[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27739-27745]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we come back on the 30-something 
Special Order, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me pick up where we left off. And 
where we left off, obviously, was my very brief conversation with my 
friend from Iowa (Mr. King), because I can never remember a debate on 
the floor of this House or in any committee of this House where the 
rationale that was put forth by the proponents of the resolution 
authorizing the President to invade Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi 
people.
  And clearly the headlines, we all remember the phrases such as 
mushroom cloud, links to al Qaeda, the potential for an imminent attack 
on the United States. The gentleman indicates that it was one of those 
reasons.
  What I find interesting, Mr. Speaker, is why was Iraq selected. 
Because as I look over the map, if it was a combination of reasons, why 
did we not invade Iran where we had hard evidence relative to weapons 
of mass destruction, where we knew that they possessed the capability, 
where there clearly was a denial of freedom? Why did we select Iraq?
  And, Mr. Speaker, if we were so concerned about democracy, if the 
White House had this unstated vision and goal, why did they put a 
coalition of the willing together that embraced some of the most 
tyrannical regimes on the face of the Earth? Why did we embrace Islam 
Karimov in Uzbekistan whose human rights record was the equal of the 
human rights record of Saddam Hussein? Why did Islam Karimov come to 
the White House and have a photo opportunity with President Bush? Why 
did we embrace Turkmenbashi, another thug, Mr. Speaker, the President 
of Turkmenistan, who has created a cult of personality that is bizarre, 
who changed the names of the months of January and June? January he 
named after himself; and June, demonstrating his filial love for his 
mother, named after his mother?
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if democracy was the motive behind 
the invasion of Iraq, I fail to see the evidence, because we associated 
ourselves with those who deny freedom every day to their own people. 
They were part of the coalition of the willing. What message does that 
send to the world that we select despots and thugs and tyrants, some 
are good because they happen to serve our instant interests, our 
interests of the moment, but some are the worst human violators on the 
globe?
  And with all respect to our traditional allies, Egypt and Saudi 
Arabia, if the President wants to bring democracy to the dark corners 
of the world, he does not have to go that far. He does not have to take 
our young men and women and put them in harm's way. When I hear that it 
was democracy and liberation that motivated this invasion, I cannot 
accept that. The evidence does not bear that out, and it was the burden 
of proof on the administration. They never met the test. Their 
rationale and their excuse were the weapons of mass destruction.
  No one on this side is a pessimist, I can assure you. But it is time 
we leveled with the American people. It is time that we spoke the 
truth. It is time that we injected realism into this discourse, into 
this conversation that we are obliged to have with the American people.
  As far as the troops are concerned, they know, Mr. Speaker, that the 
minority party is with them, and they know that because we have fought 
for their benefits when they come back from this war that we sent them 
to.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me just say what Mr. Delahunt 
is saying makes so much sense, but I can tell him the reason why we 
have reams and reams of paper about how government is not working now 
is the fact that we are governing under a culture

[[Page 27740]]

of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence. One cannot operate a 
business under a culture of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence. 
They can just not do it. They cannot do it. It is impossible to 
achieve. And it is wrong. So when we have historic levels of 
corruption, incompetence, and cronyism, it is just hard for us to 
govern in that way.
  People are wondering why am I picking up my newspaper not only seeing 
indictments but seeing plea agreements by the very people that are 
elected to come up here to govern on behalf of the American people. So 
why is it even shocking, Mr. Speaker, to some Members why we have so 
much corruption in the Federal system? And we come in here as though 
let me grab a cup of coffee or a latte like it is another day at the 
office. It is not another day at the office. It is not another day here 
in Congress. We are concerned, but maybe the majority could also get a 
little concerned about what is going on.
  Let me just mention something because Mr. Delahunt just hit a couple 
of points, and I just want to mention something because here in the 30-
Something Working Group, as my colleagues know and others, and I am so 
glad that Mr. Ryan claimed this hour, the bottom line is this: we have 
a White House where members of the White House have been indicted or 
previous members who resigned the day before they were indicted and 
serious national security breaches in the White House.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. Speaker, this is not hearsay, this is fact. We have Federal 
investigators now, they are not talking about someone who took a trip 
somewhere on the Government's credit card. They are not talking about 
that, you know, someone went to lunch with someone and, you know, the 
bill was $3,000 and they had eight lobsters. They are not talking about 
that. They are talking about outing CIA agents. They are talking about 
information being leaked out that is jeopardizing national security.
  They are also talking about issues as it relates to, you know, the 
influence of the private sector and corruption and not possible 
cronyism, but cronyism and incompetence. That is what is going on here 
now. And even here in the Congress, unprecedented investigations, 
inquires not by the Congress, but by other agencies that are policing 
us.
  So when people start saying, well, why is all of this happening? It 
is happening because we are not, well, the Congress, the majority, is 
not governing the way that they should govern and policing themselves. 
I think it is important as we look at this culture of corruption and 
cronyism and incompetence that we put it in the right perspective.
  We know that a lot of this is allegations. We will just say 
allegations. I want to make sure that we say that, but I want to also 
make sure that Members know exactly what is going on. This is not 
regular business in the Congress. The 109th Congress, historians will 
reflect, and in the present, will say, this has never happened before 
in the history of the Republic.
  So when folks start talking about, well, you know, I do not know what 
you are talking about, I am going to tell you another thing. They are 
coming to the floor, the majority tomorrow, to pass tax cuts on behalf 
of billionaires and millionaires.
  Meanwhile, just before we left here, they cut student loans. Cut 
Medicaid, cut child support enforcement. Somebody please tell me this 
is a misprint. But it is not. And going after deadbeat dads. So I 
wonder how the state attorneys and sheriffs are going to feel about 
that?
  They cut many programs that we need in this country. Meanwhile back 
at the ranch, we are going to turn our back on what is going on in Iraq 
and what is going on here in Washington, D.C. as though it is not a big 
deal.
  So I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is in 
order when he talks about some of the decisions that are being made.
  And one of any colleagues on this side said just because the 
Republican leadership says it is true does not mean that it is true. We 
were here on this floor late one night in the 108th Congress, and even 
in this Congress, but in the 108th Congress on the prescription drug 
bill. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) does it so well, I want 
you to talk about what they said and what the reality was.
  Just because they say it does not mean that it is true. The President 
says complete victory. What is complete victory? What is complete 
victory? Is it until the last insurgent says I am no longer going to be 
one?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have a quote over here. Victory means exit 
strategy, said Governor George Bush during Kosovo. Exit strategy. And 
here we are a couple of years into the war with no exit strategy. And 
if you ask for an exit strategy, you are helping out the other side.
  Well, wait a minute. We are spending $1.5 billion a week. We have 
lost well over 2,000 lives, thousands and thousands of soldiers have 
been injured. Do we not have a right in the Congress of the United 
States, the House of Representatives, to at least ask when are we 
leaving? Is it 4 months? Is it 6 months? Can we at least have a 
discussion on why we should not talk about it, or is it just my way or 
the highway? I mean, we have an obligation here to do that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been a whole 
lot of twisted-up debate on time tables and whether we are insisting on 
a time table and withdrawal, and whether the withdrawal is immediate or 
6 months.
  When we talk about the drawn-down of troops, and the fact that we 
need to make sure that it is the Iraqi people that are ultimately 
responsible for running their own country, we are referring to the 
President's objectives that he said that he wants to see.
  And the other day I heard the President talking about that we will 
withdraw and begin to withdraw troops from Iraq when we have objectives 
that are reached.
  Well, what the heck does that mean? Does it mean that when 50 percent 
of the Iraqi battalions are fully independent? Does it mean 75 percent? 
Where are the benchmarks? I mean, it is fine to say that we need to 
have objectives about this. We should not leave or withdraw troops 
until we meet objectives.
  But what are those objectives? I need something concrete to be able 
to go home and tell my constituents. I mean, we have got 2,013 American 
lives that have been lost, and 50 percent of those kids have been kids 
under the age of 22. There is some serious accountability that needs to 
be brought to bear here.
  And, you know, vague references to objectives that should be met by 
the President is not what I call accountability, not when you have $223 
billion being spent on this war.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I look at this like your homework when you are in 
school, and your teacher gives you some homework. The homework is due 
next Thursday. You have got to have X, Y and Z done. And, you know 
what, if it is due on Thursday, most kids will do it on Wednesday. 
Right? That is just human nature. And I am thinking that maybe we need 
to tell the Iraqis, your homework needs to be done by May. Okay? And it 
better be done.
  If you do not tell them the homework needs to be done by May, then 
they are not going to do it. So if it is indefinite, there is no end in 
sight, that is not what the American people want.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I feel a little bit funny talking about 
this, because I listened to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who is 
now in the Speaker's chair. I guess he cannot respond because he is in 
the Speaker's chair.
  So I will try not to be too critical. But when I listened to him talk 
about the war earlier this evening, our Republican colleague, I just 
think there is a lot of confusion on the Republican side about what the 
goal is.
  And I think what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) said and my 
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), they are getting to it.
  When I listened to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), it was almost 
as

[[Page 27741]]

if on the one hand the enemy was Saddam Hussein, but then on the other 
hand, the enemy seemed to be the whole of Iraq and all of the Iraqi 
people.
  Now my understanding of this war, I mean, I did not support it, did 
not vote for it. But my understanding, when the President articulated 
it, was that we had this dictator, Saddam Hussein, who was basically 
keeping his people down. He was a dictator. He was not expressing their 
will.
  And once we got in there and got rid of him, that the people were 
going to welcome us with open arms and feel liberated. Yet I saw a poll 
yesterday that was done by a British outfit, that said that something 
like 70 or 80 percent of the people of Iraq thought that we should not 
be there anymore. 40-something percent thought it was fair to 
physically attack American troops because they were occupying Iraq.
  And so, you know, my feeling is when you get to the point where most 
of the Iraqi people who we were there to liberate feel that we do not 
belong there, or even to the point where even the majority are willing 
to take shots at us because they think that we should get out, then I 
think we have lost sight of what our purpose is.
  And my big contention is that we need to get out in order to achieve 
victory, because if victory means an Iraq with stability, and where the 
insurgents do not hold sway, that is not going to happen because we are 
viewed as an occupying power. That is not going to happen until we 
leave.
  So an exit strategy is important. It seems to me if you want to 
achieve a victory in the sense that you want to have a stable, 
Democratic Iraq, I do not see how you have that as long as we are there 
and the insurgents keep using us as the theme for them to continue to 
oppose our presence.
  But I want to get back also to this whole culture of cronyism, and 
the other thing that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) mentioned. I 
think that the problem that the Republican leadership has is partially 
ideological, but also partially corruption in the sense that, you know, 
if you look at what they do, a lot of it is because they are sort of 
captured by their own ideology.
  Victory means that we have to stay indefinitely until every Iraqi 
likes us. You know, on the other hand, the reality is that more and 
more of the people do not want us there. So they got into this idea of 
what victory means or what success means, and they just do not want to 
break from it. They are not looking at what is happening practically.
  I see the same thing happening here on domestic issues. In other 
words, you know, tomorrow we are going to vote on this tax cut, which 
primarily goes to the wealthy and to the corporate interests. Right? 
The theory behind the tax cut, the ideology is that, you know, if you 
give everybody a tax cut, that is going to spur the economy.
  The reality is the economy is not doing that well. The people are 
complaining all of the time to me about the loss of jobs overseas. They 
do not have pension. They do not have health care, good jobs, good 
benefits.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They have been saying this for 5 years about this 
tax policy. They have.
  Mr. PALLONE. On the one hand they are stuck in their own ideology 
which is that the tax cuts for the wealthy and the big corporations are 
going to grow the economy, but on the other hand they are also stuck in 
this ideology in what they are trying to do legislatively, because they 
know that this helps their political cronies.
  They are trying to help the big special interests. They are trying to 
help the corporations. They are trying to help wealthy people at the 
expense of the average guy. They make cuts in programs that help the 
average person like student loans, like Medicaid and housing and all of 
the other things that my colleague from Florida mentioned.
  They do not care about the average person, not only because their 
ideology says that that is not what they should be doing, because they 
should be cutting taxes, but also because helping the average person 
does not put any money into their campaign coffers. They are not 
looking for a $5 donation from the guy next door. They are looking for 
the big donation in their campaign coffers from the big corporate 
interests.
  That is what this is all about. So they mask what they do by saying 
that somehow it is the right thing to do. It is not practically 
speaking. It does not work. We are getting further into debt. The 
economy is not improving. The Iraq war is getting worse. We are 
spending more money in Iraq. We have no money for domestic programs.
  They justify it by saying, well, this is the conservative or 
Republican way to do things. But it just does not work. It does not 
work for the average person. It does not work for America and our goals 
as a country. And at the same time, they do it because it helps them 
politically because they get more campaign money from the 
pharmaceuticals, from the defense contractors, from the Halliburtons, 
from the Bechtels, from all of these groups.
  So the American people have to understand that this is not working. 
It has got to be changed. And the only answer is essentially when the 
election comes next year, you got to throw these guys out. You got to 
bring back a Democratic majority that is going to work for the average 
person, that is going to have an exit strategy for Iraq, that is going 
to be worried about the debt so we do not go further into debt.
  As my colleague says, you know, we can certainly work with the 
Republicans. We are not saying that we cannot. But this Republican 
leadership is hell bent on helping the wealthy, helping the corporate 
interests at the expense of the little guy. And we just see it more and 
more every day. And tomorrow is a perfect example of it with this.
  We pass this budget that cuts all of those domestic programs and help 
the average man. And we are using those budget cuts to fund tax cuts 
for corporate interests. I yield.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Your reference to what their philosophy is 
with pursuing this tax reconciliation, this tax cut package tomorrow as 
not being a conservative philosophy.
  I will commend to you our colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cardozo's) comments, who is one of the leaders of the Blue Dogs. 
In his special order last night, with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Ross), it is the politics of Scroogeonomics, because as we approach the 
holiday season, what they are doing and what they are engaging in, the 
Republican leadership is engaging in, Scroogeonomics.
  We can only hope that tonight, as many of our Republican colleagues' 
heads hit their pillow, we can only hope that they are visited tonight 
by the ghost of Christmas past, because that is how we are going to 
ensure, it is probably the only way that we will ensure it, through a 
visit of the ghost of Christmas past, that they are shown what the 
essential ramifications are if they actually move forward and pass this 
proposal, the cuts to child support, enforcement, the cuts to food 
stamps, the horrendous cuts in financial aid that they just handed down 
a couple of weeks ago in the budget reconciliation, Budget Cut Act.
  Now tomorrow they want to give tax cuts to people who are in the top 
two-tenths of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans.

                              {time}  2230

  We are not making this up. This is factual. That is who the vast 
majority of these tax cuts will go to. What is unbelievable in this 
Scrooge-onomics proposal of theirs is that they actually have the 
audacity to call the budget reconciliation act the Budget Deficit 
Reduction Act when you have got $50 billion in budget cuts in that and 
then tomorrow they are going to adopt, hopefully they won't, hopefully 
we will have enough of our colleagues visited by the ghost of Christmas 
past and they will have their consciences tweaked and they will vote 
``no'' tomorrow, but then tomorrow we could potentially adopt $70 
billion in tax cuts. I just helped my first graders with their math 
homework, but even they could figure out that that adds $20 billion to 
the deficit, $20 billion in which we already have $27,000 for every 
man, woman, child and newborn baby

[[Page 27742]]

in this country. That is how much each of us owes.
  Mr. PALLONE. The thing that is amazing, I know you were sort of 
hinting at the holiday analogy there, I cannot help, this is the 2 
weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, or Hanukkah, too. I cannot 
help thinking of the analogy. I try not to necessarily throw religion 
into the debate.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I was referring to the holidays.
  Mr. PALLONE. But think about the sort of Christmas analogy. We all 
talk about religion, and certainly Christianity, I am a Christian, 
preaches about how you are supposed to help the poor and help the 
downtrodden, and here we are in the holiday season cutting programs to 
the poorest people, the victims of Katrina, their health care under 
Medicaid, their housing, their ability to get food stamps or food 
programs. Then I also think about the manger in the story of Jesus and 
his birth, there is the idea that the family went around and they 
couldn't find a place that would take them, they couldn't find housing 
and so they ended up staying in the manger because there was no place 
else to go. That is how I feel. You read about these housing cuts and I 
feel like this is like Mary and Joseph and Jesus walking around, they 
can't find a place to sleep and they have to end up on the street. What 
happened to this whole idea of Christian values or religious values? It 
is like thrown out the window at the very time when most people are 
thinking about it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When you are talking about your faith, my 
faith, I am a member of the Jewish faith, our faith talks about the 
spirit of Tikkun Olam and giving back to our community and thinking of 
those who are less fortunate. We are referring to the party that claims 
to corner the market on faith-based values. If you look at every aspect 
of their agenda, there is not a component of their agenda that has 
anything to do with what our faith traditions teach us or with values 
or with making sure that the least of us and the least among us are 
assisted. We are supposed to be their voice. If you had listened to the 
religious leaders who have come to this Capitol and talked about how 
abominable they think this proposal is, both the budget reconciliation 
bill and the tax cut package tomorrow is, then you would know that they 
do not have the moral high ground in this debate whatsoever.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentlewoman is 110 percent right. I would 
say, and I will even give credit to some of our colleagues on the 
Republican side, the few within the conference, that agree with making 
sure that we carry ourselves in a responsible way. In the hour before, 
we were going to talk a little bit about responsibility and you are 
talking about responsibility. You are talking about a social and 
leadership responsibility that we have in the People's House, or what 
is supposed to be the People's House.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts talked about decisions that have 
been made here in the past and now in the present. When you have a bad 
idea in many cases, when you start off by saying, like, for instance, a 
leader can say, I was wrong, or I wasn't quite on point and I'm willing 
to work with others to make sure that we reach the goals that we set 
out to do in the first place. What is happening now, Mr. Speaker, the 
Republican majority and the White House, it is like we don't even want 
to meet with you. We have conference committees where we have members 
on this side, ranking members that are saying, I didn't even know that 
the conference committee was meeting because they are not even 
notified. That is what is going on. This is not fiction. It is fact.
  I just want to point out just a few things real quick. Third-party 
valida-
tor on the action that is supposed to take place tomorrow. I just want 
to make sure that the Members get this. Economic Policy Institute, 
www.epi.org. They can get in their office and pull this up. It is the 
report that is noted, ``The Bottom That Wasn't.'' The economy has 
little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts, mainly to the billionaires 
and millionaires.
  It goes further back and I want people to pay very close attention to 
page 12. I just want to make sure that the Members pay attention to 
page 12 and I think they can read it for themselves. They can pull this 
up on the Web. You want to talk about responsibility? One of the most 
respected Members of this House, Mr. Jack Murtha, stood up and said 
that things are not as they say they are in Iraq.
  Our troops, and we just returned back from Iraq, are doing everything 
that they can do. We met with the 1st Cav. We went to Camp Victory. We 
went on to Mosul and a couple of other cities within Iraq. We heard 
time and time again, yes, we are here but we are here on our third and 
second deployment. Let me just put on my Armed Services hat here for 
one second. For us to look at a redeployment strategy, and Mr. Murtha 
is right. He has the President running around here giving four and five 
speeches every week on trying to justify why we should be there and how 
we should be there. One leader in the Senate, the Democratic leader, 
Mr. Speaker, in the Senate said, we need to take the training wheels 
off the Iraqi government and let them know that our military has 
delivered. Our military has allowed them to be able to have elections 
come the 15th of December. But no one is talking about the fact which 
we learned sitting down not only with our military leaders in Iraq but 
also sitting down with the Iraqi leaders to find out that this 
parliament that is going to be elected, this governing council that is 
going to be elected in Iraq, including a prime minister, will not be 
seated until March of 2006. So folks talk about, oh, December 15 is 
going to be a wonderful day. They are not going to even get seated, 
have their power, until March. I guess the Potomac two-step will kick 
in again. First it was when we get the security forces to the point, 
and we have to watch the math here when you start talking about this. 
How many people do we have trained? You hear one number. That number 
was combat troops, not police combat units. Okay, you have to talk 
about the interior ministry that has a whole other police force. Only 
one brigade or two brigades and we have handed this area over. The 
bottom line and what Mr. Murtha is saying, for us to be able to allow 
other countries to become a part of this effort that we set out on, we 
have to allow them to be a part of it. We are saying we have it.
  Tony Blair, the number-one ally, Mr. Speaker, in this war in Iraq, 
has already said to his country that we're out next year. Period. Done. 
Not any of this, it's dependent on the training of the troops or it's 
dependent on how well the parliament and the new government that is in 
place, it's all dependent on this, that and the other. He said, We're 
out next year. Period. Our troops are coming home. That is the message 
to the Iraqi government that they have to get their act together. It 
would be okay if it was an international effort in putting money into 
Iraq, but what the President is saying, he goes down to New Orleans and 
gives a speech a week after the storm that we will rebuild New Orleans. 
Meanwhile, Time, Newsweek, you name it, every major periodical, be it 
daily or weekly, special reports have said that it is not happening.
  We are telling Louisiana, hey, you have got to come up with $300 
billion to make it happen. They don't have any money right now. The 
bottom line is that just because they say it does not mean it is true. 
Mr. Murtha, third-party validator, had a press conference today and 
eight letters that he gave to the press and to the American people. The 
thing that makes Mr. Murtha so credible in this argument, ladies and 
gentlemen, is the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he is the ranking member and 
was the member of defense appropriations and he knows where the bodies 
are. He knows the Potomac two-step when he sees it. It is not about the 
fact that everyone likes him in this Congress. We all love Mr. Murtha. 
But the bottom line is that he can deliver the message. The real issue 
instead of the administration and the majority running around here 
trying to discredit a decorated Marine, trying to discredit someone 
that has stood with the military

[[Page 27743]]

foot and toe, someone that wrote letters, the first letter about Kevlar 
and making sure that our troops have what they needed when they didn't 
have it and discredit him, they should be trying to sit down with him 
and others and talk about a bipartisan plan that we can allow other 
countries to come in under a NATO force and that is what is going to 
happen after we say, okay, this is our strategy, we want to let the 
Iraqi people know our military is the number-one military on the face 
of the earth. You give them direction as it relates to what we want to 
do policywise, they will do it. They will train. They will make sure 
the people are in place. But as long as we sit there and say, We're not 
going to stop until complete victory and we don't know what complete 
victory is, you have to be precise. It is not even leadership when 
someone is vague and we are spending billions of dollars in Iraq. I 
think it is important when we start talking about folks carrying out 
the responsibility they have to carry out.
  Whichever way you look at it, there are Republicans that are saying, 
Yeah, we need to figure out a redeployment plan, but no one wants to 
talk about redeployment as it relates to getting our troops out of 
harm's way. Meanwhile back at the ranch here in this country, we have 
mothers and we have fathers and we have those that are seeing their 
loved ones, especially if they are soldiers in the Army, that are being 
deployed for 12 to 16 months. Think about that, in your third 
deployment. I left for 5 days and it was like I was gone for a year 
from my family. Think about the person that leaves and you don't see 
them for 12 months, 16 months, and every day. I cannot even explain to 
you of some of the phone calls. I cannot even start explaining to you 
some of the phone calls that I receive from mothers and from daughters 
and from husbands saying, I cringe every time the news report comes 
over the television, three more U.S. troops, 10 more U.S. Marines. And 
we are still here saying, We're here until we carry out complete 
victory. You have got to talk about responsibility.
  Mr. PALLONE. Just real quickly, you started off saying about how we 
just don't get the true facts from the Bush administration. It is so 
true. You listen to the President and you would think that the war was 
going well and everything is getting better. But we had the 10 Marines 
that were killed this week. The number of casualties now, we figure by 
the end of this year, is going to be the highest year ever. The number 
of casualties keeps rising. The President made a statement the other 
day about how the economy is getting better. We have lost more jobs in 
the 5 or 6 years that he has been in office than any President since, I 
guess, Herbert Hoover. And I don't know who he is talking to, but when 
you go back to New Jersey and you talk to people, the jobs keep getting 
lost, the factories keep closing down, the jobs that are replacing them 
are not as good as the previous ones. That is a big problem is that 
this administration simply does not present the facts and they just 
make up stories about what is really happening in Iraq and in America. 
I appreciate your comments. I just wanted to add that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When Mr. Murtha, who has taken each of us, no 
matter what generation of Member we are, has taken each of us under his 
wing, I know I have had an opportunity to learn from him and be 
mentored by him and I am not on Armed Services or Homeland Security or 
any of the committees of reference but yet he is still willing to sit 
down. What was the response on the other side of the aisle to Mr. 
Murtha's jump-starting this dialogue and doing what essentially the 
Nation has been begging for and that is to make sure that this body has 
a dialogue and has a debate and a discussion? To question Mr. Murtha's 
patriotism. That was their reaction. It wasn't, Gee, how can we sit 
down and hash out our differences. It wasn't, Well, we don't agree with 
you on redeployment. No matter how you feel about to what degree or how 
quickly we should withdraw the troops, there is no question that Mr. 
Murtha is a man with 37 years of experience in the Marines and 30 years 
in this body, having been the chair of the defense appropriations 
committee on which he is now the ranking member. That is what they do.

                              {time}  2245

  They undermine and undercut and insidiously insult the patriotism of 
an unbelievable American like Jack Murtha, and it is outrageous. He 
deserves better and the country deserves better than where they have 
taken this debate.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can, what we have here, the issue has 
been discussed in the news in many venues across the country, about 
whether the pre-war intelligence was hyped, distorted, and whether the 
American people were misled by the White House, by the Secretary of 
Defense, by the Vice President.
  Let me put that aside for a moment and suggest that this rosy 
scenario, this euphoric, unrealistic picture that is now being painted 
about the realities that exist currently in Iraq is also distorted, is 
also misleading.
  As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) indicated earlier, the 
empirical data, the surveys that are being conducted in Iraq have a 
totally different conclusion and paint a picture of a reality that has 
to be disturbing to all of us. Just bear with me for just a moment.
  This was a poll that was done by the British Ministry of Defense. It 
was conducted back in October of this year. It reveals the following: 
45 percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American 
troops are justified, rising to 65 percent in some provinces. Eighty-
two percent, Mr. Speaker, of the Iraqi people are strongly opposed to 
the presence of coalition troops.
  Mr. Speaker, according to this poll, less than 1 percent of the 
population believe coalition forces are responsible for any improvement 
in security.
  According to this British Ministry of Defense poll, 67 percent of 
Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation, and 72 percent do 
not have confidence in the multinational force.
  This is not a question or an issue of pessimism being put forth by 
Democratic Members of Congress. What this demonstrates, I would submit, 
is the reality of Iraq today, and that is why we disagree because what 
we are suggesting is what we hear from the White House, what we hear 
from some of our colleagues in the majority party, is unrealistic. It 
is false.
  We are not suggesting that any one of our colleagues is lying, but 
the facts do not support their conclusions. We all wish it was true, 
but Mr. Speaker, it is not true and let us accept the truth. Let us 
insist on honesty.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, can I just break it down one more 
time?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Please.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is a culture of corruption and cronyism and 
incompetence. It is just that simple. It is just that simple. Mr. 
Speaker, we can outline this thing as much as possible. I mean, we can 
go into tomorrow morning if the rules would allow it, but it is just a 
culture. You cannot operate a business, you cannot operate an 
educational institution, and you definitely cannot operate a government 
under a culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You have people getting indicted left and right. 
You have contractors and administrators in the government stealing 
money. I will give you one story that is both full of corruption and 
cronyism.
  An administrator in the U.S. Government who is in Iraq, who is in 
charge of $87 million in contracts, gets caught taking kickbacks of a 
couple hundred thousand dollars. That is corruption. In the 1990s he 
was convicted of fraud, and they put him in anyway because he was the 
friend of the proper person he needed to be friends with. That is 
cronyism, and the whole process of not being able to administer the 
public dollars in an efficient and effective fashion is incompetence.
  The American taxpayers work very hard and they send the money down to 
us, and they trust us to spend that money in a way that will benefit 
the government and the safety and security of the United States. To put 
$87

[[Page 27744]]

million in the hands of a crook is not only incompetent, but it is 
wrong and it highlights their inability to govern.
  They control the House and the Senate and the White House. They have 
been in charge for years of all three branches. They have had the 
opportunity to implement their Republican agenda on taxes, on poverty, 
on college tuition, on foreign policy, on everything. It has been a 
miserable failure across the board.
  Quite frankly, I think it is an insult to the American people because 
we do not live under a dictatorship. We live in a democracy, a 
representative government. America has always been great, as Leader 
Pelosi was saying today to the 30 Something Group this morning, because 
we have these high expectations of what the government should do and 
what the government should be. I am tired of this body taking advantage 
of the busyness of the American people.
  Why is it that just because they can get away with it they do it? 
That is not right because America cannot lead the world if it is not 
strong here at home, and these constant tax cuts for the wealthy and 
cutting billions of dollars out of college tuition, Mr. Speaker, how 
are we supposed to invest in the country?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. When you talk about corruption, I have a question for 
the administration, and it will go unanswered. I dare say the fact that 
it will go unanswered is a demonstration that our own democracy is not 
functioning as it should and that we are putting our democratic 
institutions, particularly this institution, at risk of erosion, 
because we are not allowed to ask questions that the American people 
want answers to.
  Let me give you one question. Ahmed Chalabi is the deputy prime 
minister of this interim government. He is an individual who was 
convicted in a Jordanian court for embezzlement of some $100 million. 
He became a darling, if you will, of the neo-conservative movement in 
this country. It is alleged that he provided false intelligence that 
served those that were advocating the invasion in Iraq.
  Later, it was reported in the news that Mr. Chalabi was under 
investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; that there was in 
Iraq a search of his personal residence because he was suspected of 
providing intelligence that put American military personnel at risk to 
Iran; that he was a double agent for the Iranian government. Yet 
several weeks ago, he is meeting with the Vice President in this 
country and is going around here in Washington.
  Please, will someone tell us what happened? Was there any validity to 
those allegations?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, he could not go to the Jordanian embassy 
when he was here in Washington because if he went to the Jordanian 
embassy they would have arrested him on the spot. The embassy is 
Jordanian ground, just like our embassy is in Jordan, because they have 
a warrant for his arrest. But better yet, we are doing business with, 
again, a culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence, period.
  One thing I also wanted to say, we are talking about a redeployment, 
i.e., how we are going to have an exit strategy. There are people that 
are running in a December 15 election that will be seated in March, and 
guess what is some of the platform. We want our own independence. There 
was actually a call for the U.S. to give their exit strategy. They are 
ready to go.
  So we are saying that we are there on behalf of democracy. Now they 
have a form of democracy. They are going to have it in March, and we 
are still saying they are not ready. Now we are in judgment of them 
saying they are not ready, but we are saying we want them to have a 
democracy. Just imagine if someone was to come over here to help us and 
say, well, we are not going to leave until we think you are ready to 
govern your own country.
  It goes against the very logic and principles even in our own 
Constitution saying that we want to help democratize other areas, and 
then when it comes down to it, U.S. cities are suffering and the money 
that we are spending over there. When their government is seated and 
one of the actions of business there was we want to govern our own 
country, we can take care of our own problems, better yet, we are going 
to tell them, no, we cannot, and once again, Mr. Murtha is talking 
about redeploying our troops to Kuwait and some other area in case 
there is a threat as it relates to terrorism of the U.S., of the United 
States of America, the flag that we all salute, Mr. Speaker. Then our 
troops will go in and make sure.
  But if there is some sort of war or conflict between different 
factions within Iraq, that is an Iraqi issue. When did that become our 
responsibility? We are not the Congress of the world, and the President 
is not the commander-in-chief of the world. There was not a ballot box 
over in Iraq outside with absentee ballots of our troops sending their 
votes in.
  So I think it is important, as we look at how we are going to deal 
with the gulf States, how are we going to deal with health care, how 
are we going to make sure that small businesses are able to provide on 
behalf of their employees, how are we going make sure that U.S. 
companies are going to be able to stand for their pensions that folks 
signed up for, worked 15 years to find out when the golden 20 or 25 
happens that it is not going to be there for them?

                              {time}  2300

  How are we going to continue to break our promise to veterans when we 
told them what we would do when they retire or they become veterans of 
health care? We are breaking our promises.
  So to talk about the Iraqis and complete victory, I want to have 
complete victory as it relates to veterans; I want to have a complete 
victory as it relates to providing health care, Ms. Wasser-
man Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. Unless you believe 
that the contracting and the culture of corruption and cronyism and 
incompetence is reserved for contracting only in the Iraq gulf coast 
region.
  We have a third-party validator, in the New York Times today, where 
in the gulf coast here we have Rosemary Barbour, the wife of the nephew 
of Haley Barbour, Mississippi's Governor and former Republican National 
Committee chairman, who now has apparently received $6.4 million in 
contracts by her company, and 10 separate contracts from FEMA or the 
General Services Administration without any bid. A no-bid contract.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Now, wait, wait, wait, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 
Can you please say that one more time? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Repeat that. That is unbelievable.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The wife of the nephew of Haley Barbour, 
Mississippi Republican Governor, former RNC chairman, she has received 
$6.4 million in contracts for things like laundry service and showers 
and delivering tents. Not emergency needs 3 months after Katrina hit 
that would seem to require no-bid contracts, but 10 separate contracts 
from FEMA and the General Services Administration, no-bid contracts, of 
$100,000 or more.
  Now, if that is not cronyism.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Culture.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And a culture of corruption.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And incompetence.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That we have been talking about, then I do not 
know what that is.
  Did that contract have to be no bid? What made the wife of the nephew 
of the Governor, who is a former RNC chairman, who just also happens to 
have been a Republican Party activist, what made her the most 
qualified? Coincidentally? Coincidentally? Oh, gee, she just happens to 
be related to the Governor of Mississippi, who is the former RNC 
chairman and who happened to get a no-bid contract, 10 no-bid contracts 
for services that I would not deem emergency, that needed to not take 
the time we would like to require in terms of accountability for 
reviewing contracts and making sure it

[[Page 27745]]

goes to the responsible bidder, the person who is going to provide that 
service in the most economical way.
  I know we are coming in on our last few minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have a few minutes, but the majority treats 
government like it is their own personal sandbox.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, like it is their piggy bank.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Exactly. And they can do whatever they want to do, 
take care of their friends, and do it using the taxpayers' dollars.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And, Mr. Ryan, if we could point to some of 
these things and they could justifiably say these are anomalies, these 
are outlandish things that only happen on occasion, but, look: pages 
and pages. Look how thick this notebook is. I am not making this up.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasser-
man Schultz, you have local contractors. You have local contractors 
that are saying they are not getting work. They are saying they are not 
getting work.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They do not have the connections. That is why 
they are not getting the work.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. They are not getting the work.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the workers are not getting the prevailing 
wage.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. But, meanwhile, say it again before we close. 
Just read what you read about the contracts, just in case some Member 
went and picked up some coffee or something.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The wife of the nephew of the Republican 
Governor of Mississippi, former RNC chairman, $6.4 million in 
contracts, 10 separate contracts from FEMA and the GSA that were no-
bid, for services like providing laundry equipment, delivering tents, 
and maintaining showers for relief workers.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Wait a minute. I think you guys are being a little 
hard on the Governor here, because his press secretary says that ``the 
Governor had no knowledge whatsoever of Rosemary's receiving that 
contract.''
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, just stop.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No, I think you are being a little hard on him. His 
press secretary, Kendrick, said he did not know anything about it. Are 
you saying you do not believe him?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Just because he says it, does not mean it is 
true.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You are saying you do not believe him.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, we are saying there is a continuation of 
the culture of cronyism and corruption, and it is time to give 
government back to the people. And that is what we want to do next 
year, give government back to the people; make sure government can be 
responsive to the people's needs and provide for the needs of the 
people who need the most help.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And time and time again you have the act itself, 
everybody knows what is happening, and then you have the press 
secretary come out, just like the White House press secretary said 
Scooter Libby did not know anything. Karl Rove did not know anything. 
No one knew anything, but the facts say something completely different, 
Mr. Meek.
  And it is a shame that this culture of corruption, cronyism, and 
incompetence is so pervasive throughout the United States Congress and 
our government.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Before you give the Web site out, Mr. Ryan, I 
want to say that for every time we have pointed out a culture of 
corruption and cronyism and incompetence, they are still at work doing 
it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We can do better.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is the sad part.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We can do it together.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Together America can do better and a stronger 
America begins right here at home.
  [email protected]. Thirty, the number, somethingdems@
mail.house.gov.
  Thank you, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Meek, and Ms. Wasser-
man Schultz.

                          ____________________