken on either side, but what is most important, what is most important is that we protect our own children.

I think the decertification process, I wonder if we have any standards for ourselves. In the last 6 years, have we taken steps to adequately decline, to adequately reduce the demand that fuels the narcotics coming in to this country?

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

First of all, my friend made a misstatement about Chavez going to North Korea, but that is irrelevant to the revolution.

He is not going to North Korea, but let me focus on something.

He has been to Tehran, like Mr. Maliki has been to Tehran, and Mr. Zebari and Mr. Chalabi, all of the friends of the neoconservative movement, they have lived in Tehran for a considerable period of time.

But let us talk about this today. The rhetoric that we have heard about is about terrorists, it is about, this is not within the purview of this thing. But I have to tell you something, when this plays down in Caracas, like I said in my opening remarks, it is just going to make it impossible.

Today is the 26th of July, Mr. Speaker. The 26th of July. You know that I, and hopefully accompanied by others, was going to go to Caracas this August, have a conversation, and come back with a signed agreement. That is the hope. But with this language in this particular resolution, I will tell you what we have done. We have buried that agreement. And that is a tragedy because drugs will come into this country. That is the sadness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act is scheduled to lapse within days, and the legislation before the House will extend it until September 29. This reauthorization for a brief duration is necessitated by the fact that the House and Senate are still negotiating language on a new legislative construction of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act.

We hope to complete this process soon with the passage of new legislation that will strengthen sanctions against Iran and remove from law the outdated references to sanctions on Libya, sanctions which anyway no longer apply because Libya has fulfilled the required conditions.

I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, well, I am glad to see that you have recovered and that Mr. Meek has made it. I knew that both of you were tired. You worked hard yesterday, but I hope that in the future you can just reach down, grab a little extra, and you know, be here when it counts. I have been very impressed with your perseverance, your performance over the course of the past year and a half; but remember, it has to be consistent. It has to be consistent. It cannot be just about talk. It has to be actions.

I look forward to seeing you graduate to a different level, and I am sure that you will be able to be here for the last hour once you hit that magic mark in September.

Like I was saying, we hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor here, and we just heard an hour's worth of good talk, good talk, and you know, I welcome the fact that it would appear, if you listen carefully, that the Republican majority is going to get serious about fiscal responsibility.

I would only note that they are coming very late to the issue, because, I know neither of you were here in 1994, but in 1994, this branch, Madam Speaker, was taken over. The Republicans assumed majority. So let us see, from 1994 to 2006, that is 12 years, that is 12 years and now we are faced with runaway deficits, external debt.

We just recently received a report from the Comptroller General of the United States that informed the American people that despite the fact that they have already spent 30 billion of their dollars in Iraq, that the bill is coming for another $50 billion to reconstruct Iraq.

Well, I think a lot of it is going to line the pockets of corrupt officials because that is what Mr. Walker, who is the Comptroller General of the United States, found. He expressed concern about the black market in the sale of oil.

We all remember the words of Paul Wolfowitz who was the Under Secretary of Defense that the revenues from the oil reserves of Iraq would pay for its reconstruction. False.

But, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority in this House is spending the American people's money not in America, but in Iraq.

And where are they getting the money?

Or if it is at 11:30.

And you are by yourself.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding his time, and I want to compliment my friend from Florida, Mr. Meek, because he just did something that is rare in Washington. He acknowledged that there was an error; that there was a mistake. Because you will never hear that on the floor of this House.

But the American people, I would submit, want their elected officials to acknowledge when a policy has failed and come up with another idea and be forthright about it. I mean, when I hear about all of the problems that haven't been solved because of a minority party, I begin to wonder, is there an alternative reality there?

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority has owned this Chamber for 12 years. Where have you been? Now you are talking about fiscal responsibility. And the reason you are talking about it is because there is 100 days to an election. That is why you are talking about it. And you talk about the direction of the country. You know, we talk about a new direction and a change in direction, Madam Speaker, because there is no alternative.

If we continue to go and continue to chart the same course that the administration and the Republican House and the Republican Senate have charted for the United States, we will be in serious trouble. And let me just give you four statistics:

Since the Republicans have controlled both branches of Congress in the last 5 years, and President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, college tuition has increased by 40 percent, health care costs to the American people have increased by 55 percent, and gas prices have increased by 79 percent.

But Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you know what has gone down in this country? Madam Speaker, you know what has declined in this country? Median household income. A family of four in this country, since the Republicans have governed here in this institution for 5 years, the average American family has experienced a decline of 4 percent in their income. On top of all the escalating costs that are eating away at their security, everyone in America knows that retirement security no longer exists. They know that their health care plan can be canceled at any time. They know that they won't be able to afford to send their children to college because they can't afford the loans. I mean, the list goes on and on. We have got to change the direction of this country.

With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

We talked about stem cell research.

If the gentleman would yield.

Just stop for one moment. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq has been going on for years. Every day we pick up a newspaper and learn about the loss of American lives.

Every day we hear about the rampant corruption that goes on in Iraq. Every day we hear about the escalating costs of the military deployment in Iraq. And now we know from the Comptroller General, not from the administration, that the $30 billion that we have already spent in Iraq is not enough to rebuild the country. It is going to cost us $50 billion more. And you know what, Madam Speaker? We ought to be having a hearing on a weekly basis, every committee, every single committee who has some jurisdiction, and yet nothing happens.

Why are we losing ground in Afghanistan? Why? But we do not dare ask the question.

If the gentleman from Ohio would continue to yield for one moment, we all know that there is much public discourse about whether the violence in Iraq is of such a magnitude that it should be called a civil war. There are no figures that are ever released by the administration, but the United Nations just released a report in the last several days that indicated in the months of May and June, 6,000 Iraqis were killed because of political violence. Will somebody please explain to me, is that enough to make it a civil war? Of course it is a civil war going on there, Madam Speaker. Please stop using semantics with something that is so serious that the American people deserve to be continually informed.

Could I add to that?

What do you think an American mother feels as she sees this administration embroil us, embroil us, in wars, sectarian strife all over the world? Does she become concerned that at some point in time her child will be compelled to serve in the military?

I found it fascinating reading some articles in the Weekly Standard, which is, if you will, the gospel of the neoconservative movement, suggesting now is the time to bomb or strike Iran. Just another war. Just another war. And, of course, the original frontier in terms of the war on terrorism, Madam Speaker, was Afghanistan. And you know what is happening in Afghanistan? The Taliban is back, the group that gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, because of the distraction that was foisted on the American people by this administration with the complicity of this Congress and putting us into the quagmire of Iraq.

Yes, I do.

If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, do you know who really said it the best? The NATO commander who was taking over the NATO force in Afghanistan. He happens to be a British general by the name of David Richards. And he said this: You know, we were distracted. We took our eye off the prize, and that is why we have the problems that we have now. We became too focused on Iraq, and we forgot about Afghanistan, and some would have us already hitting into Iran.

When does it end, Mr. Meek? When does it end?

What happened to the $89 billion in Iraq.

I really found it interesting. I ran across this article today in the Washington Post, and much of what we have said is repeated here. The Iraq war didn't work and we didn't prepare for peace. The response to Hurricane Katrina was a monumental failure of government. You don't go to Congress to become the party that you have been fighting for 40 years, the spending, the finger pointing, not getting bills passed. Just shut up and get something done.

Now, that was the quotes of a candidate, but it was a Republican candidate. It was a Republican candidate. I think that tells you something about going in the wrong direction, Madam Speaker.

I find it interesting that the frustration level is so profound now that the former Speaker of the House that sat in the Chair that you, Madam Speaker, are currently occupying, summed it up like this: ``We just ought to start firing everyone.''

That is what he said. And yet we continue to go in the wrong direction. We continue to hear that, you know, if the Democrats would only help us. I mean, we do not even get invited to committee hearings. They don't tell us where a hearing is if it is a significant hearing, and I am referring to, specifically, I am referring specifically to the Medicare prescription drug legislation that was passed several years ago.

We couldn't find the room where they were meeting to discuss an issue of such great consequence. I mean, it is unbelievable.

Do you know what we have accomplished with that? We have strengthened Iran.

We have increased the number of terrorists.

What I find interesting, tomorrow in this Chamber the Prime Minister of the newly elected government will be addressing the body. And this is what he has to say. He is referring to Israel's action after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and began shelling northern Israel, but he is referring to Israel: ``I condemn those aggressions and call on the Arab League's foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop Israeli aggression.''

No reference at all to the actions of Hezbollah. None whatsoever. And the Speaker of the House in Iraq, Madam Speaker, again the exact position that Mr. Hastert holds in this House, uttered anti-Semitic remarks that every American would deplore and find unacceptable. May I quote what he had to say. He is referring to the terrorist acts against other Iraqis. And this is what he claimed, and I am quoting him: ``These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew, and a son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.''

That same speaker said this, Madam Speaker: ``The United States' occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice.''

And understand that there has been a bilateral military cooperation agreement signed by Iraq with Iran. What have we done? We have got over 2,500 Americans killed. Tens of thousands seriously wounded. And is this what we expect? No. It is not what we expect. It is certainly not what we deserve. And now Iran has become the hegemon in the Middle East.

Well, I think what he said in a quote that appears here, really, is the summation, if you will, of his disgust with what is occurring in the American political system. He described it as a broken system. These are his words, Newt Gingrich's words:

``The correct answer,'' Gingrich said, and he is speaking to the remedy, ``is for the American people to just start firing people.''

That should be put on the Web site. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to consume all of the time. I thought that I was going to be joined by my colleagues from the 30 Something Group, but it would appear tonight that only the ``something'' is here and the 30s have taken the night off.

But I had listened to my dear friend from Iowa earlier, and I thought that I would stay for a few minutes to make some observations. He spoke eloquently and sincerely about anti-Semitism.

I know he decries anti-Semitism, as I believe every Member in this body does. But he specifically alluded to western Europe and anti- Semitism. I think it is important for us to note the remarks just recently of the Speaker of the House of the new Iraqi Parliament.

Those remarks, I dare say, can only be interpreted as anti-Semitic, and they are in my judgment disturbing, and, yes, even dangerous. So while we speak of the new Iraqi Government and what we are told they are about, I think it is extremely important to listen, to educate ourselves, and inform the American people.

I, myself, and several of my colleagues will be introducing a resolution condemning, condemning the remarks of the Speaker of the House of the new Iraqi Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, let me read what he had to say. ``Some people say,'' these are his words, ``we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing. In the end we even started killing women who are our honor. These acts are not the work of Iraqis, I am sure that he who does this is a Jew, and a son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq, and come with their agent and cheap project. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.''

The same Speaker by the way, had this to say. Listen carefully to these words, Mr. Speaker, ``The U.S. occupation is butcher's work, under the slogan of democracy and human rights and justice''. This is the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament, our ally, whose prime minister has been invited to speak to this House this week. I dare say he ought to immediately, upon landing in Washington, D.C. condemn these words.

I find them disturbing and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all of our colleagues will find them disturbing.

I am also disturbed by the words of the Iraqi foreign minister who had this to say, Mr. Speaker: Iran doesn't claim that they want to obtain a nuclear weapon or a nuclear bomb, so there is no need that we ask them for any guarantee now. Every country has the right to have its nuclear technology, every country like the Islamic Republic or any other country. I also find that disturbing. We ought not even to pose the question to Iran, according to the Iraqi foreign minister.

And let me finally note the words of the prime minister of Iraq who will address this House this week. And, again, he said these words in reference to the Israeli response after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed others, as well as for 2 days continued to fly their rockets into civilian Israeli communities on the border between Lebanon and Israel: I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.

Mr. Speaker, is this new Iraqi Government an ally of the United States? We should reflect on that. Particularly since we have spilled the blood of thousands of Americans on Iraqi soil, where we have given, not loaned, Mr. Speaker, as some of us recommended, but rather given to date $30 billion in the reconstruction of Iraq. And just this week we are told by the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, that some 50 billion additional dollars are going to be needed simply to restore the oil facilities and the electric grid in Iraq, and that the American taxpayer would have to pay for all of it.

We ought to be thinking carefully about this, Mr. Speaker. These are facts, where the military deployment of Americans has cost in excess of $300 billion and is escalating every day with no end in sight.

My friend from Iowa talks about Iran. We ought to be aware, Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a special relationship now evolving between Iran and Iraq. There has been agreement after agreement concluded between Iran and Iraq, and the Iranian foreign minister has visited in Baghdad and consulted with the new Iraqi Government. Iran has agreed to construct a new airport in Iraq; they have extended loan credits in the amount of $1 billion to Iraq. And, Mr. Speaker, I think this is especially important for the American people to know, they have concluded a bilateral military cooperation agreement. Yes, Iran and Iraq have concluded a military agreement. And this week we will be hearing from the Iraqi prime minister.

I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it was important after listening to my friend and colleague that I introduce new information for us to reflect on and to analyze and be honest with the American people.

It is not going well in Iraq, Mr. Speaker. We heard from General Abizaid just this week where he said there has been serious sectarian violence, and our ability to control it is very much in doubt.

So when we discuss the issues that implicate the Middle East and beyond the Middle East, it is important that we put forth all of the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we get it right. When we do, it's worth celebrating.

Next week on Cape Cod, in my congressional district, leaders of the Wampanoag Tribal Council will sit down with officials of Mashpee, Massachusetts, to discuss the future of the town--together.

Just a few years ago, such a meeting would have been inconceivable. The chasm between the aspirations of the Wampanoags and the fears of other local residents resulted in a generation of ill will among neighbors. Today I take to the floor of the House of Representatives to salute the people--all the people--of the Town of Mashpee for finding the higher road.

As my colleagues may know, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs recently granted preliminary approval to the Mashpee Wampanoag's petition for tribal designation. After a public comment period now underway, it is expected that the BIA will authorize full tribal status next spring.

This designation has national significance for the tribe that originally welcomed the Pilgrims to our shores. Closer to home, its anticipation could have salted old wounds. Instead, it has inspired new collaboration. When town and tribal representatives meet next week, it will affirm our collective respect for the quality of life that has long defined Cape Cod--weaving diversity with common purpose.

This is uncharted and perhaps challenging territory, but it is an opportunity that most communities never enjoy. It begins with the considerable financial benefits--for the Tribe, for the Town and our region--that accompany tribal status. However, the decision of the Town and the Tribe to embrace this opportunity will also yield a benefit less tangible but at least as valuable: a spirit of renewal as a community, in the name of all Mashpee residents and their families.

As the following newspaper editorial outlines, ``Federal recognition . . . is not simply for tribal members . . . it's about Mashpee, and that can be good for all of us. It's hard to contemplate a firmer foundation for . . . the months and years ahead.''

[From the CapeNews.net]

Mashpee Editorial: A Most Encouraging Letter

Since March 31, when the Mashpee Wampanoag received initial

recognition as a federal tribe, Mashpee selectmen have been

eager to get talks underway to find out what full federal

acknowledgment next year will mean for the wider community.

As weeks passed without any tangible response from the tribe,

selectmen became a little impatient and also a tad wary,

asking why tribal council members seemed unwilling to talk.

From the tribe's standpoint, the lack of response was more

akin to: ``What's the hurry? We've waited 30 years for

federal recognition. Be patient, talks will happen in due

time.''

Then, on May 10, Town Counsel Patrick Costello had an

initial discussion with William McDermott, an attorney for

the tribe, at Mr. McDermott's West Roxbury office. A month

passed before the next exchange.

On June 12, Mr. Costello wrote a letter to Mr. McDermott

laying out seven topics the selectmen want to discuss with

the tribal council. Mr. Costello wrote: ``I believe that,

most, if not all, of these topics are typical subjects for

discussion between federally recognized tribes and

neighboring local government entities.''

Perhaps so, but the dominant theme was land. What was the

tribe going to do with its own land in Mashpee? What were its

plans for acquiring additional land in town? What role would

land claims play in acquisition?

Tribal council members have repeatedly said that there

would be no return to the land suit days and that Mashpee

property owners have nothing to fear from federal

recognition. They have also promised that they would not

bring casino gambling to Mashpee or anywhere else on Cape

Cod. But selectmen believe they have a responsibility to get

these two issues formalized. Town Manager Joyce Mason and the

selectmen released Mr. Costello's letter and we published the

full text June 16. This public airing took Mr. McDermott by

surprise because he said it was his intention to keep the

initial talks private.

What comes into play here is something that can add perhaps

unintended tension: the very different standings of the town

and the tribe. The Mashpee Wampanoag have both political and

cultural leaders. They are a large extended family and a

private corporation. Meetings of the tribal council are not

open to non-tribal members. They don't have to make their

every move public.

While selectmen can and do meet in executive session, the

substance of those meetings is known in outline, whether it's

litigation, for example, or a personnel issue. But outside of

his carefully defined framework, selectmen are bound to

conduct the town's business in public. As political leaders,

they also have a vested interest in the public's knowing that

they are acting responsibly in regard to the $42 million town

budget and the approximately $5 billion worth of property in

Mashpee. Releasing Mr. Costello's letter may not fit into the

tribe's more private way of conducting business, but it lets

Mashpee residents who are skeptical of unwritten agreements

know that town officials are taking their fiduciary

responsibilities seriously. If the tribe's delay in wanting

to open talks raised concerns at town hall, these must have

been somewhat alleviated Monday with the arrival of a letter

from Mr. McDermott to Mr. Costello. At the selectmen's

meeting Monday night, there was an almost palpable sense of

relief at the most encouraging tone of Mr. McDermott's words

on the tribe's behalf.

In response to the selectmen's seven topics for discussion,

the tribe lists six of their own: affordable and stable

housing; local public education; police and fire protection;

healthcare; transportation infrastructure; and preservation

and conservation of lands and waters.

The encouraging and positive tone is set in Mr. McDermott's

first sentence. The six issues detailed in the letter are

ones ``the tribe believes are mutual objectives for the both

the town and the tribe, and should be discussed when the two

meet.''

Mr. McDermott's second sentence gets to the nub of

selectmen's concerns: ``First, however, the tribe has asked

me to reiterate, in response to Items 3 and 4 in your June 12

letter, the tribe's prior commitments that it will not

conduct gaming activities in the Town of Mashpee or on Cape

Cod, and that it will not make any claims to private lands or

file suit asserting such a claim in connection with the

tribe's efforts to acquire lands within the town.''

The discussions, which can begin ``any time during the week

of July 24 that is convenient for the town,'' Mr. McDermott

writes, ``can lead to a mutually cooperative framework

between the tribe and town to improve the quality of housing,

education, law enforcement, fire protection, public safety,

health care, transportation, and preservation of lands and

water in a way that will improve the life of all residents of

Mashpee.''

In essence, with these words, the Mashpee Wampanoag are

bridging years of tension in a wonderfully generous and

inclusive manner. Federal recognition and its financial

advantages is not simply for tribal members, they are saying,

it's about Mashpee, and that can be good for all of us. It's

hard to contemplate a firmer foundation for the private and

public talks and conversations in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Two years ago this May, people in Massachusetts, my home State, woke up thinking and talking about same-sex marriage like everyone else. You could not avoid it. It was on the cover of every newspaper. It was a national issue.

Now, since then, 9,000 gay and lesbian couples have been married in Massachusetts. And you know what the news flash is? The news flash is that there is not a news flash. The sky has not fallen. The tsunamis have not come. Everyone is going through their daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, the average American family does not wake up every morning worrying about same-sex marriage. Instead, they are worried about the price of gas that they have to put in their vehicle to take their kids to school. They worry about whether their kids are getting a decent education. They worry about health care. They worry about mortgage rates and whether they will ever be able to retire.

And if they are worried about any marriage, I would suggest it is their own. There are plenty of threats to marriage out there today. We are all aware of them. Trying to find time to spend with their families, the pressures of making ends meet, all the challenges that we all know exist. But what is not a threat is gay marriage.

In Massachusetts gay couples are not masterminding acts of terrorism. They are not cutting Medicaid. They are not putting a hole in the Medicare prescription drug program. They are not running up the Federal deficit. They are doing what everyone else does. They are getting through life.

Others have alluded to the constitutional issues. There are States everywhere, Mr. Speaker, that are addressing this through the constitutional means available to them as States, and that is fine. A recent ruling in Massachusetts from the Supreme Judicial Court that entered the famous decision that has provoked some controversy said that if the people of Massachusetts want to overrule the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, they can via their own State constitutional mechanism. Let them do it if they want to. As others have said, this is an area that has been reserved continually through our jurisprudence to our States.

But, no, it is an election year. We know it is an election year and we know you have to do it. You have got to energize the base. But the American people are not stupid. They see through this. They know what is going to happen.

I remember when the President came to office pledging that he would be a uniter, not a divider. And what we are doing here today is divisive and dividing Americans. Let us experience a sense of tolerance.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut. It is good to be joined by my other colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop) and Chris Van Hollen from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak for just a moment regarding what is happening in terms of the war on terror. We should all be alarmed. We see the events of recent days unfolding in Lebanon, Israel, in Gaza. And it is clear that terrorism is spreading. It is not declining.

I would submit that those events were inevitable, the law of unintended consequences, if you will, that many of us predicted when the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq came to the floor. I dare say that in the Mideast today there is an awareness on the part of world opinion that the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks around the world.

A recent poll that was commissioned by the BBC, and again, this was a poll that was taken in some 35 countries, found that 60 percent of the world believes that the threat of terrorism has increased some 60 percent, while only 12 percent believed that it has declined.

And the nexus was the war in Iraq, and the conduct of the war in Iraq. They saw the war in Iraq as an impediment to the defeat of terrorism. And the experts agree. There was a survey done of more than 100 individuals with extensive foreign policy experience and national security backgrounds.

And what was particularly disturbing is that among the experts, 84 percent said that the United States was not winning the war on terrorism, and some 86 percent said that the world was becoming more, not less, dangerous in terms of terrorism because of our involvement in Iraq.

This is extremely frightening. And let me put forth a premise to you, to my colleagues. I would suggest that it is not unrelated that we see Hamas and Hezbollah asserting themselves today, in the past several weeks, because there is a growing awareness that the United States is bogged down in Iraq, and that world opinion in terms of the role of the United States in Iraq is highly negative.

And what do we see in terms of the new Iraqi government and its relationship with Iran, a sponsor of Hezbollah and a sponsor of Hamas? We see exchange of diplomats. We see a billion dollar line of credit coming from Iran to Iraq. We see a military corporation agreement between Iran and Iraq. Iran, the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas. That is what we see. That is what we are seeing.

And we are listening to the foreign minister, the foreign minister of Iraq when asked about the United States pressuring Iran to disclose where they are in the development of nuclear technology, to disclose whether any of those efforts could be utilized to develop a nuclear bomb, a nuclear weapon.

And the Iraqi foreign minister is saying, do not pressure the Iranians; accept their word. I mean, what is happening? Are the American people aware of these particular events? And then of course at the same time, the forgotten war, if you will, the country that harbored al Qaeda, that was ruled by a radical Islamists sect called the Taliban is on the verge of unraveling.

The Afghan defense minister recently made this statement: we need five times the number of security forces to address the issue of a resurgent Taliban. Without them we are in real danger of collapse. So everywhere we look in terms of the Middle East, we see danger and we see danger to Israel, we see danger in the entire region. And we hear, ``Stay the course.''

Madam Speaker, I think the gentlewoman asks a very legitimate question, but I do not think you were present in the Chamber when I referred to a statement dated July 13 coming from the Afghan defense minister, a gentleman by the name of Abdul Rahim Wardak, who said that the Afghan Army cannot secure the country without at least 150,000 more troops, five times what it has today, and that in his opinion, and he clearly represents the sentiment of the government, it is an opportunity for the United States to double the assistance given to Afghanistan. In other words, we left Afghanistan before we finished the job.

What I find particularly interesting is that we do not hear that from this administration, but the new head of NATO, the NATO force in Afghanistan, a British general, David Richards, made this observation: Afghanistan's Taliban rebels have taken advantage of a power vacuum and grown stronger because the world's attention has been distracted by Iraq.

How true. I agree with him. I agree with him. And if one looks around the landscape again, I am sure it has not been on the front page, but we all here present in this Chamber today know what is happening in Somalia. Radical Islamist warlords have taken over Somalia. Winning the war on terror, you know, the rest of the world believes that we are losing the war on terror.

Many of the gentlemen that were referred to, Eagleburger, Lawrence Cobb, and others that have served in Republican administrations, agree that because of Iraq we are losing the war on terror today and eroding our own national security.

Madam Speaker, if my friend would just yield for a moment just to confirm points that were made by everybody, but specifically by Chris Van Hollen, there is a GAO report that was issued in April of 2005 that speaks to the issue of deepening and broadening anti-American sentiment all over the world. We have all seen the polling data. It is frightening. Talk about a world opinion that threatens our national security.

And the GAO specifically alluded to the fact that it has the potential to dramatically hurt our commercial interests. One only has to check the price of oil. One only has to look at today's stock market report. Everywhere we turn the implications and consequences of this failed policy is hurting the American people, our national security, our commercial interests and everything that is attendant thereto.

Then, when we start to examine the relationship between the new government in Iraq and Iran, why have we spilled the blood of more than 2,500 Americans and already have appropriated taxpayer dollars on the way to $500 billion?

And by the way, I am sure if you haven't, that you will find in your mail tomorrow a letter, a Dear Colleague letter from our friend and colleague from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. And she makes the point that on July 7, the Iraqi, not Iranian Parliament Speaker, Mahmoud al- Mashhadani had this to say. He accused Jews of financing acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the Parliament and government so they can install their agents in power.

Some people say we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing. In the end, we even started kidnapping women who are our honor. These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with their agents.

Is this what we have wrought?

These words should be condemned by the President. I am sure we all would join in a resolution condemning the words of this head of the Iraqi Parliament, this Iraqi Government that has executed a bilateral military agreement with Iran.

Where are we heading, my friends?

That is an excellent point, my friend, if you would yield for just one minute.

But what is most disturbing is that this House, run by the Republican Party, has failed to ask those questions of this administration, and thereby abrogated its responsibility to the American people to ask the questions that would have made a difference.

Did Mr. Pillar come before this Congress?

I can enumerate name after name of voices that, well, I could put up a long list of generals, General Batiste, General Eaton, General Zinni, who spoke truth to power, who said, This is the wrong course.

And listen, we never had a hearing until just recently in the committee of jurisdiction, the House International Relations Committee. Shame on us. Shame on this institution, Mr. Speaker.