Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is accurate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I concur with that, but let me read something from The Washington Post of last week.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, a question that I would like to have answered by the 9/11 Commission. Well, maybe it is not appropriate for the 9/11 Commission; let me retract that. However, I think it is a question that this administration should answer via some mechanism, because we were all here that night when we heard those words regarding the search for highly enriched uranium in the African nation of Niger, which turned out to be totally false, and which had been discredited and discounted by a variety of intelligence agencies throughout the world and particularly, not the CIA, but the DIA and the appropriate agency within the Department of State. They just simply did not accept it. Yet a week later, on February 5, the Secretary of State made a very powerful presentation at the United Nations; and in that particular presentation, Secretary Powell made no reference, no allusion to that particular situation, to the fact that or at least the assertion that was presented by the President regarding looking for uranium in Africa. I am sure that he did that because, as was reported in a variety of media outlets, he sat down with the CIA, the Director and analysts within the CIA, and discarded that information. Why was it inserted in the State of the Union, and yet approximately a week later was not part of the Secretary of State's presentation before the United Nations? And did the Secretary of State communicate to the President of the United States, to the Vice President of the United States his basis, his rationale for not including a very serious allegation that was made by the President in the State of the Union address and not included in his presentation at the United Nations before the world? It is incomprehensible.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt, I think we are usually in agreement, but here I have to disagree, because it was not immediately after 9/11. Yes, I believe the President did make that statement, and I presume he will acknowledge he made that statement. It has been acknowledged implicitly by the spokesperson for the White House. But if you go back and examine the record, this administration, and particularly the Vice President of the United States, for whatever reason, presumably this grand vision of a Middle East rearranged in a manner that purportedly would move democracy forward, believed that Iraq was the linchpin to having that happen, and a conclusion had been reached and they were simply looking for the opportunity to invade Iraq. That was before 9/11.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that shortly I will be joined by some colleagues for our customary Tuesday night hour where we discuss the situation in the Middle East with a particular focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. We have described this hour as the so-called Iraq Watch. As we did recently, I think it is an opportune time to explain to those watching us this evening and my colleagues who preceded us that the normal legislative business of the House of Representatives has concluded, and we are now in that period called Special Orders. That is why we have an empty Chamber. Members are elsewhere, doing their homework and getting prepared for tomorrow's legislative business. Again, in terms of equity and fairness, Republicans are allocated 2 hours and Democrats are allocated 2 hours and we alternate back and forth. As I mentioned earlier, I anticipate that I will be joined relatively soon by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) to have our customary conversation. But I would like to begin this evening's conversation with those that are viewing us and, as they join me, with my colleagues about the issue of credibility, because as I am sure we are all familiar, if our word is not trusted, if we are perceived to be untrustworthy, we encounter serious problems as we go through life. The same is true obviously of a nation, particularly a Nation like ours that claims justifiably a certain moral authority, a Nation that values truth and honesty and a Nation that is hurt when others speak of deception and deceit when it comes to the United States of America. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that our motives are being questioned. There was a recent survey done by the Pew Foundation. This was a survey done in seven nations spread across Europe and the Middle East. Majorities in those seven nations believe that our intervention in Iraq was motivated by a desire to control Mideast oil. Let me read to you those nation-states and the percentages that embrace this particular view of the United States of America. Fifty-one percent of the people in Russia accept as gospel that our intervention in Iraq was predicated on a desire to control Mideast oil. Fifty-eight percent of the population of France shared a similar view. Sixty percent of German society echoed those sentiments. In Pakistan, the number was 54 percent. In Turkey, an erstwhile ally, 64 percent, almost two-thirds of the population, believed that the United States launched the attack on Iraq because of our desire to control Mideast oil. In Morocco, that number was 63 percent. In Jordan, that number was 71 percent. What is particularly disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is unfortunately this cynical view is reinforced by various news accounts that reveal American companies have been doing business with rogue nations. There was a recent CBS ``60 Minutes'' expose. I think most Americans were unaware that despite the fact that nations like Libya, like Iran, like Iraq were considered rogue nations, Iran particularly, being one of those nations designated by the President as part of the Axis of Evil, that in fact American corporations, or let me restate that, subsidiaries of American corporations could actually do business with those whom we considered our enemy, with those whom we had placed on a list described as being those states sponsoring terrorism. This issue was really brought to light by the New York City comptroller who in his research discovered that the $80 billion in pension funds for all city workers were invested in corporations such as GE, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton that exploited, if you will, this loophole in the law. Obviously, people from all over the world are fully aware of the fact that the Vice President, Richard Cheney, was the former CEO of Halliburton. So I know it comes as a surprise to them and certainly came, I think, as a shock to Mr. William Thompson, who was the New York City comptroller, that pension funds were invested in Halliburton, and Halliburton had created a subsidiary, a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands that purportedly was doing business with Iran. As we have recently discovered, of course, Iran is suspected of developing a nuclear weapons program. Clearly, any business that would be done with a rogue nation would benefit that rogue nation. In any event, this particular expose by ``60 Minutes'' that established that there was an offshore subsidiary of Halliburton in the Cayman Islands was in fact operating during the tenure of the Vice President. According again to the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview, the subsidiary sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government. This does not enhance our credibility, Mr. Speaker. I think it undermines our credibility. And when the 60 Minutes crew went to interview officials from Halliburton, they were denied access. But again they got on a plane. They went to the Cayman Islands, and what they discovered in the Cayman Islands was an office with a phone and no employees. Subsequently, because of a conversation they had with an individual in the building which housed this so-called subsidiary or independent company, they were told that, no, that mailing gets rerouted to Houston. Subsequently, they learned that in Dubai, which is a city in the United Arab Emirates, that there was the operating arm of the particular embassy. But, again, no answer, no response. So what we have is a parent company, Halliburton, declining a request by 60 Minutes for an interview but through e-mail communicated it has no intention of leaving Iran or addressing the questions that the interviewer had raised about the independence of its subsidiary. So we wonder sometimes why we are perceived in a particular way, because, again, our credibility is so vital to our claim of moral authority. I do not have an answer, Mr. Speaker. But I think the American people are owed an answer. I along, with several other Members, my colleagues on the Iraq Watch, have requested to the Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, that a special prosecutor be investigating to determine whether there is potential criminal culpability. But it goes to our core value of transparency and honesty and truth. Much has been stated recently about the testimony of Richard Clarke, and that continues to play out. As we have seen today, the National Security Adviser, Ms. Rice, apparently will testify before the 9/11 Commission. But I think the salient import of Mr. Clarke's position is that Iraq had been the focus of concern since the beginning of the administration, and that seems to be confirmed by the former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill. So I went back and reread the book authored by Mr. Suskind in collaboration with the former Secretary of the Treasury and his recount of the first meeting on January 30, 2001, it had to be just several days after the inauguration, and I would like to read to those that are viewing us here this evening just excerpts from that particular book. I see I am joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). It is good to see him here. But there is a discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the book reads as follows: ``The Arab-Israeli conflict was a mess and the United States would disengage. The combatants would have to work it out on their own.'' That was the position of those that were present or at least it would appear to be the consensus that was emerging at the time. ``Powell said such a move might be hasty. `The consequences of that could be dire,' he said, `especially for the Palestinians.' ``Bush shrugged, `Maybe that's the best way to get things back in balance.' ``Powell,'' obviously a reference to Secretary Powell, ``seemed startled. `Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things,' Bush said. He turned to Rice. `So, Condi, what are we going to talk about today? What's on the agenda?' `` `How Iraq is destabilizing the region, Mr. President,' Rice said. In what several observers understood was a scripted exchange, she noted that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.'' This is an excerpt from the former Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill's, book. That is 5 days after the President was inaugurated. The next excerpt that I will read from was a meeting of the principals, the Cabinet members on the National Security Council. This was conducted on February 27, 2001. Again, the purpose clearly was the emphasis by the Secretary, the Secretary of Treasury, Mr. O'Neill, that it was all about Iraq. This is in February of 2001. Clearly this would corroborate, I would suggest, the import of Richard Clarke's recent book ``Against All Enemies.'' But what is interesting in this particular excerpt is a reference to oil, a reference again to oil. We are not talking about terrorism. We are talking about oil, and let me quote this passage. ``Beneath the surface was a battle O'Neill had seen brewing since the National Security Council meeting on January 30. 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 and the shape of a post-Saddam country.'' Remember, this is February 27, 2001, months before the tragedy that befell us on September 11. ``Documents were 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. One document head `Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts' lists companies from 30 countries, their specialties, bidding histories, and in some cases their particular areas of interest. An attached document maps Iraq with markings for super giant oil fields, other oil fields, and earmarked for production sharing while demarking the largely undeveloped southwest of the country into nine blocks to designate areas for future exploration.'' So I guess, Mr. Speaker, I should not be surprised that in seven nations, according to the highly respected Pew Foundation, a survey revealed that substantial majorities in those nations believe that it was the intention of the United States to invade Iraq to control Mid East oil. The excerpt I just read from Secretary O'Neill's book relates his impressions, not mine, not the gentleman from Hawaii's (Mr. Abercrombie), and not the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my colleague who has just arrived. So we are talking about oil here and the interest of oil, and this is the impression that the Secretary of Treasury that served in the Bush administration concluded.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, all of this goes to the credibility of the United States. When administration officials, and particularly the Vice President, make statements that in one case was contradicted the next day by the President himself regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, when on a Meet the Press program the Vice President of the United States suggested that there were links and then the next day the President of the United States came out and unequivocally said there is no evidence linking 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, and then subsequent to that, subsequent to that, in January of this year the Vice President again repeats the assertion, the allegation, about linkages, there is a cumulative impact here. There is a cumulative impact, because, after awhile, people are saying, you are conning us; you are misleading us. Like just recently, the Prime Minister of Poland, an ally in the coalition of the willing that is still in Iraq, said, ``We were misled. We were taken for a ride.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt, I believe that goes to the question of competence; and the issue of post-war planning has been roundly criticized.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, let me go back earlier to the excerpt that I recited from the O'Neill book. On February 27, the administration was a month old. Here we have a meeting of the National Security Council of the United States talking about exploration, mega-giant oil fields, contracts. I would hope that those that might be viewing this conversation this evening, and I am not here shilling for Mr. Suskind and former Secretary O'Neill, but they should go out and read the book, because we know that Mr. O'Neill was castigated, and we also are fully aware that Mr. Clarke is being attacked and maligned. But what I suggest is, read these two as companions. It is clear that there is no collaboration going on between Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Clarke. But the salient point is from the day they came into office, this was about Iraq. This was about Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have to say this about the Vice President, and, again, those who might be listening to us tonight, if you have access to a computer, go on line. On March 10, the headline reads, page 1 of the New York Times, ``CIA chief says he corrected Cheney privately.'' Even today, it is the Vice President, more than anyone in this administration, who will not let it go. David Kay said, and, remember, David Kay was the chief arms inspector for the United States, embraced by this administration to go and search for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, David Kay said we were all wrong. It is time to give it up. He indicated in a speech just recently in Cambridge, Massachusetts, I think he used the term ``Waiting for a Hail Mary pass, like Vice President Cheney is doing, presents us with grave threats.'' That is David Kay speaking. That is not some partisan Democrat. That is not the putative nominee for the Democratic nomination for the President. This is beyond politics.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, is my friend aware of the fact that the President of Afghanistan recently was compelled to delay the elections that were scheduled in June to September?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Hopefully, September.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I dare say that that election date is very much at risk, as the gentleman suggests that Afghanistan, as a viable nation- state embracing democracy, is very much at risk, because we have ignored Afghanistan since we achieved a stunning military success, but then diverted our efforts and our resources and our attention to Iraq where there was only one terrorist, and that was Saddam Hussein, who terrorized his own people. But the terrorists in Afghanistan were the terrorists that were training, that were appearing again to attack America. And today, we are still searching for them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important to the people who are watching this to understand this: that historically, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were bitter enemies. In fact, in the mid-1980s, there was a group akin to al Qaeda in terms of its world view, fundamentalist Islamist, a perverted form of that holy religion, that great religion, that attempted to assassinate Tarik Aziz. Saddam Hussein, the tyrant and the thug that he was, just eradicated him. So historically, we should have known that those that attacked us were the same people that as recently as this month, as recently as this month killed hundreds of people in Madrid, Spain; and we need the help of the entire world. That is why I go back to this issue of credibility: Who is going to believe us? I know that there are some that will strut and swagger and be tough and say, we can do it alone. Well, I do not want to do it just with American men and women. This will only be successful, this war on terror, if we do it working with others and we have to have their trust. We have to have their confidence. We will never accept appeasement, but we have got to be honest

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in retrospect General Shinseki, who was treated in an extremely dismissive manner, his advice should have been heeded and, maybe just maybe, today we would be looking at a totally different situation in Iraq than what we are currently embracing. I am sure you are aware that the leader, the dominant leader of the Shiites in Iraq, Ayatollah Al'sistani, is already circulating information, pamphlets, decrying the Constitution. I mean, it has been reported that CIA analysts are concerned about a civil war in Iraq

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. One grand jury that we are aware of.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, on that I echo the kudo. I am joined tonight by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). I anticipate that we will be shortly joined by two other colleagues, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), for another session that we have labeled as Iraq Watch to discuss issues concerning the Middle East with a particular focus on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. There is much to talk about tonight. I do not think an hour will be sufficient. I also should mention over the course of the past 8 months, and we have been doing this for approximately 8 months now, I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the other Members involved have received a number of calls, e-mails, correspondence from not just our own constituents but from all over the country. There is one question that is constantly asked, and that is why is the House empty at this hour of the night. I think we should explain to those viewing this evening that the legislative business of the House of Representatives has been concluded for the day and we are now into a phase that is called Special Orders. Each side of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, are allocated an hour, actually two hours, to just have a conversation or make a presentation about issues that they have a particular interest in or issues which they feel the American people need more information on. I am sure many who watch C-SPAN note that during the course of the debate on particular proposals, the time is very limited, given the numbers of Members that wish to speak. In fact, the usual course allows for at most a maximum of some 5 minutes for each Member to speak. On those issues that have a particular interest on both sides of the aisle, what occurs is the individual Member who happens to be managing the bill, either Republican or Democrat, is responsible for allocating time and often rather than 5 minutes, the likelihood is that a Member will only have 2 or 3 minutes to explain his or her perspective on a particular issue. So this phase is called Special Orders. Earlier there were three of our friends and colleagues from the Republican side who discussed the budget. Prior to their coming to the floor, three or four Democratic Members spoke about the budget and the perspective of Democrats as to the proposal put forth by the Republican Party, and also clearly an alternative that will be presented by the Democrats in terms of the debate on where we go as far as a Nation is concerned, because in many respects the budget does reflect our values. And as Members heard earlier from our colleagues on the Republican side, there is a growing and profound concern about the escalating deficit that has been brought about by the actions of this particular administration and this Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. I think it is important that the American people remember that the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives, controls the United States Senate, and obviously the current incumbent in the White House is a Republican. So when we speak of deficits, this is a deficit that was engendered by the majority party in this country. I know the Democrats are extremely concerned about the deficit because the interest that is paid on the national debt detracts from other investments that could be made in a wide variety of initiatives such as infrastructure, education, health care, and a long litany of issues that I believe are a priority to the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important to remember that when the Director of the CIA testified recently before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he acknowledged that on several occasions he privately spoke to both the President and on multiple occasions spoke to the Vice President about errors that they had made in terms of misstatements, let us use that term for the moment, misstatements, yet we have heard nothing specifically from the Vice President. And the gentleman alluded to the incident earlier, being forthright with the American people that subsequently he received information from George Tenet in private that corrected a public statement that he had made, and yet he does not acknowledge that today publicly.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I thank the Chair.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that we should remind the audience that the gentleman from Hawaii has just joined us. In terms of what Mr. Clarke testifies to tomorrow, I think we should suspend our judgment tonight.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Does this come as a surprise to the gentleman? Let us be honest among ourselves and with those people that are viewing. If the gentleman remembers, it was the Bush-Cheney campaign that back in 2000 during the primary season, there was an ad that ran in New York. It was a 60-second radio spot in the days before the primary which was March 7 of 2000. Let me just give the gentleman a condensed version of that ad: Hello. My name is Geri Barish and I am a breast cancer survivor. It is a woman introducing herself to the listening audience. Like many, I had thought of supporting John McCain in next week's presidential primary. So I looked into his record. What I discovered was shocking. John McCain opposes many projects dedicated to women's health issues. It's true. McCain opposes funding for vital breast cancer programs right here in New York. John McCain calls these projects just ``garden variety pork.'' That's shocking. The truth, of course, was that Senator McCain did not vote against this bill because of the breast cancer projects, but because it was a military spending bill that did not provide adequate increases, in his judgment, for our troops. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DELAHUNT. I apologize to the Chair.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will eliminate reference.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. What I want to explain is that in this particular case, the attack on Senator McCain failed to mention that his sister was a breast cancer survivor.

Mr. DELAHUNT. From the State of Arizona, I would add.