Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, well, again, I am surprised that the Republican leader in this House made that statement, because, according to our information, upon our return, based on the 9/11 Commission's report, the majority leader has now announced that he hopes to have legislation before this House dealing with the concerns that were expressed by the 9/11 Commission. Am I confused?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Who is he referring to when he indicated that only those that were running for President would support the creation of an independent commission?

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is important to understand the essence of this bill, because it is truly very simple. What it does is it says that the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by this body in 1996, obviously it is a Federal statute, cannot be reviewed by the Federal courts. That is what it says, and it includes even the United States Supreme Court. So for the first time in our constitutional history since the decision in Marbury v. Madison, this body would strip from the United States Supreme Court its essential function in our democracy, which is the review, particularly of Federal statutes, for the determination as to its constitutionality. That is what this debate is about today. It is not about the defense of marriage. We did that in 1996; and by the way, if you took a look at the recent data in terms of divorce, it has not been very effective, I would suggest; but as the gentleman from Oregon indicated, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, former Representative Robert Barr, urges a ``no'' vote on this particular bill because of what it does. It establishes a dangerous precedent. It is clearly unconstitutional. Let me conclude with this statement. This bill does not defend marriage. What it does do, however, it diminishes our democracy; and we ought not to be about that as an institution. We should encourage our democracy and our values.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I concur with those sentiments.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Does it come as a surprise to you that at least according to Bob Woodward in his most recent book, a book that was praised by the White House, in fact, there are excerpts of it I understand on the President's campaign Web site, but in that particular book, it was noted by the author that Prince Bandahar was informed of the attack on Iraq prior to the Secretary of State Colin Powell. Let me go back just for a moment, because I know we are wrapping up, to another observation by Mr. Woodward, and this I would suggest is where ideology colors reality and affects the truth, the objective truth. The passion of some in this administration, and I put beside you there a Newsweek cover with a picture of the Vice President Dick Cheney, emblazoned that says how Dick Cheney sold the war. It was clear that this individual was obsessed with Iraq, for whatever reason. I am not questioning his motives. But in the book by Mr. Woodward, it is noted on page 175, for those who might have it, that the Secretary of State ``detected a kind of fever in Cheney. He was not the steady, unemotional rock that he had witnessed a dozen years earlier during the run-up to the Gulf War. The Vice President was hell-bent for action against Saddam Hussein.'' It is very dangerous when ideology colors the objective truth and reality. In the end, it gets us in a mess, and this is where we are now.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is not it ironic that on Sunday there appears a story in the New York Times about that report that will be forthcoming later this week, and the gentleman alluded to it earlier, when he mentioned Iran. And by the way, the acting director of the CIA confirmed the fact yesterday on the Fox News Program, yesterday morning that, yes, there was information that a number of the 9-11 hijackers had safe passage through Iran, Iran, not Iraq but Iran. I guess we made a mistake as far as what country to invade. But seriously, let me just read several excerpts from the Sunday editions of the New York Times. ``The final report of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks will offer new evidence of cooperative ties between Iran and al Qaeda including information drawn from intelligence reports suggesting that Iran provided several of the hijackers with safe passage in the year before the attacks, government official said. The evidence raised enough questions about why the Bush administration focused on the possibility of Iraqi ties to be Osama bin Laden's terror network after 9-11 when there may have been far more extensive evidence of the Iranian connection. The panel had recently obtained intelligence showing that Iran had ordered guards at its border stations not to stop the passports of al Qaeda members from Saudi Arabia who were moving through Iran after training at terrorists camps in Afghanistan.'' My memory is this Iran, according to the President, was a member of the axis of evil club, but as you pointed out, there is no collaborative relationship according to the commission between Iraq and Iran. But why did we end up attacking Iraq rather than Iran?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me give another example in terms of seriousness. The administration's position, vis-a-vis tracking down the terrorists. There was a Committee on Ways and Means hearing where a representative of the IRS was posed a question and in response to the question indicated that the IRS's request for an additional 80 investigators who would be assigned to tracking terrorist financing throughout the world was rejected by the White House through the Office of Management and Budget. Is this how you fight the war against terror?

Mr. DELAHUNT. As was indicated, it is only going to get worse, because I would suggest that what we are going to find is as time moves on, there will be fewer and fewer even pledges that will be made, let alone honored. We now know they are not being honored, at least if you accept the report from the Los Angeles Times. It is easy to go out and say, yeah, America, you come up with $19 billion to build roads in Iraq, to provide universal health care coverage, to rehab schools and to build affordable housing. If you do that, American taxpayer, we will promise that we will pledge or we will pledge at least half of what you do, and now we find out that less than $1 billion has actually been transferred to the appropriate agencies. In fact, half of that $1 billion comes from a single nation, Japan. But I would like to get on to something else for just a minute. The President is prone to be saying, particularly at campaign rallies, that America is safer than ever. It is safer than it was three years ago. In fact, he extends it to the entire world. He is saying that the world is safer than it was three years ago. And yet, ironically, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I think it was on Fox News, one of the magazine editions, there was an interview with the current, the so-called interim director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John McLaughlin. And he said that while several al Qaeda plots against the United States, against our homeland have been foiled, the truth remains that the threat is as high as it ever was. Now, there is an inconsistency here. All we have to do is count 14 to 15 days and there will be a new terror alert. How often do we turn on one of the cable news networks or turn on our TV and we see the Attorney General or we see Secretary Ridge talking about an elevated threat? In fact, Secretary Ridge was in my hometown of Boston, Massachusetts just recently talking about the threat. And here we have the new Director of the CIA contradicting the President of the United States who, and maybe he was simply indulging in campaign rhetoric, saying that we are much safer now and the world is safer. And yet here, ``U.S. Spy Chief: Al Qaeda Threat Strong As Ever.'' Is this what we call winning the war on terror, Mr. Speaker. Is this making the world safer? I do not know that answer. I do not think the President really does either.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Maybe it is the wrong enemy, maybe it is the wrong war. But before I explore that, I thought I would just take a few minutes to amplify a bit on two of the points that the gentleman made. The cost of this war in terms of dollars and cents. I have this memory of the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, testifying before a congressional committee saying that there would be no cost to the American taxpayers because Iraqi oil would obviously be more than sufficient to pay for the costs, not just of our military presence, our security presence, but the cost of reconstruction. Well, that clearly was a mistake. In fact, I thought it was interesting that the criticism from the other side of the aisle, from Republicans, about the costs and the misestimates was probably even louder than that that came from this side, from Democrats. I have a memory of reading a particular column that was penned by Senator Dick Lugar, the prestigious Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he described the postwar phase. Of course, I would suggest we are still at war. When one reads the casualty list, on a weekly basis it is clear that American troops are still being killed, and a large number of course are wounded. Many of us have visited them at Walter Reed and Bethesda Hospital here in Washington, DC, but going back to what Senator Lugar said, he said the postwar planning was totally inadequate. And, again, where is that oil money? And a further observation. If we remember the first Gulf War, the cost to the American taxpayers was approximately $4 billion. We have already expended somewhere between $150 and $200 billion, and as you suggest, many hundreds of billions of dollars more will be added to the bill, the bill that will be passed on to the American taxpayers for generations. In the first Gulf War, there was a real coalition, a genuine coalition of the willing. There was participation in terms of the military presence. There were more non-American troops in the first Gulf War than there were American troops. Other than those forces from Great Britain, as you indicated, there are only small detachments of security forces from other countries. And as was noted in a story last Thursday in the Washington Post, four countries have already left, four more are due to leave by September, and others are now making known their intention to lying down a depart before the political transition is complete next year. Norway pulled out its 455 military engineers this month. New Zealand intends to pull out its 60 engineers by September, while Thailand plans to withdraw its more than 450 troops that same month. The Netherlands is likely to pull out next spring after the first of three Iraqi elections, while Polish military officials told the Pentagon that Poland's large contingent will leave probably in less than a year. And as you indicated, the Filipinos withdrew already. The Spanish have withdrawn. We are going to end up there alone, Mr. Speaker, and the bill will be paid for by the American taxpayers. Now, much was stated back five or six months ago about a donors' conference in Madrid, Mr. Speaker, where the coalition was brought together in an effort to have nations other than the United States contribute, contribute financially even if they had no military presence there. Well, quoting the Los Angeles Times of July 12, ``Little of the $13 billion promised for rebuilding has been donated, and countries are hesitant to waive that, frustrating the new Iraqi government.'' Countries have provided only a small fraction of the reconstruction aid they promised at a conference nine months ago, Mr. Speaker. Of the $13 billion in nonAmerican aid pledged, less than $1 billion has been turned over to the United Nations and the World Bank, funds set up to take in most of the donations.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, when I hear about now is not the time, I guess my response is, when is it? I dare say it is long overdue. Last November, President Bush said in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, ``As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, if will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.'' Those in this body know that it is rare that I agree with President Bush, but he has it right on this occasion. We learned on September 11 that this is not just an image problem, and I refer to the anti-American sentiment that is abundant in the Middle East, because we, unfortunately, are perceived to be aligned with regimes in the Middle East that do not serve their people well. This is what our State Department in its Human Rights Report has to say about Egypt. ``The security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses. The ruling party dominated the legislature. ``The mass media, labor, and large public sector entities control the licensing of new political parties, newspapers, private organizations to such an extent that as a practical matter, citizens do not have the meaningful ability to change their government.'' Yet we find ourselves considering another $1 billion plus and we are doing nothing to advance the cause of democracy and the nurturing of democratic institutions in the Middle East and specifically, in Egypt, and now is the time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in a recent interview, the chief of staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the U.S. embargo has not worked for 40 years. ``It is crazy,'' he said. And, again, I am quoting the chief of staff to Secretary Powell. He went on to say, ``It is the dumbest policy on the face of the Earth.'' That is his language. Well, let me suggest now it just got dumber. Several weeks ago, as the others have said, these new regulations were implemented by the administration. Allegedly they are designed to hasten Cuba's transition to a free and open society, which I think we all agree is a worthy goal. But, tragically, the impact of these changes fall heaviest on Cubans on the island and their families here in the United States who want to help them, to assist them. It is as if 45 years of this tough approach has not already been proven to be an abysmal failure. So today's debate on this moment focuses clearly on one of the most absurd of the new provisions. The regulation of the Department of Commerce that takes the existing restrictions on the contents of gift packages to their relatives from Americans to their relatives in Cuba, and narrows the list even further. The new rule would make it illegal for U.S. citizens to send Cuban relatives clothing, soap, shampoo, and other personal hygiene items. And furthermore, since June 30 it is now illegal to send parcels to cousins, aunts, nephews, anyone who is not a member of your immediate family. It is also illegal to send more than one nonfood gift parcel each month to a household, for up until now you could send a monthly care package to each individual in a household. But that is over. So now it is U.S. foreign policy to prohibit American citizens from sending their relatives soap and shampoo and clothes. I would suggest this hardly constitutes weapons of mass destruction. And the U.S. government is breaking new ground, because it is now in the business of defining family for its own citizens. Under these regulations, grandparents trump uncles and sisters beat out cousins. In past debates in this Chamber about restrictions on the right of Americans to travel to Cuba, I have referred to the travel police. Well, now we have the shampoo police. We have the soap police. We have the deodorant police. We have the clothing police guarding, at taxpayers' expense, against the possibility that these items might make it across the Florida straits. This is just as much folly as the fact that the Treasury Department now has more people tracking grandmothers bicycling in Cuba than it does looking at the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. What in the world are we doing? What have we come to? You might want to review some of the other new regulations, two announced at the same time, like limiting family visits to once every 3 years with no humanitarian exceptions such as the occasion of the death of a mother, the death of a father, the death of a daughter or the death of a son. President Bush got it right 2 years ago when he went to Miami and said, I love being with my family. There is nothing more important than family in my life. But he got it dead wrong when he announced these regulations. They are antifamily, they are mean-spirited, and they are un-American; and I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut for yielding, and I think he is so on the mark, if you will. People are thirsting for respectful discourse about these issues because they are so profoundly important, and I want to thank the gentleman for the kudos. I know that each of us has benefited from appearing here on a weekly basis, having this conversation; and I think what has also amazed us is the level of interest, the response that we have received so that there is no doubt that there is a deep need out there for, again, the kind of dialogue that goes on here, at least once a week, and that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) mentioned earlier even should be expanded so that there can be a variety of perspectives expressed, because it is important. My colleague mentioned Ahmed Chalabi earlier. How many people in this Chamber, in this country, know of Ahmed Chalabi; and yet many, many in the world, in the intelligence community, believe that he is as responsible as any single individual for the faulty intelligence that led us into this war, a man, by the way, who is a convicted felon, who was an individual who was convicted of embezzlement in Jordan and reports now indicate is being investigated for the dissemination of sensitive information to a potential adversary in Iran.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the Democratic minority in this House attempted to add an enhancement of the penalties for fraud and abuse and profiteering, and yet the majority in this House and in the Senate denied that proposal. I would like to conclude, and I will be very brief because I think we have got to go back to the initial question I think that was raised by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), how did we get here? If we are to believe Richard Clark, who led the anti-terrorism effort under both Presidents Clinton and Bush until his retirement 2 years into the Bush administration, if we are to believe the highly respected, again, Republican conservative, who initiated the term of this administration as Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, it was one week, one week after the inauguration that there was a meeting of the National Security Council and what was discussed there was the need for regime change in Iraq. Nothing about terrorism. And again, 6 weeks later, according to Paul O'Neill, there was a meeting of the National Security Council where it was discussed how the oil fields in Iraq were to be divvied up and divided among nations and corporations. That is according to Paul O'Neill and that is according to Dick Clark.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that by this time, I say to the gentleman, there would be less than 30,000 troops in Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the evidence that supports that premise is the reality that within the past week or two there has been a call-up of the so-called ``ready reserve,'' almost 6,000. Now, these are men and women who performed for their country, who obviously did their active duty, did their active reserve, have returned to civilian life, and in some cases for years have been civilians, and now, out of the blue, they are back into the active military on their way to Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think Secretary Powell, as it was reported in the book just recently released by the Pulitzer Prize winner Bob Woodward, my memory of the quote is that if you go to Iraq, Mr. President, you own it. Well, the truth is, we do own it. I was interested in hearing from our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, when he acknowledged that it is really the American soldier that is doing the work today in Iraq. Yes, we have allies there, the British obviously have made a commitment and there are some Australians, but other than that, there are very few substantial commitments to preserving security in Iraq today. As our colleague the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) just noted, we hear from some quarters that everything is fine, and we know that is not true. I think it is important that the American people understand that we are far past making this a partisan issue. This is not about Republicans and Democrats, this is truly about the direction of where this country is going, and it is absolutely essential that we be clear and honest and forthright with the American people. Let me just quote one very famous, highly regarded, well-respected traditional conservative, William Buckley. We all know William Buckley. He certainly has contributed through the years to discourse, to the public discourse on major issues in this country. As we all know, he recently resigned, retired, if you will, from the publication that he brought forth many years ago. But even a traditional conservative Republican like William Buckley expresses amazement about what is occurring in terms of the stories and the fantasy that is coming from this administration, particularly the White House. He recently said that the White House has a dismaying capacity to believe their own PR, and until we finally acknowledge what the reality on the ground is, we cannot have a debate. I am always brought back to that very famous statement by David Kay. Now, David Kay, as we all know, and as I am sure many who are listening to our conversation tonight are fully aware, was a former United Nations inspector, an American, who earned an excellent reputation for integrity, for knowledge, during the work done by the United Nations in terms of ensuring compliance by the Saddam Hussein regime with a variety of United Nations sanctions relative to the weapons of mass destruction. Prior to the war, he stated that he was convinced, from what he heard from the administration, that in fact the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. He was assigned by this administration, by this President, to lead a group to go to Iraq and conduct a survey and do a thorough, exhaustive, extensive search for those weapons of mass destruction. When he came back, he made that famous statement before a Senate committee, saying we were all wrong, and here it is depicted on the cover of Newsweek Magazine. And as time has gone on, he continues to express his concern that we are losing our credibility in the world and that our role, our prestige, our claim to moral authority is eroding on a daily basis, and he pleads with the administration to come clean. So let me just suggest that until that occurs, that until there is honesty on the part of this White House and frankness and candor, and not just simply press releases and flyovers of Baghdad, we all know that our troops are doing a job that reflects well, not only on them, their families, but our country, but the truth is too that their morale has eroded. And yet we never hear anything from this White House and this administration about that reality, about the reality that a survey was done by Stars and Stripes, a military magazine, that established that 52 percent of Army personnel describe morale as low. That is dangerous. Let us respect them for what they do, let us acknowledge their heroism, but let us not paint an unrealistic picture, or we do the American people and the American military a disservice.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Arc of Cape Cod. The Arc of Cape Cod was established in 1954, by a small group of dedicated parents with special needs children as a voluntary, non-profit organization to help improve the lives of Cape Cod residents with developmental disabilities and their families. The Arc of Cape Cod was an outgrowth of a wave of parent- sponsored organizations across the United States, banding together at the state and national levels to advance the quality of life of their children with special needs. From its founding, the Arc has played an important role in advocating for changes to improve and enrich the lives of individuals with developmental disabilities. For the past 50 years, the Arc of Cape Cod has been an invaluable resource to individuals with disabilities and their families through its mission of empowering Cape Cod residents to identify, choose and realize their goals of where and how they learn, live, work and play. The Arc has an active adult social program that involves approximately 200 individuals every month in a wide range of activities of their choosing. The Arc also provides case management, skills training and other services that assist more than sixty individuals to live independently as active members of their communities across Cape Cod. In addition, the Arc of Cape Cod is a constant source of helpful information, referrals to services, and support for Cape Cod families. In appreciation of their 50 years of devoted service, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in honoring the Arc of Cape Cod.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this proposal, which I consider dangerous as well as irresponsible. I guess the question that I would pose is, what has happened to States' rights? The gentleman from Florida indicated that criminals do not respect jurisdictional lines. That is true, they do not. However, the United States Constitution respects State lines and State boundaries, because the Founders believed that Federalism was an important concept in our democracy. It seems that the evolution of the fundamental principle of the Reagan revolution is no longer operative in this Chamber. I would suggest that a true conservative should deplore what this proposal does to that core American concept of Federalism. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his opposition to this bill. I agree with his statement that it is an affront to State sovereignty and the Constitution. In fact, what we are doing is undermining the 10th amendment, which reserves so many rights to the States. We are doing it daily in this Chamber, and we are doing it in a way that should cause every American citizen, and particularly those who call themselves conservative, should cause them profound concern. I can remember before I ran for office to this branch, in the previous election there was much to-do about a so-called Contract With America. Well, that contract seems to have been discarded. It no longer has value, presumably, at least political value. It is clear that States' rights and local control are no longer in vogue today. Washington knows best. I guess that is the current refrain. The new term is ``preemption.'' Preemption of States' rights. Preemption is a word we have heard a lot about. It does not just apply to our foreign policy, I would suggest. It now applies to American democracy. This bill represents a quantum leap, if you will, in terms of the erosion of the rights granted to States under the 10th amendment. It would amend title XVIII to exempt current and retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. As the ranking member indicated, I served as the chief law enforcement officer, the elected district attorney in metropolitan Boston, for more than 20 years; and I cannot understand why Congress believes that it is in a better position than State and local law enforcement to make decisions as to what is best in their jurisdictions. It was the former Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who made the statement a while back that the best decisions on fighting crime are made at the local level, not here in Washington. Congress has never passed a bill that gives anyone a right to carry weapons in violation of State and local laws until now, in our entire constitutional history. Purportedly, involving public safety, this bill will allow people from out of State to come into my home State with a loaded, concealed weapon without the duty to notify public safety officials in Massachusetts or in Boston or in any community in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The reality is that this legislation will preempt, if you will, or supersede, the laws of 31 States that currently restrict carrying a concealed weapon to on-duty officers. That is the law in 31 States. Yet Washington knows best. Let us just discard those 31 State laws that regulate the carrying of concealed weapons by on-duty officers in their jurisdictions. Of course, it also disregards State laws that oppose conditions on how and when retired officers may carry a concealed weapon. And it ignores the reality that there has been constructive and thoughtful deliberative efforts by other State legislatures, as well as the State of New Jersey, that have addressed exactly these issues. These issues have been addressed in a thoughtful and deliberative way at the State and local level. This bill does not limit the weapons that officers can carry, like some States do. This bill also does not limit the maximum age for an officer carrying a concealed weapon, like some States do. And this bill does not allow local departments to deny permits to retirees no matter where they come from, like some States do. Under this proposal, a retired Customs inspector from Alabama can come into Massachusetts carrying a concealed weapon, and my local sheriff or my local police chief can do nothing about it. With the passage of this bill, Congress will enable officers who retire or resign, or resign while under investigation for domestic abuse, racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse to be eligible for a concealed weapon permit. It is all too easy to imagine a scenario where there will be a tragedy under these circumstances, and we will be responsible for it. The rationale often in support of this proposal is that law enforcement officers, whether active or retired, are never off duty. Now, I have profound respect for the hard work of law enforcement officials everywhere. I was part of them. I know them. But when they go off duty and travel to my State and to my hometown, they should respect the rules and policies of the local police departments and the communities where I live and where they are visitors. The Federal Government should not strip sheriffs and police officers of the authority and discretion to determine who can carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. Why should Congress, of all places, why should Congress decide if an off-duty or retired police officer from another State can carry a hidden firearm into my community or into your community? Mr. Speaker, by no means does this bill reflect Federal support for State and local law enforcement. It will not reduce violence; and I dare say, to the contrary, it very well may undermine public safety. So, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat this proposal.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, can the gentleman tell me and tell those that might be watching our conversation tonight, what has been the cost, not in terms of the lives of our children, but what has been the cost to the American taxpayers for this adventure?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we know, we know what the commander of the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a highly-esteemed organization serving veterans in this country, had to say about this administration's submission of a veterans budget to the United States Congress. That commander called it a sham and a fraud. So this is not inconsistent. If I could just leave my colleagues with one question. We have talked about we could not find the weapons of mass destruction. We cannot find the links, if you will, of the collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Has anyone looked for the plans that were crafted by Saddam Hussein that indicated that he was prepared to attack the United States?