Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. But the Government of Iraq is being well financed. Mr. Speaker, if I can continue for a moment, because the picture that the gentleman is drawing is rather clear to me. I noted in a report from my hometown paper, the Boston Globe, that the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, in response to a question in a very forthright manner made this statement: ``The era of big government is back and Republicans seem to like it.'' I presume that he was referring to Iraq or maybe he was referring to that deficit that is creating a future Armageddon for our children, our grandchildren, and even our friends in North Carolina.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, can my colleague repeat those? How many enemy combatants? Presumably those are former Iraqi soldiers.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In other words, they would be Iraqi veterans of war.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Former soldiers. I only wish that the American veteran was treated as well. What I find particularly unacceptable is the budget that was submitted by this White House and this President, as far as it relates to the American veterans. The various veterans service organizations, the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed American Veterans claim that the White House budget, as submitted to this Congress, one, would only worsen the backlog processing disability claims; secondly, reduce the number of VA nursing home beds just as the number of veterans who need long-term care is swelling, and force some veterans to pay a fee simply to gain access to the VA health care system, despite the promise that this Congress made back in 1996, that if you were an American veteran, you were entitled to health care, provided by the Veterans Administration. This is a report in the Washington Post dated last week. The commander in chief of the VFW called the President's proposed budget for veterans health care, and this is his quote, ``a disgrace and a sham.'' And, yet, we are supporting health care for 130,000 former Iraqi soldiers, who I am sure are benefiting from the largesse of the American taxpayer. It is time we take care of our own, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we know that we have a jobless recovery. Clearly it is an issue that has grabbed the attention of the American people. But there is another aspect of our economic picture that I think should disturb all of us on both sides of the aisle, and I hear nothing coming from this White House addressing it. We all agree that there has been a net loss of jobs. In other words, jobs have been created, but millions of more jobs have been lost than have been created. But what is untold here, what has not been said, and I think we all owe an obligation to tell this to the American people and we should start here tonight, is that while we have a jobless recovery, we have a wage recession. We have a wage recession. The new jobs that are replacing the old jobs are at wage scales that are 21 percent less than the jobs that they replaced. Now, that is like if you are unemployed and you find a job after your unemployment runs out, because we do not count those folks anymore, we call them discouraged workers, but if you are lucky enough to find a job you are taking a 21 percent pay cut. What does that do in terms of the hopes and dreams and the living standards that you have for yourself and your families?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I will tell the gentleman presumably there is a stealth OMD somewhere. Maybe it is in the Department of Defense. My colleague knows how they have that office of strategic planning.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in terms of the health care, I am convinced that it is some sort of socialized medicine initiative that is surprising, since this administration decries efforts to adopt a universal health care coverage Federal policy here in the United States.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The question is will America of tomorrow be better, given the policies enunciated and the policies we have witnessed over the course of the past 3\1/2\ years? That is the question facing the American people as we look towards November of 2004, when probably December of 2004 we will be provided with a supplemental budget that will come as no surprise to those of us that work here in this institution, but that we know will further add to that debt that is outstanding.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I interrupt for a moment? During the 1990s, we saw a profound decline in the rate of violent crime. Many criminologists and others in the criminal justice system attributed the significant portion of that decline in the so-called COPS program, where the Federal Government provided the funding for the training and the hiring of police and other law enforcement agents for State and local and county investigative agencies, highway patrol, local police departments. Clearly it made a difference. It made a difference. In this budget from this White House, that program has been cut 87 percent. I spent 21 years of my life as the chief prosecutor in a jurisdiction in metropolitan Boston. I fear, and I say this truly, what these cuts are going to do in terms of the next 2 or 3 years as far as the instance of violent crimes all over our country, in our communities. We are losing police officers. Every single community has suffered some reduction in the size of their police forces, their public safety agencies. And yet we hear, coming from the White House, talk of homeland security. There is an inconsistency here. The reality is not matched with facts or, rather, the reality is not matched with the rhetoric.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would allow me for just a moment, I think what I find particularly disturbing is, and we discussed this last week, those of us that have come to this floor on a regular basis to discuss Iraq, the monies that are continuing to be paid to Iraqi, so-called Iraqi opposition groups, we talked about an individual by the name of Ahmed Chalabi, who when asked did he feel at all chagrined by the fact that the information that he provided through his organization, the so-called Iraqi National Council, was false. He said no, he did not. I am in Baghdad. Saddam is gone. Well, Saddam having gone, we can all agree is good. But the information that he provided, the defectors which he purportedly coached, gave information which police led eventually the American people in terms of the rationale for all military intervention. This same Ahmed Chalabi, who was convicted of embezzling some $300 million from a bank that he founded and established in Jordan. He was convicted in Jordan and sentenced to 22 years in prison. He departed rather quickly from Jordan in the middle of the night and he is now serving on the Iraqi Governing Council and has taken the portfolio, the finance portfolio, a convicted felon, a convicted felon who was charged and convicted in a neighboring nation, Jordan, who has historically been a solid ally of the United States, has attempted to foster peace with Israel, and we never consulted that kingdom of Jordan; and we are continuing to pay his group some $350,000 a month. And meanwhile, as the gentleman has pointed out, we cannot build roads. We cannot do school rehabs or reconstruction. We cannot provide veterans services benefits for our own people; and we are paying $350,000 a month.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I think it is important to try to paint the macropicture, if you will, and that is, in the President's budget, he put forth a package of some $257 billion. The Senate, the Republican Senate, his own party, came through with a figure of some $318 billion. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the appropriate committee in this House, has valiantly and assiduously attempted to secure more funding because not only do we need our infrastructure updated, but for the very reason that my colleague articulated, it produces jobs, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs so that our jobless recovery, with its attendant wage recession, will receive a stimulus that will hopefully lift all boats.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, because I think what my colleague has said is so informative. I think it reveals the flaws in not only the foreign policy but particularly in terms of the economic strategy of this particular White House. There is another observation I would like to make because the reality is that the median income of the family of four in the United States is declining. If we continue along this path, we are in danger. We are in danger of creating a gap between those that have and those that do not have. While we are attempting to create a middle class in Iraq, because the middle class is absolutely essential for a democracy, we know that, we are seeing our own middle class shrink in the United States. The most recent statistic is that one percent of the American population is now earning 17 percent of our income.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would concur with the gentleman's analysis. He is absolutely correct. We secured a military victory in Afghanistan against those, the Taliban, that allowed, on their territory, in Afghanistan, the training and a safe haven for the real enemy of the United States, the al Qaeda terrorist network. It has been more than 2 years, more than 2 years since we secured that victory. And as the gentleman mentioned, we were distracted, if you will. We were distracted by an ideological conclusion that the defeat of Saddam Hussein would create a new democracy in the Middle East. Would that it be so. But as my colleague has mentioned, not only has Osama bin Laden not been captured, and I have a sense he will be captured, and the sooner the better, and if he is not captured, may he be killed because he is the enemy of the United States, I think it is important, however, given the distraction, if you will, based on a rationale that was put forth by this President, President Bush, that Saddam Hussein not only was in the possession and had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, and it was suggested, if you remember, that the threat of Saddam Hussein's possession of a nuclear weapon was very real, was very real, according to what the administration was saying, in that Saddam Hussein somehow had this murky relationship with these terrorists who had designs directly on the United States, that this information has turned out to be utterly without substance.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment. We have heard much relative to criticism of the intelligence services of the United States. But when one examines the reporting by the CIA, by the Defense Intelligence Agency, by the appropriate agencies within the Department of State and the Department of Defense, their reporting was characterized by conditionality, by caveats, by suggestions that there was more to it than simply a conclusion. It was described in terms of likelihood, probability, maybe, what have you. But it was presented to the American people and to the people of the world in clear stock terms that would only, only provide an inescapable conclusion that Saddam Hussein had possession of weapons of mass destruction. You read from a report this week about the analysis by Hans Blix. Well, as my colleague is well aware, the President himself asked an individual by the name of David Kay, who many Americans have seen on a variety of news programs, to lead the post-war effort to find the so- called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was the individual who had the courage to come before the Senate and say unequivocally and clearly we were all wrong. We have not heard that yet from the President of the United States. Well, it just happens that David Kay has now been interviewed by a highly respected journal, newspaper, called The Guardian from the United Kingdom. He has called on the Bush administration, and I am reading from a story that appeared in the March 3 edition of The Guardian, he called on the Bush administration to come clean. And these are his words here, not mine, not my colleague's, not anybody from the Republican side of the office, but David Kay's. And they have not received the attention, I dare say, they deserve here in the American media. But it was David Kay in this interview that said, ``It is time to come clean with the American people, Mr. President, and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.'' That is David Kay.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, let me continue with the same report that I had alluded to earlier in The Guardian. And, again, this is Mr. Kay. I would hope that some of the news organizations in this country would contact Mr. Kay and corroborate this report from this highly regarded newspaper in the United Kingdom, because I think it is extremely telling. This administration will not admit they were wrong. We are going to find out what happened whether they intentionally misled or whether the intelligence itself was faulty. That is a question that will be answered during the course of the next 5 or 6 months. But it is about time for the President of the United States to stand up and say we were wrong to the American people. Mr. Kay said, ``The administration's reluctance to make that admission was further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.'' President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Powell owe an obligation to the American people in our role in the world and our claim to moral authority to get this matter disposed of. The Secretary of Defense will not let it go. Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed Mr. Kay's assertion that there were no weapons of mass destruction at the start of the Iraq war as a theory that was possible but not likely. What is wrong, Mr. Rumsfeld? Do you not get it? It is better for the country. Put aside the fear of embarrassment. This is more about--this is less about personal embarrassment than it is restoring American credibility as we proceed during the course of this year and years here after dealing in a very, very dangerous world. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. DELAHUNT. We have been joined by our colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Inslee), regulars on the Tuesday night Iraq Watch. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland); but before I give the time to him, I just want to repeat what David Kay said, the individual that was put in charge of searching for the weapons of mass destruction by this President, and this is from a report from a British newspaper last week. Mr. Kay said that ``continuing evasion,'' these are his words, ``would create public cynicism about the administration's motives.'' He also said, ``If the administration did not confront the Iraqi intelligence fiasco head on, it would undermine its credibility with allies in future crises for a generation.'' For a generation. This President with his failure to come clean with the American people, to be forthright, is putting our credibility at risk for a generation. It is time for President Bush to stand up and say the truth and to concur with the statement by David Kay that we were all wrong. You were wrong. Your Secretary of Defense was wrong. Your Vice President has been wrong. Your Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, has been wrong. You have been wrong. Then we can proceed again to restore the confidence of the world in the integrity of the United States.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, speaking, of course, about the recovery.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In Ohio.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And elsewhere in America.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What you are speaking to is competence. It is just sheer incompetence. What the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and I were discussing earlier in our conversation, it is credibility, credibility, and again, when we think of how we are treating our soldiers. I do not for a moment believe that any Member of Congress or the administration is not prepared and willing to do what is needed to be done or what is necessary to be done to protect our soldiers, but it comes down to incompetence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I agree but I would suggest that that is a by-product of just sheer incompetence by the civilian leadership, by the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense, not the military personnel because they are being sent into combat, but what is intentional, and again, I dare say goes to the credibility of this President, is the way that these men and women are treated when they come back to the United States and hear that this President has underfunded veterans' medical health care to the point where the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in this country described President Bush's budget as a sham, as a sham.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we understand and I continue to hear the word ``recovery.'' We know it is a jobless recovery, but it is not a jobless recovery for those who live in Iraq. It is a lot of no-show jobs going on over in Iraq. And as we discussed in our last session, certain individuals are doing very well by the American taxpayers. There is a budget for Iraq, and there is a budget for the United States; and they are both being paid for by the American taxpayer.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to the question posed here on the cover of Time magazine, Does Bush have a credibility gap? And clearly there is substantial evidence that would lead to the conclusion that there is a profound credibility gap.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just spoke about the deficit. We had some colleagues here earlier in an effort to defend the so-called prescription drug benefit that was passed on this floor back in December. Does my colleague recall that back in the course of this debate, and I know this is a digression from our focus of the issue of Iraq, but it does go to the credibility of this President, President Bush, does the gentleman remember the discussion and the debate that went on into the wee hours when there was not a single Member of Congress on both sides that did not accept the number $400 billion as the cost of that proposal? And then weeks later, weeks later it was announced by this White House, the Bush White House, that their estimate was some $537 billion? More than 35 percent. What we discovered subsequently is that this administration, this President, had his Secretary of Health and Human Services over here lobbying, advocating right on the floor of the House, cajoling Members for some 3 hours. And he knew at that point in time that the real number was some $537 billion, and not what we were told. This goes to credibility. This goes to exactly what David Kay told that British newspaper when he called on the Bush administration to come clean with the American people and admit it was wrong about the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It is about coming clean and it is about credibility and it is about the truth.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's remarks this evening. They were transmitted on CNN. He described those who are concerned about the outsourcing of American jobs, with an implication that somehow those who have a concern about jobs in America are something less than free and fair traders, and that is T-R-A-D-E-R-S, and should be called economic isolationists.