Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. You are saying we have an ownership society, Mr. Meek.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, congratulations once more.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If my colleague would yield. I don't want to skip past that, because I think it is important to analyze what kind of jobs are being created. And I think we all concur that the number of jobs are insufficient to move American society ahead to realize the American dream, if you will. But the reality is it is not the kind of jobs that carry with them the ability to have a living standard that most Americans enjoyed 5 years ago, 10 years ago and 15 years ago. These aren't good jobs at good wages. These are menial jobs, in many cases, at low wages. There is a difference. The truth is that the median income for an American family has declined. It hasn't grown. So that while there may be jobs out there, Americans are falling behind. They are losing their health care. They are losing their pension. And what is really tragic is that they are losing the hope that all Americans have for their children and grandchildren. That is what I am experiencing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They prefer jobs at low wages. In essence, it is really that simple. Low-wage jobs are being produced by the policies of this administration and this Congress that is complicit. Complicit. And we know there has not been a single veto by this President because this is a Congress that goes along with this administration.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am on a diet myself.

Mr. DELAHUNT. There is no oversight.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What are the colors of the Gators, could you tell us? Do they happen to be blue and orange?

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is Newt Gingrich, who I know because when I first came to Congress, he was the presiding officer of this branch. My colleague, Sheila Jackson-Lee, who preceded me in terms of service here in this branch, would also know and clearly could articulate that Newt Gingrich is someone who, whether you agreed with him or not, said it like he saw it. And this is what he sees today: A Republican Party in disarray, a Republican Party that can't govern. That is the bottom line.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding, and I really welcome the enthusiasm and the optimism that have been expressed by the Congresswoman from California and the gentleman from Florida. I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution. However, I have served as an observer in past elections in Haiti, elections that prompted great hope, but resulted in great disappointment. So I believe for a moment it is important to reflect, and I would quote the words of Luigi Einaudi, who was tasked by the OAS to mediate between the opponents of the former president of Haiti, Mr. Aristide, and I am going to quote his words. This is a gentleman who knows Haiti well and Washington well: ``Haiti is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy of partisanship and hate and hostility. These were divides among Haitians, and they are also divides among Americans because Haiti came to symbolize within the United States a point of friction between Democrats and Republicans that did not facilitate bipartisanship or stable policy or communication.'' In the end, he was unsuccessful. Aristide was overthrown in February of 2004, and Haiti continued to descend into violence and despair. But it wasn't Einaudi that failed. Haiti's political class bears much of the responsibility for this tragedy because of their self-serving and cynical refusal to place nation over people in exchange for self- aggrandizement. But here we also have our share of responsibility. A recent New York Times story entitled ``Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Towards Chaos'' should be essential reading for all of us, and I will insert this article into the Record. Former U.S. Ambassador to Haiti, American Ambassador Dean Curran, once referred to the ``chimeres of Washington.'' A chimere in Haiti is a thug hired to intimidate one's political opponents. And different Haitian political actors, both Aristide and his opposition, had their chimeres in Washington. It has been my experience that there has been more advocacy than neutrality about Haiti on the part of the United States. Too often we join the zero-sum game of Haitian politics. We picked sides and supported them at the expense of Haiti and its long-suffering people. For example, some here, working in coordination with Aristide's opponents, would place so-called ``holds'' on U.S. assistance in Haiti, blocking aid for the police, for the judicial system, for human rights observers, for election monitors; and Haiti's fragile institutions collapsed, starved from the outside and rotted from the inside. I would note, and it is important to note this, that many of these holds were placed during the term of Rene Preval when he was the president in the past. Others who supported Aristide failed to recognize his shortcomings and deficiencies and failed to encourage him to put forth a positive vision for the Haitian people. The end result was that Haiti's fate was not only decided in Haiti, it was also decided here in Washington. But now, with this most recent election, Haiti does have an opportunity to move past its past, and we have the same opportunity here in Washington. For Haiti to have a future, two things must happen: First, the Haitian political class must act like small ``d'' democrats and make a priority the needs of the Haitian people; and second, Americans must put our differences aside and commit to a bipartisan policy of noninterference in Haiti's internal politics. I want to participate in that. I have had conversations with groups whom I have had profound differences about Haiti with in the past, such as the International Republican Institute. And maybe I am naive, but I sense an emerging consensus that we must come together on the part of all who have an interest in Haiti and encourage a new and constructive approach. I am not saying that the U.S. should abandon Haiti, far from it. In fact, we should increase our aid. But I would recommend that we should provide assistance through multilateral organizations like the United Nations. Yesterday we met with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who agrees that the international community must provide a deep and sustained commitment to Haiti. In fact, I believe that Haiti should be the first test case for the United Nations' new peace-building commission, and the U.S. should give it its full support. And I have to admit that for the first time I do see a glimmer of hope for Haiti, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make that a real ambition.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Not a single hearing. Not a single hearing, Madam Speaker. Not one. Can anybody, can any Member, Republican or Democratic, please respond and provide an explanation, when there have been reports after reports after reports, indictments, reports from the special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction. It cries out for investigation. It cries out for oversight, Madam Speaker. You know, when the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, came in, and in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein, and began to administer as a viceroy, if you will, for the nation of Iraq, there was $8.1 billion left over from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. There was an audit done subsequently. Not a single penny of that $8 billion plus can be accounted for. That is outrageous. Why haven't we heard from this Congress the need to conduct oversight hearings? If the American people were aware of the requests that have been made continuously to do the kind of work that we were elected to do and is not being done, there would be outrage, Madam Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important to recollect for a moment our friends from the other side of the aisle, part of the Republican majority of this House, tonight were on the floor and they were talking about how for this Congress, this Bush Republican Congress, national security and homeland defense were a priority. It would appear that simply by repetition, by saying it somehow it translates into meaningful national security in real homeland defense. Yet we find again and again and again that this country, as a result of the actions by this White House and this Bush Republican Congress, have failed to provide homeland defense that is meaningful for this country. That report, by the way, it should be noted, was conducted by the Government Accountability Office. That is an independent arm of this Congress. This is not Democrats picking on Republicans.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what I also find disturbing and it really provokes a certain, let me use the word ``disgust.'' When the administration is criticized, particularly some individuals, rather than speak of the policy, they speak in a language that refers to ``them'' or ``those'' or ``some,'' never identifying ``them'' or ``those'' or ``some.'' It is a particular trait of Secretary Rumsfeld. Actually, in today's Washington Times, there is a story about a speech that the Secretary gave to military officers at the Army War College. Let me just quote from the story. ``Defense Secretary Rumsfeld delivered harsh words to war critics yesterday saying, `Some view al Qaeda operatives as victims.''' That is really unfortunate, because I would call on the Secretary to have the courage to stand up and identify who those ``some'' are. I dare say there is not a single Member in this House, Madam Speaker, that would view an al Qaeda operative as a victim. That is just simply disingenuous and certainly I would suggest demeans the office of the Secretary of Defense. Who are ``some,'' Madam Speaker? Not any American that I know, Madam Speaker. None. But if an American wants to criticize this war, this policy, this mismanagement by this Secretary of Defense, not only are they entitled to do it, Madam Speaker, they are obligated if they embrace everything that America stands for.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield for a moment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, there is Saudi Arabia. The gentleman remembers Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Those are the 19 hijackers that were responsible for the deaths of in excess of 3,000 Americans. Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, and how much money do we owe OPEC?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to commend a Senator, a Republican, that requested this particular GAO investigation and inquiry and commissioned that it be undertaken by this independent arm of the U.S. Congress. This is what that Republican Senator from Minnesota has to say about the findings and the conclusion of that report. The Senator said, A report that investigators smuggled enough radioactive material to build two dirty bombs into the United States called into question the Bush administration's efforts to secure the borders. Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, a Minnesota Republican, who heads the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which held a hearing said he was alarmed at the ease with which investigators brought the unspecified radiological material and transported it across the northern and southern U.S. borders. Now, when I hear that this Bush Congress and this Bush White House have done something about homeland defense and national security, Madam Speaker, who is kidding who? Who is kidding who? Can't we have some honesty?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can just make an observation, Madam Speaker, I asked my staff to count the number of hearings that the International Relations Committee has conducted in terms of the United Nations and the need to reform the United Nations, and also hearings that had a focus on the so-called Oil-for-Food program. Throughout Congress there were dozens of those hearings. Do you know how many hearings we have had in the International Relations Committee on the issue of corruption that we know is going on in Iraq, Madam Speaker? Would you think maybe there have been 20 or 15 or five? No, there are none, despite repeated requests from Members of this House. Not a single hearing into the corruption that many different sources have acknowledged is rampant in Iraq in the past 3\1/ 2\ years. Not a single one. Because this Congress is afraid. This Congress is protecting the administration and is abrogating its responsibility.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Not the right, if I can correct my friend and colleague, but the far right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, we never had a plan when we went in there, let alone a strategy to leave.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Ryan, if you would just yield for a moment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that alluded earlier to the experience of Katrina and other national disasters. I mean, there was a report issued again by a subcommittee of this House that concluded that the response to Katrina was a failure of leadership. I mean, that cannot be said any more succinctly or simply. A member of the committee, again, a Republican, let me repeat that, not a Democrat but a Republican, our colleague, Chris Shays from Connecticut, said this: The report is very tough on the President. It is very tough on the Department of Homeland Security. It is a blistering report but I think it is fair. The panel found that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was detached, and that the then-FEMA Director Michael Brown was clueless, Shays said. In one of the excerpts Chertoff was chided for executing critical responsibilities late, ineffectively or not at all, according to the report and to Mr. Shays. Yet, when I turn on any of the stations and the issue is homeland security, the spokesman for the Homeland Security Department is often Secretary Chertoff. So let us just continue along that road, and you know what is going to happen? We are going to continue to find a failure of leadership in every instance that this administration is implicated in.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Not the traditional conservative Republicans that have made an enormous contribution to this country and whom we respect, but the radical neoconservatives. And it is so interesting now to hear from those that were there right after the inauguration talking about how at the first national Security Council meeting, Madam Speaker, there was discussion about war and going to Iraq and changing the regime and making it a national priority. Again, if you want to get into competence, put aside whether you supported going into Iraq. I happen to be opposed because this administration in my view never made a case. But that is irrelevant. Talk about lack of competence. Let me refer you to a story that appeared in the New York Times about a month ago. It states that the American general in charge of training the new Iraqi military after Baghdad fell says the Bush administration strategy to use those forces to replace departing American troops was hobbled from its belated start by poor prewar planning and insufficient staffing and equipment. The account by Major General Paul Eaton on January 31, after 33 years in the Army, suggests that commanders in Iraq might by now have been much closer to President Bush's goal of withdrawing American forces if they had not lost so much time in the first year to begin building a capable Iraqi force. I am quoting a decorated American hero: ``We set out to man, train and equip an army for a country of 25 million with six men.'' Referring to General Eaton, he worked into the autumn with a revolving door of individual lone talent that would spend between 2 weeks and 2 months and never receive even half the 250 professional staff members he had been promised. The general's assessment of the problems he confronted was seconded by Walter Slocumb, sent by the Bush administration to Baghdad 6 months to serve as the senior civilian adviser on national security and defense. Again, Mr. Slocumb, an Under Secretary in this administration said, ``I have to agree with General Eaton that it was hard to get the resources we needed out there. There was not a broad enough sense of urgency in Washington.'' And today we hear this President, this Secretary of Defense, talking about the need to train Iraqis. Why didn't they listen to their own military commanders, specifically the one that was in charge. He was calling on them to do something and they turned a deaf ear, and we are still in Iraq today because of their incompetence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can, there is a second report in addition to the one that we were just discussing. This second report, again, commissioned by the Republican chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, its conclusions were this: The Homeland Security Department has placed 670 monitors at ports around the country. At the current pace the department will fail, let me repeat that, fail to meet its goal for installing 3,034 devices by September 2009. To reach the goal the department would need to install 52 monitors a month for the next four years, though its current installation rate is 22 a month, the report said. Now, this is to determine whether radioactive material that could be used in a dirty bomb is being detected. Now, by the way, if you happen to live in Miami or if you are from Georgia, you should know that the ports of Miami and Savannah, Georgia are among those without the devices that they need. So if you should be living in those particular States, be aware that you are vulnerable to have from the sea, through the ports, material that could be used in a dirty bomb come into your neighborhoods.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Just put the facts out on the table. I just find it so amusing when I hear that national security and homeland defense is something that this side of the aisle, the Republican side of this aisle, the majority that runs this House in conjunction with the administration that is headed by a Republican President and a Senate that has a majority of Republicans are suggesting that national security and homeland defense are a priority, and yet study after study, committee after committee reports that we are ill prepared.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I heard Mr. Meek mention the lack of oversight that occurs within this institution, within this branch; and it is a very serious problem, and many have spoken to it. What I found interesting, while I was at my desk, a friend and colleague of ours, I think it was Mr. Conaway from Texas, talked about a bill that he has, I presume, already filed, which would require Members of Congress to read the Constitution once a year. I listened to him with some fascination, and I would propose that he should consider expanding that particular proposal to include a recognition that a constitutional responsibility of the House of Representatives is oversight of the executive branch and that every Member of Congress should make a solemn pledge before God to honor that responsibility, to conduct oversight. Because I believe if every single Member of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, respected that constitutional principle, we would not be beset by the problems that are becoming obvious to the American people. But I didn't hear any mention of that by our friend and colleague, Mr. Conaway. We are not meeting our constitutional responsibility because the majority party, the Republican Party in this branch, refuses, refuses to conduct oversight of the executive branch because of fear of embarrassing the White House. Well, again, their constitutional responsibility does not flow to the White House. Their constitutional responsibility, Mr. Speaker, goes to the American people, not to the White House. I mean, it is remarkable that during the course of the Bush Presidency we have failed to conduct in-depth probes about some of the most serious allegations of executive abuse and misconduct. And let me just note a few. The possible role of the White House in promoting misleading intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. Just recently, Mr. Speaker, a former CIA official, who served from 2000 to 2005 and has retired, penned a book that indicated that the intelligence was cherry-picked. Yet this House refused, refused to do any oversight; to ask a single question; to bring an executive branch official before the appropriate committee to ask questions that the American people deserve to have answers to. And what about the responsibility of senior administration officials for abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere? What about the role of the White House in withholding the Medicare cost estimates that were in their possession from Congress while we were debating a significantly expensive piece of legislation? In fact, it was acknowledged that the executive White House official in charge threatened to fire, he threatened to fire the Medicare actuary if he told Members of Congress that it was not going to cost $395 billion, according to their estimate, but about $700 billion. And again, no oversight. And I could go on and on. But I have to tell you, if we are going to read the Constitution, if we are going to impose on ourselves the requirement, Mr. Speaker, to read the Constitution, then let us act in a constitutionally responsible way and meet our responsibility so that the American people know what is happening here in Washington and who is responsible.