Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. But we can put it on the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Madam Speaker, I think that is very important to understand. And for those that may be listening to us at this late hour, the vote tomorrow, or maybe early on Friday morning, will be on the entire package. Many of us have pressed the administration and the Republican leadership to allow separate votes. But as the gentleman from Ohio indicates, they refuse to do it because they know that, yes, the body would support the needs of American troops; and, therefore, they feel that the other monies, the monies that are going to be going to large multinational corporations to rebuild Iraq would be very much at risk. That is a ploy, a stratagem that I daresay is again unconscionable. And for anybody to suggest that a vote against the $87 billion is a vote against supporting the troops is misleading the American people. We have had enough of misleading the American people. Let us really tell it as it is.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let us remind our colleagues tomorrow during the course of the debate and the American people here tonight that there exists in Iraq a so-called governing council that Mr. Bremer himself in consultation with the White House and the leadership in the administration selected. There are 25 of them. They were handpicked by Mr. Bremer. These individuals came to Washington 3 or 4 weeks ago to say, cede us more authority or things are unraveling and, furthermore, you are spending money that you should not be spending. You are wasting American taxpayers' dollars. Let me just give you one example. There was a cement factory somewhere in Iraq. The American estimates for rebuilding that cement factory and bringing it up to Western standards was $15 million. And somebody in the military, not in the civilian leadership of the Department of Defense, but in the military said, I am going to make a decision and let the Iraqis build it. It is now up and running. The cost went from $15 million down to $80,000. $80,000. And they want a blank check. No, no, no, Madam Speaker, no blank checks anymore. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Like we did in World War II and in subsequent wars that this country has had to fight. Speaking of wars, much has been talked about the war on terrorism earlier during the course of the debate but I think it is important to remember and remind the American people that after Vice President Cheney made the statement on national TV that there possibly were some links between Saddam Hussein and September 11, the President finally came forward and stated unequivocally that there was no evidence whatsoever in supporting that link. I would also urge Democrats to seriously consider supporting the Rohrabacher amendment, a good, conservative Republican from the State of California, because he is right. It ought to be a loan, not a giveaway. Because America and America's future is riding on this. Because once we establish that as a precedent, and the gentleman from Ohio is right, they will be coming back looking for more and more and more money right out of the pockets of the American taxpayer.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If he is unaware, he should know that the European Commission, which is the executive arm of the European Union, has already made its commitment. Now, obviously, individual countries will be asked to come and contribute. But does the gentleman know the figure that the European Union's executive arm, the European Commission, has made?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, $230 million. So again, I do not think that we are going to realistically expect that a figure of $10 billion, which has been circulated about, is realistic. And I cannot agree with the gentleman more. Not only have we carried the burden of military presence in Iraq, but at this point in time, to just simply give the money away, without having it collateralized with future oil revenue, it just simply is unfair to the American taxpayer and to the American people. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I want to be clear. It was after the Iran-Iraq war had concluded, and it was not President Reagan, but it was President Bush that denied this Congress by threat of veto to impose sanctions on Iraq for the atrocities that were committed in Halabja, the gassing of some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis by Saddam Hussein. The lesson, I would respectfully submit, that we should learn is that we have got to be careful with whom we lie and forge an alliance.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a moment. I seek information. But what has gone unremarked during the course of this debate is that the American taxpayer has already, through our government, negotiated a loan to the government of Turkey for $8.5 billion. That is not part of this supplemental. Now, we are loaning American dollars, hard earned American dollars, to Turkey for $8.5 billion. We are taking dollars from Americans and loaning them to Turkey and, of course, American taxpayers will be asked to pay the interest on that $8.5 million.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today we have a choice. Do we allow states to continue to determine the future of our coastal zones or do we allow the Federal government to manhandle local interests? The issue at stake is the consistency provision of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) which was debated and passed by a bipartisan majority of Congress in 1990. ``Consistency'' dictates that Federal projects must be consistent with state management plans and is the heart of the CZMA. Today this provision is under attack from those who want to use the energy bill to circumvent the legislative process and weaken the role of states. As discussed by my colleagues, energy bill conferees now seek to disregard the bipartisan compromise on consistency passed by the House and insert a new provision at the eleventh hour. This new measure would severely limit the ability of states to appeal a project in their coastal zone by curtailing the process and timeline by which states can challenge Federal decisions. Consistency is the tool that localities use to prevent the siting of inappropriate projects by the Federal government. Any attack on consistency is an attack on the power of the states. I'm sure the irony of Democrats being the ones to remind energy conferees on the importance of state input is not lost on my colleagues. The battle over consistency is particularly relevant to my state of Massachusetts and to the area of Nantucket Sound which I am proud to represent. Some months ago, developers proposed building a 170-tower wind farm spanning 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound. This proposal set off a firestorm. Since then, issues of ocean governance and new policies for renewable energy in the marine environment have dominated our newspapers, our fishing piers and our town halls. I have opposed the Nantucket Sound project, not because I oppose renewable energy, but rather because I believe that we must have sensible policies in place before the Federal government starts issuing permits for such large projects. There is currently no Federal policy governing the development of off-shore renewable energy facilities. In fact this very issue is another controversial part of the pending energy bill. The Administration would like to give the Mineral Management Service full discretion over all energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf while conservationists and others support my legislation to promote off-shore renewables with strict safeguards for the marine environment and public safety. Although the debate over the process and lead agency has yet to be resolved, the Nantucket Sound project is till moving ahead. The proposed project is undergoing environmental review by a variety of Federal agencies but without Congressional authorization and without a coherent process to protect marine resources. A private developer is taking advantage of the lack of Federal authority and seeking to use public resources without any guaranteed benefit to the public. Given this lack of Federal policy, consistency becomes all the more critical as it is the only way states can have a voice in decision making. Under current law, states do have a voice. The Coastal Zone Management Act stipulates that states can review projects which impact their coastal waters and appeal a project that is inconsistent with its overall interests. Currently there is no limit on the time the Secretary of Commerce can use to develop the record to make a decision in an appeals case. The oil and gas industry complains that this leads to unnecessary delay and increased projects costs. Industry proponents are using the energy bill conference to insert a provision that closes the record in 120 days and provides no grounds for any extensions. This measure is a direct attack on consistency. And as the Nantucket project illustrates, consistency may be the only way local interests are protected. For this reason, I hope you join me today in affirming the right of states to determine their future and support the Capps/ Miller motion to instruct.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the anger of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) because he made a statement about who is profiting from what is going on in terms of the so-called ``reconstruction phase'' in Iraq today. While we know there will not be American workers building the bridges, constructing the hospitals, rehabilitating schools, and building affordable housing, those will not be American workers. But as the gentleman indicated, there is a story in the New York Times, dated September 30, that says that a Washington insider's new firm consults on contracts in Iraq. A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family, and his administration, have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. The firm, New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000, and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Nobody is helping us. American taxpayers, American military, American veterans, American education, American health, we are making sacrifices and we are doing it alone, without anybody, because of poor planning and going into a war under false pretenses.

Mr. DELAHUNT. M, not billion. We are talking billions on the American taxpayers. Let us be honest. We are in this alone. We are doing it alone. Nobody is helping us.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is on top of the $300 billion that is already been spent. We are looking at a billion dollars for, as the gentleman says, a search for ghosts.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I disagree with my friend, the gentleman from Oregon for just a minute. I do not know if you saw the nightly news, but there was, I think, an NBC piece that indicated that today, not in the future, there is a record number of mortgage foreclosures on homes here in America. I heard the number, 435,000 Americans that are in the process of losing their homes. The American dream today is becoming a nightmare. You know it better than anybody, possibly, in this entire body. We have had record job losses, we have burgeoning deficits. And for the first time in our history in the entire span of American history, for 2 consecutive years the median income, the median income of American households has gone down, 2 years in a row. Of course, poverty is increasing at the same time the number of millionaires is increasing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, well, I will defer to the Chair, but in another context I might take issue whether I actually characterized it in such a manner.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am confused. I thought Mr. Bremer was the Pro-Consul. And today you are absolutely correct, we read in the newspaper that it would appear that Condoleezza Rice has taken over that particular role. I think what I see is a lack of coherent governance in a well-thought- out plan. Now, again, to indicate to those that are watching here tonight, this is not a partisan attack, this is not a Democrat criticizing a Republican administration. Because my opinion, and the opinion that has been articulated by the gentlemen here that have already spoken, is reflected by comments that come from highly respected Republicans. Senator Lugar, who chairs the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, actually wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post that said exactly what we are saying. The postwar reconstruction phase represented an abysmal failure of planning. Turn on the Sunday news shows, listen to another eminent Republican Senator, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, he talks again about the poor planning by the administration, and also says it like it is, that this Congress was considered to be a nuisance. That is his language about the administration when it came to the issue of Iraq. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary here tonight speaking on an issue that has clearly captured the attention of the American people. I applaud him for his efforts. I think it is very important, and I did not have an opportunity to see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) make a presentation, but there have been stories in the media that have indicated that some are suggesting that there be a revival of the so-called independent counsel statute and, I dare say, that is not the case. I think it is very important to make that distinction. What we are seeking here is not a revival of that particular statute, which I think many of us have concluded, both Republican and Democrat, that it led to serious abuses. For example, millions and millions of dollars were spent on one particular investigation involving the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Cisneros, a leader in the Hispanic community in Texas and nationally, which involved the issue of whether he lied to an FBI agent about how much money he contributed to a female friend of his. I dare say that bill, as I remember it, the bill to the American taxpayer, was in excess of $17 million. But that clearly was abusive. And that is why, under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the then- chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), supported by the current chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the so-called independent counsel statute was allowed to lapse. And I do not think there is a Member in this House that wants to see it return because of its potential for abuse. But there is an option that is available, and that is the appointment of a special counsel by the Attorney General, in this case John Ashcroft, who would retain some supervisory powers, but would not be involved in the daily exercise of his prosecutorial authority. Because it would then, I dare say, lend credence to the independence of any decision and any conclusion that might be made by a prosecutor, the so- called special counsel. Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing now for, I think it is better than 3 months, in this whole issue of Iraq, the intelligence, the questionable intelligence that was relied on by so many of our colleagues to support the resolution to go to war, much of that intelligence has been reviewed and has been found to be unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, misleading and, in some cases, outright false, as well as the cost of our intervention into Iraq, and now, the overwhelming bills that the American taxpayers are faced with. So we have been talking about having an independent commission. Let us depoliticize it. Let us take it out of the realm of politics. Let us not make this a Republican versus Democratic issue to determine what went wrong with our intelligence and were the American people misled, and were Members of Congress misled. Our own colleagues, the highly regarded chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), along with the senior Democrat on that committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), in a letter indicated that there were serious problems, that the intelligence was flawed. I know what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is doing when he puts forth the concept of a special counsel; it is to take the politics out of it. We are not in a contest with Republicans or the White House. What we are trying to do is determine what the truth is and then present it to the American people in a way that they can have confidence in the integrity of that effort. We are not suggesting that the Department of Justice is unable to do it, but what we are suggesting is that there is an issue of perception here, and that the American people want to have independence when it comes to an issue that is so vital to our national security. Mr. Speaker, the President's father himself, upon the enactment of the statute, the applicable statute suggested that anyone who revealed the names of a CIA operative or an intelligence officer of this country was a traitor. What we are talking about here is treason. We have got to get politics out of it. This cannot be a political issue. It has to be an issue of national security. The investigation has to be done by someone who is independent of the Department of Justice, although supported by the Department of Justice and, where needed, rely on the Department of Justice for resources. But it has to be someone whose integrity and independence is not in question. That is why I applaud my friend and colleague, the senior Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I see we have been joined here by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can just respond because I think that the gentlewoman from Texas' (Ms. Jackson-Lee) observation and suggestion is a very valid one, but let me submit this. What I found particularly unsettling when the discussion of the donors' conference in Madrid was being reviewed by various pundits was that it was written that the European Union's contribution and the figures now are projecting a $100 billion long-term effort, that the European Union's contribution this year was going to be $230 million.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not suggesting that that was bribe free, but in the end, the net cost to the American taxpayers was some $7 billion. Now, we have already, if this war supplemental is approved, we are in this adventure in the amount of $166 billion and well on our way, well on our way to hundreds of billions of dollars more, and we still do not know how we get out of it. Let me just conclude by saying this. I hear about how things are going so well. We heard, of course, on the floor during the debate on the war resolution how we would be welcomed as liberators. Well, the truth is the Iraqi people want us out. They do not want us there. Even our own appointed 25-member Iraqi Governing Council have suggested that we accelerate this program because they can do it much cheaper. And I will allude to that at the end if I have any time left, but let me read what I think are some fascinating polling results that were conducted by Gallup and Zogby, two well-respected American polling firms. This is what was produced by the Gallup poll: Countrywide, only 33 percent of the Iraqi people thought they were better off then they were before the invasion, 33 percent, and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Bagdad was a more dangerous place for them to live. The poll also found, and I would ask my colleagues and those that are watching to listen carefully to these statistics. The poll also found that 29 percent of Bagdad residents had a favorable view of the United States while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, and this pains me to say this, by comparison 55 percent had a favorable view of France. Those same Baghdad residents had a negative view of President Bush, 50 percent, while 29 percent had a favorable view of him. In contrast, the French President, Jacques Cirac, a 42 percent favorable rating. Now, this should be telling us something. This should be telling us that the postwar reconstruction phase was poorly planned. We are not getting the message across. We have appointed a governing council that is suggesting that for every billion dollars of a taxpayer's money that we spend, and this, again, are their figures, they can accomplish the same exact project for $100 million. In other words, we are paying ten times, our taxpayers are paying ten times, while job losses mount and our infrastructure crumbles.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They are willing to take the money. But let us go back to the Gulf War that was managed by this President's father. There were 160,000 nonAmerican troops that were involved in that effort. That was a true coalition of the willing in the face of naked aggression by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I really applaud the gentleman for taking this time and an hour. I would just try to enlarge the context, because it is clear that this Nation has an economy that is at risk. As my colleague well knows, the number of Americans that are now below the poverty line is historic in terms of its numbers. In addition to that, we have record job losses ever since 2001. We have lost in a net way over 2 million jobs; but most importantly when we talk about these exploding deficits, it is important to remember that when this President came to office there was a $5.6 trillion surplus projected for the year 2011. Today, when we project forward to 2011, we are talking about a deficit, an accumulated deficit in that space of time in excess of $2 trillion. We have lost somewhere out there $8 trillion, some $8 trillion; and now we are continuing to add to that debt that will have to be paid, that becomes a drag on our economy because we have to pay interest, as my colleague well knows, on that debt. So these points that the gentleman is making, I think, are very important. And clearly those that are viewing us here tonight and those of us that are speaking have to understand that the sacrifice is unfortunately not just about young men and women who are giving their lives and are being wounded and will suffer themselves personally for the rest of their lives; but almost as important, the American economy and future generations of Americans are going to suffer economically because of what we are doing. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?