Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation that would have imposed sanctions, and it was the White House of George Herbert Walker Bush that blocked it. Pausing again, going back in memory, who was the Secretary of Defense? The Secretary of Defense was Mr. Cheney, the current Vice President. His Under Secretary of Defense was Paul Wolfowitz. So, again, the dots here have to be connected. It is important, I believe, to present that historical record to the American people to give them the information that they need to conduct their own analysis. I challenge anyone from the administration or a Member of Congress to come to the floor and debate that particular unfortunate reality. If congressional action had been approved and the President, this President's father, had signed a bill that would have imposed sanctions, we can only speculate what would have happened. What I would have suggested, if we knew it and we speak again of human rights and how bad and claim a certain moral authority, what should have occurred is the President of the United States should have stepped up and requested an international tribunal and brought that thug, Saddam Hussein, before it for a trial, for a prosecution, and let justice happen.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In 1988 in Halabja, and he murdered somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi Kurds, and we were silent then when we should have imposed the sanctions and insisted that he be brought to trial. So that is the full story. That is the full story. Again, today, Secretary Powell continued to talk about intent. And there was evidence of intent, and I hear Dr. Rice, Condoleezza Rice, we know he used them. Yes. Back in 1988 and 1989, and we did nothing then, and here we are in 2002.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, just to pick up on the gentleman's point that in terms of the work that the U.N. teams did, respectively it has been established that there were no stockpiles. There were no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, David Kay, appointed by President Bush, came back and told the American people, to use his words, we were all wrong. I think it is so important to analyze and understand all of the dots here and what lies in the future. As I said in my opening remarks, we are now creating alliances and working with people who rival Saddam Hussein in terms of their tyranny, their abuse of human rights, and their willingness to do anything to enhance their power. I mentioned earlier we have a military base in Uzbekistan. And the President of Uzbekistan, here he is with our Secretary of Defense. The gentleman, if the Members will, to Secretary Rumsfeld's right, his name is Karimov, Islam Karimov. He is a tyrant. He is a thug, and we are in bed with him. The American people should know that. In Turkmenistan, I had mentioned earlier the leader of Turkmenistan, and we are sending him millions of dollars. Talk about a madman. He is a certifiable nut, changing the names of the calendar, April for his mother and January for himself. What are we doing? We are making the same mistake, and that is why it is important that those that are watching Iraq Watch tonight take this information, read on their own, and look to the future and understand that we are now or could be planting the seeds for another Saddam Hussein that will wreak havoc in the region, that obviously these two will continue to abuse human rights and what about our claim to moral authority when we are losing prestige in the world today?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I should interrupt the gentleman to say that Secretary Powell made that statement again. And not having had the opportunity because he left early, I was stunned by that particular remark. I do not know any Member in this body that had these different reports. With the caveats and the qualifiers, what we got was something different, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what I would like to do? I would commend for reading, to those that are watching us have this conversation tonight, this Newsweek article. It is the publication of November 17, 2003, 4 or 5 months ago. Obviously, this is a picture of the Vice President, and it is entitled ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War: The Inside Story.'' Again, I think we and the citizens have an obligation to do as much homework as we can to fully understand the reality. Those points that the gentleman made, I have heard them on the floor today. Earlier the President went to Poland and spoke about those two mobile trailers that allegedly were being used in a bio-weapon program. The CIA refuted that. Again, it is important to be accurate. It is interesting, everybody in Washington at least knows and the American people should know that there has been tension within the administration between the Vice President on one side and Secretary Powell on the other side. If I had had an opportunity today, I was going to ask the Secretary if this story in The Washington Post was accurate. There was a lengthy article; and it was, again, published on February 1 of this year. If you remember, when Secretary Powell went before the United Nations, what the article relates is that he was very careful and thorough in terms of what he believed to be accurate intelligence, and he had this CIA analyst come in and discuss it with him. The CIA originally drafted his speech, which then went to the White House. But when it emerged, it looked entirely different. The Vice President's chief of staff, one individual by the name of Scooter Libby, and his National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, and other national security staffers had produced draft language for Powell, 45 pages on weapons of mass destruction, 38 pages on alleged links to terrorism, and 16 pages on Iraq's human rights abuses. Within 1 day, Powell's task force had largely abandoned the 45-page document on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction produced by Cheney's office and the National Security Council, using instead a classified National Intelligence Estimate assembled by the CIA in October. Again, let me suggest this: a vision and a view and an ideology that had a conclusion and was looking for facts. We all know in the selection of facts, and, again, this can be done without even a conscious intent to deceive, but the attempt to make the case like lawyers do in a courtroom. But this is not a courtroom; this is not advocacy. But, again, I was going to ask the Secretary, was that report true. When that speech that he had prepared had come out of the White House, out of the Vice President's office, changed so dramatically, did he abandon it and go and rely on the National Intelligence Estimate? Do you know what? The American people have a right to know that process, the world has a right to know that process, because that was a presentation to the world by the representative of the United States to the world.

Mr. DELAHUNT. From 1985 to 1990. Again, I just do not think that we can overstate the historical record because I think it provides the American people, particularly those who are watching us here tonight, with information for them to reach their own conclusions. The reality is, he did have chemical weapons; and as Secretary Powell indicated today, they knew he had chemical weapons when they launched Desert Storm in the first Gulf War and our soldiers were prepared; but, of course, he did not use them. He did not use them. He only used them against his own people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we are here again this evening. As I am sure many of our colleagues are aware, during the course of the past 8 months, several of us have taken to the floor to discuss issues surrounding Iraq, Afghanistan, and other issues of concern related to the war on terror, particularly as it is focused in the Middle East. I am joined tonight by two members of that group. We call ourselves the Iraq Watch, my colleague who is sitting to my right, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee); and I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) will soon join us. Earlier today before the House Committee on International Relations, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared and testified concerning the budget proposal put forth by the Department and by the administration for the coming year. The Secretary had to leave earlier than some of us would have hoped, but I commend him for bearing up, if you will, for some 3 hours before the House Committee on International Relations. During the course of his testimony, he mentioned the tragedy that occurred in the town of Halabjah, a town he well knows because during the course of President Reagan's last 4 years he served in the capacity as the national security adviser and during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush he served in the capacity of chief of staff of the Joint Chiefs. So he was very familiar, obviously; and many of us remember his service to the country during the Gulf War and prior to that what was occurring in the region. If I had had an opportunity to question him, I was going to indicate to him that I have a profound concern about what we are currently doing in terms of establishing alliances and relationships with some extremely unsavory regimes that very well might come back to haunt us. Some can only be described as extremely harsh dictatorships with abysmal human rights records. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan come to mind immediately. Now we have a base in Uzbekistan where last year the Department of State used the following language in describing the abuse of human rights in that particular Nation. Let me quote, ``The security services routinely torture, beat and otherwise mistreat detainees. They allegedly use suffocation, electric shock, rape and other sexual abuse.'' The list goes on and on and on. Of course, the budget proposal put forth by the Department of State, under the leadership of Colin Powell, directs millions of dollars to Turkmenistan, whose leader has created a Stalinist personality cult that rivals anything we saw with Saddam Hussein. He even went so far as to rename the month of January after himself and the month of April after his mother. I remember observing the interview between Mr. Russert and President Bush this past Sunday; and the President described, appropriately so, Saddam Hussein as a madman. I might have used a different word. He might be crazy but he is not stupid, I guess is what I would say; but the new President, if you will, of Turkmenistan, who has changed his name to Turkmenibashi certainly seems to fit that particular description, and Karimov in Uzbekistan is nothing more than a thug with ambitions for regional power, again, very similar to Saddam Hussein. When the Secretary of State alluded to Halabjah, it provoked me to think that, are we repeating the same mistakes that we made in the 1980s when the United States Government supported Saddam Hussein? Let us remember, it was the United States Government that removed Saddam Hussein from the terrorist list. We now hear that he supported terrorist groups. He was doing that in the 1980s, but the Reagan-Bush administrations removed him from the terrorist list, but they did not stop there. They went further. They restored full diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein. In fact, they provided him credits and loan guarantees and, in fact, provided him intelligence during the course of his war with Iran. What I found particularly disturbing, and later when one of my colleagues speaks, I have a chart that shows just a minuscule number of transfers of dual-use technologies that were approved by the Reagan- Bush administration, the Reagan-Bush White Houses, if you will, that no doubt became the building blocks of the tools for Saddam Hussein to develop that nuclear program that was discovered in the aftermath of the Gulf War. I mean, it was those White Houses, those administrations, that allowed the transfer of those dual-use technologies. Let me tell my colleagues where I received that information: not from a newspaper report, not from a think tank with a particular bias, but with an institution that everyone in this Chamber would acknowledge is free of bias, is what we all rely on to do our research, the Congressional Research Service. That particular report was authored and produced in June of 1992. But I guess what is particularly disturbing is when I hear the Secretary of State refer to Halabjah and say that we know he used chemical weapons against his own people. In this case, it was the Iraqi Kurds in the north who had aligned themselves with the Iranian forces with which Iraq was at war at the time. The only action that I can discover in terms of my research was mild, off-the-record condemnations by the United States Government. And when this Congress back in 1988, 1989 and 1990 passed legislation, both branches independent of each other, that would have imposed sanctions on Saddam Hussein, it was the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush that blocked it. I agree obviously with the Secretary of State, he did use these weapons against his own people. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. DELAHUNT. In 1988, 1989, and 1990 the United States Congress took action.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, not only were we silent, and it is very important that the historical record be revealed to the American people, and that is why we are tonight. If any viewer has any questions about the accuracy of what we state, I am sure that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and any other member of Iraq Watch, we would be happy to respond and see that the reports, unbiased, that were authored back in 1992, would be provided to anyone who has an interest. They can contact our office. But it was not just silence. It was absolutely, according to this report, action to block the imposition of sanctions at that point in time. I dare say what would have happened if in 1988 and 1989 and 1990 there were sanctions on Iraq, that would have been a message to Saddam Hussein. We can speculate that maybe we would have avoided the first Gulf War if we had taken on that thug then. But, no, we were not sending that message. We continued after the conclusion of the war. I have heard the argument while we tilted towards Iraq, that was the language that was used, we tilted towards Iraq because of our concern with Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini. As I said earlier, what are we doing now? We are allying ourselves with two more despots, two more thugs who I dare say years from now could very well be the new Saddam Husseins.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the inexplicable failure of the U.S. Congress to address the inequities of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). For more than 20 years, the GPO and WEP have created enormous burdens for many public service retirees. More than half of the Members of this House want change; no fewer than 285 of my colleagues have co-sponsored bipartisan legislation for outright repeal of the GPO and WEP. But the House leadership won't even allow debate on the question. The legislation before this chamber today will help protect many vulnerable beneficiaries from fraud and contains many other important provisions. However, once again, the House missed a perfect opportunity to repeal both the GPO and WEP. Both the GPO and WEP unfairly reduce Social Security benefits for retirees who otherwise qualify, simply because they at some point worked in jobs covered by another government pension. In particular, the GPO and WEP penalize those who had short or intermittent careers, or who blended private jobs with stints in public service. Often, these are people already losing out in their overall earnings because they chose to make a meaningful contribution to society in roles that just don't pay well. Think of those in your community who teach your children, fight your fires and keep your streets safe. Chances are, you're thinking of people who are suffering the impact of the GPO or WEP. Because most paid Social Security taxes somewhere along the way, these people planned for retirement fully anticipating both pension and Social Security benefits. But when these teachers, police officers, and firefighters retired, they discovered all or much of their expected Social Security benefits wiped out by the WEP or GPO. In the case of the WEP, the Social Security benefit is reduced by up to 60 percent. If the GPO is triggered, it reduces a retiree's spousal benefit by two- thirds. A Barnstable teacher wrote to me about her circumstances: I am a recently divorced woman, age 56, who has worked in the school district for five years. Before taking this job I was an at-home mother. Although I get very minimal alimony (which I don't always receive) I face the grim reality of what I will live on when--and if--I can retire. Having paid the Social Security system for many years before having children, the GPO and WEP would not permit me to collect on what I paid into the system. I also understand that if my ex- husband were to die, the amount I would be able to collect from his Social Security would also be cut. Countless heart-wrenching personal stories dramatically illustrate the impact of these unfair benefit reductions. In my home state of Massachusetts, over 18,000 retirees are being penalized by the WEP. When it comes to the GPO, almost 15,000 are affected--and over a third are widows or widowers. Consider this letter I received from a widow in Hull, MA: I am being punished because I worked for the Town for the past 23 years. My husband passed away after only receiving Social Security disability for six months. He worked 40 years toward his Social Security. Many people do not know about this penalty and find out when they go to collect their Social Security that they cannot receive what they totally deserve . . . From a Marshfield, MA teacher: If my husband should pre-decease me, I am not eligible for his Social Security and would suffer a serious financial burden. I stayed at home to raise four children, while my husband worked six days a week and long hours and contributed the maximum to Social Security. I reentered the workforce late in life (to help pay for college tuitions) and made the mistake of getting employment with our local municipality. From a 10-year employee of the town of Duxbury, MA: As I have been a part-time employee, my pension will be quite small, about $300 a month. I worked many years under Social Security with full and part-time jobs. As my Social Security would be reduced from $600 to $400 it does not leave much to live on, never mind paying for medical insurance. From a Sagamore Beach widow: I recently had two more friends die after waiting since 1983 to receive help on the Government Pension Offset issue. If Congress waits much longer, they won't have many of us left to help. It is particularly heartbreaking that retired women comprise over 70 percent of those penalized by the GPO reduction of spousal benefits. Many sacrificed to stay home and raise children in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s--then went to work later in life. In retirement, they are hit especially hard. Not only did they face the challenges of a workplace that paid them far less than their male counterparts; now they face similarly diminished opportunities to enjoy their senior years. Many are widows with meager pensions, who now face drastically reduced financial support with the death of a spouse--and must also contend with reduced spousal Social Security benefits. During this 108th Congress, we had strong support for bills that would have modified or repealed the WEP and GPO. We had significant bipartisan endorsement and literally hundreds of senior organizations calling for action. In May of last year, we heard compelling testimony about the impact of these provisions in the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee hearing. Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police described why police officers in particular are penalized by the WEP: Owing to the physical demands of the job, a law enforcement officer is likely to retire between the ages of 45 and 60. After 20 or 25 years on the job, many law enforcement officers are likely to begin second careers and hold jobs that do pay into the Social Security system. Even more officers are likely to ``moonlight,'' that is, hold second or even third jobs throughout their law enforcement career in order to augment their income. This creates an unjust situation that too many of our members find themselves in: they are entitled to a State or local retirement benefit because they worked 20 or more years keeping their streets and neighborhoods safe, and also working at a job or jobs in which they paid into Social Security, entitling them to that benefit as well. However, because of the WEP, if their second career resulted in less than twenty (20) years of substantial earnings, upon reaching the age they are eligible to collect Social Security, they will discover that they lose sixty percent (60%) of the benefit for which they were taxed! Actuarially speaking, I doubt many officers will live long enough to ``break even''--that is collect the money they paid into the system, let alone receive any ``windfall.'' Even if the personal circumstances of today's public sector retirees fail to move you, consider the fact that it gets harder every day to recruit and retain people for public service jobs. Compared with the private sector, public services jobs offer significantly less pay and benefits. Personal satisfaction, while a powerful motivator, begins to fade when you realize you won't be able to put food on the table during retirement. We'll never attract the best possible candidates to public service unless we remove the stark disincentives characterized by the WEP and GPO. Today this Congress failed to address the needs of almost one million former government employees who have already lost retirement dollars due to the GPO and WEP. Millions more face losses in the future. These are people we need, in every community, doing jobs that often keep us safe and secure in an era of unparalleled uncertainty.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is a sham. And I intend this week, maybe early next week, to consult with my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary and send a letter to the Attorney General, and I think it would be appropriate to request a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation into these allegations by 60 Minutes. I would hope that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) would support that particular letter. I think that this is something that has to be examined by an independent prosecutor, not an independent counsel, to again reveal the truth to the American people. Were there violations of the intent of the existing legislation that would prohibit these companies from dealing with so-called rogue nations? I think that this is absolutely essential to do, just simply out of respect for the rule of law. But also, if it is true, to demonstrate the moral deficit on the part of some and the hypocrisy on the part of some when it comes to this particular issue. I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, I think it is important to note that in the aftermath of that vote, some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in private conversations absolutely deplored what occurred. I think that as colleagues of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), it is important that we commend him for his courage, and acknowledge the fact that as he leaves this Chamber, his legacy and his contribution to this institution and to the people in his district has no stain, no blemish. He can leave as a man with his dignity, pride and, I think, good wishes from all of us. What occurred to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) I think underscores the fact that within this House there is a perversion of the democratic process that has made this particular institution so strong and such a viable component in our democracy, and it is incumbent on all of us, Republican and Democrat, to insist on transparency, to insist on fighting for the process, so that the American people understand what is going on here in Washington, so that the truth be revealed. The gentleman was talking earlier about profiteering, and maybe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) can inform the audience here tonight, maybe he knows, but I have a clear and vivid memory of during the debate on the $87 billion supplemental, which was for the occupation, the additional occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, that there was a clause in the bill which specifically addressed the issue of profiteering. It was in conference, and somehow it became deleted. It is my memory, and you can amplify on this, that that particular provision would have increased substantially the criminal penalties for profiteering on the blood of American soldiers. I do not know if the gentleman has a comment or a memory, but I found that so shocking.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would just like to interject for a moment. I do not know if either of you had the opportunity to see a recent broadcast of 60 Minutes, but you are surely aware that U.S. law does ban virtually all commerce with rogue nations. But there is a loophole, and Halliburton has exploited that particular loophole. The law does not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary, so long as it is run by nonAmericans. So what has happened? In the case of Halliburton, they have an offshore subsidiary. Guess where? In the Cayman Islands. That subsidiary is doing business with Iran. The name of that particular subsidiary is Halliburton Products and Services. It is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands. In a building owned by the local Caledonian Bank, Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean island because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate-friendly.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of that. But maybe he had done his reading in terms of American history and our fight and our struggle to secure one vote for every person regardless of color, religion, ethnicity, whatever; something that we as Americans are to be proud of in exporting.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, what I find particularly ironic is the debate now, whether the original preference of the United States in terms of electing the interim council would be done by caucuses or whether there would be a direct election. And it would appear that this administration is somewhat confused, but it would appear that there they are sticking to this caucus concept and rejecting the direct election proposal put forth by a leading Shia cleric by the name of Seestani for direct elections. The Iraqis, it would appear, believe that they are capable of conducting an election. And we are saying no. Well, I believe if there is one American principle, one American value that we cherish here in this particular institution and all across this land, it is one American, one vote. How about one Iraqi, one vote, with appropriate qualifications?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he has brought to this issue. I think it is important to remind our audience, and we are again joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who is an original member of this ad hoc group that describe ourselves as the Iraq Watch, that it was 8 months ago that we began this effort. I think we are entitled to congratulate ourselves tonight. Because back then, we asked the congressional leadership and the President to depoliticize the issue of intelligence surrounding weapons of mass destruction and the allegations about links between al Qaeda and 9-11 on one side, and Saddam Hussein on the next. Obviously, our words fell on deaf ears. But now we are in an election year, and the President thinks it is a good idea that he picks the members of this independent commission and that its proceedings be held in secrecy, so that the American people will not reach any conclusions prior to November's election. Well, if he had heeded our advice and proceeded with an independent commission back 8 months ago, I dare say, given the work of David Kay and many others, that we would be well along the way; the American people would be informed, the administration would be informed, the House leadership would be informed, and we could be discussing these issues in a way that had no political overtones to it. But, again, it is this constant refusal to heed advice, to come in and have, if you will, a discussion on how we move forward together. Many of us on this side of the aisle voted against the resolution because there did not appear to be a credible case, and we were right. But now that we are there, let us go back and reexamine history. To have a historical record that is accurate is important for generations of Americans to come when this administration has enunciated a doctrine of preemption, a doctrine of preemption, and has created, in terms of the international order, a new norm that if you believe, you do not have to prove; but if you suspect, if you think, if you guess, you can launch a military strike against someone that you think may be a threat to you. I fear not just for America in terms of where we go from this point on; but situations that exist currently in the world, whether it be in the Middle East, whether it be in south Asia, between Pakistan and India, and all over the world, there are potentially volatile situations where a country can point to this Bush doctrine of preemption and launch a nuclear strike. That will have consequences for all humankind and particularly for America, and we will have set the norm. That is what disturbs me.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, is my colleague absolutely certain of that? Because I was unaware of that. I find that incredulous.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, to corroborate the gentleman's point, and I think it is important for my colleagues and for the people that may be watching this conversation among us tonight, that the gentleman is not speaking alone. That much of what he said was corroborated by the United States Army in a 504-page internal Army history of this war written by the Army's Combined Armed Senate at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Much of what you said is part of that particular study. That study was reported on today in the New York Times. Let me just quote from part of that report in the New York Times: ``The first official Army history of the Iraq war reveals that American forces were plagued by a morass of supply shortages, logistical problems which senior Army officials played down at the time were much worse than have been previously reported. Tank engines on warehouse shelves in Kuwait with no truck drivers to take them north; broken down trucks were scavenged for usable parts; artillery units cannibalized parts from captured Iraqi guns to keep their Howitzers operating; Army medics foraged medical supplies from combat hospitals.'' This comes from an Army report, not from a politician, whether that politician be a Republican or a Democrat, speaking at a press conference. This is the United States Army. The study goes on to note that the strategy employed by the political leadership, Secretary Rumsfeld is answerable for this, in his Deputy Under Secretary Wolfowitz, and Assistant Secretary Fife and the entire crowd. The study notes that ``the strategy of starting the war before all support troops were in place taxed the post-war resources of local commanders who in many cases were shifting back and forth between combat operations and the task of civil services. Local commanders were torn between their fights and providing resources, soldiers' time and logistics, to meet civilian needs,'' the report concluded, ``partially due to the scarce resources. As a result of the running start, there was not simply enough to do both missions.'' Talk about a disaster that has resulted in untold sacrifice of American soldiers, has set us back in terms of the reconstruction of Iraq. All for what? Because we do know now, we do know now that despite, despite what the White House did say, the threat from Iraq was not imminent. Remember those words? The White House spokesman Scott McClellan in July of this year, ``Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time.'' His predecessor in May of 2003 in response to a question whether the threat from Iraq was imminent, his answer, ``Absolutely.'' Again, McClellan, the spokesperson for President Bush in February of last year said, ``This is about imminent threat.'' The Vice President himself on January of last year, ``Iraq poses terrible threats to the civilized world.'' President Bush, himself, in November of 2002, ``The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.'' But now, what does the White House spokesperson say? ``Some in the media have chosen to use the word `imminent.' Those were not words we used.'' Give me a break, Mr. McClellan. You lose credibility by saying that. Be honest, be honest. You were wrong. Admit it and restore confidence in America and in the White House, not just for the benefit of the American people, but for the benefit of American prestige in our role in this world to enhance democracy in every corner of the planet.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Does the gentleman know what the CIA says?

Mr. DELAHUNT. And none to come. Remember that conference in Madrid? That was all about loans. Our allies are loaning, expecting the money back; but American taxpayers, we give it away. We give it away in this body. That is what we do. We just shove it out the door. Well, that is indeed unfortunate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting the gentleman talked about the former Secretary of the Treasury, and I think we all respect his candor and honesty, and I think for many of us it certainly is not surprising. I think probably, and I do not know whether our audience is aware of this, but one starts to see a subtle change in the position of some members of the administration. For example, Secretary Powell was reported yesterday in the Washington Post, he said he does not know now whether he would have recommended an invasion of Iraq if he had been told it had no stockpiles of banned weapons, even as he offered a broad defense of the Bush administration's decision to go to war. What we are going to start to see now is a shift in the language. We are going to go from clearly there were weapons of mass destruction, this is where they are, these are the quantities, and that is going to go to the weapons of mass destruction program-related activities. Now we are going to see attempts by senior administration officials to rewrite history. But I think what is most important from this point on is for those that are in denial, because they have I think almost a psychological hold in terms of their belief, we should ask them to accept reality. Let us move on, let us work together in a bipartisan, bicameral basis and to go forward, understand where we failed in terms of this policy, and see that at least the Iraqi people have an opportunity for a democratic future, and as quickly as possible reduce the exposure of American military personnel and the absolutely heavy burden that the American taxpayers are bearing, with no help from anybody else in the world.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can, we certainly know the gentleman is absolutely correct. If we want to talk about weapons of mass destruction program- related activities, let us go back to that point in time when the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the National Security Adviser and when the current Vice President, Mr. Cheney, was the Secretary of Defense. What I find particularly fascinating is, as Dr. Condoleezza Rice just said, if I can find the quote, she said just recently, he used weapons of mass destruction, just as the gentleman indicates. The truth was that we were transferring to him the computers and the ingredients necessary to advance his nuclear weapons program. That happened. We, the United States Government, during the 1980s under Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush, were removing him from the terrorist list, installing an embassy in Baghdad, providing intelligence to Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran. And when it came to that horrific incident in Chalabi where he used chemical weapons against the Kurds who had aligned themselves with the Iranians, there was a condemnation, let us call it lip service. And yet, when this institution, this House and the United States Senate in 1989 and 1990 attempted to impose sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime, you know what the position of the administration was then, led by the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Adviser? They killed the bill. They killed the bill. Now, if hypocrisy was a virtue--

Mr. DELAHUNT. Neither does any other American have a clue. You talk about gibberish.