Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I will yield on that, to my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and a member of Iraq Watch.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you saw ``Meet the Press'' this last Sunday, but again the Vice President refuted the need that was expressed by the Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, that several hundred thousand troops were necessary to bring stability. We have what would appear to be a position that is intransigent, that is in denial, if you will. If I can for just one moment bring something up that I found particularly ironic, Secretary of State Colin Powell this past week visited Halabja, which is where some 5,000 Kurdish Iraqis lost their lives because of the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein. The Secretary asserted that in this little farming town nestled in Iraq's barren northern mountains, this was ample evidence that former President Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction and justified, and justified the U.S. decision to go to war. That occurred in 1988 and it was despicable. And what should have occurred was the international community should have responded at that point in time, convened a war crimes tribunal, affected the arrest of Saddam Hussein and brought him to justice for that. The President at that time was this President Bush's father, or rather in 1988 it was President Reagan. The now-Secretary of State was the then-National Security Advisor to President Reagan. I find such irony in that because it was many of the same individuals who approached Saddam Hussein to indicate that they were tilting towards the Saddam Hussein regime in its war against Iran. It is the now-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who is the special envoy who went and shook the hand of that thug Saddam Hussein in 1982. He was then taken off the terrorist list; Saddam Hussein was taken off the terrorist lists, and that opened up opportunities for the Iraqi regime. In 1984 full diplomatic relationships were opened between the United States and Iraq. In 1986, in 1986 we installed an embassy in Baghdad. The American people should know that. In 1988, in 1988 this heinous crime was committed against the Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja, and here we are some 15 years later hearing the Secretary of State suggest that this was the evidence, the predicate, if you will, to our intervention. Now, the story does not end there. The story does not end there. Because it was the President's father, the Bush administration according to a Congressional Research Report that blocked congressional action, that blocked congressional action to impose sanctions on Iraq for committing that crime against the Iraqi people. Let me read because I think it is important that the American people hear this. I have never heard it stated. This is our own Congressional Research Service, an independent body: ``In late 1988 after reports that Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Senate on September 9 passed by voice vote to impose financial and trade sanctions and severe restrictions on the transfer of technology to Iraq. On September 27, the House passed a bill by a vote of 388 to 16; but the bill was not taken up by the Senate. The bill would have prohibited sales to Iraq of any munitions-listed items and called on the President to place import and export restrictions on Iraq, end credit and loan guarantees, and oppose multi-lateral assistance to that country if Iraq did not stop using chemical weapons and agree to international inspections.'' Similarly, in May through July of 1990, just before the first Gulf War, the administration helped block action or defeat several measures in both Houses that would have restricted U.S. sales credits, loan guarantees, insurance support in international lending institutions, and trade preferences for Iraq. The administration helped block action. Of course we knew that he used chemical weapons. In 1990 we knew. And what did we do about it then? We blocked congressional action, the then-administration blocked congressional action. So the irony of the Secretary of State being in Halabja and suggesting that that was the predicate for military intervention, what irony.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I cannot agree more. There has to be, as a precondition, serious consideration of this supplemental budget request for $87 billion and an honest and sincere effort to restore the $1.8 billion, $2 billion, whatever that number be, to provide those veterans the kind of services that they are entitled to and that they defended this country so bravely to secure for future veterans. While we are talking for a moment about the military, it was the Congressional Budget Office that identified a looming problem. In March, we will have to start withdrawing most of our troops in Iraq if we want to maintain an acceptable level of military readiness. That is on the horizon. As the gentleman from Washington indicates, I do not see other nations rushing to provide a coalition, a genuine coalition that will provide the kind of security and stability that is necessary for the reconstruction of Iraq. I am sure many in the audience and those of you here tonight have noted in the most recent edition of Time magazine on the cover, Are We Stretched Too Thin? I daresay if you listen to General Schwarzkopf, if you listen to our military leaders who will speak in private, they will say we are stretched very, very, very thin. And here we are, contemporaneously with addressing this issue, we are now in the process of discussions that we cannot predict how they will go relative to the threat of a nuclear North Korea. Some statements have been made by members of this administration that the military option has not been removed from the table. What are we talking about?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that is so important to repeat. And we should say it slowly so that those in the viewing audience hear it clearly. And I would challenge any member of this branch to come forward and rebut it. If you earn over $25,000 and are a combat veteran, and you are described as a Priority 8 veteran, and understand there are hundreds of thousands that fall within that classification, you cannot enroll in a veterans health care program in this country. That is more than shameful; it is unconscionable. We sent these young and women to war, and when they come back, we dishonor them, we disrespect them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I call it the no plan.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Speaker, if my friend would yield for a moment, of course that is absolutely aberrational in American history. In fact, during World War II, President Roosevelt asked the American people to accept a tax increase. We are not here even suggesting that this evening. But I think what we have learned is, unfortunately, the estimates that have been put forth by the administration were absolutely inaccurate, underestimated, and represented a scenario that was totally unrealistic. I would remind my friend that Under Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, back in March, told Congress that, and I will quote him, ``We are dealing with a country that can really refinance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.'' And relatively soon. What I find fascinating is that this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is expressing its dismay. To quote from a story that appeared in the September 9 issue of The New York Times, and this is when representatives of the administration were appearing before a Senate committee, a prominent member of that committee, Senator McCain of Arizona, was dissatisfied with an answer from Mark Grossman, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs on how long it would take for more troops from other countries to arrive in Iraq under United Nations auspices: `` `I am not asking for precisely what day,' Senator McCain said. `I am asking of a matter could you tell me years?' Mr. Grossman replied that should the Security Council resolution pass in the next few weeks, I can't imagine that it would be years. 'that precision is not really satisfying,' said Senator McCain.'' The level of incompetence in terms of the postwar, postmajor come- back phase, I should say, of what would be required of America, American taxpayers and American military personnel, the magnitude of that incompetence can only be described as colossal; and it has cost America its sons and badly needed revenue to meet our own domestic needs. As I indicated earlier, when I was reading through the monies available for Homeland Security, for Health and Human Services, for Education, for the functioning of the State Department in foreign assistance, this supplemental budget, by itself, exceeded all of the monies allocated for those needs. What we know now and what we should have known is that you simply cannot have tax cuts, guns, and butter too; yet here we are tonight faced with a proposal that is really a price tag. There is no plan. The questions that the gentleman posed earlier in terms of how long will our troops be required there, when will Iraqis assume control of their own destiny and devested with the power that is necessary have not been provided. I think that the White House and the administration and the Department of Defense have to be prepared to respond to those questions. Otherwise, I cannot imagine this body and the United States Senate approving a request that would provide the White House with a blank check. It just simply will not fly.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), who has led this particular conversation for some many weeks now. My memory is that last week there were reports in many of the leading newspapers in this country that the President would come forward with a supplemental budget in the neighborhood of some $80 billion; and this past Sunday, the American people and Members of Congress learned for the first time that that budget request would be for some $87 billion. That is an astounding figure. Clearly, we are on the verge of adding to a deficit that was estimated for the fiscal year of 2004 to be some $480 billion. The way we are heading, it is now in excess, with this request, of some $540 billion. That is disturbing, the long-term implications for what we have to look forward to in terms of an economic recovery. $87 billion, I think it is interesting to note, exceeds the following that were items in the President's budget. This $87 billion we have discussed here is a supplemental budget. This is in addition to the $79 billion that this Congress approved, it seems like just a short time ago, though it was several months ago. The entire request for the year for homeland security was $41 billion. This supplemental request is double that amount. More than double. Health and Human Services, $66.2 billion. And that $66.2 billion, we should note, includes $27 billion for the National Institutes of Health, which is so critical to advancing discoveries for such scourges as cancer, heart disease, et cetera, et cetera. This $87 billion supplemental request exceeds the total amount allocated or budgeted for the Department of Education. The Department of Education budget was some $53 billion. It is almost three times the amount that has been appropriated for the State Department in foreign aid. That figure is some $27 billion. For highway and road construction in the United States, $30 billion. The only aspect of the President's budget that this particular supplemental request does not surpass are the proposed tax cuts of some $107 billion. This says to me, and I know it says it to my friend as well, that the costs were vastly underestimated; and now we face a difficult moment in our economic life where this recovery, if we can call it a recovery, is certainly a jobless recovery. This past month, in August, it was reported that here in the United States an additional 93,000 jobs, American jobs, were lost. This supplemental request of $87 billion certainly will not add to the number of jobs and the number of Americans that are employed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, let me say that $1.8 billion underfunded does not include the fact that this administration, within the past year, has denied access to health care benefits that this Congress in 1996 mandated for all veterans. Now we have a situation where the administration is encouraging no outreach, do not tell. They have a do-not-tell policy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. Give me a break. We are going to ask the question.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could make a final concluding remark, and then I will then defer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). There was a report today, or rather Monday, in The Washington Post that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was concluding his 4-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, complained that critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the war on terrorism. Give me a break.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And does that include the $2 billion necessary for veterans health care benefits.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Not this time. We want a plan, and we want all of the answers. I can remember Secretary Feith coming in front of the Committee on International Relations. I asked him, give me just an idea of the costs to rebuild Iraq. He said, I do not have any answers.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important that we stress that this is not just Democrats that are posing these questions. This past week on, I think it was the ``CBS Early Show,'' someone who understands combat, someone who was in war and who is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam conflict, Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, said this: ``The administration has done a miserable job of planning the post-Saddam Iraq.'' The administration has done a miserable job of planning the post- Saddam Iraq. That is Senator Hagel. We all know Senator Hagel. Everybody in Congress respects and acknowledges his integrity, but he was right too. Maybe we failed in our responsibility collectively. I am talking about the House as well as the other branch. Because he pointed out that we allowed the administration to treat us like a nuisance. We did not ask the questions. Some of us did. But no, in the heat and in the vast amount of publicity that was attendant to the President and Vice President Cheney and Under Secretary Wolfowitz's natural access to the media, people did not ask the tough questions. Well, not this time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is time to ask these kinds of questions.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask the gentleman, does this mean that at some point in the future, if we continue to have a foreign policy that creates these significant needs for military personnel, that some day on the floor of this House we will be debating the necessity for a draft?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I agree with the gentleman, those prisoners should be released, and we will continue to work hopefully to secure their release. At the same time, the gentleman cannot deny the level and magnitude of the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, and we have to be equally as ardent and vociferous in our condemnation on what occurs in that society. We have to have a policy that is devoid of hypocrisy. Let me go to the amendment very briefly. The reality is that Cuban Americans who travel to Cuba, and there are many of them and they go there frequently, they pour out of the Jose Marti Airport and embrace their relatives there. And the reality and truth is they do bring dollars with them far in excess of $1,200 a year, and I know if I had family in Cuba, I would do the same because family is first. I recognize the Cuban community and the Cuban-American family believe in a sense of fairness. This is not to increase revenues for any government, it is to take care of people, families. When you are in Cuba and you are there and you are visiting not just with dissidents but ordinary Cubans, they tell you this is a life line to survive, and that is why we bring this amendment to legitimatize what is going on. We know the Treasury Department does not enforce this particular remittance, but it is to legitimatize the reality and support families everywhere.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It does exactly the same thing as the one that I and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and others offered last year and which passed the House overwhelmingly. It prohibits enforcement of the cap on remittances that can be sent to families in Cuba. Not many people, I believe, are aware that an aspect of current policy regarding Cuba imposes limits on family charity. Let me just say that again. It is American policy to restrict the amount of financial support that Cuban Americans can send to their families on the island. U.S. law prohibits Americans from giving more than $1,200 a year to their Cuban families. I would suggest that this is shameful, especially for a Nation of immigrants like we have here in the United States. Is there anything that defines American history or our heritage more than a first-generation family sending money back to the old country to buy food or medicine or clothing for loved ones in need? Such assistance is particularly critical in Cuba. Dollars from American relatives can make a huge difference in the quality of life for a Cuban family. One would think that American policy would be to encourage family assistance; but instead, the law, our law, views Cuban Americans who give too much help to their families as common criminals who can be fined up to $55,000 and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison. Now, as the Treasury Department will readily tell us, the limits on remittances are rarely enforced. And after the House spoke so clearly last year on this particular amendment, the administration began to allow Cuban Americans who visit the island to bring more money with them. I think the amount is some $10,000, although it did retain the $1,200 limit per household per year. So I would suggest or conclude that even the White House recognizes that this policy is a pointless charade, which begs the question: Why have any limits on remittances at all? It is important to understand this policy does nothing to hurt the Cuban Government. Nothing. Instead, it punishes American citizens by forcing them to violate the law, and as we have heard elsewhere today, causes disrespect for the rule of law. And it punishes their relatives in Cuba by denying them the opportunity for a better life because, and it cannot be repeated often enough, this money does not go to the Cuban Government. Remittances are direct aid to families in Cuba from ordinary people who care to ordinary people in need. It is the official policy of the United States that you should only do just so much. This is wrong and it is unacceptable. Last week, President Bush said, and I am quoting him, ``Millions of acts of decency and kindness help define the true worth and the true strength of this great American Nation.'' We all agree with those sentiments. Our government should never seek to limit the kindness and the decency of the American people. Ending the limit on remittances is one of the most kind and decent things we can do for the people of Cuba and for Cuban Americans here in the United States. We should do this. Support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I want to point out that I find it somewhat ironic that when we speak of the wives of Oscar Chepe and Hector Palacios, prominent leaders in the dissident movement in Cuba who are currently incarcerated in Cuban jails, for whom my colleague and I and members of the Cuba Working Group have advocated strenuously for their release and will continue to do so, that when references to their spouses are made, it is left to be suggested that they support the ban on travel, when the contrary is true. Let me quote from Miriam Leiva, the wife of Oscar Espinosa Chepe: ``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans to Cuba could contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of democracy.'' I know we all share that. Let us support this.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from Florida for 1 minute regarding his observation that this was Castro's priority. I do not necessarily believe the words of Fidel Castro. I honestly wonder if this crackdown that we all condemn was a canard to continue the policy of the Castro government to use the ban on travel and the economic embargo as an opportunity to sustain the government and the regime in power. But, as others have indicated, 40 years, more than 40 years and counting of a failed policy that has brought about no change in Cuba. That cannot be denied. The magnitude of the failure of this policy is so colossal that it is inconceivable that we continue to pursue it. Because while it has not benefited the Cuban people, it has also diminished American freedoms. As the former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once said, and I am quoting, ``Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.'' Imagine travel police who tell you where you can go and how much you can spend when you are there, even if you simply want to scatter the ashes of a beloved parent like one American citizen did. That does not sound like America travel police, but it is. That is the reality. We have our own travel police. It is called the Office of Foreign Asset Control, or OFAC. They decide who will go to Cuba and who does not. They insist that you account to them what you did there when you arrived and what you spent. If they do not believe you, they can punish you. They have even threatened to garnish Social Security benefits from one individual. We should all be offended as Americans by this policy. So yes, this debate today is about democracy. It is all about democracy; our democracy as well as democracy in Cuba. This amendment would end this affront to American liberty and American rights. What makes the curtailment of this freedom of Americans so particularly repugnant is the hypocrisy of the policy. For example, and others have alluded to it: Americans can travel today to Iran, to North Korea, the remaining members of the axis of evil club. And remember when Saddam Hussein was in power, you could go to Baghdad and use your American Express card. You cannot do it in Havana. Those who would maintain the status quo and continue to deny Americans the freedom to travel proclaim that all Cuba has to do is to conduct free and fair elections, legalize all political parties, allow freedom of the press and association, permit the existence of independent labor unions, and then, we will restore to Americans their freedom to travel. Those are worthy goals. Well, if the rights of Americans to travel are predicated on these standards, then how about Egypt, a one-party State where elections are a sham, where political and religious dissent is repressed, and freedom of the press is restricted. But for Egypt, the penalty, the penalty is $2 billion worth of American foreign aid every year. What about Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth according to our own State Department, where women can not drive, and where American soldiers could not practice their religion openly on Saudi soil. Well, I have seen women driving in Cuba, and I have attended mass in Havana with Cuban dissidents. And 15 of the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia. There was not a Cuban among them. And yet, some of the most ardent proponents of the Cuba travel policy today vote for United States assistance to Saudi Arabia. Is it not time to end the hypocrisy? We ought not to be the land of the licensed, but the land of the free. Support the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men who fought to preserve the ideals of liberty and freedom from oppression that threatened to engulf the entire Korean peninsula back in the summer of 1950. On Sunday, July 27, 2003, in the town of Abington, Massachusetts, veterans of the Korean War, their families and fellow citizens will gather to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of what is often called ``The Forgotten War.'' But in truth it was anything but. The fighting, death and destruction was no illusion but a cold hard fact. Over 50,000 Americans were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Our allies, the South Koreans, and the other countries that fought with us under the umbrella of the United Nations, also suffered. From the Pusan Perimeter and Inchon to the Chosin Reservoir and Pork Chop Hill, so many of our husbands, fathers, sons and brothers made the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that Koreans can have the same advantages and freedoms we enjoy here at home. Representative of the sacrifices of this group of heroes is Congressional Medal of Honor recipient and former Massachusetts Commissioner of Veterans Services, Thomas Hudner. Born in Fall River, Massachusetts in 1924, Mr. Hudner attended the prestigious Phillips Academy and then enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis. Trained to be a Naval Aviator, Lieutenant (jg) Hudner received orders to go to Korea, where his ship, the USS Leyte, arrived in October of 1950. Though enemy naval units were not a major threat, providing support to U.N. ground forces was still dangerous. The character and mettle of the man was fully revealed on December 4, 1950, when on a mission, the aircraft flown by Ensign Jesse Brown went down in the mountains of North Korea. After confirming that Ensign Brown initially survived the crash, the flight leader radioed for assistance and the Marines dispatched a helicopter. Fearing that the fire now enveloping his friend's plane--or the enemy that was in the area--would reach him first, Lieutenant Hudner, at the risk of his own life, performed a wheels up crash landing of his aircraft and tried to rescue Ensign Brown. The hope was that both could then escape the area aboard the arriving helicopter. Fighting against snow, sub-zero temperatures and enemy forces, Hudner tried to put out the fire and save his comrade. Unfortunately, the injuries suffered by Brown were fatal. For his bravery and courage Thomas Hudner was decorated with the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Truman in 1951. After the war, Thomas Hudner continued his military career in the Navy until his retirement in 1973. He continued to live and work in the Boston area. Like others of his generation, when our country needed them, they answered the call. They did their duty, saved and preserved the freedoms we cherish today and returned home to raise their own families during one of America's greatest eras of prosperity. Their legacy is the peace, security and opportunity of today's America. It is a gift so precious we can never repay them except by promising each other to never forget and always remain vigilant. It has been 50 years since the guns fell silent across the cease fire line in Korea. The passing of time has thinned their ranks, but the memories of their deeds in fighting for the liberty we enjoy today will never fade. God bless the men of the Korean War generation, their families and the United States of America.