Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet, Mr. Speaker, they would criticize those who ask those questions and instead put forth, if you will, a PR campaign to say what is right in Iraq. But it is time, I believe, to listen to the troops who give us insight. We all know, for example, because we travel abroad and oftentimes we visit our troops, that these trips are very carefully structured so that only those things the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense wants us to hear is provided us. If I could just indulge my two friends for a moment. Back in mid- October there was a report in The Washington Post and it is entitled, ``Many Troops Dissatisfied, Iraq Poll Finds.'' A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient and said they do not plan to reenlist. Now, this was not a poll conducted by The Washington Post or the New York Times, or the Los Angeles Times or the Boston Globe. It was a poll that was conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, a newspaper funded by our Pentagon, our Department of Defense. The findings, if I can just go on, the findings drawn from 1,900 questionnaires presented to U.S. servicemembers throughout Iraq conflict with statements by military commanders and Bush administration officials that portray the deployed troops as highly spirited and generally well prepared. Though not obtained through scientific methods, the survey results indicate that prolonged tours in Iraq are wearing down a significant portion of the U.S. force and threatening to provoke a sizable exodus from military service. And yet the paper quotes General Sanchez, commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, saying in a September 9 interview for this particular series, ``There is no moral problem.'' Of course, as we know, the Bush administration has launched this campaign. But the Stars and Stripes, the military's paper, raised questions about what visiting dignitaries, such as us and our other colleagues who have visited Iraq, get to see. Let me quote again from the Stars and Stripes: ``Many soldiers, including several officers, allege that VIP visits from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill are only given hand-picked troops to meet with during their tours of Iraq,'' the newspaper said in its interview with General Sanchez. The phrase ``dog and pony show'' is usually used. Some troops even go so far as to say they have been ordered not to talk to VIPs because leaders are afraid of what they might say. Let me say it is about time for the unvarnished truth to be presented to the American people. And that is what we attempt to do during the course of this hour, of which we have had many.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) yield for just a moment. I met with families of Reservists and National Guard, military that are serving in Iraq currently. They have been trained as a transportation unit. They are now serving in a different role that exposes them to great danger. They are using their own equipment, trucks that have no armor protection, that are open, that leave these men and women on the back of what I would call a large pickup vehicle as a sitting target. These families were outraged. One actually had to go to a military hardware store, presumably, to purchase for their son a $900 kevlar suit because the parents simply could not sleep at night. And it cost that family $400 to send it via the United States Post Office.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, for our veterans.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would welcome our friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, maybe this was a hot french fries plan; I honestly do not know. I notice we have been joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), our friend, who is also a member of our Iraq Watch group. But I think what is difficult to accept is that what we have now achieved is the expenditure of billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money. Of course, the White House made note of the fact that there were other international donors in a conference in Madrid. But what I thought was particularly noticeable in Madrid was that not a single donor there, with the exception of the Japanese, provided gifts, outright grants like this institution did and like this White House did, but no, they decided they would loan the money so that their people would be repaid rather than our people who are carrying the entire burden. But here we are, we have suffered, and let us be very candid and frank: We have suffered a loss of prestige all over the world. One only has to turn to nightly news shows. Leading the news now are the preparations in Great Britain for the visit of our President, President Bush who, according to the most recent polls is viewed negatively by our ally, the English people, by 60 percent. Sixty percent of the English people disapprove of President Bush. Whether one is a Democrat or whether one is a Republican, that is painful to us. That is painful to us. We do not wish our President to be viewed as negative by our ally. And recently during the course of a hearing on the Subcommittee on Latin America, data was put forward that 87 percent of our neighbors here in this hemisphere disapprove of our President. Again, that pains us all. That pains us all.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is good to be here with my colleague tonight and share a few observations regarding this situation in Iraq. Also, I think at some point in time, I think it is necessary to present some information to the American people and to those who are listening here tonight relative to what is transpiring in Afghanistan. I think to sum up what the gentleman said, one only has to look at the cover of the November 3 edition of Newsweek magazine, and it is entitled, ``Bush's $87 Billion Mess. Waste, Chaos, and Cronyism. The Real Cost of Rebuilding Iraq.'' It has become a matter of concern, as the gentleman well knows, not only to Members on this side of the aisle, Democrats, but clearly to our colleagues on the Republican side, particularly in the United States Senate, because if there is any term that best characterizes what is occurring, it is chaos. Mr. Speaker, in our previous efforts in terms of Iraq Watch, we discussed the lack of post-major combat phase planning. And again, that opinion was shared by many, most specifically, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar who, in fact, had written an article that I thought was very incisive and appeared in the Washington Post. But not only do we not have a plan, but the plan seems to change almost on a daily basis. If my colleagues remember, I think it was, in fact, a colleague of ours here in the House, a senior Republican Member of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), highly-regarded and well-respected by all Members, who implored the President to establish, once and for all, who is in charge of whatever plan may or may not exist out there. Initially, Jay Garner, a former general, was dispatched to Iraq to work with Iraqis that were favorably disposed to the United States to begin the process of rebuilding. And, after a relatively short period of time, there was a change there. And L. Paul Bremer became, if you will, the viceroy of Iraq. Mr. Bremer indicated that his boss to whom he reported directly was the Secretary of Defense Mr. Rumsfeld. Yet, several months thereafter, there was an announcement from the White House that in fact it was the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who was vested with the responsibility of coordinating the plan for Iraq. Of course, recently we learn that Mr. Bremer, because of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, either reached out or was summonsed by the White House for a special meeting directly with the President. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that there be one individual that can be held accountable, other than the President, for the shaping of this policy that means so much to the American people with our sons and daughters tragically dying there on an all-too-frequent basis, and to the American taxpayers who were asked by this White House to appropriate some $87 billion on top of the $79 billion that we have already spent in Iraq to create security in Iraq and to rebuild Iraq, if you will, to reconstruct Iraq. Many of us on this side of the aisle were adamantly opposed, primarily based on the fact that this money was not in the form of a loan, but was a gift to Iraq, a nation with incredible resources, some of the largest reserves in terms of energy anywhere in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. And hopefully, at some time in the not-too-distant future, would clearly be able to repay the American taxpayers for the sacrifices that they are making now while we are dealing with these burgeoning deficits that will at some point in time be a severe drag on our economy. But not only do we have a confusion in terms of who is in charge, but we have had a series of different plans. It would appear now that the most recent plan is what I would describe as the French plan, the plan that France suggested would be the most fruitful initiative in terms of bringing stability and rebuilding Iraq. I find that rather ironic, given our recent rather divisive relationship with France.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, someone whose input into this effort has been well- noted, and who has made a very significant contribution.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers; but I yield the balance of the time on this side of the aisle to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my friend and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and a well-known crime fighter.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is the culmination of many months of diligent bipartisan and bicameral efforts in the service of a common goal, which is to use all of the tools at our disposal to solve crimes and protect the innocent. As indicated by the chair of the committee, the bill consists of three titles. First, it authorizes $755 million for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program to eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in this Nation's crime laboratories which, I would submit, is bordering on disgraceful. I wish, at this point in time, to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their efforts to raise this issue and to see it incorporated in this omnibus bill today. Secondly, it authorizes grant programs to expand and improve the capacity of Federal, State and local crime labs to conduct DNA analyses, reduce other forensic science backlogs, train criminal justice and medical personnel in the use of DNA evidence, and promote the use of DNA technology to identify missing persons. Finally, the bill includes the Innocence Protection Act, a measure which I introduced several years ago with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), which will help ensure Federal and State inmates access to DNA testing to establish their innocence and will authorize grants to the States to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the public in capital cases. I would like to thank Chairman Hatch, Senator Biden and all our Senate colleagues for working with us to reach this milestone. I want to express my particular appreciation to Senator Leahy with whom the gentleman from Illinois and I first introduced the Innocence Protection Act some 3\1/2\ years ago and who has worked so hard to advance that legislation. As with any compromise, the version of the Innocence Protection Act that is included in this bill is not all that I had wished for. But it is an important step forward, and I know that Senator Leahy shares my satisfaction with this achievement. Finally, I want to pay tribute to the distinguished chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), without whose good faith and commitment this process would not have achieved this breakthrough, which I believe represents a remarkable achievement for the Committee on the Judiciary. Our staffs have worked closely together over the course of these months and both he and they deserve our gratitude. In particular, I want to thank the chief of staff of the committee, Phil Kiko, who has made a major personal commitment to this effort and has devoted countless hours to keeping the negotiations on track. I would be remiss not to acknowledge the contribution of my own legislative director, who sits to my right for the last time as this is his last day as a member of my staff. For me, it will be painful to see him leave. He is a man of considerable talent, incredible integrity, a friend and one whose efforts in this particular initiative have truly been prodigious. The criminal justice system, Mr. Speaker, is about the search for the truth. Like all human enterprises, it is fallible. Judges, juries, police, eyewitnesses, defense attorneys and prosecutors are all human beings and all make mistakes. As a prosecutor for more than 20 years in the greater Boston area, I know that I made my share of them, but we have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error, especially where lives are at stake. We must use them, and especially where public safety is at stake, we must use them. Debbie Smith, a courageous advocate who has done so much to help her fellow survivors of sexual assault and for whom title I of this bill is named, has said, ``It gives no comfort to the victims and their families to know that the wrong person is behind bars and the real perpetrator is free to walk the streets.'' Surely no person in America understands this better than Kirk Bloodsworth, for whom we have named another title of the bill. Mr. Bloodsworth was the first death-row inmate to be exonerated by DNA testing. Not only did DNA establish that he did not commit the terrible crime for which he was convicted, but only a few weeks ago from today, it brought about the identification of the true perpetrator. Debbie Smith and Kirk Bloodsworth are both among the innocent whom we seek to protect. By eliminating the backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples in the Nation's crime labs, the bill will help ensure that DNA technology is fully deployed to solve past crimes and prevent future ones. And by ensuring that eligible Federal and State inmates have access to postconviction testing that can establish their innocence, the bill will help correct wrongful convictions when they occur and will prompt in those cases renewed efforts to identify the real perpetrator, as it did in the case involving Kirk Bloodsworth. No one knows whether innocent people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. We do know there have been some very close calls, however. Since 1976, 111 people in 25 States have been released after spending years on death row for crimes they did not commit. Some of them came within days or hours of being put to death. It was cases like these that have called respected, conservative judges like Sandra Day O'Connor to express concern that the system, and I quote: May be well allowing some innocent defendants to be executed. I think the closing remarks of the chair relative to the position and the posture of those that support the death penalty ought to mark well the words of Sandra Day O'Connor when it comes to this particular legislation. Many of these miscarriages of justice can be corrected by giving eligible inmates access to DNA testing. DNA testing was responsible for exonerating 12 of the people freed from death row and another 126 who were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes. In at least 34 of these cases, the same tests that exonerated an innocent person led to the apprehension of the real perpetrator. Yet access to testing often is litigated, sometimes for years, allowing the real perpetrator to continue to prey upon the neighborhoods and communities in this country. Evidence that might have established innocence has been misplaced or destroyed. If we are to advance justice, we must ensure that biological material is preserved and DNA testing is made available in every appropriate case. The bill takes a significant step toward achieving this goal by ensuring eligible inmates access to DNA testing and establishing the Kirk Bloodsworth Postconviction DNA Testing Program, which will help States defray those costs. But DNA is not a magic bullet that will eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. Biological evidence, which is utilized in DNA testing, is available in less than 20 percent of violent crimes. And even where such evidence exists, postconviction testing only tells us that the system failed. It does not prevent the failures from occurring in the future. The best way to do that is to make sure that every indigent defendant who is facing the death penalty has access to a competent attorney. I was a prosecutor, as I indicated, for over 20 years and I know the adversarial process can find the truth only when the prosecution and the defense are up to the job. Our system of justice depends on it. We cannot tolerate a system that leaves capital defendants at the mercy of lawyers who are poorly trained and poorly compensated who fail to conduct a proper investigation and examine the evidence, or, worse, who drink or sleep their way through the trial. The reality is that that has occurred in the courts of justice here in America. We cannot tolerate a system that relies on reporters and journalism students to develop new evidence which was never presented in court. We cannot tolerate a system in which chance, or the luck of the draw, plays such a profound role in determining whether a defendant lives or dies and a murderer escapes justice. The bill addresses this problem by authorizing grants to the States to improve the quality of legal representation for both indigent defendants and the prosecution and the people in capital cases. Lawyers assigned by the court to these unpopular and unprofitable cases are often overworked, inexperienced and sometimes incompetent. It is little wonder that over half of all death sentences are overturned on appeal or after postconviction review because of the errors at trial. Ultimately, however, this bill is not about the death penalty. It is not about DNA backups. It is about restoring public confidence in the integrity of the American justice system as a whole, without which our Constitution and our democracy is put at risk. For the rule of law, due process and everything that we stand for incorporated in our justice system and in our jurisprudence is what sets America apart among the family of nations. That is a goal on which we stand united. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues to see that this extremely important initiative is signed into law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who along with the gentleman from Wisconsin has done such tremendous work. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, and a leader on these issues.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), another author and a champion of the Debbie Smith Act and a member of the committee.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I do want to associate myself with the remarks, the very eloquent remarks of the gentleman that preceded me, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis). I think he caught something when he spoke about our values. But let me speak just for a minute about an issue that was raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). We are told this must be grants, not loans. But as others have indicated, just a few months ago it was Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who was telling us, telling the American people, that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction. I guess my question is: What happened? What has happened to change that particular dynamic? I look forward to supporting the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from California, tomorrow. I would again want to congratulate the gentleman from California for indicating that this is not a partisan issue. It is not about Clinton, and it is not about Bush One and President Reagan; but when the gentleman served in the White House, this government supported Saddam Hussein and we provided billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to Saddam Hussein. Now we are talking about grants, about gifts; and we are asked not to question these numbers. But our own appointed Iraqi governing council tells us that they can do it much cheaper. Just recently, there was a report in The Washington Post that said clearly and unequivocally, by a prominent member of that committee, and that sentiment is shared by those 25 members, that we can do it for 10 times less. For every billion dollars you spend, they say we will spend $100 million. We cannot in good conscience support this request.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I know he did serve in the course of the Reagan Presidency. I do believe, however, that one of the gravest mistakes that was made during the course of the 1980s right up until 1990 was this unholy, if you will, relationship that was formed with Saddam Hussein. As the gentleman knows, it is the current Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was the special envoy to Saddam Hussein. In 1982, and I have this discussion because I think it is important that the American people pay attention, because we all have to learn from errors that were made in the past. In 1982, Saddam Hussein was removed from the terrorist list. In 1986, the United States installed an embassy in Baghdad, and, over the course of time, right up until the invasion by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait, but particularly during the Iraq- Iran war, we were providing intelligence, we were selling, or we allowed to be sold, dual-use technology, and I have a long list and I would commend my friend to go to a Congressional Research Service publication dated June 22, 1992.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I think that is an excellent point that the gentleman makes, because we have heard a lot about the donors conference, and the gentleman uses a figure of $10 billion, which I would suggest is optimistic.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I think it is so important to understand that it has bipartisan support, and that we are working here tonight in a bipartisan fashion to represent the best interests of the American people. The American people, as the gentleman has enumerated during the course of his remarks these past 45 minutes, are a generous people. But there comes a point in time, particularly as we look at a $500 billion deficit, that we have to say, enough is enough. Because generations of Americans will find that their economy will suffer because we know that the deficit and the debt becomes a drag on the economy. If there should be a recovery that is sustained, I fear that it will be short term. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him tomorrow. That $4 billion a year, just on the interest payments, to put it in perspective, it is more than we currently spend each year on research for Alzheimer's disease, autism, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, multiple sclerosis, and all forms of kidney diseases combined. Combined. Where are our priorities? Where are our interests? What about those Americans that suffer from these dreadful, in some cases deadly, diseases? Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, before the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) leaves, I want to convey to him my own confidence that there will be many Democrats, his colleagues on this side of the aisle, that will support the common sense amendment, the Rohrabacher amendment, rather than a give-away of American tax dollars. There has to be an insistence that the funding provided in terms of the reconstruction phase is money that will be paid back with interest to the American people. Because he might be unaware, but this supplemental that is before us now, this $87 billion is not $87 billion. That is the principal. $87 billion. And it has been calculated by respected authorities, it will cost each year the American taxpayer some $4 billion in interest. So add that on, add that on to the $87 billion that we will be voting on tomorrow. Now, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has done some work. Just that $4 billion, not the $87 billion that represents the principal, that means that, as I said, on a permanent basis we will be spending over $4 billion a year just to cover the interest payments that this supplemental will be required of us and future generations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. When they come home, to honor them and to respect them and provide them with adequate health care coverage, and they are not receiving it now. Let me suggest, those that speak of patriotism and indulge in rhetoric about America, they are not serving America, and they, in my opinion, are unpatriotic until they come before this House with the appropriate resources to fully fund veterans health care in America.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Another member of the Iraq Watch. We are usually led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), but I am sure something has come up so we have a truncated version tonight, but I want to welcome the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). Before I yield to him, I want my colleague to know that yesterday I met with families of a detachment of the Massachusetts National Guard who explained to me the concern that they have for their husbands and their sons and daughters because of exactly what my colleague is saying. One mother went out and bought a Kevlar body armor piece for $900. I would think that anyone hearing us tonight is just simply incredulous that this is the case, and then had to pay, had to pay to have it shipped through the post office some $500, and my colleague is right. Do not ever tell anyone in this House that we do not support the troops.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What has happened since March? Maybe one of my colleagues can inform us.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Madam Speaker, he is certainly not asking the lobbyists on K Street to sacrifice. He is certainly not asking a select group of businesses in this country to sacrifice. I found it particularly interesting that back on September 30, in an article in The Washington Post, it was announced that a group of businessmen, linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration, had set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. I am sure my colleagues are aware, but I guess this firm is headed by Joe Albaugh, who happened to be Mr. Bush's campaign manager back in the year 2000 and served as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until last March. So one can only imagine that the $87 billion is not going to create jobs for Americans. And I think our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), made a very good point. It is not even going to create jobs for Iraqis. It is going to create jobs that will benefit a very select few in our country.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The civilian leadership.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If we could just juxtapose these two pictures. As these young men and women get on an American naval vessel and go to war, the bands are playing, there is confetti, there are waves, there is our flag, there is our political leadership applauding them; and yet when they return and assume that honored title ``veteran,'' we disrespect them, dishonor them; and we have broken our promises to them again and again and again. The most dishonored, disrespected group who deserves our ultimate gratitude in this country is the American veteran. And as the gentleman has so well put it, we are ignoring them. I do not know if anyone who has this information could vote for this supplemental, including this gift to Iraq, and not insist that the American veterans' health needs be met. My colleague mentioned earlier about deductibles. I know the gentleman knows because of his service on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and because of his work with veterans all over this country, that there is a long waiting list to get an appointment in veterans health care centers, whether it be primary care or even veterans hospitals.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to concur with my friend from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). I think the most egregious aspect of this war supplemental submission is the fact that American veterans have been left out. The gentleman indicated that not only are deductibles being raised, not only are co-payments being insisted upon for prescription drugs, but that a substantial number of veterans are now so-called priority 8 veterans, which means that they make over $24,000 a year and are denied access to the veterans health care system. That is unconscionable.

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