Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. So is it true that the Republicans became a majority in this particular branch back in 1994? I was not here in 1994. I think the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) was here in 1994. But who has been setting the agenda and running the House of Representatives since January of 1995?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Lance Corporal Jeffrey C. Burgess, USMC, who was killed on March 25 in an enemy attack near Fallujah, Iraq. He served his country with courage and dignity. There is no greater valor than sacrifice in the name of our freedom and national defense. LCPL Burgess and his family will always be in our prayers. With deepest sympathies, Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues this deeply moving letter written to LCPL Burgess by his mother, Michelle Shea, which was read at his funeral on April 5: Dear Jeff, I thought you might want to know what's happened since you left this world for a better place. As usual, life continues on, but oh SO DIFFERENTLY now. Just like you, I am wounded also. The mail still comes each day at the same time, but it now brings letters and cards full of comfort and love from many friends and family. Jordon still comes up each morning and has his breakfast with me, delivering a big, dimpled smile and a big ``HI'' comes out of his voice, welcoming in another day with his Nana and Papa. The other morning before he came upstairs, I was by myself wondering if I might get some kind of spiritual sign that you were okay and asking myself why I couldn't remember some simple things about you. Maybe that's the brain's way of protecting a grieving parent? I don't know. The church asked me to think of saying some words at your service or maybe having a favorite hymn or song played. I tried, Jeff, but nothing would come to me. I tried ever so hard to concentrate in my quiet morning time alone, feeling so frustrated with myself--when I realized that my concentration was being disrupted by all the birds that were chirping from the trees in the backyard. I went to the back door to investigate why they were so worked up, only to find just ONE BIRD. There was a bright red CARDINAL perched on the highest limb trying over and over to get his message out loud and clear--over and over he sang to me. Returning to my coffee and note pad, I realized that I had gotten the message. It was in the form of a familiar song, but I didn't know the title or artist. So, I sent Jen to the Mall in search of a song containing the words that I could think of, at the time. She returned with nothing, but on returning home she retrieved her mail, which contained some CD's she had previously ordered. Watching her open her package, I saw a confused look on her face, because she couldn't understand why TIME LIFE had sent her a 60's CD, when she'd ordered a 70's CD. All of a sudden there was a look of amazement on her face as she realized that the CD in her hand contained the very song we'd been looking for. Your song for us. We immediately played it, listening to the lyrics and realized that this was the message that you wanted to share with everyone. So, I'm carrying out your wishes, Jeff, and will make sure that it's heard by all. Several more mornings have come and gone since you left and you still come to me each morning, in the form of a Cardinal perched high in the branches of our tree outside and singing your song. I feel better now, knowing you are still with me in the beautiful bird. I now know that you are okay. In closing, I want you to know that you touched so many of us in so many ways, just in the short time you were here with us. And, although, I won't ever be the same person I was before, I'll go on thankful that you were once mine and that we'll be together again some day in heaven. I'm gonna sign off now so everyone can hear that beautiful song that is the message from you. I'm sure they'll get what you are trying to say, but to be sure, I had it printed in the program for you. I love you, Jeff; take care and be forever safe and at peace knowing your brother Marines will finish the job for you. Love and Kisses, Mom

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have the answers. But, again, let me go back to this issue of competence, because the President of the United States described the Secretary of Defense as a superb leader. I reject that description. I reject that description out of hand. One only has to see example after example, such as the relationship, and not just a single incident, with Mr. Chalabi. Clearly, the Kingdom of Jordan, which has been a steadfast ally of the United States, was insulted by the appointment of this individual, who is a convicted felon, to the Iraqi Governing Council. King Abdulla of Jordan was here. I and several other members of the Committee on International Relations, I believe I was joined by my colleague here tonight, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), at a luncheon when I posed the question to the King, and congratulated him, by the way, for moving towards the democratization, if you will, of Jordan, whether he was ever consulted by Secretary Rumsfeld or by the President about the appointment of Mr. Chalabi. And he said, no, he was not even consulted. Yet here is an individual who established a bank, one of the largest banks in Jordan, then embezzled, according to the conviction, millions of dollars, causing the bank to collapse; and he then escaped from Jordan. When asked just recently about Ahmed Chalabi potentially becoming the prime minister in the interim government, what King Abdulla said was, ``He was not the ideal choice.'' I daresay that was extremely diplomatic. But at the same time let me go and quote another individual who has earned the respect of Members of this body and the American people, David Kay. Remember David Kay? He was assigned the task by this President, by this Secretary of Defense to go find the weapons of mass destruction; and he came back and said there are no weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President, and testified before the United States Senate that we were all wrong. We were all wrong. But, of course, this White House, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld cannot acknowledge that they were wrong. They were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about the links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And now we find ourselves in a quagmire. But this is what Mr. Kay had to say, who, by the way, was one of the most hawkish members of the United Nations monitors that went out and that was part of that inspection team, and who actually supported the war. But here is what he had to say. He now believes the Western countries' intelligence agencies got it wrong for two reasons. He is referring to the weapons of mass destruction. First, they were manipulated by Ahmed Chalabi and other dissidents whose central interest was ousting Saddam. Just mentioning the name of the Iraqi National Congress leader makes Kay laugh. There is a guy who is so transparent. Chalabi asked me once, and again this is Mr. Kay speaking, why are you so concerned about the weapons of mass destruction? No one cares about weapons of mass destruction. And when asked by Tom Brokaw was he embarrassed, no, his response was, we are heroes in error. Well that error has cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, the lives of American young men and women, and the loss of American moral authority and prestige in the war. Mr. Chalabi, that is disgraceful. That is disgraceful.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It boggles the mind, it is such rank incompetence, it is such an inability to see reality, to be fooled. It is not incompetence, it is gross negligence. In some other forum it might almost be funny, but here it is so tragic because it is not just about this President and this Vice President, but it is about war and peace and the American people and how we are viewed in the world, and it is the blood of our children, and it is mortgaging our future. We should walk away from Mr. Chalabi now and begin to restore the confidence of the world in our ability to match reality and our dreams and aspirations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it can be summed up in one word, incompetence, and a lack of leadership and an inability to wage a war against terrorism that will succeed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that David Kay, highly respected, the man that was charged by this President, it did not take him too long to conclude that Mr. Chalabi was transparent, a manipulator, a con man, if you will. In addition to all that the gentleman has said, do my colleagues remember when the President of the United States delivered the State of the Union address this year, in January of 2004, who was sitting up right there in the gallery in the Bush family box? Does the gentleman remember?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me reclaim my time for a moment. I think it is important for Americans to understand that during the course of this week, we will be debating a bill that is described as the defense reauthorization bill. It is our purpose collectively as members of this informal group that came to being as a result of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's brainstorm almost a year ago now, this informal group is going to make every single effort to eliminate the funding and the authority for the funding for the Iraqi National Congress that is receiving some $4 million a year, as the gentleman indicates. For what, we do not know. For bad information, for self-aggrandizement, for certainly not the best interests of the United States. We again, as the gentleman suggests, recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue, that shares our concern and our belief that this is very much a linchpin to beginning to restore our international respect and support, to contact their Senators and their Representatives to assist in this effort, to read about, not just listen to our comments, but to become engaged, educate themselves as to the role of this individual in the course of the past several years and the consequences to the United States simply because there were people in this administration, so-called neoconservatives that were looking for a reason to go to war in Iraq long before our national tragedy of September 11.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I will shortly be joined by my colleagues, who, on a weekly basis, have come to the floor of the House to discuss events occurring in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We have called ourselves the Iraq Watch, in an effort to have a conversation to illuminate and educate not just ourselves, but those who are interested, as I think most people are, in these particular matters. It is clearly no secret, and it is a most disturbing situation, that we have a deteriorating situation in Iraq. One only has to remember the initial estimates of the cost that were put forth by the White House. I think the range that was suggested by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, was from $30 billion to $60 billion. When the then-Chief Economic Adviser to President Bush, Larry Lindsay, indicated that in his judgment the range could be from $100 billion to $200 billion, he was eased out because there was a sense that that was not a realistic number. Now, of course, we are currently at the figure of $150 billion, and that does not include future estimates, which again according to recent reports just simply is for the military presence of American troops in support for other military personnel there. That is an additional 50 or $75 billion. And of course that does not include the cost of reconstruction, both for Iraq and for Afghanistan. But, obviously, most importantly is the loss of life, particularly American personnel, both military and civilian. The number now is well in excess of 700. That of course does not account for the men and women in our military who have been wounded. Many Members of this body have been to Walter Reed Hospital and to Bethesda Naval Hospital and met with the men and women there who have suffered wounds, egregious wounds, that will clearly impact their future and will alter irrevocably the quality of life that they will enjoy for the rest of their lives. I know that I have attended in my district the funerals of two young men, Sergeant Caldwell and Corporal Jeff Burgess, who gave their lives in Iraq. Furthermore, there was a universal echo of support and sympathy for the United States in the aftermath of our national tragedy on September 11. I think we all remember the headline in the French newspaper, Le Monde, that screamed, very poignantly and eloquently the day after 9-11, that ``Today We Are All Americans.'' It is clear that there was not just sympathy, but a commitment by countries all over the world to assist our efforts to end once and for all the scourge of global terrorism. Unfortunately, much of that international support has eroded. And now the motives of the United States are being called into question, and not just in the Mideast but all over the world. There was a recent poll that was done by one of the premier polling groups in this country, the Zogby polling group, and it was conducted among the elite in Latin America, the economic elite which traditionally had been supportive of American policy. There was no attempt to interview or survey those that had traditionally been hostile to American interests or who have disagreed with our policies. What I find remarkable was that of the six countries that were surveyed, and they range from Argentina to Brazil to Venezuela to a Central American country, that the negative opinion of the United States Government, the negative opinion of the United States Government exceeded 87 percent. That is particularly disturbing, because I think we can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that we need the international community and its support if we are going to end terrorism. If we are going to protect our homeland, cooperation is absolutely essential. It is absolutely critical. But now American motives are suspect. There was a recent poll that was done, it was done by the Pew Foundation and the numbers are startling. Majorities in seven nations believe that our intervention in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control Mideast oil. Clearly, there are few Americans that accept that premise. But when one reads the list of nations that believe that our intervention was based simply on the desire to control oil, we must acknowledge that we have a problem that has to be addressed. Let me just recite some of those numbers: 51 percent of the people in Russia believe that that was our primary motive; 58 percent of the people in France; 60 percent of the people in Germany; 54 percent of the people in Pakistan. In Turkey the number is 64 percent. In Jordan it was 71 percent. And yet we speak of a certain moral authority. But it has become clear that the world does not see us in that lens. They believe our motives are much more crass. And when these numbers are combined with comments and observations and revelations by senior administration officials, they are reinforced. For those of you that have not had the opportunity to read ``The Price of Loyalty,'' which is a book regarding the tenure of the former Secretary of Treasury, Paul O'Neill, let me commend that book to you; and I would specifically direct your attention to page 96 of that book. Because Secretary O'Neill, a traditional Republican widely regarded in business circles, someone who served his country in the Reagan administration and in Bush One, reveals an anecdote that I find disturbing. Let me read for a moment. O'Neill had seen ``brewing a battle since the National Security Council meeting on January 30.'' Let me interrupt the excerpt that I will quote to inform my colleagues and the viewing audience that this was 1 week after the inauguration after George W. Bush. One week. The anecdote itself that he reveals occurs February 27, less than maybe 5 weeks, after the President was inaugurated. O'Neill: ``It was Powell and his moderates at the State Department versus hardliners like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz who were already planning the next war in Iraq in the shape of a post-Saddam country.'' Now, let us remember, this is before our national tragedy on 9-11, and this is not coming from outside. This is not an opinion being offered by a Member of the House. This is being offered by the former Secretary who was present at this particular meeting of the National Security Council on February 27, 2001. ``Documents were being prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency,'' Rumsfeld's intelligence arm, ``mapping Iraq's oil fields and exploration areas, and listing companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset.'' Obviously he means oil. ``One document headed 'Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts' lists companies from 30 countries, their specialties, bidding histories and in some cases their particular areas of interests. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for supergiant oil fields, other oil fields earmarked for production-sharing while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine blocks to be designated for future exploration.'' I guess this is a question that I would have for the President, for the Vice President, and for the Secretary of Defense: Why on February 27, months before the attack on the homeland, why was a map being presented at a National Security Council meeting divvying up the oil reserves of Iraq? That, I daresay and will submit, is a question, Mr. Speaker, that should be answered by the Secretary, by the National Security Adviser, by the Vice President, and by the President. That is a question that cannot linger, that cannot go unanswered, particularly when a majority of people in countries that are our traditional allies have concluded that our main interest in Iraq is not to bring democracy, is not to save lives, but is to secure oil for our energy needs. And, again, let me remind my friends who are here, I have been joined by my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), let me remind ourselves that we are losing international support. And I am convinced that many of the questions that the rest of the world has is based on reports such as this and have a potential to undermine not just our credibility and our moral authority, but to undermine our national security if we are going to do something in terms of international terrorism. Because if the world concludes, and if we do not respond that this is our motivation, they will turn their backs on us. When this is all combined with obviously many other issues that are out there, I dare say we have a serious problem.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time for a moment, because I know we are joined by our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and again, I think we are coming back to an issue that has to be discussed here, and that is an issue of competence. There is nobody in this chamber that is not committed to making every effort, every responsible effort to end the threat of terrorism, not just against the United States but all over the globe. What I think the world has concluded, as most Americans have concluded, is that the information that was provided to this administration indicating that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that there were linkages between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were absolutely false, absolutely false. What we have learned is that much of this information was provided by an exiled group called the Iraqi National Congress, headed by this particular gentleman here with the sunglasses on whose name is Ahmed Chalabi, who for years was working to return to Iraq. Mr. Chalabi is an interesting and controversial figure, of course, because during his exile he lived for a time in Jordan, and while he was there, he was charged with and accused and convicted of the crime of embezzlement in the amount of some $30 million. He was sentenced to a term of 22 years in prison. Somehow during his exile he became friendly with or developed relationships with Richard Pearl, who formerly served on the Defense Advisory Board, with the Vice President Mr. Cheney, and with others in the so-called neo-conservative movement. And they believed what he had to say. And it has been proven to be false. And I thought what was particularly interesting was that this past weekend our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, made a statement, I think it was on ``Meet the Press,'' that he now believes, and I am reading again from the New York Times dated today, that ``he now believes that the Central Intelligence Agency was deliberately misled about evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing unconventional weapons.'' Now, stop for a moment to think of this, that the Secretary of State, who made the presentation before the world at the United Nations, who built the case for this White House and for this President, now indicates that he was or the CIA was misled. The report goes on, ``He hinted at widespread reports,'' this is Secretary Powell, ``of fabrications by an engineer who provided much of the critical information about the so-called bioweapons labs. Intelligence officials have since found that the engineer was linked to the Iraqi National Congress, an exiled group that was pressing President Bush to unseat Mr. Hussein.'' This is a quote by the Secretary of State. ``It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading,'' Mr. Powell said in an interview broadcast from Jordan, ``and for that I am disappointed and I regret it.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is just an unbelievable statement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield further, the much-heralded efforts to train Iraqis as far as police and a new Iraqi Army, you only have to go back two or three weeks to remember that headline that screamed out the new Iraq battalion would not accompany the U.S. Marines into combat in the City of Fallujah. So while the Secretary of Defense speaks about the training of some 70,000 personnel for security service, the truth is those that are adequately trained amount to only several thousand. What we have here, what we have here is a failure of leadership, is a demonstration of incompetence unequaled in terms of my public life, and I have held elected office for some 30 years. If you could bear with me for just one more moment, again, I want to come back to the military's perspective of the civilian leadership and what they are saying. There was an editorial that appeared in the Army Times, the Marine Times, the Air Force Times and the Navy Times, and it was regarding the situation in the Iraqi prison. It is entitled ``A Failure of Leadership At the Highest Levels.'' I would remind those that are viewing our conversation this evening, this is not a partisan publication. This is a publication that covers the military that in many respects represents the majority view of the military in this country. ``Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the height of the furor over the prison scandal, `the six morons who lost the war.' Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the Nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable. ``But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons. There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now infamous pictures, and an even more damning reported by Major General Anthony Taguba. Every soldier should be ashamed. But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership. ``The entire affair is a failure of leadership, from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops, anything goes. In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of these are homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked ``60 Minutes'' to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired a week later, Myers still had not read Taguba's report which was completed in March. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had also failed to read the report until the scandal broke in the media; but by then, of course, it was too late. The Army Times, the Marine Times, the Navy Times, and the Air Force Times are correct: it is a failure of leadership at the highest level.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for his usual insightful review of the salient points. I think we should welcome back the original founder of Iraq Watch. He has been unable to attend the last several conversations because of other business, but he is certainly welcome here tonight, and that is the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). The events of the past several weeks have obviously been very disturbing in terms of what has occurred in the prison facility, Abu Ghraib. And I think every American feels a sense of profound, profound shame, and there has been much talk and much criticism. I found a story that was reported today in the Washington Times and the headline reads ``Outrage Erodes Morale of Troops.'' And there were comments by some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. One was made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader, which I will not even address because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has a proclivity to make statements that some describe as over the top. But the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, whom I think we all respect, the report stated that he blamed Democrats who have been harshly critical of the war effort for eroding troop morale. The quote is, ``I'm concerned that a number of Members of Congress have lost their sense of balance. They think their role here is to bash the American military. It is demoralizing for the troops.'' Clearly, it has never been the intention of any individual who serves in this House, be he or she Republican or Democrat, to erode morale or to bash the military. I do not think anyone in any way wishes to denigrate the commitment and the contribution and the manner with which our military overall has conducted itself. But at the same time I think that the chairman has it wrong. It is not Democrats. There are a number of Republicans, and he should be aware of that, that have criticized the so-called post-major combat phase of this adventure for some time now. One only has to watch and observe the Monday morning TV programs. But the reality is that morale has been low among our military for some time, not because of criticism of the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, the Department of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, and including the Vice President of the United States, who is described in a recent book as suffering from war fever in terms of his obsession about invading Iraq. I think it is rather interesting that this poster I have here which is back in November 2003, a Newsweek cover that states ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War.'' It is clearly true, given what we know now, that he had great influence in terms of advancing the military invasion of Iraq by the American military. But now to go back to the morale issue, there was an interesting story, and maybe the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services is unaware of this, but it was reported last Sunday in the Washington Post, and the title is ``Dissension Grows in Senior Ranks on War Strategy. ``Deep divisions are emerging at the top of the U.S. military over the course of the occupation of Iraq, with some senior officers beginning to say that the United States faces the prospect of casualty for years, without achieving its goal of establishing a free and democratic Iraq.'' These are not Members of the Democratic Party in Congress. These are not Members of the Republican Party in Congress. This is senior military personnel. ``Army Major General Charles Swannack, Jr., the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, who spent much of the year in western Iraq, said that he believes that at the tactical level at which fighting occurs, the U.S. military is still winning, but when asked whether he believes the United States is losing he said, `I think strategically, we are.' ``Army Colonel Paul Hughes, who last year was the first director of strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Baghdad, said he agrees with that view and noted that a pattern of winning battles while losing a war characterized the U.S. failure in Vietnam.'' These are senior members of the military establishment in this country. This is not about partisanship. This is criticism coming from the military itself regarding the lack or the incompetence, if you will, of the civilian leadership that currently resides in the Department of Defense. Colonel Hughes went on to note that he lost a brother in Vietnam. ``I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that sort of strategic loss from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war because we don't understand the war we are in.'' They are worried. This is the senior American military speaking. They are worried by evidence that the United States is losing ground with the Iraqi public. Some officers say the place to begin restructuring U.S. policy is by ousting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whom they see as responsible for a series of strategic and tactical blunders over the past year. Several of those interviewed said a profound anger is building within the Army at Rumsfeld and those around him. A senior general at the Pentagon said he believes the United States is already on the road to defeat. His quote is, ``It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this. The American people may not stand for it, and they should not.'' This is a senior general at the Pentagon. I hope that the Republican chair of the Committee on Armed Services has an opportunity to read this particular report that was in the Washington Post last Sunday. He should not blame Democrats or any elected official for ever eroding the morale of the troops. We stand by the troops, but we do not stand by a policy that no one can understand. As to who is to blame, this general pointed directly at Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. ``I do not believe,'' and this is his quote, ``we had a clearly defined war strategy and end-state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that is leadership.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What the gentleman is basically saying is that loyalty is prized above competence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is really time to be honest with the American people. As David Kay said, who was sent and appointed by this administration to conduct a search for the weapons of mass destruction, came back, said there are none, and implored the President, it is time to come clean with the American people. Otherwise, he had grave concerns about our credibility all over the world. It is like this administration is incapable, incapable of dealing with the truth. I do not think they intend to lie; I just do not think they can grasp reality. It is like again going back to the morale issue. In ``Stars and Stripes,'' a magazine that is funded by the Pentagon, reported better than a year ago on the issue of morale of U.S. troops in Iraq: high-ranking visitors to the country, including Department of Defense and congressional officials, have said it is outstanding, but the ``Stars and Stripes'' itself, the magazine did a survey and concluded that some troops on the ground would beg to differ about what they call low morale on their part and on the part of their units. So as a result, the Pentagon went and conducted a survey of troops, and it was reported again about a month ago in The Washington Post before the scandal broke out, and it concluded that a slim majority of Army soldiers in Iraq, 52 percent reported that their morale was low, and three-fourths of them said that they felt poorly led by their officers, according to a survey taken at the end of the summer and released yesterday by the Army.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are back here this evening for another installment of our weekly Iraq Watch. Tonight I am joined initially by the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee); and I expect, as the hour proceeds, other members of Iraq Watch will join us for our weekly discussion. The revelations of the past several days concerning abuses of detainees or prisoners under the auspices of American military have shocked and appalled the world. And as many have indicated, including the President, Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld, this is unacceptable, unconscionable, and un-American. It is an embarrassment to our country, to our military; and it is my understanding that a variety of congressional committees intend to address this particular issue. But what concerns me is something that is fundamental to what we have been talking about these past months about our policy in Iraq and the Middle East in the war on terror, and that is credibility, competence, and the willingness of this White House, this administration, to consult with Congress. I think that there is a growing realization that this President, this Vice President, and this administration have failed on all accounts. There was a report today in the media which quoted President Bush regarding these appalling revelations. And I would like to read to my friend and to the Speaker and to those who might be viewing us this evening as we have our weekly conversation excerpts from those reports in the international as well as the American media: `` `The first time I saw or heard about pictures was on TV,' the President,'' referring to President Bush, ``said, leaving open the question of when he first learned about the substance of the allegations that prompted an initial investigation in January of this year. But General Peter Pace, Deputy Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that `Everyone was kept appraised orally of the ongoing investigation.' Asked whether Bush and General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, his direct supervisor, were well aware of the situation, General Pace responded, `Yes.' Myers, the country's top general, raised eyebrows over the weekend when he said that he had not read a report completed in early March that documented the widespread abuses in Abu Ghraib. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had also not read the report that was completed in March by this Monday,'' by this past Monday, ``5 days after the damning photographs were first shown on the CBS television program 60 minutes, a spokesman said.'' I find that absolutely incredible. The Secretary of Defense had not read the report until this past Monday, and the report was completed in March. What is going on? One can only describe this as ineptitude of the highest order. Let me continue: ``Congressional leaders have bitterly complained that they were kept out of the loop and were particularly incensed after the Pentagon reported Tuesday the deaths of 25 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan including at least two confirmed homicides. The Congress has not been notified of the murders that took place. `There have been no reports of these abuses,' Republican Senator John McCain, himself a prisoner during the Vietnam War, told ABC television on Wednesday.'' From the Cox News Services, Senator McCain went on: ``The Congress should have been notified of this situation a long time ago. It's a neglect of the responsibilities that Secretary Rumsfeld and the civilian leaders of the Pentagon have to keep the Congress informed of an issue of this magnitude.'' I agree with Senator McCain. Even the majority leader of this House, this body, who certainly has taken the most hawkish position possible when it comes to the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan had this to say: ``We are being briefed all the time. If we are going to be a part and a partner in this war on terror, then we are to be completely briefed, not just briefed on those things they want us to hear.'' Of course, the majority leader of this body is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I see the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and he has a look in his face that he wants to make a comment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know if my friend was aware, but the second largest army in Iraq today is not the army of the United Kingdom, but it is this army of private contractors. Let us call them what they really are, they are mercenaries. I dare say, to privatize a war without the command and control of American generals and American officers is a very, very dangerous precedent that is being established. I think what we are seeing here tonight, what we are talking about tonight, rather, is an example of where it can lead. We all have to acknowledge and remember that the entire world is now viewing, not just simply the photographs, but the realities of the war on the ground and the fact that the United States of America is privatizing its military, privatizing its war, delegating to those who are not necessarily responsible and accountable to American military command absolutely significant duties.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that we speak about the contractors and their roles, this private army, these mercenaries. It is also important again to go back to what I spoke to earlier, the incompetence and the ineptitude that is so rank and so disturbing. It is as if nobody knows what is happening. The President of the United States is seeing this on TV. The Secretary of Defense has not read the report until this week, and the report was completed in March. If that is the case, if that is the fact, and we do not know that, I cannot understand what is going on in terms of this administration and its efforts.