Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington, a regular member and cochair of Iraq Watch.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Speaker, the noted conservative columnist, a prominent Republican, William Buckley, recently made the statement that this administration has a dismaying capacity to believe its own PR. Well, you know, this is not about public relations. This is about war and peace and the loss of American military lives and untold hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money. That is what this is about. To simply say that things are rosy, and they are guessing, I think does a disservice to our intelligence agencies. Again, to point to the article that was as recent as September 16, it was on the front page of the New York Times. It was entitled, ``U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future'': ``A classified national intelligence estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. There's a significant amount of pessimism, said one government official who has read the document.'' This is just unacceptable, to have the President of the United States say, in response to a question, that they are just guessing. And before we go any further, I think we should indicate that, while we happen to be Democrats, our concern is shared by many prominent Republicans, including men that serve in the United States Congress. So what I have done is I have extracted some quotes from our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle. On September 19, just several days ago, Senator John McCain said this on Fox News, ``I'd like to see more of an overall plan articulated by the President.'' Well, so would the American people. Senator Richard Lugar, another prominent Republican, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, less than a week ago, in response to a question about the slow pace of reconstruction in Iraq, had this to say, ``Well, this is incompetence in the administration.'' ``The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost. We can't lose this. This is too important. There's no question about that. But to say, `Well, we just must stay the course, and any of you who are questioning are just hand- wringers', is not very responsible. The fact is, we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' That is Chuck Hagel, respected Republican from Nebraska. Chuck Hagel goes on to say, ``It's beyond pitiful. It's beyond embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.'' Well, again, I think we have learned that much of what we hear coming from the White House is fodder for a political campaign. But let me suggest that the President should put aside politics, not continue to paint a rosy picture when those who ought to know, know that the reality is totally different. Do not mislead the American people. The American people were misled before. They were misled when it was presented to the American people right on this floor that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the American people who were misled when it was suggested that there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was false, and we know it was false because the independent commission, five Republicans and five Democrats, concluded that it was inaccurate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we do not engage in hyperbole during the Iraq Watch hour, your generous words are a bit overstated, but I want to thank you for claiming the time this evening. I know my colleagues who are regulars on the Iraq Watch are coming. We are assembling. We want to review again what the current status of events in Iraq and the Middle East are so that we can inform ourselves and hopefully inform our colleagues and help educate the American people. I am sure you are aware that just recently there was what is described as a national intelligence estimate which painted a very bleak picture of the future in Iraq. The national intelligence estimate is a compilation of information drawn from the CIA and other American intelligence agencies. As I indicated, it presents a very, very bleak picture. It is outlined that there are three different scenarios. The one that is most disturbing is the possibility that Iraq not only will be fractured, but that a full-scale civil war could break out at any time, but I guess, as a Member of Congress, what is more disturbing is that it was just, I think, yesterday when the question was posed to President Bush, what about the national intelligence estimate and the very pessimistic perspective that was presented by our own intelligence agencies, that his response was, well, they are guessing, they are guessing. That certainly is disturbing to hear our leader, the leader of the free world, make that kind of a statement. I wonder if he reached that conclusion prior to our national tragedy of September 11 when he was presented what is called a Presidential daily briefing on August 6, 2001, that was titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States.'' I wonder if he was guessing at that point in time because he had that information, and now, now we are presented again with a national intelligence estimate that presents a far different scenario than what we hear from the President, from the White House, from the Vice President. Of course, tomorrow, the interim prime minister will be addressing this House. I think it is important to understand that this was a prime minister that was selected through a nonelective process. I am sure we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric. It will sound good, but it is not the true picture, I would suggest, of what our intelligence agencies tell us is transpiring in Iraq today.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, today we have a very simple choice before us. While it implicates the United States' policy regarding Cuba, at a very fundamental level it is about more, much more than the United States and Cuba. It is about values. Family values. We hear a lot about family values in this Chamber, about the sanctity of the family and the need to protect and strengthen family ties. Well, today the Davis amendment provides us an opportunity to match that rhetoric with action. It is a test. It is a test for all of us. It is a test to measure the sincerity and the quality of our commitment to family values. In June, as has been indicated, the White House announced new restrictions on family travel which some have suggested would undermine the Cuban government; but I would submit that it is not going to hurt Fidel Castro. No, no. They will not overthrow him, but they will certainly punish families on both sides of the Florida Straits, in Cuba, and in the United States, because until now, Cuban Americans could travel to Cuba to visit family every year, every single year, bringing assistance to their families to help them survive. Well, not any more. Now Cuban Americans can only visit the islands once every 3 years and they are allowed to travel even on that one occasion if they get permission from the travel police over there somewhere in the Treasury Department. By the way, they can now only visit certain members of the family. They cannot visit aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews. They do not count anymore. And note well, there are no humanitarian exceptions. The author of this amendment quoted one of the individuals who was instrumental in crafting this anti-family policy. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fisk, and I think it is worthy of repetition. These are his words: ``An individual can decide when they want to travel once every 3 years and the decision is up to them.'' I guess this is freedom of choice. ``So if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out when they want to travel.'' I ask my colleagues to pause and think about that for a moment. If your mother and father are both ill and dying and they should die within 3 years of each other, you have to make the decision which funeral you are going to attend. Let me suggest that is anti-family. Let me suggest it is immoral. Let me suggest that it is not what America is all about. Now, some who support this new anti-family policy argue that allow family travel will somehow promote Cuban terrorism. Let us see, family reunification abets terrorism. That is just simply absurd, Mr. Chairman. That is just simply absurd. I would urge the opponents of this amendment to meet Carlos Lazo, a blow-up of Mr. Lazo is to my right, and tell him he is abetting terrorism. He is a Cuban American who escaped from Cuba some 12 years ago on a raft. Now he is a medic in the National Guard serving in Iraq. When he was home on leave, he could not visit Cuba to see his two sons that are now teenagers. And now he is back in Iraq. Hopefully he will see his sons again. But let us remember that that is a hope because every day he risks his life for his adopted country. Opponents of this amendment would insinuate that this American hero is abetting terrorism? Come on. That is offensive. Let us be clear, this new policy translates an already-failed policy, because Castro has been there for 45 years, into one that is cruel and heartless, anti- family and anti-American, while today the amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) provides a test for those who speak to family values. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly concerned about the erosion of the independence and statehood role in our judicial system. This bill is just another attack on access to the courts, and the latest attempt to override existing State laws. At this rate, we will have a justice system available only to corporate America. Litigation costs already make the courts unavailable for the average person and small business. This bill takes our country further in the wrong direction. This bill will not ``take back the courts'' for plaintiffs. To the contrary, Congress continues to block access to justice. Imagine a system that leaves the tobacco industry unchecked. Imagine the number of unnecessary deaths if the trial bar could not keep unsafe tires off our cars. Or a justice system that fails to uncover contamination of public water supplies. We need the private sector. The trial bar plays an important role in the protection of American consumers. Yet, I dare say, we are going in the wrong direction. In another all-too-familiar pattern for this Congress, this bill is another court-stripping measure limiting judicial discretion. From civil rights claims to constitutional challenges, this Congress strips courts of their ability to hear cases. Congress--not a judge sitting in a courtroom--wants to decide if a case is meritorious. Congress--not a judge--will establish inflexible guidelines and impose mandatory sanctions for lawyers. Congress is trying to micromanage the judicial system as well as state judiciaries. We talk a lot in this Chamber about respecting States' rights. Yet, this bill represents an unprecedented invasion into the traditional jurisdiction of State courts. This unwarranted intrusion into States' rights is wrong. States should be able to set their own rules for the game, including those governing the professional conduct of lawyers. Let's not waste any more time undermining the principles of federalism on a piecemeal basis. Why not simply abolish the 10th Amendment? The bill's sponsors claim an agenda of reform--this is not reform. This is about reeling in the wrong direction. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4571 and support the Democratic substitute offered by my colleague from Texas.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. But he is probably one of the most skillful political minds in the country and just recently he made the statement, if you vote for the other candidate you will die. That is basically what he said. A vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorists. Nobody accepts that. But that is the need to make the link, because he was wrong, he cannot admit he was wrong. Do you remember David Kay, who they sent out to learn and to find out where the weapons of mass destruction were, came in front of a Senate committee and said, we were all wrong. This individual, this Vice President, must have blanched because it did not suit his world view, his political agenda.

Mr. DELAHUNT. See, this Vice President has to link the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Even though there is no linkage. That has been confirmed not by partisans here on the floor but by the independent September 11 Commission. Because, if you cannot link the war on terror to the invasion of Iraq, then why did we go into Iraq? For political purposes, you have to create, you have to morph what occurs and what is occurring in Iraq into the overall war on terror, because this is the premise that was used by Dick Cheney when he sold the war.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman said was summed up just recently by a senior American diplomat in Baghdad. Obviously he insisted on anonymity but this is what he said about actually what is happening in Baghdad and Iraq today. ``This idea of a functioning democracy here is crazy. We thought there would be a reprieve after sovereignty, but all hell is breaking loose.'' This is without doubt a debacle. This is the chaos the gentleman referred to. And the sad part of it is despite opposition to the invasion of Iraq, if there had been a coordinated plan, if there had been a relationship between the Department of State and Pentagon rather than just simply the domination of those within the Department of Defense and excluding those that had experience similarly elsewhere in the world, maybe we would not have this problem. But we had Wolfowitz, we had Doug Feith, we had Secretary Rumsfeld who, according to Richard Clarke and others, pushed out the Department of State, would not allow them in at the table to discuss the post major combat phase.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and welcome back to Iraq watch. We noted the gentleman's absence last week. And I see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) has also joined us, but I want to get back to what I think is important, and that is the bipartisan nature of the criticism of this administration. It would be misleading to those watching us tonight to think this is a partisan diatribe. It is not that. It is a genuine concern about the direction of this country. And it is echoed by others. Let me give three quotes. Crossfire host Tucker Carlson said recently, and I think many Americans have observed him on PBS and Crossfire. He said, ``I think it is a total nightmare and disaster. I am ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it.'' William Buckley, an icon within the conservative movement said, ``With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein was not the kind of extraterritorial menace that was assumed by the administration 1 year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.'' I think it is important, too, to quote what I thought was a very courageous statement by a friend of ours, a former colleague who is highly regarded on both sides of the aisle. He was the vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and was a leading member of the House Committee on International Relations, and we know him well, is Doug Bereuter. He sent a letter to his constituents announcing his retirement from Congress. He began by saying, it was a mistake to launch the invasion of Iraq. He said, ``As a result, our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and in general in the Islamic world.'' I respect that. More and more we know that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are expressing their concern.

Mr. DELAHUNT. To learn from them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is interesting, and I think it is important that we remind ourselves and others that, yes, we are members of the minority party. We are Democrats. But this is, in many respects, and it is our concerns I am referring to, they are bipartisan in nature. I read something just recently where, again going back to the cost of the war, that $87 billion that the President keeps referring to that he insisted on being a giveaway as opposed to a loan, Bob Barr, who served in this House and who was probably one of the most conservative Members in this institution, in this branch during his service here, observed that in the midst of the war on terror and a $500 billion deficit, Bush proposes sending space ships to Mars. This really underscores also the folly of what we are doing in terms of driving up our own deficits that will burden generations of Americans and that are structural in nature, which means that something catastrophic is waiting for us unless we address them. And, clearly, we have not seen any response from this White House about addressing them. But in addition to that, a recent September 10, 2004, article by Doug Bandow, who is a senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and served as a special assistant to President Reagan and was a visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, had this to say: ``Bush's foreign policy record is as bad as his domestic scorecard. The administration correctly targeted the Taliban in Afghanistan, but quickly neglected that nation, which is in danger of falling into chaos. The Taliban is resurgent, violence has flared, drug production has burgeoned, and elections have been postponed. ``Iraq, already in chaos, is no conservative triumph. The endeavor in social engineering on a grand scale, a war of choice launched on erroneous grounds, has turned into a disastrously expensive neocolonial burden. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to administration claims, and no operational relationship with al Qaeda, contrary to administration insinuations. U.S. officials bungled the operation, misjudging everything from the financial cost to the troop requirement. Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism.'' Let me repeat that: ``Sadly, the Iraq debacle has undercut the fight against terrorism.'' Just recently, by the way, the Institute for Strategic Studies, again a conservative think tank, in a recent study warned that the Iraq operation has spurred recruiting by smaller terrorist groups around the world. Now, we talked earlier about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Well, the reality is that it is like the parable in the New Testament about the fishes and the loaves: they are everywhere. The incidence of terrorism in this world has increased dramatically. We saw what happened recently and again tragically in Russia.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yet, when the time came, that was a promise that this Vice President and this President reneged on. It is the American people that are building roads in Iraq, it is the American people that are building affordable housing in Iraq, it is the American people that are building hospitals in Iraq, it is the American people that are building brand-new ports in Iraq, it is the American people that are providing practically universal health care coverage in Iraq, it is the American people that are funding jobs in Iraq; and they are never going to get paid back. How about doing that for the American people, President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

Mr. DELAHUNT. And the rest of the world, in terms of their dollars representing their taxpayers, insisted on a loan. It is only the United States of America that provided a gift, not a loan, but a gift, to the interim Iraqi government to begin the process of reconstruction. Now, again, I think we all share the view that there is a responsibility on the part of the United States to assist. But why a gift? Why a giveaway? And the President said that if we made it a loan, he would veto it. So, clearly, the Republican majority here managed to secure enough votes, both here and in the Senate, to make a gift rather than insist on collateral. Remember the Under Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, when he promised the American people that the cost of the reconstruction of Iraq would be paid for with Iraqi resources based on their huge oil reserves? Does the gentleman remember that?

Mr. DELAHUNT. The President did not want to make a loan; he wanted to make a gift.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, if we insisted that at some time in the future the Iraqi government paid back to the United States taxpayer a portion, a portion of that $87 billion. The White House insisted on a gift, a giveaway, if you will, of American tax dollars, never to be repaid to the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. By the way, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I find it very interesting that the President and Dick Cheney, who according to this headline in Newsweek sold the war to the President and within the administration, keep referring to the vote on the $87 billion as somehow demonstrating a lack of support by Senator Kerry for our troops. Does the gentleman remember during the course of that debate that the President of the United States threatened to veto the $87 billion?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, and that is a very dangerous scenario, not just the observation by Senator McCain but the fact that as time moves on, it becomes part of the regular order. Yeah, we lost seven Marines just recently in Fallujah. It is on the front page. Over an extended period of time it will end up on page 2 and then page 5 and page 7, and because not many of us are sharing in the sacrifice tragically we become immune to the real costs of this debacle in Iraq. It is simply not just costing us hundreds of billions of dollars, but it is costing us thousands of American lives and the impact on American families. I know that my colleague and I, as we visit our districts, meet constituents that have lost loved ones in Iraq, and that on a personal level is most painful, but the danger is that we as a people collectively put it in another place in our minds, in our experience. You know, our policy in Iraq can only be described as a failure. We failed. We went to Iraq based on false claims. We failed to find weapons of mass destruction. We clearly demonstrated that there was no evidence of any operational relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was confirmed by the 9/11 independent commission. The administration failed to create broad international support for the effort. The truth is we are there alone now. Yes, the British are there, even though a majority of the British people are opposed to the policy and opposed to the war. But other than the British, yes, there are token forces there, but we are carrying the brunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when we can focus on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but as the President has done, to suggest that the world is safer because of our intervention in Iraq is absolutely, to quote a very prominent Republican conservative pundit, absurd. It is just simply absurd.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can, because the reality is that long before September 11, this White House, this President, this Vice President, whose picture was on the November 2003 edition of Newsweek, had an obsession with Iraq, and I would submit that the best evidence of that obsession is revealed in a book by a noted journalist by the name of Ron Suskind, who sat down with the former Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill, and did, if you will, an overview of Secretary O'Neill's experience in the Bush-Cheney White House. As Secretary O'Neill indicated, he was taken aback by the first National Security Council meeting, and he attended those in his capacity as the Secretary of Treasury, that was held one week after the President was inaugurated, and it quickly turned to the issue of Iraq. There were no threats emanating from Iraq. There were no statements emanating from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein relative to an attack on the United States or any of our allies. In fact, if you remember, the Secretary of State himself, Colin Powell, later on some time in February described the Iraqi military in terms that turned out to be absolutely accurate, they were forthright, they had been significantly degraded, but one week after the President was sworn in the dominating subject of the first National Security Council meeting was Iraq. Then subsequently, on February 27, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill relates at another National Security Council meeting that the Vice President, this gentleman here, Dick Cheney, had a map spread across a conference table where there were discussions about the divvying up of oil fields and concessions among private corporations and Nations, presumably our allies. That was February 27 of 2001. So right from the beginning it was this obsession about Iraq. Now I do not know and I am not going to suggest what the motivations were, but it was about Iraq from the beginning. I have posed this question to individuals in the administration. No one has ever denied the accuracy of those anecdotes that were related by the former Secretary of Treasury, a person whose integrity is beyond reproach, who stated it clearly and unequivocally. So we had this proclivity, this propensity, this obsession with Iraq. Then, of course, 9/11 came, and the terrorism czar at that time, Richard Clarke, made the statement that after listening to the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Under Secretary Wolfowitz he was aghast because he interpreted their immediate response as an opportunity to intervene militarily in Iraq, as opposed to really deal with those who not only had visited probably the most horrific act in our lifetime upon the United States, and clearly, what we have seen is a diversion of attention from those who were the proximate cause of a national tragedy that occurred on September 11 of 2001. We diverted all of our attention, most of our resources to Iraq, rather than dealing with the genuine, accurate war on terror.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, what the Vice President should do, he should reveal those statistics that I reported to you earlier about the increase in the incidents of terrorists' acts all over the world that are directly related to the failed policies of this administration. To my left there is a photo of the President with an individual by the name of Ahmed Chalabi, who is the source of much of the faulty intelligence that the administration was looking for to base its case on for the American people. Now we have the FBI investigating the Pentagon, the office of one Douglas Fife, to determine whether Mr. Chalabi received information that was passed on to Iran, to Iran, about our policy initiatives and considerations relative to Iran. Here we have the President of the United States with an individual which reports indicate, I am not reaching a conclusion, but which reports indicate was a spy or a double agent for Iran. This same gentleman was in this Chamber during the State of the Union address by this President last January and sat up directly behind the First Lady. Now, I have to tell you, to follow up on the gentleman from Washington's point, I would think that anyone who was involved or connected or listened to Mr. Chalabi, who, by the way, was a convicted felon in Jordan for embezzlement of some $300 million from a bank in Jordan and had to flee Jordan, anyone who listened to that individual should have been fired a long time ago. What an embarrassment to this administration, what an embarrassment to the United States.