Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have to get back to the point that you made when I yielded to you about the missing John McCain. Since tonight listening to their remarks about immigration, somehow they want to put it on the Democrats that the problem is and was created by Democrats. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, if you want to give this Senate bill a label, the truth is, it is supported by President Bush. Now, can you help me? Is President Bush a Republican, Mr. Meek, or is he a Democrat?

Mr. DELAHUNT. So he is a Republican. So why do not we refer to it then as the Bush-McCain bill that is distinct from the other bill?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not going to refer to it again as the Bush-McCain bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I know that we worked hard. And I will yield to the gentlewoman in a moment. That we have worked hard to secure the borders. That is what we have been trying to do for the past 6 years. I am going to refer to my notes here for a minute. We, as a party, have filed amendment after amendment as appropriations bills have come to the floor. If they had been adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents today patrolling our border, 14,000 more detention beds, and, Mr. Speaker, 2,700 more immigration agents along our borders than now exist. But those amendments were not adopted because the Republican majority voted against them. That is why. That is why we have the problem today that is causing this contentious atmosphere in this Chamber and in the other Chamber. But let's speak to the truth. Let's not just simply politicize this debate. Let's put the facts out. Who has been in charge of this institution for the past 12 years? It is the majority Republican party, Mr. Speaker. And across this Capitol building, who has been in charge, Mr. Speaker? It is the Republican Party, and George Bush has been the President of the United States since January of 2001. Today we have a problem with illegal immigration. Who is responsible? MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, let's play a game. Let's see which caucus is really for border security and which conference is playing ``let's pretend.'' And we will deal just with facts here, just with factual information, unlike what they do, which is either, A, make it up as they go along; or, B, say something that is not true enough times so that people believe it; or, C, just pick and choose the numbers that work best for them and represent that they are doing something when they are really not. So any of those three things is what happens on the other side. Here is the reality on border security, Democrats versus Republicans: From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration, on average, 642 new Border Patrol agents were added every year. Despite the fact that 9/11 highlighted the need for more border security, in its first 5 years the Bush administration added, on average, only 411 new Border Patrol agents. Under the Clinton administration, 642 new Border Patrol agents were added every year. Under this administration, since 2001, since 9/11, only 411. It gets better. Between 1999 and 2004, we are talking about enforcement, you know what, the Republicans talk a good game about it, we have got to increase enforcement, we have got to make sure that we crack down on illegal immigration, we have got to make sure that employers are not harboring illegal immigrants and breaking the law in hiring them. Well, let's see if they really mean that. Between 1999 and 2004, work site immigration enforcement operations against companies were scaled back 99 percent by INS. Subsequently, INS was merged into the Department of Homeland Security and now it is called CIS. But in 1999, the United States, this is the year before President Bush took office, the United States of America initiated fines for hiring illegal immigrants against 417 companies. Mr. Delahunt, in 2004, it issued fine notices to three companies. Three. 1999, the year before President Bush took office, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies for hiring illegal immigrants. In 2004 they initiated three.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So in the space of some 5 years, enforcement actions against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants----

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think you have summed it up. What irony that at this moment in American history the American people are borrowing from Communist China so that the most affluent among us, truly the most affluent among us, 1 percent of the population, receives a disproportionate tax cut. I mean, if this was written in a novel 10 or 15 years ago, people would be shaking their heads. We are borrowing money from Red China so that the wealthiest Americans can buy a Hummer, because that is really what is happening. That is connecting the dots. Of course Democrats support tax reduction, or tax cuts, tax cuts that are fair. That is the difference. You know, a family that is supporting their sons and daughters in terms of their tuition bills for college education, there should be tax credits, there should be tax deductions. I mean we could list a vast number of thoughtful tax cuts that would benefit everybody, that would benefit the middle class rather than creating a society in these United States of those that have and those that are getting less and less every day. Real income, real income for that family right square in the middle of our population has declined, and that is why people are unhappy. And of course we are all supporting with our tax dollars the war in Iraq. It is costing us $8 billion a month, or $2 billion a week. Just imagine if that money was going into building roads here, to rehabilitating schools, to providing scholarships for American children to go to college, to invest in our national health system what we could do with that money. But we are doing all of those things not in the United States, we are doing it in Iraq. And we are losing the war on terror because of the distraction by this administration from the real enemy, because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, and that is what is happening in this country. Yet you are so right, Mr. Meek. What do we hear? We hear, boy, there is an immigration problem and it is a hot button issue. And it is a hot button issue. But they refuse to accept responsibility. It is like they live in an alternate reality. It is not the real world. How did we get to the point where there are somewhere between, the numbers I hear are 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants? Because they refused to provide the funding for detention centers, for immigration agents, or for border control officials. When we brought them to the floor, and I know that I voted for those increased fundings, yet we hear from our friends today about they are standing up, but I wonder how they voted. I would hope that each and every Member of this Congress on both sides of the aisle would go back, review their voting record on all of the amendments that we put forth to increase border security and see how they voted, and then come to this floor and acknowledge that vote before they speak.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think that is underscored by the fact when we hear them express concerns about immigration, about illegal immigration, we have not heard a single voice from our friends on the Republican side criticizing the President for the failure to enforce. Well, maybe one voice. Maybe he is here tonight. But no criticizing the President for the failure to enforce our immigration laws, particularly against employers. Imagine, three enforcements against American businesses for hiring illegal immigrants in the year 2004 when in the last year of the Clinton administration there was far in excess of some 400. That is a disgrace. And it is the responsibility of this Republican Congress to criticize their lack of aggressive oversight on this issue. The problem has become all of ours, but it was created by the lack of funding to strengthen our borders while Democrats have been putting forth proposal after proposal to increase those numbers. With that, I yield back to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my friend and chairman of the 30-something Group for yielding. I apologize for being a bit tardy, but I had business back in the office.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, that is not the case. But I heard you talk about Medicare, and it provoked a special interest.

Mr. DELAHUNT. A personal special interest, because I don't know if you are aware of this, I am somewhat embarrassed to acknowledge this in a venue such as this, but a week from today I will be on Medicare.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. You know what I find interesting is, you pointed it out. It is the first time I have heard it, that you can't use that particular credit card, a Mobil credit card, did you say?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. But it is at a Mobil station?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. But it is not a Mobil product. And you interpret it, as I did, as a way to discourage people from using a fuel source that, over time, could wean us from that mideastern oil and allow us to rely, again, once more on that farmer, that American farmer from the Midwest?

Mr. DELAHUNT. July 18 is my birthday, and I hit that magic figure that entitles me to be eligible for Medicare. And if there is a single program that has made a difference in the lives of senior citizens, I was going to say elderly, but I think I will change that now, of senior citizens in this country, it is the Medicare program. There has been study after study which concludes that there is a connection between longevity and the advent back in 1965 of Medicare and health that now the older segment of the population enjoys. It is absolutely an essential, critical program. Part of that, as Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was saying, is the fact that today, rather than referring people to hospitals, the percentage of treatment that is given to senior citizens is through prescribed pharmaceuticals. It has made clearly a world of difference. And when we had this debate back in December of 2004, about the so- called prescription drug benefit, Democrats argued that to prohibit the Federal Government from negotiating with the large drug manufacturers for discounts, substantial discounts, as you just indicated, as they do now with the VA, was nothing but a windfall profit for large drug companies. I don't know what the estimate is now, but you said millions. Let me respectfully disagree with you and say tens of billions, maybe in excess of 100 billion, but it is clearly a substantial amount of money. Just stop and think for 1 minute. That money would eliminate the doughnut hole. And by the doughnut hole, we mean once the cost of a particular prescription exceeds an amount, I think it is $2,600, for the next $3,000-plus a senior citizen has to pay for that prescription out of his or her own pocket. We are already receiving calls, I do not know if your district offices have had this experience, but the volume of calls from seniors saying, you know, I didn't realize how quickly I would reach that so- called doughnut hole, and I can't afford the next $3,000 to meet my medical needs. And I need those drugs that take care of my cardiac problem, for example, and I can't afford it, Mr. Congressman. What am I going to do? I know you are saying that we can address that, and we can address that without adding to the deficit, but I think that is a commitment that ought to be made to people who are on Medicare so that they can enjoy a longer and more healthy life as they age, because they deserve it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I don't know if any of you saw it, I think it was yesterday in our major newspapers, I noticed that there was a story relative to a report that indicated that much of the information that seniors received relative to the prescription drug program was erroneous and inaccurate. And we all know about the confusion at the beginning of the program.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what is happening now, as I said, senior citizens were unaware of the fact that that limit would be reached so quickly, which would put them into the doughnut hole, or I call it the ``abyss.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Because that has happened so quickly that they believed initially that it was only the moneys that they had to pay out under the so-called copayment system. But, no, it was the total amount of the cost of the drug between what they had to pay out of their pocket and what the government was paying. So all of a sudden, people who are spending $600, $700, $800 a month on a drug regimen for, let us use the example of those who have a cardiac problem, will find themselves, in 3 or 4 months, having already reached that cap and now they are on their own. And that is happening now. Meanwhile, we cannot negotiate with drug manufacturers because the Republican majority was protecting the pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could ask our chairman from Florida, just to raise once more that chart.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They don't believe in government. That is the truth. Their version of government is simply the smaller the better.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. Unless it involves involving the United States in a quagmire.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I was going to make that point and you did it for me. But let me say what we now see is big government, big government promulgating and pursuing an agenda that is not a conservative agenda. I think we should make that distinction. It is a neoconservative direction because traditionally Republicans have been committed to responsible government, pay as you go, live within your means. And government is important, but there are areas where government does not have a role. And yet here we are today with this President and this Republican majority presiding over the largest expansion of government in American history. And the expansion of government only benefits a small segment of the American population. That is what I would suggest is causing the anxiety and the negative reaction that we hear when we march in those parades. What about this Medicare drug program? It sounds good, but it is not helping me. Who is it helping? And how do you respond to a question: Why can't you negotiate with the large drug companies and secure discounts like you do through the Veterans Administration? Why can't you secure discounts of 40, 50, 60, 70 percent? Why can't you do that? Why can't Congress insist? And the answer is because the Republican leadership will not allow it. It simply won't allow it. And, Congressman, we read about the oil companies, the energy companies, Big Oil, if you will. We understand that in 2002 their combined net profit was $35 billion; that's a lot of money. Now we see new figures that it exceeds $113 billion. It has tripled in about 3 years. Congressman, can you explain to me why you and your colleagues approve of giving taxpayer money to Big Oil in the amount of $14 billion? Can somebody help me answer that question?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. That is what we are talking about. That is really what we are talking about. But you know what I find interesting? You raised it here in our conversation this evening. But has anybody, any chairman, if you are aware of any committee, standing committee of this House with this majority, requested or invited or insisted that the chairman of ExxonMobil come before it to explain to us and to the American people why does that product have that sticker about it when it is at a Mobil station? Just a simple question to educate us. And it is clear that if it is a question that is not being asked by the majority, then nothing will change. And I would suggest it is the responsibility of this Congress and its committees to ask those questions because the American people deserve answers. And we are abrogating, we are not meeting our responsibility of oversight when those questions are not posed; and they are not being asked in this House of Representatives at this moment in our history, and it is a disgrace.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. We cut and ran from Afghanistan. We were distracted by this vision, this neoconservative vision of invading Iraq and bringing stability and democracy to the Middle East. And yet now, now we are paying the price in Afghanistan. I yield back to my friend.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, my friend. I hope that you had a pleasant break. I know you were working, but I hope that you enjoyed your stay at home. Professor Allison's observations really echo the conclusion that was reached by a bipartisan group of experts, including many from the administration of President Reagan, and that conclusion was that the United States is losing the war on terror. We read that our friends on the other side of the aisle have made a political decision to talk about national security, to talk about terror and what they have accomplished. Well, the truth is, nothing has been accomplished, except the loss of thousands of American lives with a financial cost going on some half a trillion dollars. You know, one only has to watch the nightly news. I was in the cloakroom earlier and watched the national news. It was depressing, it was sad, it was tragic. What is going on in Baghdad today and all over Iraq is an orgy of violence and blood-letting. We hear these distinctions between sectarian strife, between insurgents versus the terrorists. I still can't quite figure them out. All I know is that lives are being lost, that we Americans are taking this burden on by ourselves. And don't talk to me about the coalition. It is an American burden almost exclusively. Let me just read to you this report from The Washington Post. And, again, this is a survey taken of some 116 experts. In the relationship between Iraq and the war on terror, I think it is all too sad that many of our friends and colleagues on the other side, but particularly in the administration, have an alternate reality. We have made these arguments before, that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. There was, with one exception, unanimous support to invade Afghanistan to deal a blow to the Taliban, which were allowing al Qaeda safe haven and the ability to train and to grow. What we have done with this policy is we have created more terrorists than existed in 2001. There has been an explosion, not just of violence; there has been an explosion of terrorists. We have made Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists. They are leaving Iraq, and they are going back to Afghanistan, as you pointed out, Mr. Larson. There is a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and things are beginning to unravel again. I yield to my friend.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And you know where we didn't do that, John?