Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am here, and I anticipate being joined by several Members, to discuss the issues that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) was discussing, the gentleman, who commands great respect in this body and one who clearly possesses a profound knowledge of international relationships, and at the same time provides a perspective and an analysis that should be instructive and informative to all Americans. I think he had 23 points. I do not know whether he has any additional points he wishes to make, but if he does, I would be happy to yield to him. It would appear that he does not. But again, let me acknowledge his contribution to the debate. Myself and my colleagues for some weeks now, I think, on more than 20 occasions during the course of the time that is reserved after legislative business is concluded, the so-called ``special orders'' time, have come to the floor and we have labeled this particular initiative, the Iraq Watch. And, hopefully, we have had among us a conversation that has been both informative for the audience, as well as educational for the Members of the House in terms of this issue that, clearly, has a huge impact on the American people, both in terms of lives and the safety of our military personnel in Iraq, but also clearly in terms of our economy. It is ironic that it was the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) as I said, a very respected member of the Republican Party, who just left the floor, who spoke I believe so eloquently, and I daresay that I share many of the concerns and would agree with much of what he said. But having said that, recently in his home State, Iowa, there was an advertisement on behalf of the Bush Presidential Campaign; and I understand it was paid for by the Republican National Committee. It was titled ``Reality'' and it was a 30-second clip. There were some comments by the President, and I understand there were some snippets of speeches that the President had made regarding Iraq specifically and presumably the war on terrorists. There was also an announcer, a voice overlay, if you will, not an individual who appeared on the ad, but someone who would comment after the snippet of the President was viewed by the audience. And what the announcer said caused me to be disturbed, because the announcer said, and I am quoting from that snippet, ``Some now are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.'' The announcer then went on to say that, ``Some called for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others.'' And then the announcer instructed, ``Call Congress now.'' I am confused, because during the entire debate, not just regarding Iraq, not just regarding Afghanistan, but all of the debate subsequent to September 11, I never heard from a single Member on either side of the aisle that we should retreat and put our national security in the hands of others. That simply was untrue. That ad was not misleading; it was an untruth. Now, have many of us questioned the policy regarding Iraq, regarding the war on terror? Well, yes. An unequivocal yes. And as I said, ironically, we heard this earlier this evening from the preceding speaker, a well-regarded, well-respected, thoughtful member of the House Committee on International Relations who happens to be a subcommittee chair and one who voted against the resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. He certainly is not calling for any retreat, and neither am I, and neither is any Democrat. But, again, I know many of us on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, are concerned about the competence and what we see as a policy that is failing, which will translate not into a retreat but a defeat in terms of the war on terror. I understand that that particular 30-second ad is no longer running. Well, that is good. The questions that are being posed to the President and to his administration are not just coming from Democrats. The displeasure, the disappointment, the criticism, the concern is not coming from Democrats. It is a view that is shared by many. Now, many Americans, clearly many in this Chamber, remember the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Newt Gingrich. And clearly many Americans are familiar with the junior Senator from New York, the former First Lady, the wife of the former President, Bill Clinton. And all of us know that it would be a rare moment where they would agree on anything. Well, they happen to agree on the policy of this administration when it comes to Iraq, because yesterday it was the former House Speaker on a Sunday TV magazine program who stated that the Bush administration has gone, and I am quoting Newt Gingrich, ``Off the cliff in postwar Iraq, and the White House has to get a grip on this.'' These are not my words; these are the words of the former Speaker of the House, the former leader of the Republican Party in this House, Mr. Newt Gingrich, that often sat, Mr. Speaker, in the same chair that you are now sitting in presiding over this House. Well, on this particular occasion, Senator Clinton said she agreed with Mr. Gingrich. She blamed the administration for miscalculating and inept planning in Iraq. But those two are not alone.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me just say this, I think all of us voted to intervene militarily in Afghanistan. And I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) did because we did have a right to intervene militarily there. We knew that al Qaeda had found a safe haven provided for bit extremist Taliban government. We had every right. Unfortunately, because of the impetus to intervene in Iraq and the decision to intervene militarily in Iraq, we now find ourselves with a real mess, parts of that $87 billion mess in Iraq. And the comments from both sides of the aisle, from people like Senator Hagel, Senator Lugar, people such as the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and others respected, deplore and have articulated their profound concern about the fact that Afghanistan, where we should be with substantial force, is on the verge of once again becoming a failed state. When the question is posed, did we ever win the war on terror, I fear that the answer will be we won it and then we lost it in Afghanistan. And I would request or ask my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) if he wishes to comment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have some very bad news for the gentleman then. If we accept the idea or the conclusion that he is gone, because Ahmed Chalabi is not gone. There was a report today in the New York Times, and let me vote quote the relevant portion.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from today's New York Times regarding this new temporary, tentative, possible plan. Another possibility some in the administration say is that Iraq could evolve towards a political compromise forced by the exile Ahmed Chalabi, Chalabi might manage to stitch together pro-Iranian groups, Kurds and others into a government, a top administration official predicted recently that in that event Mr. Chalabi, who set up an office for his opposition group in Tehran before the American invasion of Iraq, could become the first prime minister. Well, I guess the question is, who is Ahmed Chalabi? Well, to go back to the comments that the gentleman made earlier regarding Mr. Perle, he and Mr. Perle are very close, are allied together. They have had a long relationship. Mr. Perle some believe is the, if you will, the author or the architect of this policy, described Mr. Chalabi in the most effusive of terms, as if he were going to be the George Washington of Iraq. What the American people are unaware of, however, is that Mr. Chalabi fled Iraq, went to Jordan, got into the banking business, and was convicted of the crime of embezzling some $70 million. Now, I am not particularly conversant with the Jordanian legal system, but I know this, that Mr. Chalabi has a sentence hanging over his head from a Jordanian court of some 22 years. Now, our relationship with Jordan has been a positive one, and we see some incipient signs of democracy there. When King Abdallah came here, I inquired of him, Were you ever consulted by the Department of State or anyone in the White House about the appointment of this convicted felon according to Jordanian law in terms of his appointment to the Iraqi governing council? And he said, No, Mr. Congressman, I was not. What a great way to create good will among our allies in the war against terrorism. Who is Ahmed Chalabi? And top administration is suggesting that he might be the next prime minister when he has absolutely no support among the Iraqi people, none at all. He lived in London after he fled Jordan for decades. I am really concerned about the mess we are in.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt, I think that is not only damning, but diminishes the prestige of the United States in terms of the world. There was a French man by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville that years ago as he was traveling through our Nation, our country, made the observation that America is great because America is good. And implicit in that observation is the acknowledgment that the United States respects the rule of law. If we do not have the rule of law, we have a jungle. And just imagine in this time where weapons of mass destruction are a threat to every human being, we just abrogate conventions, treaties, and ignore it is a national law. To me that is a profoundly damning statement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us tonight and thank him for his input. I think he goes to the issue of credibility. Recently, there was a report by a conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, that said case closed. They established a memorandum that was leaked. Somehow, in their calculation, it was conclusive as to links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) circulated a memorandum to all of us here in the House with a statement from the Department of Defense. If the gentleman wants to give us a synopsis, I would be fascinated, and I hope those who are listening would pay attention.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the White House for finally being honest with the American people as it relates to Afghanistan. Again, from this week, Wednesday, November 19, the new ambassador to Afghanistan, Ambassador Kahlizad, 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 President Karzai and the transition to democracy. Taliban rebels have dramatically stepped up operations in recent months and, the ambassador said, common criminals and al Qaeda followers are increasingly active. This is most disturbing news. There was an interesting and, again, unfortunate story coming from the United Nations. This week reported in the New York Times, the United Nations refugee agency announced Tuesday that it was temporarily pulling 30 foreign staff members out of large areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan and closing refugee reception centers in four provinces, officials said. The suspension of operations comes after three attacks on the United Nations offices and staff members in the last week by suspected Taliban fighters.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We never finished the job in Afghanistan.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman is absolutely right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be very clear it was not this Nation, hopefully not even our President. But it was some within the administration that had a plan, a plan that would bring democracy, if you will, to the Middle East. And therefore, in the aftermath of 9/11, they were looking for a rationale that would somehow create a situation where the United States would intervene militarily in Iraq. That is, at least, my opinion. And I know that is shared by others.

Mr. DELAHUNT. To think that our military, as it has in Iraq, performed so professionally and admirably in Afghanistan, and now we are on the verge of seeing Afghanistan becoming a failed state. Nicolas Kristoff, a columnist in the New York Times, says, and again it is this week, in the 2 years since the war in Afghanistan, opium production, and he has given us three choices, virtually been eliminated, declined 30 percent, soared 19-fold and become the major source of the world's heroin. That is what is happening in Afghanistan today. In two provinces that are religiously conservative parts of Afghanistan, the number of children going to school has quintupled, has risen 40 percent, has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all the schools there. The right answer is the last one. This is truly potentially a disaster. President Karzai's brother, Ahmed Karzai, who represents the government in one of the southern provinces, was very blunt to an AP reporter this past Monday: it is 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. Those are the words of President Bush, but what was delivered, nothing. There had been no significant changes for people. Karzai says he does not know what to say to people anymore. We better pay attention to Afghanistan because with the focus now on Iraq, the media is taking the glare of the cameras away from a totally, potentially disastrous situation. They are scheduled to have elections in Afghanistan next June. It is estimated that the need would be for 70,000 police security forces. Does my colleague know how many have been trained? Does the gentleman know how many have been trained? Seven thousand, 7,000. This is, again, a potential foreign policy disaster, not just for this President but for this country. With that, if the gentleman has anything further to say.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and I anticipate that another colleague of ours, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), will also be here. We are here tonight to discuss the situation, the mess, if you will, that unfortunately we find ourselves mired in, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. But before we proceed, I think, in response to what I heard from Dr. Phil, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my dear friend, I think we should warn the seniors that if this bill passes tomorrow, they better stay healthy because that prescription drug benefit will not take effect this year, it will not take effect in 2004, nor will it take effect in 2005. So make sure that if you are unhealthy, you go visit your State services; see if there is a program at the State level that can get you through to 2006. Because when you go to your druggist in the next several months or in 2004 and 2005, they are going to tell you, sorry, sorry, you do not have the benefit. And we hope that you do have the benefit in 2006, but, of course, if the Republican leadership and the White House continue to pass large, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, maybe you will not even have it then. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my friend and colleague. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Twenty-six people died today in Turkey, the victims of an act of terrorism. Some 400 were wounded. In the northern part of Iraq, not in the so-called Sunni Triangle, 12 died as a result of acts of terrorism in northern Iraq. We are in a mess. Let us get our act together. Let us support our President, but let us do it in consultation and make sure that America can continue to be proud and claim that it is great because it is good and it has a moral compass.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we note as a matter of record that where the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) indicated there were two Democrats that were present at the conference, and the gentlewoman I understand served on that conference. The gentlewoman is aware that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were appointed by the leadership to serve in that conference and were denied access. There was no input from the Democratic Party in this House into this particular conference.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I really want to applaud the gentleman for his work, along with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), on the reimportation of drugs.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) are both here, so let me just emphasize this. One of the great bipartisan efforts that this House has witnessed since I have served in this Congress is under the leadership of both of those gentlemen, along with yourself, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), and other Democrats when we got through this Chamber against the forces of the pharmaceutical industry. And it was a shock for everyone, the right of Americans to reimport drugs from Canada. And so they deserve credit along with those who worked very hard to get it accomplished. But can the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) tell me, is there anything in this bill that will be coming to the floor this week that allows for reimportation? And if it does, is it real and tangible, something, as the gentleman from New Jersey indicates, which will allow for real competition? Because you know and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) knows and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) knows, they purchase their drugs significantly cheaper in Canada than our folks do here.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So there is no reimportation under this bill. That is important.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for a moment, what is happening here is competition is being precluded by this bill and huge amounts of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, are being given to the pharmaceutical industry. That is what this bill is about.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield to me, seniors better live to 2006. They do not want to get sick in 2003 or 2004 or 2005. Now, I look at my two colleagues from the other side of the aisle, and I think we can all agree that next year, 2004, happens to be an election year. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and then restate the question that I was going to ask to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I think it is important that the seniors in this country who happen to be viewing us tonight understand that next year, when they go to their local pharmacist and present their Medicare card, will they get a drug benefit under this particular proposal?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the gentleman's expertise. There is no one in this institution that has the depth of knowledge on the subject than the gentleman, and is certainly someone who is highly respected and regarded on this side of the aisle. During the course of the debate, there has been much attention given to the so-called safety issue. I do not know whether you have this, but can you inform me and my other colleagues and those that might be watching in terms of those in Canada or those Americans who have purchased pharmaceuticals from Canada, what are the numbers, how many fatalities are there, how many reported problems attendant to safety have actually occurred?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New England for his leadership in this very important issue. He certainly has inherited a legacy from his father, and those of us from Massachusetts are proud not only of our senior Senator but his son, his youngest son. As cochair of the House Older Americans Caucus, along with, of course, the chairman of the committee who has established a reputation for compassion and for concern for the elderly in this country, I too rise in strong support of this motion because I share their belief that Congress must fund senior nutrition programs at the highest levels authorized by the Older Americans Act. The conferees should support the funding levels set forth in the House conference report. First, the health of our seniors depends on full funding of nutrition programs. It has been clearly established in study after study that poor eating habits can lead to serious medical problems for aging adults, including the early onset of chronic diseases that inevitably escalate the cost of health care here in this country. Frail and homebound adults benefit enormously from the prepared meals supplied by organizations such as Meals on Wheels. Indeed, that one meal can provide half of their total nutritional requirements for the day. That fact is truly significant when one considers that nearly 3 million seniors benefitted from nutritional programs and services last year. In my home State of Massachusetts, over 50,000 seniors rely on congregate and home-delivered meals each year, as well as the nutritional screenings and counseling authorized by the legislation. Accordingly, the programs that we are talking about deliver, literally, on our goal to meet the nutritional needs of older Americans. Secondly, our commitment to provide the highest level of funding for these activities makes sense economically and produces substantial savings to the American taxpayer. Through these investments we are saving costs in the long term, as I alluded to earlier, along with the references by those who spoke previously. With home meal delivery, seniors can live independently for longer periods. Furthermore, studies show that these services also prevent costly hospitalizations resulting from nutritional deficiencies and social isolation. That translates into a substantial savings to the American taxpayer. Third, I believe, as others have suggested, that the intangible aspects of these programs provide an incredible benefit to our communities and enhance a sense of community, not only to those that receive directly these benefits, but to those who provide them. For some individuals, the volunteer knocking at their door may be the only visitor of the day. So in simple human terms, we cannot underestimate the value that this single interaction may have for an elderly person, many of whom are female, many of whom are widowed, many of whom live alone. And it should not go unstated that tragically in this country, many of our seniors, a disproportionate share of our seniors when compared to the rest of the population, suffer from chronic depression. So let me suggest that this is a point where government and compassionate conservatism should intercept. Finally, I would like to commend all those who volunteer to keep these programs running. In my district, many of these individuals are themselves active seniors. For all these reasons, I strongly support these neighborhood organizations working to strengthen the connection between seniors and their communities. So in recognition of their hard work, as well as the needs of elderly Americans, I urge the conferees to adopt the House language that was crafted by the gentleman from Ohio and fund senior nutrition programs at the highest level. And, again, let me applaud the great work of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), Massachusetts and Rhode Island's native son.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, this is a situation that is continuing today where a conclusion or an opinion or a predisposed policy is searching for facts. Talking about the CIA, what prompted Paul Bremer to come to Washington, DC, was a new top secret CIA report from Iraq that growing numbers of Iraqis are concluding that the U.S.-led coalition can be defeated and a supporting the insurgents. Again, I am quoting from a newspaper report, ``The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation in Iraq and cautions that the U.S.-led drive to rebuild a country as a democracy could collapse.'' The report's bleak tone and Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply with the upbeat public assessments that President Bush, his chief aids, and even Bremer are giving as part of an aggressive publicity campaign aimed at countering rising anxieties over increasing U.S. causalities in Iraq. Let us be honest with the American people. Remember in Vietnam what, I daresay, forced Lyndon Johnson to reassess his plans for reelection, was the fact that there was such a great divergence and disparity between the reality that was being presented to the American people and the reality on the ground.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I cannot agree more. Ironically, in this week's edition of Newsweek magazine, there is an article that I would commend to all of our colleagues here in the House and to the viewing audience here tonight. This is very important to read. As one can see, there is a picture of the Vice President on the cover. It is entitled, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War. Why He Fell for Bad Intelligence and Pitched It to the President.'' The Central Intelligence Agency, I daresay, made a solid effort from what information now appears to be back in the public domain. I think it is safe to conclude that key players led by the Vice President, supported by Secretary Rumsfeld, and Under Secretary Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary Fife, cherry-picked, if you will, those pieces of information that buttress their case and made unequivocal statement to the American people. It is very fascinating when the American people and the United States Congress learn that there is a special covert group within the Department of Defense. And this is within the civilian leadership, called the Office for Special Plans that was running a parallel operation in terms of intelligence analysis. It was that group that was doing the cherry-picking. It was that group that got us into this war. They made unequivocal statements, like Secretary Rumsfeld, that those weapons of mass destruction, we know where they are. They are in Tikrit, in the west here and in the east here. And, of course, we have discovered after expending close to a billion dollars to just simply looking for them that they do not exist, much to our embarrassment and again our loss of prestige. So I think it is important that those who attack the CIA often do it in a way that I think reveals their own political agenda. Again, demeaning the professionalism of the men and women that serve in the CIA is not the way to have a constructive debate about what we ought to occur, what we ought to be doing right now.