[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4550-4553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2330
                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is recognized for the remainder of the 
time before midnight, approximately 30 minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee). We have been here doing this so-called Special 
Order for the past 8 months, discussing and reviewing developments in 
the Middle East and, specifically, what has occurred over the course of 
the past week involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror.
  As I had indicated earlier, there was a resolution that was 
considered today by the House. There was a spirited debate, and I was 
reviewing specific provisions for the benefit of the people that, at 
least here on the East Coast, are up late and surfing the channels and 
want to listen to the conversation that we have among ourselves. I had

[[Page 4551]]

indicated that as part of the resolution, there is a reference, and the 
only reference, I find this interesting, to the issue of weapons of 
mass destruction because, as we know, this was the premise that was put 
forth by the President, the Vice President, and other administration 
officials for the rationale for going to war. Of course, we have 
discovered subsequently that the intelligence was faulty, that the 
premise for the war, meaning stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and 
biological weapons simply did not exist, and the implication that was 
put forth by the President and specifically the Vice President, because 
he has reiterated it even recently, that there were links between 
Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, turned out to be without any substance at 
all.
  But the one allusion to the use of weapons of mass destruction is 
contained in this resolution, and I will read it. It says, ``Whereas, 
on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had unleashed weapons of 
mass destruction against Kurdish citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of 
them.''
  Well, this is about a city in Iraq. That city is called Halabja. And 
it is true that Saddam Hussein slaughtered some 5,000 Iraqi Kurds, men, 
women, and children. The provision in the resolution that we did debate 
today appears to suggest that this crime against humanity, and it is a 
crime against humanity, provides some justification for the invasion of 
Iraq 15 years later. The tragic truth is, and to our own shame, is that 
we did nothing, nothing in 1988, in 1989, in 1990 about this crime, 
this despicable act, this act of terrorism. We did not do anything 
because under that Bush administration, Saddam was our ally, and many 
of those currently serving in this Bush administration were key figures 
during that moment in our history.
  Our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, was a special envoy to Saddam 
Hussein. Even before his first visit to Baghdad in 1983, Iraq was 
removed from the terrorist list, and after his full diplomatic 
relations were restored and billions of dollars of loan guarantees were 
provided to Saddam Hussein, the sale of dual-use technology for the 
development of weapons of mass destruction was approved by the Reagan-
Bush administration.
  I would suggest that no wonder, in the aftermath of the first Gulf 
War, we learned that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program 
because, in reality, we helped to build it. And we let other countries 
supply Saddam Hussein with American military equipment, and we even 
shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence with Saddam Hussein. 
Even though we knew that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons 
against Iran, that Bush administration prevented the United Nations 
from condemning Iraq.
  The Vice President, this gentleman here, Mr. Cheney, was Secretary of 
Defense for the first President Bush. The Secretary of State, Colin 
Powell, served as both National Security Adviser and Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff. Well, according to a Congressional Research 
Service report, not only did we support Saddam Hussein during Mr. 
Cheney's and Mr. Powell's and Mr. Wolfowitz' time in service to that 
Republican administration, but when the House and the Senate in 1989 
and 1990 attempted to impose sanctions for the use of chemical weapons, 
that Bush administration blocked it. They used their influence in 
Congress to ensure that there were no sanctions imposed on Saddam 
Hussein.
  I fear that we are making the same mistakes now that they made back 
then, the first President Bush and Richard Cheney and Colin Powell and 
Paul Wolfowitz. Because like then, we are also today forging unholy 
alliances in our war on terror.
  For example, in Uzbekistan, we are supporting another dictator who, 
according to our own State Department reports, heads an oppressive 
regime that perpetrates gross violations of human rights and has more 
than 5,000 political prisoners in custody today. The most recent, 
notorious, was when this individual and this regime, through torture, 
boiled in water a political prisoner. I am sure that conjures up 
memories of Saddam Hussein.
  And in Turkmenistan, we are allied with another Stalinist thug by the 
name of Sherman Bashi who is creating a personality cult that rivals 
that of Saddam Hussein. He has renamed the month of January after 
himself and the month of June after his mother.

                              {time}  2340

  And this is who we are allying ourselves with in the war on terror, 
just like we allied ourselves with Saddam Hussein back in the late 
1980s. And, of course, we know the results.
  So I would suggest to my friends and to those that are watching at 
this late hour that we remember those lessons of history. And I 
specifically would recommend that the Vice President, who constantly 
refers to the fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against 
his own people, remember that he was part of an administration that was 
aware of that and did nothing back then, much to the chagrin of the 
rest of the world and the United States House of Representatives and 
Senate that served in this building and this institution back then.
  And what happened? Did we encourage Saddam Hussein? I guess that is a 
question we will never know. But we should remember the lessons of 
Halabja, that city in Iraq, where chemical weapons were used against 
Iraqi citizens by Saddam Hussein. Because I believe if we speak of 
democracy and liberty, let us practice it.
  And every time the President and the Vice President stand up and 
proclaim that we are fighting this war on terror to promote democracy, 
what about Uzbekistan? And what about Turkmenistan? What are we doing 
there, allying ourselves with despots and tyrants and thugs that at 
some future point could very well be the new Saddam Hussein?
  Let us not ally ourselves with illegitimate heads of state if we are 
sincere about the war on terror, who are truly terrorists who terrorize 
their own people. That would be my position.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt) would yield, one can only have that kind of a dialogue 
if we can entertain a legitimate political discussion on the issue. 
When those who are trying to bring these facts forward, those who have 
this perspective are enunciating it, are in turn denounced for failing 
to support our troops, denounced for failing to want to carry forward 
the war on terrorism, as it is always referred to, are denounced for 
presumably being unwilling to face up to the cold hard realities of 
what constitutes terrorism and its origins, then it is very difficult 
to do as the gentleman suggests.
  I had the experience of having the Governor of my State of Hawaii 
taken to Iraq for purposes that are beyond my ability to understand, 
other than when she came back she announced that President Bush's Iraq 
policy should not be the subject of political discussion, that we 
should not politicize the war.
  Now, that suggestion is as problematic, I suggest to the gentlemen in 
turn, as it is unrealistic. Foreign policy and defense policy are 
always legitimate topics for political debate. That is how we do things 
in a democracy. Unfortunately, today we had a resolution ostensibly 
addressing these issues 1 year after the invasion of, or the attack on, 
Baghdad, as I term it, after which a war started. The voting public has 
every right to a full and open airing of different points of view.
  We did not get to do that today. We were unable to attempt to amend 
the resolution dealing with these issues. It is most particularly 
pertinent, I think, when we are dealing with the lives of our 
servicemembers and the Treasury of our Nation. The resolution that 
ostensibly addressed these issues today very firmly supported by the 
Vice President, as you mentioned who, by the way, in my judgment is the 
most sinister Vice President we have ever had since Aaron Burr, this 
resolution tells us that the Iraq policies are out of bounds for 
discussion. We were not permitted to make amendments or to attempt to 
pass amendments with regard to this resolution.
  The document simply amplified the administration's viewpoint, an 
election-year endorsement of this policy. It

[[Page 4552]]

will no doubt be denied and is being denied even now, I suggest, Mr. 
Speaker, that this has anything to do with politics. In fact, it is 
blatantly political; it is transparently political. It is in-your-face 
political.
  Our troops deserve better than this cursory salute swaddled in 
suffocating layers of political celebration. Our troops have earned our 
gratitude for their patriotism, their courage, and their spirit of 
sacrifice, something particularly missing from this debate today.
  More to the point, they deserve a solid commitment for their well-
being and the well-being of their families. This is something that the 
majority today refused to do and has refused to do.
  Last week in the budget committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) and others proposed some simple measures along these lines. I 
want to recite them to you: Tri-care medical service for reservists, a 
boost in the imminent-danger pay, improved military housing, higher pay 
for senior enlisted personnel, increased family separation allowance, 
more funding for family support centers. All of this to be offset by a 
modest roll-back of the tax bonanza that we granted to people making $1 
million a year and more.
  What was the response of Mr. Cheney and his party? Forget about the 
troops. Our allegiance is to people making $1 million a year or more.
  I do not have any statistics, Mr. Speaker; but I suspect there are 
not too many millionaires serving in Iraq or going soon.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could, clearly there is language in 
the resolution that we considered here today that praises the troops. 
But the reality is that the rhetoric does not match the action.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield on that 
point? My contention is that it is one thing to argue about 
politicizing the war. This resolution today politicized support for the 
troops. The characterizations that were implicit and explicit in the 
discussion today made it clear that not voting for this resolution 
somehow called your patriotism into question, somehow called your 
support for the troops into question, somehow called into question your 
capacity, ability, in fact, even your desire to conduct a war against 
terrorism.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome our friend, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), as part of our conversation 
tonight.
  It is easy to indulge in rhetoric. It is easy to involve in a 
resolution with laudatory words about the courage and the heroism and 
the professionalism of the American military. It is just a little bit 
more difficult to ensure that all of our veterans, from whatever 
struggle, from whatever war, from wherever in terms of our history, are 
delivered, for example, the health care that we promised.
  And this administration has failed them. This administration, this 
Vice President and the President of the United States, is failing them. 
The talk is fine, and the actions are not matching the rhetoric.

                              {time}  2350

  As the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars recently 
stated within the past 2 weeks, the budget submitted by the President 
of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is a 
sham and a disgrace. So, if this resolution is about the veterans, then 
I dare say that should be there, support from the Vice-President and 
the President to ensure that the funding source for veterans' health 
care benefits in this country is mandatory and not discretionary. Stand 
up and do the right thing by our veterans and just do not simply 
indulge in rhetoric
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to let you know that 
this whole resolution is stomach turning for many Members, especially 
myself and I know the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) as 
ranking member on strategic forces in the Committee on Armed Services, 
and I am proud to serve with him in that committee, but to have a 
resolution that does not even recognize the men and women that have 
lost their lives in Iraq is just stomach turning. It is beyond 
comprehension on how this administration, the Republican side of this 
Congress, could pass a resolution and not mention those individuals 
that came back in a box.
  I mean, I am very concerned about that, and I think what we need to 
focus on now is making sure that we come straight with the American 
people. We have to make sure that we talk about accountability. We have 
to make sure that we talk about troops that are coming back. I am not 
even addressing right now, and in this resolution does not address, 
those individuals that are in Walter Reed right now, right now in 
Walter Reed Hospital, and I think it is important, and I am glad that 
Iraq Watch continues to be here night after night sharing with the 
American people the importance of making sure that we stand on behalf 
of our troops, that we also make sure that we make sound decisions and 
we continue to change the chart.
  I am concerned about some of the comments that Vice President Cheney 
has made. I am concerned about some of the comments the President is 
making. I think that the comments of ``bring it on'' and ``complete 
mission'' and ``I guarantee you that they will not shake the resolve of 
America,'' it is good to have a talk of confidence, but to be able to 
egg on these individuals, and to pass a resolution when a hotel has 
been leveled in Iraq, many Iraqis lost their lives, many national media 
individuals lost their lives, and not even recognize that and say that 
it is safer now, I think is a huge understatement.
  So I think that we need to continue to share with the American 
people, if Democrats were brought in a part of this resolution, H. Res. 
557, today, we could come together as a Congress, and it would be a 
much better resolution.
  I know I voted for the first resolution commending the troops, but I 
think this resolution divided this House instead of bringing us 
together to fight against the war on terror
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think you make an excellent point, and I 
see our colleague and friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
standing up, and I am going to recognize him in a minute.
  I heard the word today on the floor ``appeasement.'' I think it is 
important for those that are watching to understand, and I think I 
speak for every Democrat, appeasement is not part of our vocabulary 
when it comes to the war on terrorism, absolutely. I think there was 
only a single exception out of the entire body, but it was with one 
exception, one vote, a unanimous authorization by this body and by the 
U.S. Senate to authorize the attack against the Taliban and the al 
Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we will never surrender to terrorism. We will 
never indulge in appeasement of terrorism, but Mr. President and Mr. 
Cheney, we insist on the truth. Never appeasement, but always the 
truth.
  What I find fascinating is in recent testimony in the United States 
Senate, the CIA chief, Mr. Tenet, told a Senate committee that he had 
privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded 
as public mis-statements on intelligence by Vice-President Cheney and 
others and that he would do so again. I would just make a simple 
request of this administration and the Vice President. Just tell it 
like it is. As David Kay, the weapons inspector, said recently in an 
interview in The Guardian, a British publication, ``Come clean.'' Just 
level with the people.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington for any 
comment that he would wish to make.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, all of us have tremendous personal respect 
for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyone who has had experience 
like I

[[Page 4553]]

did, spending an afternoon with a family as I did from Bremerton, 
Washington, this weekend, but I want to mention a question that I have.
  Tonight there is someone at large who wants to kill us. This person 
has killed us. This person has the capability of killing us. This 
person has an organization dedicated to kill us. We have known this 
situation since September 11. Why is it that with the passage of years, 
that is, until last week, that the administration finally says they 
actually are going to have a 24/7 effort to catch Osama bin Laden? They 
launched a war and took their eye off the ball to catch this guy who is 
at-large, and now, last week, finally says now we are going to have an 
all-out effort to catch Osama bin Laden? Where have they been?
  They have been in Iraq, and I have a question I want this 
administration to answer. I was asked by the victims families of 
September 11 two weeks ago. Why, after September 11, when we knew that 
somewhere between 12 and 15 of the hijackers who killed our people were 
from Saudi Arabia, did this administration allow an airplane to fly all 
across America, when everybody else was grounded, when you could not 
fly home from anywhere, why did this administration specifically allow 
an airplane, paid for by Saudi Arabia, to fly around this country 
picking up potential witnesses who could have helped us catch Osama bin 
Laden, including members of the bin Laden family? Why did this 
administration allow that?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If you know, how many Saudis were implicated in the 
attack on America on September 11?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it was something like 15 out of the 
19, and yet this administration, I want to know why they flew out these 
people two days after September 11 without the full, complete, 
comprehensive interrogation of these individuals, including blood 
relatives of the guy who we know did this, and several days later they 
are playing footsy with the ambassador down at the White House of Saudi 
Arabia, an organization that has been very close to the oil and gas 
industry? I want to know why they did that. Maybe there is a good 
answer. I cannot imagine what it is, but this is one of the questions 
that the people who are serving in Iraq and the victims of September 11 
want answered.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, by the way, how many Iraqis were on that 
plane?
  Mr. INSLEE. Zero Iraqis on that plane.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. One of you noted recently that the individual who was 
responsible, the Pakistani who is responsible for the proliferation of 
nuclear weapon technology to North Korea and Iran has been identified, 
and what have we heard from this administration, this President and 
this Vice-President about that? Nothing.
  Mr. INSLEE. The fact is we should have been cracking down on Saudi 
Arabia a long time ago. We should have been cracking down on the 
Pakistani fellow that we found was purveying nuclear technology all 
over the world and, instead we have been involved in an action in Iraq. 
Now, I am very happy that eventually maybe something good will come out 
of the action in Iraq, but our people need answers to these questions.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I believe 
that we have just a minute left. Perhaps you would like to sum up.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just quickly, I want to say this to 
the American people and I hope that it is not the case that we value 
oil over American blood. I am just saying that right now, and I think 
it is very important to make the message very simple tonight for 
Americans to understand.

                          ____________________