Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. What the gentleman is saying is that we need at this point in time a bona fide consultation, unlike what we have had to date. And this is not a partisan attack on the administration. This was the opinion of Republicans who supported the war dating back to January of 2003 in a column by Robert Novak of the Sun Times in Chicago. Let me quote again some excerpts that I think are very revealing about the attitude of this White House and this administration towards this institution and towards a shroud of secrecy that has been unparalleled in our history. ``Republican Senators gathering last Wednesday for their first session retreat should have been happy, blessed with a regained majority and a popular President. They were not. Instead, they complained bitterly of arrogance by the Bush administration, especially the Pentagon, in treatment of Congress all along the road to war. It informed the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that there were grievances from President Bush's Senate base; that it is ignored and insulted by the administration, particularly by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in preparing for the war against Iraq. Recitals of complaints began with Senator John Warner, a pillar of the Senate GOP establishment. Warner had his colleagues' attention when he addressed Card. `I will not tolerate,' he boomed, `a continuation of what has been going on over the last 2 years.' He cited cavalier treatment that denies information even to the venerable top Senate Republican on Armed Services. ``Next up was Senator Pat Roberts, a former Marine officer who has spent the last 40 years on Capitol Hill. Roberts, a plain-spoken midwesterner from Kansas, is the new Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. He told Andrew Card to mark him down agreeing with everything Warner just said. Senator Kit Bond of Missouri got up next and repeated similar concerns.'' So this is not a partisan attack on the President. This is a bipartisan concern that this administration act competently and consult with Congress. These issues are too serious.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the chief executive of one of the civilian contractors said in an interview this past Monday, just stop and pause and think of that, this past Monday, said we have not received any information or direction from the client regarding our work in-country. No charge, no communications, no citations, no calls to appear at the Pentagon.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Just to pick up on the point by my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), it is beyond the incompetence and the ineptitude that seems to characterize the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense. That can only be called callousness, and it is rank and raw. And maybe he ought to join us as we attend the funerals of those who have died in the service of this country. I have already attended two, two funerals. A young man in Quincy and just recently a young man in Plymouth. This Saturday I am attending another funeral. And just maybe if Under Secretary Wolfowitz was at that funeral with me, he might know the number of Americans that have died in this war. But maybe it is just simply ineptitude. We were talking earlier about these contractors, these mercenaries, these Hessians, if you will. A report exists that has targeted two individuals who worked for contractors. Now, I am not going to reach a conclusion, because everyone deserves due process, everyone deserves the implementation of the rule of law as we know it in our democracy; but they have not even received notice. Just imagine that. They have heard nothing from the Pentagon. It is in a report and there has been no communication to these private companies. Yesterday in the New York Times the lead contractors implicated in prison abuse remain on the job. They are still there. More than 2 months after a classified Army report found that the two contract workers were implicated in the abuse of Iraqis at a prison outside of Baghdad, the companies that employ them say they have heard nothing from the Pentagon and that they have not removed any employees from Iraq. For one of the employees, the Army report recommended termination of employment and revocation of a security clearance. For the other, it urged an official reprimand, whatever that means, and review of his security clearance. Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Monday evening they had no information on whether the workers were still on the job or why the report had not been conveyed to the companies. One of the principles in the company noted with apparent irritation that the military still had not provided the company with a copy of the report completed February 22. What is going on with the civilian leadership under the direction of this Secretary?

Mr. DELAHUNT. It just gets worse.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is exactly the word. I will look through. We have not received any information or direction from the client.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The client is the American taxpayer. That is who the client is, the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. As my colleague knows, at least it has been reported in the paper, that the Secretary will appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or some other committee of the United States Senate to respond to the concerns that Republicans and Democrats and everybody has articulated over the last several days. I would hope that one additional question might be asked of this Secretary who stands here next to the President of Uzbekistan, who is a tyrant, a despot and a dictator, who some day will rival Saddam Hussein as a gross violator and threat to regional stability, but is now part of the coalition of the willing, but I digress. From the book which was offered regarding the experiences of the former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, there is related an anecdote, and I think it needs an answer because I do not want to make an accusation, but this anecdote occurred on February of 2001, months before our national tragedy of September 11, but the preparations were underway to do something about Iraq, to do something about Iraq. On page 96, let me read, Beneath the surface was a battle, O'Neill, that seemed brewing since the National Security Council meeting on January 30. Remember, the President had been in office for a week. It was Powell and his moderates at the State Department versus hard-liners like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, who were already planning the next war in Iraq in the shape of a post-Saddam country. Documents were being prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency, Rumsfeld's intelligence arm, mapping Iraqi oil fields and exploration areas enlisting companies that might be interested in leveraging the precious asset. This is less than a month after President Bush was inaugurated. One document entitled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts lists companies from 30 countries, their specialty, bidding histories and, in some cases, their particular areas of history. He expressed the desire to dissuade countries from engaging in asymmetrical challenges to the United States, as Rumsfeld said in his January articulation, of the demonstrative value of a pre-emptive attack. I would like to have a response to that particular page. What was the memory of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? Why was he preparing at that point, cutting up the pie, if you will, allocating oil contracts months before 9/11?

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, what is happening in terms of the war on terror. We are talking about Iraq, and yet all over the world, murky, small, nebulous cells of fundamental Islamics who hate America are being spawned. Mr. Speaker, maybe tomorrow if we have some time we will come back and do a wrap-up. Again, I thank my colleagues for this installment of Iraq watch.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment. I do not want the audience or whoever may be watching us have this conversation tonight to perceive this simply to be a one-sided partisan attack on the White House because that would be a distorted view of our purpose and our intent.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, we do know this: we do know that Halliburton, according to a CBS report, established a subsidiary with an office in the Cayman Islands, and when an investigative team from CBS went to the office in the Cayman Islands, do my colleagues know what they found? They found a small office without a single person in the office. That obviously caused more interest. Further investigation revealed that this particular subsidiary of Halliburton in fact had an office in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. That particular subsidiary was dealing with another member of the so- called Axis of Evil club: Iran. They were supplying the services and the products necessary for Iran to upgrade its oil industry. So the conflict, if you will, at least as I see it, and some would suggest that it is illegal, that it is a subterfuge that there are on the books of the United States Criminal Code laws that would prohibit American corporations such as Halliburton from dealing with rogue nations. My memory is that the title of the particular legislative provisions is called Trading With the Enemy Act. We had sanctions, and yet we have Halliburton, a subsidiary of Halliburton trading with Iran; Iran who, clearly, if we examine the reports of our own Department of State, to a far greater magnitude than anything that Saddam Hussein had done in Iraq as far as encouraging terrorists, terrorist organizations, that if there was a nation on the planet that sponsored terrorism and terrorist organizations, it was in Iran and, at the same time, Halliburton was supporting them in terms of the key component of their economy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure the Iraqi people will welcome that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly disturbing, and I think that the American people have reached, by a vast majority, the conclusion that many of us reached during the course of the debate on whether Congress should authorize the executive to attack Iraq militarily, and that is the case was never made, never made in terms of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. Neither was the case ever made in terms of a relationship or linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, particularly as focused on September 11. There was no involvement by the Iraqi regime on September 11, and there never had been a significant relationship between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad. But what I find even more disturbing is that reluctance of the administration to let go of this myth. It is as if they so intensely embrace this belief that they are incapable from detaching themselves from that belief and accept reality. What I thought was particularly striking is that after the so-called major combat phase of the Iraq war, as it was announced by the President, and the inability of the existing forces to discover weapons of mass destruction, he created the so-called Survey Group, the Iraq Survey Group headed by a former U.N. inspector who was described as hawkish in his views in terms of whether there should have been or whether the United States was correct in invading Iraq. His name was David Kay. I am sure many of us remember the name, many of those watching here tonight remember David Kay. He appeared on a number of television programs, wrote opinion pieces in major media outlets, and he was selected by the President to head the effort. Well, last October he returned to Washington, consulted with Congress, consulted with Secretary Rumsfeld and reported that he was wrong. In fact, he testified before a Senate committee and made that statement which ended up in Newsweek that I believed was refreshing, because it reflected a candor and an honesty that has been lacking. And he stated passionately that we were all wrong. We were all wrong. Yet, as the gentleman from Washington indicated, the President, and particularly the Vice President will not let go, wants to create a reality that is simply inaccurate, that is false. Recently, David Kay stated that the U.S. is in grave danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if we do not own up to the mistakes that we made. We are a proud people. We are a democracy, and in a democracy, to move forward we have an opportunity to speak the truth, to acknowledge mistakes, and to learn from those mistakes. As I said earlier, the Vice President on more than one occasion has been, I do not want to say overruled, that is not the right word, but after making a statement the President himself has indicated that the statement was not accurate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What you are saying is that the President's National Security Adviser, who is responsible for coordinating American foreign policy, particularly in times of crisis like obviously we find ourselves currently in, has not on a single occasion briefed Democratic Members of the House of Representatives, at least to your knowledge?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think what is particularly interesting, when we talk about consultation, and those that are listening to us this evening, members of our group that we call the Iraq Watch, ought to be aware that this is a complaint that not only comes from the Democratic side of the aisle, but also from Republicans. I remember noting a particular quote by Senator Hagel who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in describing his perception of the consultative process during the course of the debate leading up to the war as one which he felt that the White House considered Congress as a nuisance. Hopefully, hopefully, that attitude will not occur, and conceivably we could have some discourse and dialogue with key members of the administration such as Dr. Rice on a regular basis. I think in all fairness, however, I should note, and those who are listening to us this evening, that on a regular basis, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, has volunteered to come before Members of Congress and provide briefings. But I have been particularly disappointed with Dr. Rice, who, up until this point in time, has not in any way engaged in a conversation with Members of Congress.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, speaking about where conservatives are, and again I think it is extremely important for us because we acknowledge that we are Democrats, but there is a growing opinion on the part of all Americans from whatever political perspective that they hold that the credibility that we see is dissipating now, as well as the competence in the planning has been a failure. Let me read something from a highly regarded national conservative leader by the name of Clyde Prestowitz. This was a column that appeared in my hometown paper, the Boston Globe. And more and more traditional conservative voices in this country are echoing these sentiments. And this White House and this administration should listen very carefully to the traditional Republican conservatives in this country who will voice similar concerns and doubts as we do here on a once-a-week basis. ``For a moment during the spring, neoconservatives associated with the Bush administration thought they had died and gone to heaven. The quicker than expected fall of Saddam Hussein seemed to justify their vision of a new America that would reshape world politics. The United States would use its overwhelming military power to crush tyrannical regimes, they declared, and establish American-style capitalist democracies in their place. Domestically, the neocons only question was whether the tax cuts aimed at reshaping American society would be merely big or gigantic. As time passes, however, it has become increasingly clear that this course is neither neo nor conservative and that it may lead more quickly to hell than to heaven. ``This is not the foreign policy agenda traditional conservatives like myself voted for in 2000. Concerned about growing anti-American feeling around the world, we were pleased when candidate Bush spoke of adopting a humbler attitude in foreign policy and of reducing U.S. overstretch abroad. We also anticipated that a new Bush administration would embrace long-standing conservative values such as smaller government, fiscal responsibility, tax cuts carved with a goal of balancing budgets, strong protection of individual rights, and support of healthy State and local governments.'' I dare say that that is an opinion that is being echoed among conservatives of both parties. Recently, there was a similar piece, I will not take the time because I know we are getting towards the end, that appeared in the New York Times. But I would commend those that are watching us this evening to go to the April 9 edition of the New York Times and read a piece by David Kirkpatrick entitled ``Lack of Resolutions in Iraq Find Conservatives Divided.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt my friend, how many briefings has Dr. Rice volunteered up to this point in time to come in and to consult and to engage in a discourse and a dialogue with Members of Congress?

Mr. DELAHUNT. We have already had the evidence of that. It has been demonstrated very, very clearly. I remember the Secretary of Defense speaking to the fact that there was some 70,000 Iraqi security forces. Well, the truth is that there were about 3,000 of them that had actually received some 2 weeks of training. That is not being honest and forthcoming with the Congress of the United States and the American people. And then we learn during their first encounter about one in every 10 of Iraq security forces actually work against U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation, the commander of the first armored division said Wednesday, and that is Major General Martin Dempsey.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Prince Bandar.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And the incompetence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. A secret agreement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I use another word? My colleague said ``wishful thinking.'' Let me be very clear. What we are talking about here is competence or incompetence, and we are not talking about the military who, clearly, have performed professionally, heroically, and deserve our praise and deserve our support. But what we are talking about is the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and this administration and this Presidency. Let me just for one minute, if I can, here we are now talking about whether there should be a supplemental budget. And recently a colleague of ours, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), visited Iraq and returned in the latter part of March and had private conversations with the generals in charge of the post-combat phase, if you will, according to the President. And they informed him that if there was not a supplemental, there would be serious problems confronting the American military. Again, in a recent story, a recent report, dated April 21, so that is last Wednesday, this is what is happening. Let us be very clear, we have heard again and again colleagues stand up and talk about the inadequate protection being provided to American troops, whether it be vests, whether it be unarmored Humvees. So to make it up, here is what is happening. According to this report, the military is scrambling to fill its needs. The Pentagon last week diverted 120 armored Humvees purchased by the Israeli defense forces to Iraq. Yesterday, the Army announced a $110 million contract for still more armored Humvees. This is incompetence. That is what this is about. It is not just about credibility; it is about incompetence. An unreal expectation that the numbers of troops that would be necessary in May of 2003 and 3 months thereafter would be 30,000. And, yet, the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, in a very derisive way when asked about the estimate that was given to the Senate by General Shinseki of 200,000 troops, said it was wildly off the mark. Well, Mr. Wolfowitz, now you are scrambling, and now we have American military personnel at risk.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me note that the Senate chair of the foreign relations committee, who we all know and respect, Senator Lugar, along with the ranking member, Senator Biden, urged the administration to be more forthcoming about its strategy for returning Iraq to the control of its people. And, again, this is from an article last Wednesday from The Washington Post: ``The Bush administration has sometimes failed in the past to communicate its Iraq plans and cost estimates to Congress and the American people, Lugar said, and must recognize that its domestic credibility on Iraq will have a great impact on its efforts to succeed.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we have to acknowledge that there are Republican Members of this House and the other body that say it like it is, that speak the truth, that are not hesitant to take on a President of their own party. Let me just read to you a statement that was attributed to the vice chair of the House Committee on Armed Services on which you serve, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a Republican, from Pennsylvania. He charged that ``the President is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future. Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as outrageous and immoral and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next 5 months.'' There needs to be a supplemental whether it is a Presidential election year or not.