Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Everybody laughs about it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Back about a week ago in the Miami Herald this is what the CIA said in response to a question posed by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). They said in the Miami Herald, in a commentary on the President's State of the Union address, which would lead one to believe that things were fine and that peace and order and democracy were just around the corner, well, the CIA offices in Iraq, in the field, are warning that the country may be on a path to civil war. And they are very, very concerned and very, very disturbed. Again, it is all about just be honest. The American people can deal with the truth. We can have a debate that is respectful. We can address problems and we can move forward together, but if you do not tell us the truth, that is when we are in trouble.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Today, again, if the 60 Minutes piece is accurate, and I presume it is, it certainly has not been challenged, and Halliburton has declined to be interviewed by them; today, today, to this member of the ``axis of evil'' club, it sells about $40 million a year worth of field services to the Iranian Government so that it can obviously support its oil infrastructure to gather the needed revenue to support whatever programs, whether they be weapons of mass destruction programs, whether they be supporting terrorist organizations anywhere in the Middle East or all over the world, whatever programs the Iranian Government funds through its oil revenue. But that, as that famous radio commentator is wont to say, is only half the story. The subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, and I am reading again from the transcript of this CBS piece, was registered at this address. It was in name only. There is no actual office here or anywhere else in the Cayman Islands, and there are no employees on the site.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the consequences of the Medicare legislation signed into law in December of last year. I must express my profound disappointment with the outcome of a process that originally promised so much hope. Throughout 2003, there was bipartisan enthusiasm and genuine momentum for change that would safeguard the Medicare system and ensure affordable prescription drugs for every American. It seemed as if we might finally make some real progress. Sadly, the Congress--under relentless pressure from the White House and the pharmaceutical industry--squandered the opportunity of a generation. Some have characterized the new law as ``better than nothing.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. This was bad legislation, enacted in an underhanded manner. It is extremely expensive, but does little to actually bring down out-of-pocket consumer costs. The consensus for reform was shredded in favor of a complicated system designed by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. Only a handful of congressional Members even saw the final 700-page document, made available barely an hour before floor debate. Although the bill was initially defeated after the normal 15-minute voting period, the Speaker simply refused to gavel the vote to a close. After more than three excruciating hours--the longest vote ever in the history of the U.S. Congress--he finally closed the vote only after enough arms were twisted to change the outcome. Even then, at 6 a.m. that Saturday in November, the bill passed by only five votes. And with the bill now law, the strongest defense from proponents seems to be: ``Don't worry, no one has to sign up, it's all voluntary.'' That's hardly reassuring for millions of seniors in urgent need. Because this ``reform'' does far more to inflate the Federal budget than to help senior citizens or the Medicare program, I voted against it. There is so much wrong with this package that it's hard to know where to begin. First, it doesn't offer much real prescription drug coverage. To enroll in the new Part D coverage, you must pay an estimated $35 monthly premium--and still meet an annual $250 deductible. Up to $2,200, you also pay 25 percent of the drug costs. After that, you face a coverage gap (the infamous ``doughnut hole'') where you pay 100 percent until costs reach $5,044. In other words, older and disabled people will have to spend nearly $4,000 for the first $5,000 of annual coverage--paying nearly 80 percent of their prescription drug costs to get any substantial benefit at all. And, these are only first-year estimates; the out-of-pocket cost is expected to rise every year thereafter. Incredibly, however, if you participate in the new prescription drug benefit, you will not be permitted to buy any kind of supplemental insurance (like Medigap) to cover your share of the costs. Medicare will cover only drugs on a list of preferred ``formulary'' medicines; and drugs purchased outside the list will not be counted toward your deductible. On top of all that, the new benefit doesn't even take effect until the year 2006, more than 2 years away. This fact was scarcely mentioned by the bill's proponents during the congressional debate. Seniors need help now, not cynical and uncertain promises for later. In the meantime, the interim discount cards paraded by the administration promise only small savings for the consumer--if you can figure out how they work. It's not clear who will offer the cards, what the discounts will be, when and for how long the cards will be available. These decisions will be driven by--believe it or not--the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies and other business entities. The potential card issuers are not required to pass along any resulting savings to consumers. Once enrolled, you must stay with the card for at least a year, even if the issuer stops discounting the medication you need. It gets worse. This bill does not remotely pretend to address the fundamental issue: the crushing cost of prescription medication. Rather than leveraging the enormous buying power of millions of Medicare recipients, the new law actually bars market competition. And, let's be clear, this legislation was authored by partisans who swear by the catechism of the free market. As enacted, the bill explicitly prohibits Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry for better prices and deeper discounts. We know negotiated discounts can work. When the VA negotiates on behalf of this country's veterans, their drug prices drop significantly. It is mind-boggling that 40 million seniors are being deprived--by law--of the same leverage. Moreover, the bill blocks reimportation of U.S.-produced drugs from other countries at lower prices. It claims to allow Canadian imports, but only if the Food and Drug Administration formally certifies their safety, which is unlikely to ever happen. The FDA has already stubbornly resisted reimportation, forcing local Councils on Aging and dozens of cities and States to take matters into their own hands-- although there is not a single documented case of injury resulting from U.S.-produced drugs that have been reimported from Canada. In fairness, the bill postponed a scheduled 4.5-percent cut in physician reimbursement for Medicare services--easing fears of a wholesale abandonment of Medicare patients. The legislation will ensure physicians receive a 3-percent increase in payments over the next 2 years. However, this is not nearly enough to protect Medicare beneficiaries' access to quality health care providers. And, the bill actually complicates problems that oncologists face in getting adequate reimbursement for crucial cancer drugs and obstacles confronting patients who need access to inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Despite the coverage limits and other shortfalls, the cost of the legislation is spectacular--projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to exceed $2 trillion over 10 years. At the same time, homeland security and recent tax cuts have already forced dramatic increases in the Federal deficit, now almost $400 billion. That is a shocking number, especially when you consider that just three years ago, the budget was boasting a healthy surplus. Moreover, many fear this new law could lead down a dangerous road toward privatization of Medicare and even Social Security. We saw a similar experiment fail dramatically with Medicare+Choice several years ago, when HMOs and other providers dropped out of the system as soon as costs escalated--leaving seniors to fend for themselves. This new law poses similar risks. It breaks my heart that the Congress could not achieve real Medicare reform that addressed prescription drug costs. As I look back on my four House terms, very few votes stand out as genuinely historic in consequence. Along with Presidential impeachment and the Iraq war resolution, the vote on this bill is such a watershed moment. The White House achieved this ``victory'' by deluding seniors about the impending relief--in the process, jeopardizing hope of genuine reform in the foreseeable future. As the House reconvenes, I will resume my work with colleagues on both sides of the partisan aisle to address problems with the new law. Older Americans have raised their voices effectively in the legislative arena before. In 1989, a deeply flawed catastrophic benefits bill was repealed. Almost a decade ago, we struggled successfully to restore Medicare cuts that savaged home health care locally and across the Nation. This time, we can expect a steep uphill battle. In his State of the Union address this week, the President vowed to veto any amendments to the new Medicare law. To amend even the most egregious provisions of this bill will require every ounce of outrage we can collectively muster. As cochair of the Older Americans Caucus, a bipartisan group of colleagues focused on issues of particular significance to seniors, please count on my continued and vigorous commitment. I am already working with key House colleagues on specific legislation to repeal the new law's barriers to drug reimportation and negotiated discounts.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. And come to the streets and the communities and the neighborhoods in this country. There is one statistic the gentleman might be interested in. Since our intervention 2 years ago in Afghanistan, opium production has increased 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin. Who is retreating? I want to win, and I know you want to win. That opium production will fuel terrorism. By the way, President Karzai, whom I believe is a man of great courage, it is well known among all the international observers and participants in the efforts to assist Afghanistan that he cannot leave Kabul for fear of being assassinated. His brother, who represents the government in southern Kandahar, which is a province in Afghanistan, was very blunt to a reporter. He said recently, ``It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem. What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. There have been no significant changes for the people.'' Hamid Karzai says he does not know what to say to people anymore. And who is retreating? Who is allowing terrorism to experience a renaissance, if you will, in Afghanistan, after the promises were made by this administration?

Mr. DELAHUNT. What is refreshing is within the past 2 or 3 weeks there has been some candor on the part of representatives of the administration. In a recent story in the Washington Post back on November 19, the new U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan made this acknowledgment: He gave the administration's bleakest assessment yet of security conditions in Afghanistan, saying that a regrouping of the Taliban and al Qaeda, increased drug trafficking, and even common criminals are hampering Karsai in the transition to democracy. Taliban rebels have dramatically stepped up operations in recent months, and Khalilzad, who is our Ambassador, said, ``Common criminals and al Qaeda followers are increasingly active.'' Just be honest with the American people. Do not talk about Congress not supporting the war on terror or Democrats not supporting the war on terror or selected Republicans not supporting the war on terror. Every American has an interest in defeating those that would attack this country. Do not question motives. Do not question people's patriotism. Do not question the effort to create a policy. Many of us including myself and the gentleman from Hawaii opposed American intervention in Iraq, and I stand by that decision proudly. But now that we are there, do not politicize the efforts that are being made to deal with these egregious conditions in Iraq and in Afghanistan when this administration has made promises to those people and to the American people and are not living up to them. What I found fascinating was a secret memo, a secret memorandum, that was authored by the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, who was widely known or at least widely believed to be an ardent hawk about military intervention; who, along with the Vice President and Under Secretary Wolfowitz, told the American people that our military personnel would be greeted with flowers and bands and welcomed as liberators. But now the reality has set in. And in a secret memorandum, Secretary Rumsfeld is expressing concerns about whether we are winning the war on terrorism, and he posed two interesting questions in this secret memorandum that was leaked so the American people could find out what was going on in terms of the administration's honest assessment. ``Are we winning or losing the global war on terror?'' was one of the questions. And ``Is our current situation such that the harder we work, the behinder we get?'' It is indeed unfortunate that politics would be allowed to play a role in decisions where not just America tax dollars of a magnitude that will clearly at a point in our future become a drag on our economy because we are borrowing those dollars, remember, and the grant we gave them, we are not going to get it back. But even more importantly, our men and women find themselves at risk in terms of their personal safety every day. This is not a place for politics. This is not a place for attack ads. And I dare say that if that is the strategy that is being designed by the President's political advisor, it will backfire, because the American people, they get it. They really get it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet months ago the White House was attempting to call Afghanistan a success stories; but they failed to commit the necessary resources, and now we have a chaotic and increasingly dangerous country where violence is the norm, where the Taliban is returning, and one can only see that we are on the verge of repeating the same mistake in Iraq. Can Members just imagine in terms of the prestige and the influence of the United States, not just in that region but all over the Muslim world, as well as the entire globe, what would happen in terms of the erosion of our stature. There was a very good analytical piece done by a columnist by the name of Jake Kaplan, and I want to quote what he said 4 or 5 months ago. ``As we reconsider reconstruction plans in Iraq and the administration promises to democratize the country, it is worth taking a look at our liberalization of Afghanistan. A year later, many of the atrocities we thought would stop still continue, and even Bush's allies in the Senate on Afghanistan think we have undercommitted to efforts that could truly change that country for the better. 'Afghanistan's experience does not bode very well for the upcoming one,' said Steven Burke of the Center for International Conflict Resolution, who just returned from 16 days in Afghanistan in early March. It is a country that needs attention and commitment, but there is an inclination to withdraw.'' And there is an ad that says that Congress is retreating? Who are these people that are retreating from the war on terror? And yet no dollars in the 2003 budget submitted by the administration were incorporated into that budget for Afghanistan, and that ad runs? That is more than an untruth.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I do not want those that might be watching us this evening having this conversation to think that simply because you and I are Democrats that there are not concerns that have been expressed by Members in the majority party. There was an article that appeared in a magazine that circulates here in Washington particularly among Members and those that work on Capitol Hill. This is back several weeks ago in Roll Call. The article is entitled, ``As Supplemental Heads to Conference, Members Warn of Cautionary Tale in Afghanistan.'' Members are using the war-torn nation as an example of what not to do in Iraq. ``Remember, Afghanistan was the haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda,'' I am quoting now from Representative Jim Kolbe, chair of the Appropriations Committee in this body on foreign relations. He said there has been some neglect of it. He was referring to the 2-year U.S. effort to rebuild Afghanistan after toppling its repressive and terrorist-shielding Taliban government. Representative Lewis, our colleague from California who chairs the appropriations subcommittee on defense, said, ``One really does need to understand the challenges we face in Iraq. We should not leave vacuums like we did in Afghanistan. A failed state there could be an incubator for terrorism again but the resources have not always followed the policy.'' Again, there is Senator Lugar.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is called winning the hearts and minds of the people, I presume.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And they made the same, and continue to make the same, mistake in Afghanistan. After more than 18 months now, only about 7,000 troops have completed training under British and French and American officers. That program has been delayed by desertions and political interference from Afghan warlords. At this point in time, it was estimated there would be 50 or 60,000 in the Afghan police and in the Afghan military. And they expect that they are going to have in June a national election. If they have a national election, one can only imagine the magnitude of violence that will occur. We are losing the war on terror, Mr. President. We are not retreating. What we are imploring you to do is to consult with Congress. Do not consider Congress as a nuisance. Listen to the Jim Leaches, to the Chuck Hagels, to the John McCains, and to others that have valuable insights in terms of what war is truly about and, most importantly, how to make peace and protect the Americans and our national security interests, and tell the RNC to take that ad off, because it is a lie. It is not just an untruth.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, they still cannot find the weapons of mass destruction. And, by the way, I do not know if the American people are aware of this, but it has cost and will cost the American taxpayer simply to look, to secure the experts, secure the expertise, to look for these weapons of mass destruction, which by now there is an overwhelming consensus that they do not exist and that they never existed. It is costing the American taxpayers $1 billion. Just think of what $1 billion could do for Hawaii or for Massachusetts. I mean, I guess, that is a subject for another night.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let us remember for a moment this it was practically a unanimous vote with one exception, over 400 Members of this House voted to support, the gentleman and I included, to support the intervention in Afghanistan because, clearly, there was a haven for the terrorists there. There were al Qaeda camps there. There was al Qaeda training there. But now let us stop for a moment and examine what has happened in Afghanistan. What has happened in Afghanistan, if this administration is really serious about the war on terror, we are facing a crisis in Afghanistan. They have the responsibility. I do not know if the gentleman is aware, but after the overwhelming victory by the military in Afghanistan, in the 2003 budget the dollars that were appropriated or recommended by the administration for reconstruction and support for Afghanistan amounted to nothing, not a single dollar. Fortunately, this House and this Senate appropriated some $800 million. But stop for a moment and realize that those that attacked the United States on 9/11, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, those terrorists that were clearly posing an imminent and direct threat to Americans everywhere, and still do, are multiplying like fishes and loaves, were headquartered in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban regime. It has been 2 years, and what is happening in Afghanistan?

Mr. DELAHUNT. And the American people should know that the Taliban and al Qaeda are experiencing a resurgence in the border area of Afghanistan with Pakistan. They are coming back. We are on the verge of losing the war against terror. We are not retreating, but we are finding ourselves on the verge of losing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The question is, I dare say, who is in charge? For me, it was an interesting Sunday morning when I listened to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, again another highly-respected Republican with considerable experience in terms of foreign relations, along with the senior Democrat on the committee, Senator Joe Biden. When Senator Biden made the statement that the President should take charge, and Tim Russet, who happened to be the moderator, asked whether that was good and necessary advice, Senator Lugar, the Republican Senator from the State of Indiana who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said yes, it is, it is very necessary. I concur with my colleague, the President has to be the President, that means the President over the Vice President and other Secretaries. Lugar had just had enough of the administration's divided voices, especially the Vice President's which he described, when referring to the Vice President, ``very, very tough and strident.'' To put out an ad in Iowa during a Presidential Campaign suggesting it was either the Democrats or Congress that wanted to retreat on the war on terror, no, that is not the case. None of us want to retreat, we want to win, we do not want to lose, and we are looking at defeat right now. Many that are watching here tonight clearly are familiar with Senator McCain who served this country heroically and courageously in Vietnam as a pilot, who served for many years as a prisoner of war, and he criticized, as reported in USA Today, just about a month ago, McCain criticized the Bush Administration conduct of the Iraq war yesterday, saying the U.S. should send at least 15,000 more troops, or risk the most significant global defeat on the world stage since Vietnam. McCain said Bush must be more involved in Iraqi decisionmaking and not be influenced by the upcoming Presidential campaign. McCain also challenged the Rumsfeld assertion that the 132,000 American troops in Iraq can defeat the insurgency in the country. This is again Senator McCain's words, ``The simple truth is we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DELAHUNT. Who, in many respects, was the single most ardent supporter of a leading member of the Iraqi Governing Council, whose name is Ahmed Chalabi. And I do not know how this happened, but he was appointed by the administration to the Iraqi Governing Council without any consultation with another of our allies in the region, the Government of Jordan. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman is aware of this, but I daresay many who might be watching this are unaware of it, but Mr. Chalabi was convicted in Jordan for embezzlement in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. He was sentenced in absentia, and received a sentence of 22 years. He is a convicted felon. Again, I do not want to get into issues that I think we both agree do not really go to the heart of our policy but reflect the failures of the management of the so-called war against terror.

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is the same Richard Perle, my friend, who was the former chair but then resigned because of concerns about conflict of interest.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am aware of the gentleman's expertise in terms of issues involving national security. I do not know whether the gentleman had an opportunity to read just recently the fact that we are now, for the next 6 months, under the benchmark in terms of readiness as far as our Army is concerned. And yet we have members of the administration, an Under Secretary of State and others, such as Richard Perle, who is the former chair of the Defense Policy Board, insinuating that if Syria does not get its act together, they might be the next one subject to a military intervention by the United States. But having said that, I just want to go again back so that those who are listening are aware that that ad attacking Congress, and presumably Democrats, is just simply untrue.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, the best evidence of that are the recent attacks both in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, one of our erstwhile allies in the region, who has been supportive of the United States in the war on terror, who has been supportive of our natural ally in the State of Israel. And what we are beginning to see is the spread of terrorism far from just Iraq, but everywhere around the world. However, others, again from both parties, have articulated a criticism. Chuck Hagel, another veteran, someone who has experienced combat in Vietnam, a highly regarded, well-respected Senator, made this statement back in September, again on a national TV program. In response to the question, ``Did the administration miscalculate the difficulty of this war?,'' this is what Senator Hagel said: ``Yes, they did miscalculate it. I think they did a miserable job of planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. They treated most in the Congress like a nuisance when we asked questions.'' Well, I think it is incumbent upon the President of the United States to respond to the questions that the people's representatives in both branches of Congress pose, because it is the people of the United States that are losing their sons and daughters in Iraq. To date we have already appropriated in excess of $165 billion that will be paid for by future generations. And what do we see? We see a deteriorating situation.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, who happened to be a decorated hero, a military hero; someone who fought for his country with great bravery and valor. That is the kind of individual that my colleague is talking about.

Mr. DELAHUNT. From either the Republican side or the Democratic side.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to my good friend and a member of the Iraq Watch, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, In a recent speech, the President described democracy as when ``governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite.'' Well, Well. For the past four years, the House has voted to end the ban on travel by Americans to Cuba. This year, the Senate overwhelmingly supported an identical provision. But it's not in the bill before us now. The President wants to keep the embargo intact, and believes that respecting the right of Americans to travel to Cuba would be a concession to Castro. A majority in both the House and Senate disagree. Our fundamental rights as Americans should never be viewed as a bargaining chip. When the Congress clashes with the White House, the President can do what he threatened to do: veto the bill. Sadly, his agents in Congress took a more cowardly path. Quietly and secretly, they took the conference report and had the provision erased. No debate. No vote. No democracy. All so the President doesn't have to decide whether to fulfill or break his promises to veto the bill. Recently, during his visit to Britain, the President said that democratic governments honor the aspirations and dignity of their own people. I submit that the best place to lead by example is in this Capitol building. This is now bigger than the Cuba debate. This is about the fundamental credibility of the legislative branch of our government. If the outcome is predetermined by the White House, no matter how many rules get broken in the process, then let's suspend the sermons on democracy. If the fix is in, let's stop pretending. Senator Hagel has said the White House treats Congress like a nuisance. I ask my colleagues, is that all we are? If this institution is to be more than a mere nuisance, then allow democracy to work. Here. And now. When the Congress votes to end the Cuba travel ban, send the provision to the President. And let the system work as the founding fathers intended. That would show what democracy is really all about.