Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, what we need is the Congress to reassert itself, coming together on a bipartisan basis and demanding oversight because, you know what, this administration is the most secretive administration in all of American history. Let me make one final quote, to take one final quote from another Republican, from the Midwest, from the farm belt, Senator Hagel from Nebraska. He had this to say back in 2004. This is not a Democrat. This is his language. This administration has seen Congress as an enemy and a constitutional nuisance. The world right now is in trouble, and we need to have a Congress and a President and an executive branch that is working together. Amen.

Mr. DELAHUNT. How long does it take to train a Marine?

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, if I can ask a question, who is paying for the creation or the establishment of all of those primary health care centers in Iraq? Who is paying for that?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Over 10 years

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am confused. Again, maybe one of my colleagues or somebody could contact my office or contact the Web site and explain to us what it will mean in terms of the delivery of health care to older Americans if that $40 billion cut is accepted. Let us remember, by the way, and I think we really should acknowledge our respect for a group of Republicans that comprise the Republican Study Committee, there are in excess, I understand, of 100 Republican Members who belong to this particular group who have the political courage, and I think we should acknowledge that, to stand up and say, if they had their way, they would really cut Medicare. This is their proposal: they would increase Medicare part B premiums from 25 to 30 percent. What that translates into, my friends, is a cut over 10 years of $85 billion to Medicare, imposing a huge burden on seniors. But that is not the end of what the Republican Study Committee budget would do. They would restructure Medicare's cost-sharing requirement over a 10-year period; that would be an $87 billion cut. They would go further by imposing a home health care copayment of 10 percent, and that translates into almost a $32 billion cut. Now, if my math is correct, that amounts to, or that is a cut over 10 years, that this particular group would embrace, in excess of $200 billion to Medicare. Now, maybe you can help me. I keep hearing how health care costs are continuing to rise and are escalating. And yet, this particular group, the Republican Study Committee budget, if their plan was adopted while health care costs are increasing, they would reduce Medicare funding by $200 billion according to the budget that they announced several months ago in terms of what they were calling Operation Offset. Now, obviously, we would never, I cannot imagine a single Democrat supporting that particular approach, but I think, Mr. Speaker, we should acknowledge the courage that they have, or not courage, but at least their willingness to be open and transparent and provide us with their blueprint for America, despite the fact that I do not think there is a Democrat, I know there is not a Democrat that would support it. But what do all these cuts mean?

Mr. DELAHUNT. The entire country wants to have those questions posed, and let us be fair. There are Republicans, there are noted conservatives. We all know William F. Buckley, the founder of the Nation, a respected conservative journalist. When he heard what he has heard, he made this statement: If I knew then, meaning around the time of the debate on the war resolution, what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I, William F. Buckley, would have opposed the war. That should resonate among the Republican leadership and particularly the White House, but they do not want to acknowledge that they have made mistake after mistake after mistake and are compounding it, are driving our economy into a structural deficit in an order of magnitude that we have never seen, that we will never get out of, and most importantly, the lives that have been lost and the men and women that are permanently damaged by this war of choice.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, there are some things that we do know. We know this, that there was a debate on this floor several years ago where billions of dollars were appropriated to rebuild Iraq. And those of us on the Democratic side supported that funding, if, if it were going to be provided in the form of a loan because we were concerned about American taxpayers being repaid their money. But the Republican leadership, at the insistence of the White House, said, No way; we are going to give this money to Iraq. So what we have done, and I think there is an irony here, we have provided free of charge, no interest, no money to be returned, we have provided good health care for Iraqis. We have built 110 primary health care centers. We have educated 2,000 health care professionals. We have vaccinated 3.2 million children. And I think we all applaud that and support that. We have rehabilitated 2,700 schools. We have paid the salaries and trained 36,000 teachers in Iraq. We have provided $1 billion for safe drinking water and we have marshland restoration initiatives going on in Iraq. We have built, or we have completed some 3,100 community action programs. We have provided millions for the construction of housing and public buildings for Iraqi citizens. We have rebuilt railways for Iraqis. And you know what else we did? We rehabilitated a canal system. We built a dam, a beautiful dam, a dam that will hopefully serve well the Iraqi people. We built this dam in Mosul. At the same time, we are cutting millions from the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levee construction in Louisiana, Mr. Speaker, in Louisiana. We did that free of charge. Now, we support it. But you know what? We would hope, given the abundance of energy reserves that the Iraqis have that they would pay us back once they get on their feet. But, no, you know, here is the President that said he didn't believe in nation building. I did not know he was talking about America. But he must believe it when it comes to Iraq. How about doing it for our fellow citizens in Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas that have been devastated by natural disaster?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I want to commend all of you for your eloquence, your commitment. I think you ought to describe, you know, how this particular group was formed. I know I really speak for the other members of the Democratic Caucus when I say that we are very proud of your commitment, your hard work, and your dedication to the American people, because you are 30-something. You are all under 40. But it is really impressive. And I have to tell you that in many ways you are leaders now, but I am confident that you represent the future; and as more and more people listen to you, particularly people of your generation, they are going to think about these issues in a more serious way. They are going to educate themselves, because you are presenting reality. You know, I would describe what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) said is that tragically there is a great difference between walking the walk and talking the talk. It is great to talk about patriotism. You are right. There is going to be a lot of speeches on November 11, and terms and phrases such as a ``debt of gratitude'' to our veterans, to the men and women that have served this country and are currently serving our country now, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or in the multiple deployments of our armed services. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is so right. The reality is that when they come home, will they have good quality health care available to them? Will they have access to the kind of care that they deserve? Will they receive the benefits that the generations that served in World War II, that served in the Korean War, in Vietnam have? And the gentleman is right. There just simply are not the resources there. We can paper it over by passing supplementary or emergency budgets just to get through a difficult time. But I would suggest to our veterans to listen to their leadership and what they have said about the budget proposals on veterans' health care that have been put forth time and time and time again by the Republican Party in this House. We all see letters describing them in various terms. Now, I am speaking of the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America. The word that comes to my mind is a disgrace, a shame, and a dishonor to the veterans. The gentleman speaks about third party validators to corroborate the facts as we are presenting them. Do not listen to us. Go to the leadership of these veterans service organizations if you are a veteran and ask. Unfortunately, what we are saying is truthful and accurate, and I would suggest that while we might be talking the talk, what reveals our real character is the commitment that we make. We can go and speak to the troops and tell them that we care, but we all have to make some sacrifice. We have an all-volunteer Army and we are comfortable here. And most people in this country, because of the policies of this government, are not involved in the sacrifices that are currently being made by our military personnel all over the world. We owe it to them. It is just not policy. It is a moral obligation. We speak of values. And I daresay that when we turn our backs by our actions on our veterans that we are not living up to the values and the moral authority that we proclaim again and again. We are indulging in hypocrisy, and that is all too sad.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But that did not happen, did it?

Mr. DELAHUNT. There are 228 Republican members here in this Chamber.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield for a moment, I do not know if you are aware or had the opportunity to read the editorial today from the New York Times, but it follows with what we read in the Congressional A.M., so to speak. Let me just read the first paragraph here: That rare bird, the moderate Republican lawmaker, is suddenly in sight, forcefully objecting to the House leadership's abominable package of budget cuts. The 5-year, $54 billion proposal is headed for a floor vote this week disguised as an overdue act of fiscal responsibility and government savings. In truth, it is so over-the-top in its inequities and giveaways that embarrassed moderates are actually rebelling, withholding support unless some of the more outrageous measures are killed. Again, we do not know what is going to happen this week. The Republicans are having discussions intraparty, clearly without any consultation with our side of the aisle, but we know that is the rule rather than the exception. What we do know, however, is that the Senate Finance Committee reported a bill that cut Medicare, not Medicaid but Medicare, by $5.7 billion over 5 years and by $40 billion over 10 years. What does that mean? What can those such as myself who will shortly be eligible for Medicare at age 65 expect in terms of Medicare? There is a group within the Republican caucus called the Republican Study Group. They came in with a proposal to defer that so-called prescription drug benefit for 2 years. I think we are going into very uncertain times, uncharted waters, if you will.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I would just make another observation. Again, we hear much in terms of our public discourse about values and about responsibility towards our fellow citizens, and yet, I was really struck by a headline that appeared in USA Today last week. The headline was ``Louisiana Cannot Pay Katrina and Rita Bills.'' The Federal Government is requiring the State of Louisiana to come up with almost $4 billion as its share for relief from the devastation of those two hurricanes. They have no tax base left practically. New Orleans we know has been devastated. The entire annual budget for the State of Louisiana is $8 billion. It is as if we are turning our back on other Americans, and yet we are giving away billions of dollars without any strings attached, with no matching fund requirements when it comes to Iraq. Madam Speaker, we are paying for roads in Iraq. We are paying for affordable housing in Iraq. We are paying for dams and levees in Iraq. The American taxpayer will not see a dime in return, and yet, when it comes to our fellow citizens, we are saying if you want that share, come up with $4 billion that they do not have.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important for those who might be viewing our conversation right now for you to explain what you mean by negotiating down in what was in the original prescription drug so- called part D benefit plan that most of us voted against because of its cost and because of the fact that it does not really deliver what senior citizens need in terms of their prescription drugs.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Because of the bulk purchasing power.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can someone explain to me, anybody, why the oil companies, that had revenues in the last quarter of some $100 billion, each and every one of them saw huge increases in terms of their net profits, why they need subsidies?

Mr. DELAHUNT. The oil companies are a good place to begin.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Members should be aware of the fact that the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, it was reported, recently said that if the information had been available, he doubted that the resolution authorizing the invasion into Iraq would have passed the United States Senate. That, to me, really spoke volumes. But if I could just for one moment get back to a point that was raised by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) earlier, and if he could again just show that chart to our friends and colleagues. Let us just read the title again. ``President Bush does in 4 years what 42 presidents managed in 224 years,'' and that is borrow from foreign governments, borrow from foreign governments the moneys needed to finance the war and finance a tax cut that is primarily created to benefit 1 percent of the American people. Now, the President speaks of an ``ownership society.'' We have heard that term before. I think it was interpreted by most of the American people that they would have the American dream realized for themselves and their children. But what is happening is America is being mortgaged. America is being sold. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are aware of this and many of our colleagues, that when debt issues from the Treasury Department, who is purchasing that debt? It is the Chinese Central Bank, the Japanese Central Bank, the Korean Central Bank, individuals and governments in the Middle East. We are being bought by foreign governments that do not share our values. So not only are we becoming economically dependent on this debt that is being purchased by, in some cases, potential adversaries, but we are eroding our own national security. What if we have political differences with any of these nations? We constantly hear from the Republicans a concern about Taiwan and what the Chinese are doing in the Formosa Straits. There is a lot of chest-thumping about we cannot let that happen. But if we get right down to it, we are beholden to the Chinese Central Bank. We are selling our country to foreign interests. That is why this is so shocking. Now it is something that I dare say most Americans do not understand, but it is the reality. If the Chinese wish to leverage our political decisions, all they have to do is say, ``We are not going to continue to finance your debt, the debt that you used to give tax cuts that benefited in a disproportionate way to the billionaires, the 1 percent of Americans.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am just so impressed with my friend from Nevada, and I really do mean that so sincerely, to come here and to acknowledge that the vote that was taken 3 years ago was a mistake because the American people and Members of Congress were misled. It is that simple.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If you think about it in terms of individuals and then extrapolate to nations, it is really easy to understand. We are borrowing a trillion dollars. Let us say we are borrowing, just for the sake of discussion purposes, half of that from the Chinese Central Bank, the Communist Central Chinese Bank. As you indicate, they are educating some 600,000 engineers. How do they pay for that? Well, you know how they paid for part of it? The American taxpayer, Mr. Speaker. When they pay the interest on the debt to the Chinese, that allows the Chinese to fund the education of some 600,000 students in technical schools in China.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my colleagues something about corruption. My colleagues have not seen anything yet.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, we are paying for their education in China. We are paying for roads, 6,000 miles of roads in Iraq, 5,000 units of affordable housing, Mr. Speaker, in Iraq. We are paying for, you know, primary health care centers in Iraq; and you know what we are doing in the United States? We are cutting everything. We built a beautiful dam, a magnificent dam, an absolute ultimate in terms of engineering to prevent flooding. And we are familiar now with floods. Clearly, the people in New Orleans, Mr. Speaker, are very, very familiar with floods. There was a problem with a levee in New Orleans in terms of the structural defects. But the one that I am talking about, the dam that I am talking about, that engineering marvel that we built with taxpayer dollars, American taxpayer dollars, was not built in New Orleans. It was built in Mosul, Iraq. Where are our priorities?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it has become clear to us, and, again, also I think it is important to note that many on the other side of the aisle have started to speak out. I know that requires considerable courage and that has to be acknowledged. But it is clear that if there could be an appropriate description of this administration, put aside philosophical differences, the fact is that they reflect an ideology that really in many respects is outside of the traditional, mainstream of Republican principles. But the word that I would use to characterize it is that, yes, it is cronyism, but at a fundamental level it has been an administration that has been incompetent. So this is a question of ability to govern. We know that they do not like government. They see government as a problem. They do not like to govern. So I guess it is understandable. They want to starve government. They want to limit it. And that is a valid argument. But there are times in this country when you need government. You need a strong military. You need to be prepared to defend the homeland. You need the kind of programs that can be run forthrightly, honestly and effectively that give every American a chance; a chance for an education, a chance for housing, for health care. I think that this is all part of what we become when we are born as American citizens. We are participants in a social compact that says we are individuals and we have individual liberties and we will always advocate for those liberties, we will fight for those freedoms. But, at the same time, we have mutual responsibilities to each other. That is the essence of our greatness. But if you do not like government, if you do not see a role for government, then you do not do a very good job when it comes to governance.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But the reality is, my friend, that they are taking good care of the oil companies. They are providing $16.5 billion in subsidies to the oil companies that are breaking all kinds of records in terms of profits. I cited the example of ExxonMobil, but that is only one out of four or five. In one quarter, in 3 months, their net profit was $10 billion. Mr. Speaker, the truth is, and the facts are very clear, that the majority party, the Republicans in Congress, do believe in the welfare state. They are advocates of the welfare state, but it is restricted. It is restricted to a constituency, and that constituency is corporate America. Not small business America, not even midsized business, but the very largest corporations, whether they be pharmaceutical companies that they have given more than $100 billion worth of taxpayers' money in subsidies, but also oil companies, at the same time when oil companies are breaking records.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what the tragedy of this is? Let us put aside for a moment indictments and a discussion of who might be indicted in the future or misconduct that violates criminal statutes. What is truly unfortunate here is that we have reached a point where there is a culture that exists here in Washington where if there is disagreement, if there is dissent that it is described as unpatriotic. We have heard that I think earlier this evening on the floor, the inference being that if there is any dissent or disagreement, somehow motives can be inferred that that courageous individual, in my judgment, who speaks out in opposition is somehow unpatriotic. There was an interesting article or column just recently by Jim Hoagland in The Washington Post where he said, Mr. President, he wrote a letter to President Bush, he said, Mr. President, would it not have been easier if you had just wrote a letter to the editor in response to the opinion piece that was produced by Mr. Wilson? Would that not have been welcomed by the American people, by Members of Congress? But what has happened is no, let us design a plan to impugn that individual's integrity. Let us try to destroy that individual. Let us try to discredit him or her. That is not what democracy is about. In fact, today I read the White House had prepared a series of talking points attacking the former National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, who recently went public in saying that the policies of this Bush administration as it relates to Iraq and the Middle East are a failure. They were preparing, according to Mr. Hoagland's column, talking points to attack him. We have got to get away from this politics of destruction and ad hominem attacks and questioning individuals's patriotism. That is not what we are about.