Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me just segue into an observation that was made by the general who successfully commanded the coalition, the true coalition of the willing in Gulf War I, and that is General Schwarzkopf, and he was recently interviewed. It was on one of the Sunday morning magazines and he was talking about the troops and his concern for the morale of the troops and the suggestion that more troops are needed to provide stability and security before this particular White House can rebuild Iraq. I am just going to quote some excerpts from his statement. This is General Schwarzkopf. ``I do not think, based on the information we are hearing ahead of time, that anybody thought Iraq was going to be anywhere near as tough an egg to crack as it has become. We did not have a rotation policy at that time.'' He was talking about rotating American military personnel in and out. ``We were just going to go in, the people were going to throw flowers at our feet, and everybody was going to welcome democracy and we were all going to go back home. But I think we really became very surprised by the amount of resistance we have run into since. The number of deaths that has been inflicted on our troops, and it happens every day, and that has a very, very eroding effect on the morale. Believe me, when someone is shooting at you and you cannot shoot back, I know from experience because I have been through that.'' That is General Schwarzkopf. What are we doing? What are we inflicting on the American military? We have all sponsored a resolution urging the President of the United States to seek a new United Nations resolution making the United Nations part of the solution, under the command of the U.S. military when it comes to the security issue, but making them part of this enormous effort of nation-building because that is what this administration is about; it is about nation-building. And the costs, and we hear it again and again. We talk about $4 billion a month. As Members know, and we have been joined by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), that $4 billion a month, that $50 billion a year is just for a military presence. It does not involve rebuilding Iraq. It does not involve nation-building. This White House, this administration, upon coming to office, derided nation-building, and yet they have embraced nation-building in a magnitude that is mind-boggling; and some within the administration, some within the administration, not Secretary Powell, because I understand he is attempting to negotiate a new U.N. resolution, but some want to go it alone. We cannot afford it either in terms of American lives or American dollars. We are going to go broke. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) mentioned Gulf War I under the leadership of the father of the current President. He did create a true coalition. The cost of that war to the American people, the total cost, was a little over $4 billion. That is the cost of just sustaining our military presence in Iraq now for a month, and we are going to be there for years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I know we are winding down, but before we do, I think we would be remiss if we did not note the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. In the future, I would hope we would include Afghanistan, because those same brave young men and women are in Afghanistan. Two stories today, Associated Press. The Taliban are no longer on the run and have teamed up with al Qaeda once again, according to officials and former Taliban, who say the religious militia has reorganized and strengthened since their defeat at the hands of the U.S.-led coalition nearly 2 years ago. And now the administration is talking about doubling the aid from $900 million to almost $2 billion. I daresay that will be insufficient, but remember this, it is costing us $11 billion a year to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my colleague is wrong, my dear friend from Philadelphia. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, predicts the deficit for the next fiscal year will be $480 billion, $480 billion. And in the course of the past several years, just this past year, 1.4 million Americans fell below the poverty line. And my colleague is speaking tonight in terms of just simply for the reconstruction of Iraq, rebuilding Iraq, if you will, $20 billion a year for 5 years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, what was the cost to our economy of the blackout that I think was of a 12- to maybe 24-hour duration, what was the cost?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Those questions are not being posed. And that same story that was quoted yesterday that the gentleman quoted from, the funeral of that particular Ayatollah who was a moderate leader among the Shiite community in southern Iraq, where some would suggest there has been stability and some limited progress has been made, things are beginning, they are in the process of falling apart. A piece of that story that the gentleman did not read is extremely disturbing when it comes to our role. His brother's clarion call resounded with the crowd. I am quoting from that same story. Mourners who came from as far away as Basra and Baghdad beat themselves with chains in the traditional ritual for mourning religious martyrs and chanted ``death to America.'' We have to be listening very, very carefully. There is a growing anger, not just in the so-called Suni triangle, not just in Tikrit, but all over Iraq in terms of the American presence. That is why I would suggest it is absolutely critical that we internationalize the presence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Billions of dollars, and yet we cannot find the money here to invest in America.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, while we were back in our districts working this past month, I am sure the gentleman noticed the announcement put out by the Congressional Budget Office in terms of the deficit that is accruing day by day on the future of the American taxpayers. If my colleague knows the number, I would like to hear it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a moment. As he refers to that particular incident, I want to take a moment to express my most profound condolences to a particular family, the Caldwell family of Quincy, Massachusetts, which is my hometown, the birthplace of John Adams and John Quincy Adams. The Caldwell family lost their son, their brother, in that particular incident. The war has come home to Quincy and to the United States.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, my friend knows that he will have three colleagues that will be cosponsoring that particular amendment with him. And I daresay that when my colleague alluded earlier to the proposal to provide universal health care coverage for half of the Iraqi population as well as 100 percent maternity coverage for Iraqi women, maybe, just maybe, we could convince our colleagues in the House to restore the $95 billion that they cut from the Medicaid.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I do not think anybody doubts that at all.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Those that will be employed by Halliburton in Iraq will be Iraqis. They will not be Americans. The low-wage jobs and the medium-wage jobs will be Iraqis. Meanwhile, as earlier stated, in this country we have lost 3 million jobs. And ironically, of course, the unemployment rate is going down by two-tenths of a point from 6.4 to 6.2 percent because we are not counting people anymore. We now have a new category called the discouraged worker because he or she has been looking for a job, whether it be in Ohio, Massachusetts or Hawaii or Pennsylvania, and as has been indicated, those manufacturing jobs are leaving this country daily. They cannot find a job. They are discouraged and their unemployment has been exhausted, so they no longer count as American workers. They are discouraged workers.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I must admit, however, I do so with some ambivalence, for I share many of the concerns that have been articulated by the proponents. They are right about the balloon effect, because even as coca cultivation declines in Colombia, we are seeing an increase in Peru and Bolivia. I also share their concern about human rights abuses, about the relentless assault on labor leaders and human rights workers, and about military ties to the paramilitaries. It is reported in our own Department of State country reports. But it would be unfair not to acknowledge that there have been sincere efforts made by the Uribe administration to address these issues and some progress has been made. Furthermore, I believe that the Colombian people, particularly the economic elite, as has been alluded to earlier, should be doing more. Unfortunately, the conflict is being currently fought by poor Colombians and paid for to a substantial degree by American taxpayers as indicated by the ranking member of the full committee. And while I applaud the initiative of President Uribe to levy a war tax, that was a one-time event. There has to be a permanent revenue stream of new money generated by the Colombian people themselves. The percentage of GDP spent on the security forces is still much lower than in other Latin American countries which do not have to confront such a vicious internal conflict. I submit that a new permanent war tax paid by Colombians ought to be a condition of continued American assistance. But I would suggest that it is not in our interest at this point in time to reduce aid to Colombia. It is important to note that President Uribe has made a firm commitment to fight illegal armed groups, all of them, not just the FARC and the ELN, but also the paramilitaries. And it cannot be denied that the Colombian military has been much more aggressive in dealing with these right-wing paramilitary groups since the Uribe administration has come to power. Many believe that this has resulted in a cease-fire and the beginning of a peace process with the largest faction, the so-called AUC. So now at least there is the possibility of a peace accord with this particular group. If there is a chance to remove one of the armed groups from this conflict, we must take it. To cut aid just as this process is beginning would send a very bad signal, even if an unintentional one. In fact, we should be increasing aid substantially because it is in our national security interests to do so. Remember, the entire amount we spend on all of Latin America in a year is less than the amount we are spending in a single week in Iraq. Our aid should be more balanced, should be directed to help develop democratic institutions, support human rights and encourage social and economic development in our own hemisphere, especially in Colombia. For if we are ever going to do anything that will substantially and permanently reduce the flow of cocaine and heroin into the streets of the United States, stability and healthy democratic institutions are essential. And peace is a prerequisite for that stability. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment of my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Very conservative Republican.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question, because I think that was an excellent point. But there is such a thing, as the gentleman knows, but maybe the viewers do not, as a National Intelligence Estimate, and that is all of the information on a particular crisis that is drawn from all of the agencies that possess intelligence in the United States Government. That was done, and it was concluded in October of 2002. Now, the President's State of the Union address was on January 28 of 2003, some 3 or 4 months later. Within that National Intelligence Estimate it has been reported, and we have no reason to disbelieve it, that there was significant expressions of doubt; that particularly the Department of State insisted on a footnote which said we have serious reservations about the credibility of this, and they were referring specifically to the securing of uranium from that west African country of Niger. So let me ask this question of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who served in the previous White House. Did President Clinton read the National Intelligence Estimates when he was faced with crises? Mr. EMANUEL. Well, Madam Speaker, first of all, the National Intelligence Estimate is based on the National Security Intelligence Entities, the Defense Intelligence Entities, the CIA, and I think, if I am not mistaken, FBI contributes to that. So there are four separate entities that get funneled through to the National Security Council that then present that document.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did President Clinton read it?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Then tell me how this President can have any doubt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. My colleague is aware under the administration of his father, back in the late 1980s and almost to the inception of the 1990 war, invasion by Iraq against Kuwait, that that administration was actually transferring dual technologies to Iraq and that it was under the Reagan-Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was taken off the terrorist list; that in 1986 it was the Reagan-Bush administration that installed an embassy in Baghdad; and that during the course of that war, during the course of that war, it was the Defense Intelligence Agency that was providing the Iraqi Army with intelligence; and that it was that administration that provided billions of dollars of agricultural credits to Iraq; and it was that administration that when this Congress, the Congress, a Democratic Congress back in 1989 and 1990 passed legislation which would have imposed sanctions on the Saddam Hussein regime for using chemical weapons against their own people, blocked the passage of those sanctions. Is my colleague aware of that? Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of it. I tell my colleague what perhaps I was not aware of, and I was stunned when I heard our Secretary of Defense say this the other day. I was stunned. He said that we went to war not based on new intelligence, but by a new impression we had after September 11. We all had the new mindset after September 11. It is clear about that, but the impression this administration gave to the American people, consciously I believe, is that there is a new round of intelligence that necessitated this preemptive attack. Our Secretary of Defense came and told us there was no new intelligence that did not exist through the whole decade of the 1990s to justify the preemptive war. I was stunned when I heard that, when we heard the administration for 4 months tell us that there was all this imminent threat that was going to occur. I will mention another thing, perhaps unsolicited advice to this administration. They are on the cusp of making some bad decisions. I do not like to use the word ``cover-up'' because it is too weighted with emotion; but they are not helping figure out what happened here, and there is great danger. I will give my colleagues an example. Ambassador Wilson, the ambassador who blew the whistle on the uranium yellow cake, the forgery that ended up in the State of the Union speech, I just heard on NBC News tonight, his wife, her sort-of security clearance was jeopardized at the CIA because somebody sort of outed her, if you will, about her CIA contact which essentially could devastate her career. That kind of shenanigans is not going to be helpful to this administration. That is why we need a clear, publicly oriented, bipartisan review, above the table, nobody playing games with this. This is what America needs.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I dare say that if we expended the amounts of resources that we will be expending in Iraq for security and for reconstruction that we could have a prescription drug benefit plan, not just for seniors in this country, but for just about every American. My friend from Washington is here.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I interrupt on that point, because it does follow an item that I read today in the New York Times. The President, while meeting with the Italian Prime Minister, accused both Syria and Iran of continuing to harbor and assist terrorists; and he warned those two nations that they would ``face consequences.'' I do not know what that means, but I am definitely concerned when I hear that language. By the way, I think it should be noted, because I know our friend from Chicago has made the point again and again about the cost of the war and the need for international assistance, he did not discuss, according to the Time's piece, Italian troops coming to Iraq to assist and replace American troops. I would have hoped that he would have done that. But while we are talking about Syria, in the words of the President, I do not know if you are aware, but recently an Under Secretary of State by the name of John Bolton was to testify before the House Committee on International Relations, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I serve on. There was a report in the Miami Herald, and let me read certain excerpts from that report, because we are talking about credibility, the credibility of the President of the United States and the credibility of the administration. Mr. EMANUEL. That is the testimony that was withdrawn, if I am not mistaken? Mr. DELAHUNT. It was withdrawn because of the CIA insistence that it was exaggerated testimony. This gentleman, who is a leading neo- conservative, or a leading hawk, within the administration, also said back in May of 2002 that Cuba had a bio-weapons program that was being developed. At that point in time, neither Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, nor General Gary Speer, in charge of the Southern Command, would support that statement. They talked about capabilities. But just for one moment, if my friends will indulge me, because I think this is important, because we are talking about Syria, because the President of the United States said today they will face consequences, I hope he is getting sound intelligence. But this is what the Miami Herald said last Tuesday. I am just going to read some excerpts: ``In a new dispute over interpreting intelligence data, the CIA and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration assessment of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that was to be presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill. After the objections, the planned testimony by Under Secretary of State John Bolton, a leading administration hawk, was delayed until September. The CIA and other intelligence agencies said the assessment was exaggerated. Bolton's planned remarks caused a revolt among intelligence experts, who said they thought they inflated the progress Syria had made in its weapons programs, said a U.S. official who is not from the CIA but was involved in the dispute. The CIA's objections and comments alone ran to 40 pages.'' Mr. EMANUEL. One of the things that the bipartisan commission would look at, in my view, the reason the President said it was important that we had to go to war now, we could not wait another 2 weeks for maybe a possible U.N. resolution to get other countries and persuade them, was the imminent capability, I think he said in one speech, that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had the capability in 45 minutes of deploying a weapon of mass destruction. The two criteria, this was done in a New Republic article that I thought was excellent, two essential pieces of the State of the Union backing up the nuclear threat of Iraq that the President delivered here: One was the infamous 16 words about the Niger memo which clearly proved there was no attempt, well, it proved that that documentation to that ``approach to Niger'' was inaccurate. Second was the famous tube acquisition. In both cases the CIA said both, A, the tubes were not for nuclear capability because they were both coated with chemicals; and second, the acquisition of Niger for uranium or the yellow cake material, this memo was inaccurate, that this event did not occur. In fact, today on the NBC Nightly News they showed three separate stories about the forgery and how anybody at any point could have easily, just by checking on Google, realized it was not correct because the name at the bottom by the government official of Niger was not accurate. The dates were not accurate. Just looking at it, anybody, not even with intelligence background, could have seen that. So the two pieces of essential evidence supporting the fact that Iraq was on the threshold of nuclear capability did not meet the standard of both our intelligence community and, in fact, one can say it does not meet even a laughing standard out there in the international community. Hopefully, this will require an investigation of whatever body was formulated of eminent Americans would get to what happened, how did the President put it in his speech, who put it in his speech, who convinced and weighed in on the intelligence community? I have worked on a few State of the Unions in my time, and I can see this back and forth, and I can see exactly if the White House wants something, and time and again you pressure an agency, time and again you have somebody pushing back, the ultimate compromise that squeezes out of the pressure is, we will say the British said it. So the CIA and the intelligence community who is resisting does not need to own this. It was desire and a need for a political purpose to have that in the speech, to give the speech some immediacy, some urgency to the moment. That may have happened, may not have happened, but until we have an independent investigation or inquiry or whatever body looks at this, we will always have questions about America's credibility that will then, I think, hamper, not limit, whether Syria is or is not. Syria, we know they are harboring terrorists; whether they are developing weapons of mass destruction we do not know. We need in the international community, it is clear, given we have 21 units stationed around the world of which I think 16 or 18 are in Iraq, America's military capability, not that they could not muster and respond to another situation, they could, but we are clearly spread very thin; and to convince the world community of the importance of what we see in Iraq, of what we see in North Korea, that North Korea being very relevant today, we cannot afford to have a credibility gap about the President's word, we cannot, as Americans, regardless of your political background. So I say I would hope that this body of eminent Americans would look at the two points that substantiate the claim that Iraq was on the threshold, not on the threshold, had the ability, that is what the speech and the words say, in 45 minutes could launch a weapon of mass destruction. The nuclear pieces of that clearly did not pass the basic smell test. Mr. HOEFFEL. You know what the real crime of this is, the really bad impact of this credibility gap that we are talking about that has been developed because of the exaggeration of the threat of weapons of mass destruction is in an age of terror, which we are certainly in, you can argue very persuasively that there will be times when a nation must act preemptively if faced with an imminent threat to protect itself. We are not dealing, as we all know, with a traditional enemy where you see the ships amassing in the harbor or the armies amassing on the border; that if you are faced with an imminent threat from a terror source you may have to act preemptively, but you must have intelligence that you can rely upon. Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask a question. According to this new doctrine articulated by President Bush, what are the new criteria for a preemptive strike? I have asked that question of experts. I have asked that question of administration representatives. I have asked those questions of people on the street. I do not know what those criteria are. Are they clear and present danger? What is the amount of evidence that is enough to launch a military strike against a nation? Do we have evidence that Saddam Hussein was prepared to attack the United States either through Iraqi military forces or through the use of terrorist organizations? Mr. EMANUEL. One of things that has surprised me, I come from the view there is no doubt if you look at the past of Saddam Hussein's actions. He has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. He has used them in the war on Iraq. He has engaged in a series of attempts to repress a regime. Why would the administration conjure up a threat? Why would you in the State of the Union, in which you are on the threshold of war, decide to go with evidence that was not good enough for the Secretary of State to use a week later, that in October it was taken out of your speech by the various intelligence agencies? To me, this is still one of the great mysteries. What was it that decided we were going to go on the flimsy evidence of this Niger memo that anybody within 1 minute of sitting down, as clearly on tonight's story on NBC News, they realized if you just looked at it and they looked at people that looked at it independent of our intelligence community. MR. DELAHUNT. I would like to ask the question, if I could, to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), can you or can the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) articulate clearly and definitively for us and for the Americans, for us, those of us who were watching it, what are the standards, what are the criteria under the Bush doctrine of preemption?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to tell my colleague something that might surprise him. You have heard of Pat Buchanan?

Mr. DELAHUNT. A commentator I am sure that many of those that are viewing are aware of. This is what he had to say in an op-ed piece that was printed today. In ruthless candor, these are his words, President Bush does not have the surplus of resources, military, strategic, financial, political, to hold the empire. As some of us predicted a decade ago, the compulsive interventionism of the Bushites might lead to imperial overstretch. Something has to give. It is going to be the empire. From here on it begins to recede. Either President Bush starts discarding imperial responsibilities we cannot carry and bringing the troops home or his successor will. That is not me. That is Patrick Buchanan.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership. Let me echo the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Washington. Unfortunately, this past week India stated that they would not provide a division of troops to help us win the peace. It is becoming clear that we are going alone, and maybe this is the problem of a particular brand of foreign policy. I know that we all are working together; we are in the process of drafting a letter to the President requesting that he go to the United Nations and seek a resolution internationalizing the security and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. I would hope all Americans would call our offices, would call the offices of our colleagues. I would close with the words and the admonition of Tony Blair that was so eloquent in his speech this past week. He was speaking about the tensions between Europe and the United States. He said: ``Don't give up on Europe. Work with it. Europe must take on the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for political discourse. And what America must do is show that partnerships must be based on mutual respect and persuasion, not on command. America must listen as well as lead. And then the U.N. can become what it should be, an instrument of action as well as debate.'' Mr. HOEFFEL. The Iraq Watch is alive and well. I thank the colleagues for being here this evening. We will be back next week.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is time to pick up on that to end grudge diplomacy. Let us get past that. Let us move on. Let us understand that the only way we can bring stability to Iraq without breaking the bank and without putting at risk the lives of American military personnel is to bring in our traditional allies, whether they be the Germans or the French. Let us put that in the past. Otherwise, we are going to see these deficits that I referred to earlier balloon into numbers that will absolutely be a drag of incredible magnitude on the American economy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I will just follow the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) by saying that when I first heard the President in response to attacks on U.S. soldiers in the way that he does suggest bring them on, I remember wanting to say to the President that what we should be doing, President Bush, is to bring allies on to this coalition and make it a genuine coalition of democracies to assist in terms of the reconstruction so that American taxpayers do not bear the burden almost exclusively and that American men and women who have served admirably can come home.