Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would allow me, the energy bill that passed this Congress just about a year ago, in June 2005, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Speaker, that was a bill that was passed by the Republican majority. It was passed with only minimal support from Democrats. Do you know what the cost of a gallon of gas was when you pulled up at that gas station back in June of 2005 when this House passed and the President signed the Republican energy bill, Mr. Meek, Mr. Ryan? It was around $2 a gallon. Let me answer my own question. Now, do you know what? It is just about a year later, and the fact is a year after this Republican majority passed their bill, their energy act, gas is now $3 a gallon. $3 a gallon. They run this institution. They pass the laws here. This is their bill. This is their $3 a gallon problem. It is all of our problem, but the consequences of what they have done for the oil and gas industry in this country translates into a problem for all Americans.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me just add another illustration. What it comes down to is that let me go back to the Medicare reform issue, the so-called prescription drug, just to remind our colleagues and the American people that there was no consultation with Democrats about the prescription drug benefit. In fact, there was a so-called conference committee that should have brought Democrats and Republicans together to discuss the proposal, but Republicans in this House chose not to even inform the Democrats on that committee where the conference committee was meeting. They were shut out. They were shut out on that. They are shut out on energy. They are shut out on consultations in terms of the war, what led up to the war. I mean, this is a problem of our institutions being eroded because of the proclivity of this administration and this Republican Congress to operate behind closed doors and keep out the bad news from the American people and other important policy-makers in our government in our democracy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just add one other. The prescription drug benefit, so-called part D, there was information----

Mr. DELAHUNT. There was information available to the White House that was not provided to the Congress in terms of the costs, and now we are faced with profound problems in terms of the execution and the implementation of that plan. Seniors are frustrated and confused. The so-called donut hole is going to be a stone wall that many seniors are going to run into. But the head of the Medicare trust fund told the actuary that was in possession of the White House estimates of the costs of the program, that if he disclosed those figures to this Congress, that he would lose his job. In other words, do not tell anybody anything. It just supports your point about an administration that is shrouded in secrecy, that refuses to be straight with the American people and, I might add, refuses to indulge or to engage, rather, in genuine consultations with the Congress and particularly Democrats. We are kept out of any thoughtful, legitimate, genuine interaction in forming policy. That is why, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about the energy policy, it is the Republican policy. It is the Republican $2.91 a gallon at the pump, up from $1.45 four years ago. It is your price per gallon. It is not Democrats. So please do not even suggest that Democrats had anything to do with the price that is breaking the average American family.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a $10 billion bill. And we do not have the money, Mr. Speaker, to do that. We do not have the revenue to do it. We have to go into the financial markets and borrow that money. And this administration has established another record which is that more than 80 percent of the money that we have borrowed comes from overseas, Mr. Speaker, from the Chinese, from OPEC nations. And you have the chart right there, Mr. Meek. So we go and we borrow the money from foreign central banks, from foreign investors, to buy off the American voter at $100 per, because the American people are angry as a result of the Republican energy policy that has created a potential disaster for our economy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Sure. Our e-mail address is www.housedemocrats.gov/ 30something.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So in 2002 it was $34 billion of profits for Big Oil. And in the space of 4 years, actually 3 years, that has trebled to $113 billion. Now, maybe I am simple minded. But why would this Republican Congress and the White House feel the need to pass an energy bill that was all about protecting the subsidies to the oil companies while there are record, historic profits? Mr. Speaker, can somebody please explain that to me? And do not tell me about, you cannot drill here and you cannot do that, and you cannot do this. And if Democrats only whatever, fill in the blank. This is the Republican policy. This is the Republican House of Representatives. This is the Republican White House. The consequences of that policy, the consequences of that policy is the $3 plus per gallon price to the average American as he or she goes into that gas station. That is what it translates into. And Democrats have had nothing to do with it because you are Washington, Mr. Speaker, you are Washington.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is that 113 billion?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I do not even want to explore the motivation. I mean, clearly there is a perspective. But I think what is necessary is to put the facts out in very simple form. And that is really dramatic. The story is told in very dramatic terms by that chart. The result of the Republican energy policy is when President Bush, working with a Republican Congress, came, was elected, was inaugurated as the President of the United States. By that chart, and I am sure it is well documented, the price of gas was $1.45. And today it is double. It is $2.91. That is understandable. And what is also irrefutable is that during that time the House, the Senate, and the White House were in power. And the consequences, the consequences of their energy policy, the Republican energy policy, has been a doubling in the price of gasoline at the pump. Huge increases in the cost of heating ourselves in our homes during the winter, and similarly dramatic increases in the cost of cooling ourselves in the summer, and for those particularly who live in the southern part of our country. That is the energy policy. But part of that energy policy is to ensure that Big Oil in this country reaps record profits, and simultaneously receives corporate welfare. That, let me suggest to my friends, is the Republican energy policy, period. Now they are panicked. Let us be honest. Now they are running around. I think it was the majority leader in the Senate. You know, they obviously are polling. It is an election year. And what is clear is that the American people are waking up and are demonstrating their anger. So they come in with not proposals that would, for example, increase the miles per gallon of our motor vehicles, but let us give everybody, every voter a $100 rebate if they own a car. I mean, that is laughable. That is really laughable. And how are they going to get the $100, Mr. Speaker, to give to every voter? They are going to go and they are going to borrow the money. They are going to borrow the money from somewhere. OPEC. China. Japan. Korea. So in a difficult political situation, with elections looming, they are going to buy off the voter with $100.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you for that exposition. I just want to return to the original theme. We are connecting the dots, because I think really what is required is an openness that heretofore has been missing. And I honestly believe that the dreadfully low polling numbers for the institution would be changed dramatically. In other words, rather than 23 percent of the American people approving the performance of Congress, 23 percent as opposed to two- thirds of the American people disapproving of the performance of Congress, can only change with transparency and aggressive oversight. By aggressive oversight, we don't simply mean partisanship and partisan attacks. We mean putting it all out on the table, letting men like these three generals and many others. I think of the former AID director, the Agency for International Development, who is currently at Georgetown University doing a professorship, who recently made a statement saying that the reconstruction effort in Iraq is plagued by incompetence and turf battles within the administration. It would be healthy. It would be healthy for us, for the institution, because you said something earlier about the confidence of the American people. If we are going to change those poll numbers, we have to come together, assume our responsibilities and become aggressive about holding the executive branch accountable, holding ourselves accountable, as you just pointed out, and reviewing the performance of the judiciary. We could debate about it, but let the American people hear directly, without the filter of partisanship, whether it be Democratic or Republican. Let them hear directly as to the observations of those that are involved in whatever the issue is. I mean, I would suggest that in the aftermath of the passage of the so-called prescription drug benefit program, that aggressive oversight would have entailed bringing before the appropriate committee of Congress those who are involved in hiding from the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate what the estimates were in the administration of the cost of that particular plan. We should have all been outraged. We should have demanded to hear from the participants, but we didn't. We failed, I would suggest. And know what we have today? We have the lowest rating, I believe, since I have been here, by the American people, according to a poll that I just saw before coming over here, of the performance of the United States Congress. We are a democracy. We have got to become institutionalist once more. We have got to defend the prerogative of the Congress, whoever is in the White House. I will tell you what I have learned, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is that when one party controls all of the levers of power in a democracy, accountability just disappears. I am not saying that is peculiar to Republicans. Maybe it is innate just in human nature. We don't want to embarrass our President, if he is of the same party, but we have got to restore a sense of pride in the institution. That is not happening here today. One hearing, one legitimate hearing on Iraq in 3 years? Meanwhile, thousands of military personnel have died, and we are spending close to $1 trillion already, and more in the pipeline. It is not right. That is why the American people are losing confidence in the U.S. Congress.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But don't we owe it to the American people, Madam Speaker, to hear directly in the United States Congress at a full committee hearing from General Paul Eaton, from Army Major General John Batiste, and also from Marine Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold? Again speaking about the leadership of Donald Rumsfeld, these are his words. ``My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who never had to execute these missions or bury the results.'' Those are very, very powerful words. This is a very tragic and special moment in American history, Madam Speaker. We are at war. We have lost thousands of men and women in this war. The American taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in this war. And, Madam Speaker, why can't we hear from those generals in a public forum? Why? Well, I am not going to reach a conclusion as to what the answer is.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what? We really do have some heroes in this country, people who will speak out and tell the truth and who are not afraid of laying it on the line. If I could indulge you, Mr. Ryan, and you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think we have got to recognize what these nonpoliticians, who were leaders in Iraq, the men and women who served this country, had to say about the competence of Secretary Rumsfeld and the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense. If you would indulge me. Back in March of this year, Major General Paul Eaton, who was responsible, by the way, for the training of the Iraqi security forces, had this to say in reference to the Defense Secretary. Now, these are his words; not my words, but his words. ``He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.'' That was a Marine general, highly decorated, well-respected and regarded by his colleagues and peers, Paul Eaton.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, I think it is important to understand that in a democracy, if we are going to enjoy the full measures of citizenship, that those in power, those elected representatives of the people have to act in a transparent way and have to exercise that responsibility to hold accountable all those representatives of government transparency. I mean, we can have disagreements, and we can do it in a very respectful fashion. But if we do not have the information, if we do not have the facts, if we never hear the truth, then we are doing a disservice to the American people, because we are denying them the opportunity to enjoy the full measure of being an American citizen.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Not a single hearing. I would think, Madam Speaker, if there was a genuine desire on the part of this House to examine in depth the truth of what is happening in Iraq and in the real world, we would have those generals, Madam Speaker, come before the appropriate committees of this House and inquire of them why they make these statements, such as the statement last Thursday by retired Army General John Batiste, again Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld. Again, I am quoting this American hero. ``We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a Secretary of Defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team.'' Now, you know, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that the Defense Secretary has come here on the floor of this House, Madam Speaker, in this well, and behind closed doors has briefed us, but we never hear from those generals. We never hear from the generals, Madam Speaker. Why? Why can't we have a hearing and invite Paul Eaton, a former general in the United States Marine Corps, and Retired Army General John Batiste? Why can't we do that? Is that asking too much, Madam Speaker? Is that asking too much, to let the American people hear for themselves? If there is an answer to that, will someone please give it to me? We haven't had the exercise of any oversight on Iraq ever. Ever.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we know what it means.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But the reality of it is it isn't even the issues themselves, because they stonewalled on the 9/11 Commission until public pressure compelled them to agree to have an independent commission; they would not release the e-mails and other documents in terms of both before Katrina landed on the Gulf States and afterwards from the White House, and they refused to do an independent commission there; and in Iraq we have had no hearings until today. I thought it was interesting that, like I said, some of the Republican Members said, well, we have had hearings. Well, the subcommittee that has jurisdiction, of course, is the Middle East Subcommittee, and the ranking member Mr. Ackerman went through his own records and looked all through the year 2003 to see how many hearings even peripherally might have been related to Iraq. None. None. In 2004, in all of 2004, that particular subcommittee had one hearing related to Iraq, but it was about the United States and the Iraqi marshlands, an environmental response. In June of 2005, the next year, there was a hearing on Iraq's transition to democracy. Nothing about all of the other obvious issues that were begging out to be addressed; the competence of the civilian leadership and the role of Secretary Rumsfeld and the disagreements with the military that have performed so well in terms of their service in Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I can assure you, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, there will not be any oversight. There will be no investigation because this Congress simply will not do it. If there is one theme that has characterized the 6 years of this administration and the 6 years of control of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate by the Republican Party, it is a lack of transparency, is secrecy, is a refusal to be held accountable. And much of the responsibility comes right here to this institution. Now, let me just divert for one moment and cite the example of accountability and oversight in the case of the war in Iraq. Both the decisionmaking process that led us to intervene militarily in Iraq and what has happened since the so-called major combat phase was announced.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It was announced by President Bush as he flew in and landed on that aircraft carrier saying the mission was accomplished. I happened to be the senior Democrat on a subcommittee of the International Relations Committee, that in that particular capacity I, along with other Members, Democratic Members, have requested again and again and again an opportunity to ask some questions about the whole array of issues, the fraud and the corruption that has absolutely gone wild. It is the Wild West. Everybody that has come back from Iraq that has been in a position to observe and witness the corruption by contractors, by Iraqis, by Americans, by other foreign nationals says it is unlike anything we have ever seen. Well, you know how many hearings we have had? Let me rephrase that. Something unusual happened today, more than 3 years after the end of the so-called combat phase. The House International Relations Committee had a hearing on Iraq, and witnesses from the administration actually appeared and testified. I am not even going to comment on that hearing, but I would commend Members from both sides of the aisle to go and to read the transcript in the Congressional Record, because we had an opportunity to ask some questions. Clearly, clearly, at least on the Democratic side, no one was satisfied with the answers, but we had the opportunity. Madam Speaker, this is 3 years after March and May of 2003; 3 years later. Now, an effort was made by some of our colleagues saying, well, we have had hearings. Well, we have had hearings, but I don't know where we had them, because we certainly haven't had them in a room that the American people can observe what the answers were.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that company is?

Mr. DELAHUNT. But this is a nightmare.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is really interesting to note for the record, Madam Speaker, that the relationship between this rubber-stamp Congress and this White House is so close that in the 6 years of this Presidency, he has never had to veto a single piece of legislation that came from the United States Congress. Not once, Madam Speaker, not once.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In 2 years. I guess that is productivity.

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is oligopoly or a tendency towards monopoly, and this House has done nothing, Madam Speaker. There has not been any antitrust hearing as far as the oil companies are concerned, Madam Speaker. We have not had any hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction, which is the Judiciary Committee, that would shed some light on why in 3 years they went from $34 billion to $113 billion. And we wonder why, Madam Speaker, we wonder why the American people are losing confidence in the House of Representatives, the people's House.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, there is such a thing as royalty payments, but in this administration there is a rule that has created a situation where even though the dollar value, as we can see from these various charts, has exploded in terms of revenue to the oil companies, the royalty payments that they make, Madam Speaker, have declined by $7 billion. And this is the energy policy of the Bush administration and the Bush Republican Congress. And yet we hear on this floor complaints about the Democratic proposals. You cannot run against Washington, Madam Speaker, when you are Washington. You just cannot do it. You cannot argue with yourself. This is your mess. This energy policy, you own it, Madam Speaker. The leadership in this House, the leadership in this Republican Senate, and the leadership of the Bush administration own this reality today, which is over the past 3 years big oil profits have more than tripled. And we here in this Congress, in collusion with that White House, have provided welfare to Big Oil on top of that. That is truly, Mr. Meek, obscene.