Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, that is not connected and pigs fly. The point is, when you talk about a coalition of the willing, I cannot think of such a misnomer as the coalition of the willing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. I think the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) made an observation relevant to the Turkish Parliament supporting sending troops now to Iraq. But the other half of that story is that the United States Government just issued a loan guarantee to Turkey in the amount of $8.5 billion.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing this up. I would close by saying it is absolutely obligatory for the administration to recognize and to insist, in consultation with Attorney General Ashcroft, to go forward and to appoint a special counsel, because any decision that is reached by the Department of Justice, clearly, will raise questions as to, not just its thoroughness, but whether it was done to protect certain individuals, whomever they may be, in the White House. Sometime in the near future, if there is no action to appoint a special counsel, I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), and I am sure the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and myself, who serve on the Committee on the Judiciary, will file a resolution expressing the sense of Congress that there ought to be a special counsel in this case. This is not an administrative matter. This is far more serious than just a simple felony. I agree with the President's father, who uttered these words, this is President George Herbert Walker Bush, ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our agents. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.'' This is about treason. This is not a simple misdemeanor. This is not about having the President take someone into the wood shed and admonish him or her. The American people have to understand that there are no traitors in this administration or in this White House. And that is going to be absolutely a precondition, to have an appointment of a special counsel to maintain the integrity of the Presidency, of the executive branch, and the Department of Justice.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Just trust us. That is what the administration is saying. Just trust us.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I think it is ironic when I hear representatives of the administration say we do not want to load down the Iraqi people with debt. Well, I wish that they would share the same concern for the American people because recent reports in the media indicate that here in the United States poverty has increased dramatically. More than 1 million Americans, an additional 1 million Americans are now below the poverty line. That is a historical first, the median income, the median household income, that is halfway if you count all of the households in the United States, right at the 50 percent mark, the median income for an American family has gone down for 2 consecutive years. Ironically, there has been a significant increase in the number of millionaires. That went up some 14 percent. Of course, they have benefited from the recent series of tax cuts put forth by the President and enacted by this Republican Congress. But debt, the deficit, is breaking all historical records. This year it will exceed $500 billion, and we are not talking about this particular supplemental, this so-called war supplemental. So when we talk about debt, let us remember the American people because we are going to have to answer to those people when they ask us who pays the bill. Well, it is you folks and your children and grandchildren, and possibly your great grandchildren because while we were projecting a $5.6 trillion surplus, we are now looking at a $3.3 trillion public debt. Let me tell you what the cost of that $87 billion will do to the communities that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I both represent. The $87 billion in additional war spending will cost Massachusetts taxpayers $2.6 billion. If that money were spent on other priorities in our home State, it could pay for $334 million for school construction resulting in over 8,000 new jobs; almost 1,900 new affordable housing units creating 4,500 jobs; $445 million for local and State roads and bridges, creating 10,000 new jobs; and 9,300 new firefighters; and health care coverage for 150,000 people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who are not currently receiving it. That is what it means to our home State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, we talked earlier about the support that France and Russia and Germany provided Saddam Hussein. That particular chart represents the support that previous Republican administrations provided to Saddam Hussein from 1982 to 1990. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thought what was particularly ironic was that the day before, on ``Meet the Press,'' President Bush's Vice President, Dick Cheney, said something entirely different. He made statements in which the only reasonable inference that one could draw is that somehow al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, had a relationship with Saddam Hussein. I want to compliment the President of the United States finally for being forthcoming on that and ending that assertion that I think has caused great confusion among the American people. Could I just go on for one minute, because, as you did, I witnessed the colloquy among our good friends, the Republicans from the other side of the aisle, and their discussion about Iraq. I have obviously significant disagreements. But I believe there is one thing we can agree on, that our men and women there have acted professionally, have reflected great pride on the military, and, in fact, on a number of occasions have acted heroically. But what I would do is to challenge them that when these men and women return as veterans and are no longer part of the military but assume that honored title ``veterans,'' that we do not disrespect them. Because as you well know, this administration and this Republican Congress failed to support adequate funding for veterans health care benefits to the tune of $1.8 billion. I wish one of them were here right now. In addition to that, if we are concerned about our veterans, if we are concerned about the men and women that are serving in Iraq today when they come home, it is important that we address the issue of disability for those that have been wounded in combat. This is a story from yesterday, maybe today's, Miami Herald. I think it is important that the American people know this: ``Three months ago, the Republicans stalled a vote on a bill to erase a century-old injustice whereby the money that disabled military veterans collect in disability pay from the Veterans' Administration is deducted dollar for dollar from their military retirement pay.'' This, I daresay, is unacceptable, given the fact that we have a foreign policy that is creating more and more veterans. While we can praise them here on the floor of the House, there is currently right here in this Chamber a place to sign a so-called discharge petition that would redress this injustice, this travesty. Let me continue with this story that appeared in the Miami Herald: ``A group of 401 retired generals and admirals signed a letter to President Bush earlier this month urging him to do the right thing by changing a law that penalizes disabled military retirees. In the words of one veteran, if George Bush only knew how deep and bitter the sentiment over this issue really is, he would immediately order his stooges and henchmen to back off and do the right thing. It will definitely be out the door in 2004 for everyone who did not support disabled military retirees.'' I daresay that there are close to 200 Members of this body that have signed that discharge petition, and it is my understanding there is only one Republican Member of the House of Representatives that has done so. That is wrong.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Does the gentleman have any details on this plan?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have hospitals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that, because of the cuts to Medicaid, are on the verge of closing and our people are suffering.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman how many American jobs, 5 billion-plus that we are sending to either construct or upgrade the electric grid in Iraq, how many American jobs will that generate?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield for just a moment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) for everything he has done. This is, I think, our 11th week; and as has been said over and over again, there will not come a week when we are not here to ask those questions because it is our responsibility, it is our patriotic duty; and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And today, from the reaction of the United Nations, it was clearly that $60 billion from the rest of the world is a pipe dream. In addition to that, earlier we heard from our Republican colleagues, and they were making the comparison with FDR and how he excited the American people and made a commitment to peace. And yet what a difference, because FDR asked the American people if they would accept a war tax. And yet we have this administration doing exactly the opposite, creating deficits that are looming so large that all economists, from the right to the left and in between, are saying we are on the cusp of real economic danger. We are looking at a bleak economic future if we continue down this road. So any comparison between President Bush and the conduct of FDR, I dare say, is not apropos.

Mr. DELAHUNT. By unanimous consent.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it does border on the incredible when we just hear our friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), talk about the issue of impact aid in those school districts which provide education for the children of military personnel, when we reflect on the $1.8 billion underfunding for health care, when we think about the fact that this Republican Majority is continuing to penalize disabled veterans, and now this, this $8 per day to feed veterans that are in our hospitals after combat in Iraq. I cannot imagine anything so obscene. Mr. Speaker, back in the early 1930s there was a very famous march in Washington, and it was the march of the veterans to decry the way they were being treated. We are getting to the point where there will be another march of the veterans on Washington unless this House and this President take action.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If Mr. Emanuel could tell us how many tax dollars from the United States are going to Iraq to construct or rehabilitate schools in Iraq. What is the dollar figure?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment before he leaves the floor, what I find particularly ironic is that it is the so-called Iraqi Governing Council that is really supporting our premise. They think that the administration is overspending. Stop for a moment and we should explain to those that are watching us here this evening that it was Secretary Rumsfeld and this administration that appointed the governing council. According to a story that appeared in The New York Times yesterday, they are coming to Congress. They are going around the administration. They are getting frustrated. They are coming directly to the legislative body; and according to this particular story that appeared, again, in yesterday's New York times, they are coming to argue that American taxpayers could save billions of dollars on Iraq's reconstruction by granting sovereignty more rapidly. In interviews, the Iraqi leaders said they plan to tell Congress about how the staff of L. Paul Bremer, the American occupation administration, sends its laundry to Kuwait, how it costs $20,000 a day to feed the Americans at Al- Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, how American contractors charge large premiums for working in Iraq, and how across the board the overhead from supporting and protecting the large American and British presence here is less efficient than granting direct aid to Iraqi ministries that operate at a fraction of the cost. One member of the governing council made this statement: he estimated that in some cases the savings could be a factor of 10 where, and these are his words, our appointee to the group that is commonly described as the governing council, he said where they spend $1 billion, we would spend $100 million. What are we doing?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I intend to offer another amendment too along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) which would provide $1.8 billion for our veterans, for American veterans who are currently fighting in Iraq so that when they come home, they will have the health care that they need and that they deserve.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of H.R. 49 for the reasons that have been enumerated by the subcommittee Chair and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chair of the full committee. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chair of the full committee. I also want to express my appreciation to the subcommittee Chair, my good friend, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), for his kind words and his sincere efforts to see that Congress gives full consideration to the issue of taxation of remote sales. I thank him for scheduling a hearing on this issue and look forward to working with him to see that it is a productive exercise. As the gentleman knows, I will be introducing legislation in the near future, together with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), which would authorize the States that have worked so hard to simplify their sales taxes to collect sales taxes on remote sales to in-state purchases. As we all know, the States are confronting their worst budget crises since the Great Depression. A declining economy, spiralling Medicaid costs, and the erosion of their tax base have left them with a collective deficit of some $100 billion. Governors of both political parties face a difficult choice between unpopular tax increases and drastic cuts in Medicaid, education, public safety and other essential services, or all of the above. I appreciate the concern of the sponsors of the bill, that without a continuation of the moratorium on Internet access taxes, some States might be tempted to help make up their shortfalls by enacting such taxes. At the same time, we should be as concerned about the fact that States are losing tens of billions of dollars each year because taxable transactions on which they rely for half their revenues are increasingly taking place over the Internet. Some are not concerned, such as one individual, Mr. Grover Norquist, who testified at a hearing in support of this bill, and said that he wants to ``shrink government until we can drown it in the bathtub.'' He stated, ``I hope a State goes bankrupt.'' Well, unless you agree with him, the money has to come from somewhere. Uncollected sales taxes on Internet purchases cost the States more than $16 billion in 2001. Unless there is a system in place that enables States and local governments to collect these taxes, their annual losses from online sales will grow to some $45 billion by 2006 and $66 billion by 2011, with total losses coming to nearly half a trillion dollars by that date. What does this mean for individual States? Well, just to cite a few examples, my home State of Massachusetts lost $256 million in 2001, and its losses will climb to over $1 billion by 2011. Tennessee lost $450 million in 2001, and by 2011 its annual losses will grow to $1.8 billion. Florida, which relies on the sales tax for more than one-half of its annual revenues, lost $1.2 billion in 2001, with its losses estimated to quadruple to nearly $5 billion just 10 years from now. Texas lost $1.4 billion in 2001 and stands to lose $5.6 billion by 2011. These losses are magnifying the fiscal problems of the States, which are already experiencing, because of increased costs and shrinking revenues, losses. Additionally, by failing to ensure sales tax equity and fairness between remote sellers and Main Street merchants, we are putting at risk the thousands of small businesses that sustain our economy and contribute so much to our neighborhoods and our communities. As former Governor Engler of Michigan said the last time we considered this issue, ``It is time to close ranks, come together and stand up for Main Street America. Fairness requires that remote sellers collect and pay the same taxes that our friends and neighbors on Main Street have to collect and pay.'' So, Mr. Speaker, while I support the moratorium on Internet access taxes and I support H.R. 49, I think it is important that we get our priorities straight. The Quill decision, which prompted this particular proposal, prohibited a State from collecting sales taxes from out-of- state businesses that do not have a physical presence in that State. But the court said that Congress could authorize the States to collect these taxes once they have modified their taxing systems to alleviate the burdens placed on Internet commerce by multiple taxing jurisdictions. The States have made substantial progress over the past year in developing a simplified, efficient, and technologically neutral system for the taxation of goods and services that can meet that test. Once a sufficient number of States have implemented the streamlined sales and tax agreement, Congress should move expeditiously to consider our legislation authorizing them to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on in-state sales. The States, I believe, are meeting their responsibilities, and hopefully we will meet ours.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. But I would say to the gentleman, the truth is, that is a down payment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there was a report today, a front-page story in my hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, and just let me read an excerpt. ``Multiple intelligence officials said that the Prague meeting, purported to be between Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer by the name of Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, was dismissed almost immediately after it was reported by Czech officials in the aftermath of September 11 and has since been discredited further. The CIA reported to Congress last year that it could not substantiate the claim while American records indicate Atta was in Virginia Beach, Virginia at the time, the officials said yesterday. Indeed, two intelligence officials said yesterday that Ani himself,'' this senior Iraqi intelligence official, ``now in U.S. custody, has also refuted the report. The Czech Government has also distanced itself from its original claim. ``A senior defense official'' in this particular administration ``with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday.'' A senior defense official within the administration himself expressed confusion ``over the Vice President's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else.'' He said, ``There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this,' the official said, speaking on condition he not be named.'' But this underscores the need to have this independent commission. Again, the prototype is there, the Rudman-Hart Commission that did such an outstanding job in terms of depicting the threat of a terrorist attack against the United States months before September 11, statements like that that were made on Meet the Press create confusion. Let us be clear, there is no one, it would appear, in the administration other than the Vice President that would not agree that this piece of evidence has been discredited. Why create confusion? Let the case for the military intervention rise and fall on the facts. That is all we ask. And as we have said consistently among ourselves during the hour that we spend here, some of us supported the President in terms of the request for a resolution authorizing the military intervention. Others of us disagreed. But let us eliminate the confusion. Let us just get to the truth, the truth with no political overtones, the truth so that the American people can have confidence in the integrity of our intelligence. Let us not continue to reair, as the report in the Globe indicated, a piece of evidence that, yes, this administration relied on substantially as establishing a link that somehow Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. I mean it is not right, and it is not fair to the American people. I mean prominent antiterrorism experts such as Vincent Cannistraro that many of us have observed on CNN and other news shows and is well-respected among his colleagues, he is a former CIA agent and I am quoting him, said that Cheney's ``willingness to use speculation and conjecture as facts in public presentations is appalling. It's astounding.'' Well, I do not know, but I do know this: this underscores the need to depoliticize as we go into a Presidential campaign a review of the intelligence in the information that led this administration to launch a war. And that received considerable support from Congress. Because today at a hearing in the Committee on International Relations, a subcommittee hearing on the Middle East, Undersecretary John Bolton stated that, relative to Syria, all options were on the table, including regime change. And that was the position of the President and the administration. He was testifying relative to Syria and its weapons of mass destruction. So I presume that includes a military option. Is this administration going to have any credibility if it goes before the international community and indicates that we will exercise that military option in the case of Syria? And what about North Korea? What about Iran? We have got to sustain our credibility. And the best way to do it is to have an independent commission comprised of prominent Americans whose credibility is unimpeached, who are not, as we all are, impacted or influenced by the politics of an election campaign, whether we be Democrat or whether we be Republican. The American people have a right to the unvarnished truth.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the estimates that we as Members of Congress were provided by the administration. If my colleagues remember, the head of the office of OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, which is an arm of the White House, informed us that the cost of the war was going to be $50 billion. Well, the truth, and this is what the American people have to understand, we are already at $166 billion, and that is the down payment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are on our way, folks, we are on our way to $1 trillion.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Certainly.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, good evening, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) again for being the driving force behind our weekly efforts to raise questions that we believe have to be answered to educate the American people and to educate Members of Congress as to what direction prospectively we should undertake. I think for a moment, though, we should go back and review our earlier call to the President to agree to an independent commission to examine the intelligence that was the basis for American military intervention into Iraq because there continue to be questions raised by senior members of the administration, and if the gentleman will remember, our insistence on an independent commission was to depoliticize such an effort. I think we had discussed here one evening the possibility of the commission that was chaired by two former Senators, one a highly-respected Republican from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and another former Democratic Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart. They chaired a commission which tragically foretold almost in a way that eerily predicted the tragedy that beset America on September 11 and the need to address it. I think it is important to note that that particular commission filed its report some 8 or 9 months before September 11. In fact, I think the exact date was on February 15, and unfortunately no action was taken on that particular report. I do not mean to suggest that it would have in any way forestalled September 11, but I guess the answer to that rhetorical question is that we will never know if we had acted earlier, both Congress and the Bush-Cheney Administration. But in any event, that independent commission, for example, would address such questions as to the purported links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. I believe that most Americans that are conversant with the intelligence have reached the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would link al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with September 11. Was he an evil tyrant, a despot that wreaked havoc on his people? Of course. I think there is unanimity among the American people and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that, yes, the world is better off by having Saddam Hussein out of power. But I think it is important not to just simply accept the fact that there is linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein because, again, most intelligence reports and intelligence analysts have been very clear that no such intelligence exists. However, this past weekend, I do not know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to hear the Vice President again suggest, not directly but suggest, that somehow Saddam Hussein was behind September 11. He raised the issue, for example, of the ring leader, the operational ring leader of al Qaeda and its attack on September 11, an individual by the name of Mohamed Atta as having met a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czechoslovakia, when our own FBI has indicated that there are documents that establish that Mohamed Atta was, in fact, in the United States during the time involved. And what I found particularly disturbing is that that senior Iraqi intelligence officer whom it was alleged that Mohammed Atta of al Qaeda met with in Prague, Czechoslovakia in April of 2001, 4 or 5 months before September 11, he has been captured. He has been captured by the American military, and media reports indicate that he refuted the claim, that he was very clear, he never met with Mohamed Atta. And all intelligence analysts that have spoken on this particular issue or have had conversations with Members of Congress indicate that there is no basis in fact for that allegation, and yet the Vice President, when interviewed by Mr. Tim Russert on Meet the Press, raises that issue again. I am sure there is confusion among the American people when they read well-respected journals, when they listen to thoughtful programs on these particular issues, and while not without some equivocation, the Vice President of the United States continues to use the Mohamed Atta meeting in Prague as a basis to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.