Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that incompetence has characterized this administration for the past 5 years. And I say that with no glee. I say that purely from a concern about the quality of life that our people are experiencing here in this country as a result of miscalculations, incompetence, and a blind belief and denial of reality. Do you remember prior to the war when we were told by the Secretary of Defense, and now I am going to quote Mr. Rumsfeld, ``When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi Government and the international community.'' His deputy Paul Wolfowitz, he made the following statement: There is a lot of money to pay for this that does not have to be U.S. taxpayer money and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction. If you remember the name of President Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, when he predicted that the cost of the war with Iraq would range somewhere between 100 and $200 billion, he was dismissed, he was fired. I do not want tonight to talk about intelligence and the issue of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda, et cetera, et cetera; but there has consistently been mistakes and miscalculations because there is such a conviction of righteousness, if you will.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think the point that our colleague Ms. Wasserman Schultz was making about arithmetic and the fact that, despite the rhetoric, the reality is that the deficit will increase as a result of the action that this Republican majority will take during the course of this week in concert with the Republican Senate in terms of spending cuts and tax cuts, these so-called reconciliation bills. I think it is important to note a very disturbing statistic that was referred to in a Wall Street Journal article, and that is that the Federal Government's budget deficit in December, in December 2005, the month just concluded, was in excess of $83 billion. That is for a single month. That is an increase of some 43 percent from a year earlier, that is from November of 2004, and a record high for any November in American history. So the direction that this country is headed with the economic policies that are debated and voted on, again recognizing that there is a Republican majority, I would submit are heading our Nation into a potential economic tsunami. Distinguished economists from all places on the spectrum have expressed concern. I am sure during the course of our conversation, knowing how well prepared you all are, you 30-somethings, you will be able to provide a quote for our colleagues and for those that are watching our conversation this evening. But stop for one minute and simply think of that figure, $83 billion.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are also giving money to the Iraqi people and denying it to the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could talk about the immediate future for one moment to follow up, because I think you make a prescient point. While we are standing here today, there was a report that I listened to that indicated that the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, a highly respected and regarded Member of this House, Chairman Bill Young from Florida, and the senior Democrat, the ranking member whom you alluded to earlier, John Murtha, again, highly regarded, well-respected, served his country in Vietnam, a senior Democrat, on the Defense Appropriations bill that their staffs are preparing, already an additional $100 billion in that supplemental budget to be put to this House, to this Congress, for approval in the not-too-distant future. That is an additional $100 billion that will be utilized in Iraq, not here in America.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Please.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can, what we have here, the issue has been discussed in the news in many venues across the country, about whether the pre-war intelligence was hyped, distorted, and whether the American people were misled by the White House, by the Secretary of Defense, by the Vice President. Let me put that aside for a moment and suggest that this rosy scenario, this euphoric, unrealistic picture that is now being painted about the realities that exist currently in Iraq is also distorted, is also misleading. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) indicated earlier, the empirical data, the surveys that are being conducted in Iraq have a totally different conclusion and paint a picture of a reality that has to be disturbing to all of us. Just bear with me for just a moment. This was a poll that was done by the British Ministry of Defense. It was conducted back in October of this year. It reveals the following: 45 percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified, rising to 65 percent in some provinces. Eighty- two percent, Mr. Speaker, of the Iraqi people are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops. Mr. Speaker, according to this poll, less than 1 percent of the population believe coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security. According to this British Ministry of Defense poll, 67 percent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation, and 72 percent do not have confidence in the multinational force. This is not a question or an issue of pessimism being put forth by Democratic Members of Congress. What this demonstrates, I would submit, is the reality of Iraq today, and that is why we disagree because what we are suggesting is what we hear from the White House, what we hear from some of our colleagues in the majority party, is unrealistic. It is false. We are not suggesting that any one of our colleagues is lying, but the facts do not support their conclusions. We all wish it was true, but Mr. Speaker, it is not true and let us accept the truth. Let us insist on honesty.

Mr. DELAHUNT. When you talk about corruption, I have a question for the administration, and it will go unanswered. I dare say the fact that it will go unanswered is a demonstration that our own democracy is not functioning as it should and that we are putting our democratic institutions, particularly this institution, at risk of erosion, because we are not allowed to ask questions that the American people want answers to. Let me give you one question. Ahmed Chalabi is the deputy prime minister of this interim government. He is an individual who was convicted in a Jordanian court for embezzlement of some $100 million. He became a darling, if you will, of the neo-conservative movement in this country. It is alleged that he provided false intelligence that served those that were advocating the invasion in Iraq. Later, it was reported in the news that Mr. Chalabi was under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; that there was in Iraq a search of his personal residence because he was suspected of providing intelligence that put American military personnel at risk to Iran; that he was a double agent for the Iranian government. Yet several weeks ago, he is meeting with the Vice President in this country and is going around here in Washington. Please, will someone tell us what happened? Was there any validity to those allegations?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Repeat that. That is unbelievable.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me pick up where we left off. And where we left off, obviously, was my very brief conversation with my friend from Iowa (Mr. King), because I can never remember a debate on the floor of this House or in any committee of this House where the rationale that was put forth by the proponents of the resolution authorizing the President to invade Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people. And clearly the headlines, we all remember the phrases such as mushroom cloud, links to al Qaeda, the potential for an imminent attack on the United States. The gentleman indicates that it was one of those reasons. What I find interesting, Mr. Speaker, is why was Iraq selected. Because as I look over the map, if it was a combination of reasons, why did we not invade Iran where we had hard evidence relative to weapons of mass destruction, where we knew that they possessed the capability, where there clearly was a denial of freedom? Why did we select Iraq? And, Mr. Speaker, if we were so concerned about democracy, if the White House had this unstated vision and goal, why did they put a coalition of the willing together that embraced some of the most tyrannical regimes on the face of the Earth? Why did we embrace Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan whose human rights record was the equal of the human rights record of Saddam Hussein? Why did Islam Karimov come to the White House and have a photo opportunity with President Bush? Why did we embrace Turkmenbashi, another thug, Mr. Speaker, the President of Turkmenistan, who has created a cult of personality that is bizarre, who changed the names of the months of January and June? January he named after himself; and June, demonstrating his filial love for his mother, named after his mother? Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if democracy was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq, I fail to see the evidence, because we associated ourselves with those who deny freedom every day to their own people. They were part of the coalition of the willing. What message does that send to the world that we select despots and thugs and tyrants, some are good because they happen to serve our instant interests, our interests of the moment, but some are the worst human violators on the globe? And with all respect to our traditional allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, if the President wants to bring democracy to the dark corners of the world, he does not have to go that far. He does not have to take our young men and women and put them in harm's way. When I hear that it was democracy and liberation that motivated this invasion, I cannot accept that. The evidence does not bear that out, and it was the burden of proof on the administration. They never met the test. Their rationale and their excuse were the weapons of mass destruction. No one on this side is a pessimist, I can assure you. But it is time we leveled with the American people. It is time that we spoke the truth. It is time that we injected realism into this discourse, into this conversation that we are obliged to have with the American people. As far as the troops are concerned, they know, Mr. Speaker, that the minority party is with them, and they know that because we have fought for their benefits when they come back from this war that we sent them to.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We can do it together.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's embrace and affection for freedom. We all aspire to that. I think I might have misheard, but I guess what I am asking for, is the gentleman making the statement tonight that the invasion of Iraq, the reason that we invaded that country was to liberate that country, or did we have another rationale when we debated here in this Chamber about whether to invade Iraq?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, but the American people have a right of transparency and watching and hearing from these people. You make that effort and I understand that you do and you ask questions, but we need to do this in the light of day. There is pervasive corruption ongoing in the rebuilding of Iraq. It is offensive, and this comes from conservative columnists as well as our own military personnel and from multiple, different sources. Yet, the leadership in this House is denying the American people the right to hear.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we are coming back for another hour, so we will get him on the other side here. I will just make this statement and ask for his comment. We have been at war for almost 3 years. It will be 3 years this March. We have not had a single oversight hearing on Iraq in the committees that I serve on, including the House International Relations Committee. Not one. There are so many questions that the American people have. There are so many questions that we all have, and yet, I would submit that we are not exercising our constitutional mandate to serve as a check and balance on the executive branch. I mean, we do have these allegations of an order of magnitude of corruption that is ongoing in Iraq today. Let me just quote you from the Washington Times, not a liberal journal. I think you will grant me that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is a quote from October 28, a column by Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, again, people that would not agree with me or my colleagues on this side of the aisle. Here is what they said: Defense officials tell us the scandal involves massive corruption in Iraq related to the United States and international funds meant for reconstruction efforts and the failure of the administration to control these funds. I am ranking member on a subcommittee that has requested for months an oversight hearing just simply on these allegations, and I am met with silence. Let me tell you that is wrong. It is a disservice to the American people. It is a disservice to the institution, not a single hearing in 3 years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They are excellent points. I think your idea about taking your one ticket and allowing a victim of Katrina and the natural disasters that befell our gulf States, invite them to come and sit in this gallery is an excellent concept. We as a group ought to consider asking our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to allow these seats to be filled by American citizens who have had their lives disrupted and their futures placed in doubt and listen to this President tell them that things are good in America and that their government is helping them. Maybe that might prompt some action, Mr. Speaker. Because just recently, 2 nights ago, there was on one of the networks a story about Americans living in cars waiting to go into trailers. How long do we expect our fellow citizens to endure that kind of an existence? We can feel sorry for those all over the globe that experience poverty, that experience tragedy in their lives, but our first obligation is to our own citizens. When we speak of nation-building, Mr. Speaker, let's start building America again. That is where we should begin. In terms of your points regarding our lack of preparedness for a terrorist attack, let's be very candid. Those levees that were breached in Louisiana, they were breached because of natural forces, forces of nature. They very well could have been breached by a terrorist attack. And what did we see? We saw a lack of preparation, Mr. Speaker, that offended every American and really, I would suggest, shook the rest of the world because they saw an America that they did not realize existed, an America that was ill-prepared to take care of its own people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield for a moment. You know, how about building some roads here in the United States? How about rehabilitating schools and constructing new schools with taxpayer dollars generated at the Federal level. Rather than doing that for the United States here, what about our fellow citizens who were ravaged and are expressing frustration ever every single day in the national media in the aftermath of Katrina, and Rita, and other natural disasters, who are living in cars. What about doing something here, Mr. President, for Americans, rather than assuming the cost of nation building in Iraq?

Mr. DELAHUNT. At a minimum, the American people deserve a debate. They deserve a debate. They deserve a debate about the implications, not just in terms of our national security, but the implications for the economic future particularly of your generation, by virtue of the costs that are being borne by American taxpayers, let alone my sons and daughters and your generation with their blood in Iraq. I mean, from what we can infer, since the American taxpayer is bearing almost the entire burden of nation building in Iraq, let us have a debate about the concept of nation building as a key critical ingredient in the foreign policy espoused by this White House and embraced by this Republican Congress. Because that, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is a marked transformation in traditional Republican principles. We have heard, even in the course of the campaign in 2000 and from previous Presidential campaigns, a denigration of nation building in terms of our foreign policy. And yet, what we have done is we have embarked upon a nation building exercise as part of our foreign policy, as part of our international relations. It is being borne by the American taxpayer.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask you this. Was al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq?

Mr. DELAHUNT. From September 11 of 2001 to today, has anything changed in terms of our preparedness for a major terrorist attack such as we experienced in New York and here in Washington? Has anything changed according to the 9/11 report of any consequence, of anything substantial whatsoever?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to acknowledge the presence of a good colleague and a good friend and clearly a solid Republican, Steve King from Iowa. Let me pose a question to him. The gentleman from Iowa is down here on a regular basis and is an ardent advocate of his point of view. I know we are running out of time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very important statistic to discuss during the course of our conversation this evening. The interest payments that the American taxpayers are required to make every single year amount to some $300 billion on the debt that has been accumulated because of the policies of this White House, this Republican House of Representatives, and this Republican Senate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And how are they going to pay for them?

Mr. DELAHUNT. To the Koreans.