Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we know that he did have weapons of mass destruction because we provided, during the 1980s, the means for the development of those weapons to Saddam Hussein. Members of this administration, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, they clearly knew because they were involved in assuring that the means to develop weapons of mass destruction were provided to the Saddam Hussein regime.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. They are eroding the confidence of the American people in this institution; and I would hope that they would reflect, stop, and change course. Because if it continues, it is demeaning to this institution, and it is eroding our democracy. If I can, just for one moment, let me hold up this chart. The gentlewoman earlier talked about the monies that have been expended by American taxpayers in Iraq. There are an abundance of reports from a variety of sources about Iraq reconstruction. The biggest corruption scandal in history. I serve as the senior Democrat, the so-called ranking member on a subcommittee of International Relations that ought to be looking into these assertions and allegations. I do not know if they are true. We have had colleagues that have corresponded seeking to have hearings. This is just some of the quotes. ``It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history.'' This is the Iraqi finance minister speaking about more than $1 billion missing from the Iraqi Defense Ministry. ``This country is filled with projects that were never completed or were completed and have never been used.'' This is a U.S. civil affairs officer who asked not to be identified. ``We were told to stimulate the economy any way we can, and a lot of money was wasted in the process.'' That is Captain Kelly Mims, part of the Army liaison team in Falujah. ``We were squandering the money we were entrusted to handle. We were a blind mouse with money.'' That is Bill Keller, former deputy advisor to the Iraqi Communications Ministry, referring to reconstruction projects. ``I presume that some of them are ghost employees, but we paid them.'' That is Frank Willis, former Coalition Provisional Authority, regarding the payments of salaries to 2,400 people who did not exist.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can for a moment, I want to take issue with the President's statement relative to support the troops and that asking questions somehow undermines that support. That is false. That is inaccurate. There is not a Member in this House on either side of the aisle, I cannot believe there is an American anywhere in this country, that does not fervently pray that these young men and women come home, come home without wounds, but I will talk about support for the troops because I believe that if there is a grade to be given for supporting the troops by this White House, it is a failure. It is a failure. How many letters have we, and again, not just Democrats, but Republicans, sent to this White House complaining about the lack of vests, complaining about the unarmored humvees that so many of our young troops have been killed, permanently maimed, and yet we still have problems? It is an issue that has been lingering for years, not just for months. I am not suggesting that that was intended, but it is a demonstration of the incompetence of this administration, and underscores, if we are talking about supporting the troops, the lack of that support. You referenced earlier about veterans. It is easy for the President to wish the troops well as they march into war, and yet it was this White House, this administration, that submitted a budget for the Veterans Administration that was $2.5 billion less than hopefully the budget that this Congress will pass. Let me suggest to the White House that that demonstrates callousness and turning your back on those young men and women in Iraq, and it is absolutely a stain on our national honor.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And they will not have a hearing. They are afraid of transparency and accountability.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Something.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. It is a very loose term.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In the room. `` `In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterize as evidence of weapons of mass destruction,' O'Neill told Time, referring to Time Magazine. `There were allegations and assertions by people, but I have been around a hell of a long time and I know the difference between evidence and assertions and allusions or conclusions that one could draw from a set of assumptions. To me there is a difference between real evidence and everything else and I never saw anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence.' '' ``In response, a top administration official tried to dismiss O'Neill as out of the loop on weapons of mass destruction intelligence. `That information was on a need-to-know basis. He wouldn't have been in a position to see it.' '' Just imagine this. We have the President saying that the intelligence was available to everybody. Yet a top administration official in response to the assertion by Secretary O'Neill that he never saw any evidence had this to say: ``Oh, it wouldn't have been available to him.'' That to me is just inexplicable. I think we deserve an answer from the President. We deserve an answer from the administration as to what actually happened. And I would like to hear from Secretary O'Neill sometime. I think it is important.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Neither did Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of Treasury who served on the National Security Council.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can, if the gentleman would yield, what I would like to do is try to emphasize that these questions have been posed by Republicans as well as Democrats regarding intelligence, whether it was manipulated, or whether it was used in a selective fashion. Now, I am going to begin by quoting the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who back in June of 2004 in an interview had this to say about the issue of intelligence: In recent weeks, Powell has apologized for at least 2 lapses regarding information about Iraq and terrorism. In a recent Meet the Press appearance, Powell said that he had relied on faulty intelligence when he told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq had biological weapons. It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. I want to repeat that this evening, because I believe it is important that the American people pay attention to the former Secretary of State's use of words here: In some cases, deliberately misleading. Now, he does not go on to explain who did the misleading, whose responsibility it was to review the intelligence, to ensure that the sources were reliable, whether there was manipulation. But what I find interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we are here on this floor asking these questions years, years after Democrats have asked for full and exhaustive investigations, inquiries, and oversight hearings. We have not had a single oversight hearing. Maybe this is simply the by-product of a situation, when you have a single party controlling both branches of Congress and the White House. But if that is the case, it is damning, because it puts before the responsibilities, the constitutional responsibilities of this Congress party loyalty, and I dare say the American people will not accept that. If I can further proceed, Mr. Speaker, a statement that the intelligence that was available to him was available to Members of Congress, both Members of the House and Members of the Senate. Well, I find that very interesting. First of all, that is inaccurate and wrong. And to support my premise or the statement I just made, I would refer my colleagues and those overhearing this conversation to read a book called The Price of Loyalty written by a journalist of some renowned, which is basically a memoir of the experiences of the former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill whom, by the way, is a conservative Republican, a captain of industry. He ran Alcoa and was selected by this President to serve as his first Secretary of Treasury. He relates that in the first National Security Council meeting about a week or 10 days after this President was inaugurated, prior, prior to September 11 of 2001, that he was taken aback at that meeting because he participated in those meetings by virtue of his being Secretary of the Treasury, that the focus of the Bush administration was to shift from resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue to how this administration would deal with Iraq. He was truly taken aback by that. About a week later, he is at another meeting where there is a map that is put forward about how the oil fields in Iraq would be divvied up; what countries and what companies would be allocated the development of those oil fields. Go to page 96 of that book. But what was particularly interesting was on page 334. This is Secretary O'Neill, a member of the administration, a good Republican with solid conservative credentials.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I am part of the 30-Something Working Group. I might be a two-fer, though. You know, I mean, I would suggest that in my case you get two for one.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can just interrupt, I heard that in my absence the other night that there were some comments that were made about my lack of, well, made about my absence. Could you explain that to me?

Mr. DELAHUNT. We do not know. But you know what is sad is that this Republican majority in Congress will not allow us an oversight hearing to determine whether this report is true or not. There has not been a single hearing in the House of Representatives in terms of the Iraq war and all of the issues that we have raised here, not a single hearing; and I would submit that that is just a total abdication of our responsibility.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We have wasted billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in Iraq, and yet not a single hearing. And I do not want a hearing where some administration official comes up and presents a 5-minute overview and we have 5 minutes to question. I am talking about a thorough, exhaustive investigation done by staff on both sides of the aisle and by serious Republicans and Democrats who find this kind of waste and scandal abhorrent.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I did. I am rested up and looking forward to participating tonight. I do concur with everything you said and, again, I want to acknowledge your commitment, your creativity, and the fact that this is an effort to allow people to participate in our conversation, because we want to know what they are interested in, and my understanding is there has been a number of questions posed. Maybe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) or the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) could tell me what the number is.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is going to take some time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is simply an inaugural effort. It will be interesting.

Mr. DELAHUNT. ``I presume that some of them are ghost employees, but we paid them.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is that mandatory?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Maybe it is just that they do not get it. They have not been here long enough to understand that they have been in power for 12 years. I mean, we have a single-party government in this country today, the Senate, the House, and the White House. And yet conservatives like the President of the American Conservative Union, David Keen, he noted in a letter to members that Federal spending has increased by $300 billion since George Bush took office, including $96 billion for domestic social welfare programs. By comparison, Keen said, spending increased by only $51 billion during President Clinton's 8 years. So I guess what we are talking about is the capacity of an administration to spend money wisely and effectively. We heard about welfare reform, Mr. Speaker, and yet we have created a welfare state for major corporations. We have created in Iraq a welfare state for Iraqis. And as we have said here before, it was the Republican majority that insisted that the money that goes to Iraq, to rebuild Iraq, never be paid back to the American taxpayers. That just does not make any sense. That makes absolutely no sense. And we stood here on this floor and said, Make it a loan so that we get the money back, so that we can use it to control the deficit, this deficit that is the product of this administration and this Congress. When Bill Clinton left office, there was a surplus of $5.6 trillion. And I kept hearing something about facts over here. Well, that is a fact that they should recognize, the Republican majority. Bill Clinton left a surplus for the American people. And what do we have now? We have trillions, trillions of a deficit that will explode in future years harming the interests of generations of Americans to come.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, may I say something? I do not know if the gentlewoman had the opportunity to listen earlier to our friends and colleagues, but they talked about common sense and they talked about respect for families. And yet in their proposal there is a cut of some $5 billion in a category called child support enforcement. Now, common sense would dictate that if you invest money, if you invest $1 and get $4 in return that you do it because that is a good deal. Well, that is a bureaucratic term, child support enforcement. Really what it comes down to is, in most cases, deadbeats, deadbeat fathers who are running out on their obligation to their children, leaving mom and the children without any support, and forcing them onto welfare. So instead of really demonstrating common sense, this Republican budget reduces the enforcement of audits on fathers to provide support for their children and former wives. It eliminates that or reduces it by $5 billion, and that translates, if you look at it as a business decision, into a loss of some $20 billion, $20 billion that would go to support children in this country.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think what is going on is that there is a misunderstanding on the part of the Republican leadership when they speak of patriotism. Patriotism is not about a parade. It is not simply respect for the flag. It is about treating the men and women who go to war for us, who serve the country with respect. That is what patriotism is about. We hear a lot about patriotism on the floor of this House, and I am sure that those words are uttered with great conviction and sincerity. But I guess what we are trying to convey is that patriotism is not just rhetoric. Remember what Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to say during World War II? Shared sacrifice. Who is sacrificing for our veterans? Those that receive this egregious tax benefit who are among the most affluent in America. I daresay if those people were inquired of, one by one, they would say, Take that tax break; I want the veterans to be respected.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you hear about limited government? Did you hear about fiscal responsibility? You know what is interesting? I served with a gentleman who is a genuine conservative and he was part of the leadership on the Republican side. He chose not to run again. And I guess that must be a very liberating experience, because he recently spoke out and this is what he said: Our President is publicly oblivious to criticism, although off-the- record reports indicate his patience is running thin inside the White House. He argues the right wing is now spending like profligates with no tomorrow, and is displaying a very real arrogance. What they say about absolute power is coming to reality. Those words were written by, as I said, a former member of the Republican leadership, Representative J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, a conservative, a man of principle. As I said earlier, we have heard about reform. We hear about we have got to limit government. Well, what have they been doing for 12 years?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you hear about reform?