Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the lieutenant commander for his comments. I feel like I should salute at this point in time, given our respective histories in the Coast Guard. I would like to just make an observation in response to the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Simmons) review of the tragedy that befell the Kennedy family. As they both know, I represent the South Shore of Boston, Cape Cod and Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, and obviously Hyannisport is on Cape Cod. I know Senator Kennedy well. I know the Kennedy family well. And everything that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) said was so true, that the way the Coast Guard conducted itself in a respectful, professional, no fanfare manner meant so much to that family in a time of tragedy and crisis, as it does with every family in this country. We talked about aircraft. I happen also to have the Coast Guard airway stationed at a military reservation on Cape Cod. So I am familiar with those helicopters that go out and those fixed-wing aircraft. And as both the gentlemen know, their main search-and-rescue helicopter, the Jayhawk, experienced inflight engine failures at a rate of 329 mishaps per 100,000. The FAA sets a safety standard that is acceptable in terms of an aircraft at 1, not 329, but 1 mishap per 100,000 hours of flight time. So what we have is not only do we have an aging fleet, and the Deepwater Initiative incorporates upgrading the air assets of the Coast Guard, and as the gentleman from Connecticut well knows, the First District extends from the Canadian border down to New York and that air wing is so important. And these failures limit the Jayhawk's ability to hover over a distressed vessel, for example, and places the lives of its crew and those that hopefully will be rescued in grave danger. The indisputable fact is that the demands on the Coast Guard have vastly outpaced the resources that are available to them. I think it is our responsibility to give them those assets, because we want them to escort that LNG tanker. And when the parents of an overdosed teenager discover that the Coast Guard boats were not fast enough to catch the drug dealers, even though they had the intelligence, they could not respond because they did not have the vessel, we do not want to look them in the eyes and say that we failed them. Or when the family of a deceased fisherman discovered that the Coast Guard could not get there in time because that Jayhawk helicopter was grounded, we do not want that. Two centuries of experience has taught us that we can rely on the professionalism and the heroism and the commitment of the Coast Guard, whether it is hurricanes or airplane crashes or dealing with drug smugglers, or dealing with foreign factory trawlers that we had a problem with in terms of overfishing our territorial waters. The Coast Guard has always been there. They have been on call for some 200 years. Mr. Speaker, it is tempting sometimes to put things off. It is really easy here in Washington to do that. It is very tempting. But a long way from here, out in those waves and those white caps, when something is happening to people, that is what we have to keep in mind. We want to not just thank them for what they have done and honor them for what they have done; but we want, I know, to provide them with the wherewithal to continue to honor that wonderful motto of ``Semper Paratus, always ready.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my distinguished colleague and friend. Honoring the Life and Legacy of Barney Quilter

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, more often than not, debates on public policy that take place in this Chamber are often characterized with a certain level of disagreement, thoughtful disagreement, and, hopefully, respectful disagreement. But tonight that is not the case. Tonight we put aside partisan disagreements to thank the men and women of the United States Coast Guard for a job well done. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, many Americans have come to know the Coast Guard and their personnel and their heroism and their professionalism. They have been made acutely aware about the services provided by this remarkable service, for it, I would suggest, has truly been one of the Coast Guard's finest hours. And I know I speak as well for my good friend and colleague from the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), in expressing the profound gratitude of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent southeastern Massachusetts, I believe home of some of the most beautiful and pristine coastline in all of New England and, in fact, in all of the United States, and also the birthplace of the United States Coast Guard. I happen to be a very proud veteran of the United States Coast Guard, like my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina. Of course, he was an officer and a gentleman, while I was a mere enlisted man. Back in 1997, my colleague and I, and another colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), who also served in the United States Coast Guard, sat down and decided that it was time to bring together Members of Congress who are committed to lifesaving, law enforcement, and environmental protection missions that were conducted at sea. So we created the Congressional Caucus of the United States Coast Guard. We did this to advocate for this outstanding service and to increase its profile not just in this institution but among the American people. Well, their performance before, during, and in the aftermath of the tragedy which befell our Gulf States spoke volumes about the service that they provide to the American people. We learned a lot about the Coast Guard, or at least, and I am sure I speak for my friend who I will ask to say some words in a very few minutes, I know that for many, Hurricane Katrina increased their understanding of really what the Coast Guard is all about. But it is not just about search and air rescues. In fact, they are the de facto lead agency for homeland security, responsible for guarding 95,000 miles of American coastline and 361 ports. Every day, the Coast Guard interdicts, for example, drugs bound for the United States. In fact, just this past week, while performing their functions in the gulf and along the coastline of the Gulf States, the Coast Guard seized two tons of cocaine off the Colombian coast in South America, cocaine that undoubtedly would have been sold on the streets of our neighborhoods somewhere in this country. But before I proceed, let me introduce a dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a veteran of the United States Coast Guard.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order this evening.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is right. So we will be very good to her tonight.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that there is no training in any service to use a sledge hammer to break through a roof to rescue an individual while you are dangling from a helicopter. Some of our more recognized acts of heroism have been by rescue swimmers. I remember vividly that scene in the movie and also in the book ``Perfect Storm'' when those rescue swimmers from the United States Coast Guard, Air Station Cape Cod, I might add, went into seas of 80 and 90 feet. But here in New Orleans in the Gulf States, they do not have a specialty that involves breaking through roofs, walking through toxic water and being in the position where they are dealing with all sorts of very dangerous circumstances; but they did it, and they did it so well.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Nor when I was.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, in the course of a normal year, the Coast Guard rescues 5,000 people. In the last 16 days they have saved more than 33,000 lives. We have all marveled at the daring rooftop rescues, the heroism, the professionalism that they have demonstrated. Since Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, the men and women of the Coast Guard have been working backbreaking long hours, pushing themselves and their equipment to operational limits. In some cases they have used sledge hammers and axes to break through rooftops to rescue trapped residents. They have been delivering food, water, and medicine to those in need. They have responded to 284 fuel spills. And the Coast Guard's chief of staff, Thad Allen, has brought much needed order and structure to the relief efforts. It has truly been one of the Coast Guard's finest hours, and all America is profoundly grateful. What Americans do not know is that even before the destructive power of Katrina hit the gulf coast, the Coast Guard had pre-positioned a number of aircraft and ships in the area ready to launch search and rescue efforts as soon as the weather cleared. In fact, the very first rescue occurred when the eye of the storm passed over the region, and it happens that that first rescue was from a helicopter based at Air Station Cape Cod in my district, and I am proud. The Coast Guard was ready. But also what most Americans do not realize is that the Coast Guard operates the second oldest naval fleet in the world. Their ships and planes are so old they are euphemistically described as ``legacy assets.'' Many of these legacy assets are riddled with structural defects, putting Coast Guard personnel and the people who call on them for help at risk, like the nine crew members aboard the cutter Storis that was built in 1942 who were nearly killed when the davit lowering their lifeboat ripped away from the steel superstructure, crashing them into the frigid Bering Sea. The rescuers, in fact, had to be rescued. Remember last year the Coast Guard's main search and rescue helicopter, the Jayhawk, experienced in-flight engine failures at a rate of 329 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The FAA-acceptable standards is one per 100,000 flight hours. These failures limit the Jayhawk's ability to hover and place the lives of its crew, passengers, and those below in grave danger. The same helicopters are flying over the skies of the gulf coast right now. The indisputable fact is that the demands on the Coast Guard have vastly outpaced its resources, and that is why it is incredibly important that we accelerate the Deepwater program and encourage the purchase of additional cutters and aircraft, as my friend from Florida has indicated. As negotiations on the conference report for the homeland security appropriations bill continue, I implore our colleagues to bear this in mind and do all that they can do to give the Coast Guard the financial resources it needs to speed up, accelerate the Deepwater program. It is essential if the Coast Guard is to continue to honor their motto of ``Semper Paratus.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. New Englanders are accustomed to harsh winters. We know all too well that frozen rivers and blocked harbors can impede tankers carrying goods and barges laden with home heating oil stocks, resulting in lost commerce and putting lives in danger. The people of the Great Lakes are no strangers to these problems too--which is why I am so pleased that the state-of-the-art Ice Breaker Mackinaw was recently delivered to the U.S. Coast Guard. The Mackinaw replacement project couldn't have happened without the support and hard work of our colleague, and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Dave Obey. As many of my colleagues know, the new Mackinaw replaces a World War II-era icebreaker of the same name. For 60 years, she never missed a winter. However, the elements were beginning to take their toll on the ship, and it was becoming clear that a replacement vessel was needed. Toward that end, Congressman Obey has worked tirelessly to ensure the Coast Guard got the funding it needed for the Great Lakes Ice Breaker replacement project. His involvement with all aspects of the project-- from concept to commissioning--means that the newly christened Mackinaw will continue the legacy of her namesake well into the 21st century. But the Mackinaw is more than just an ice breaker. It is a homeland security platform complete with the necessary tools to carry out law enforcement operations on the Great Lakes. Additionally, its expanded decks will allow the cutter to tend to the lakes more than 2,500 navigational aids. Without Congressman Obey's leadership we'd still be waiting to commence construction of the new Mackinaw. In the meantime, the lakes would have continued to freeze-over and access to vital harbors would have been blocked. The result would have been millions of dollars of lost commerce and lost livelihoods. The people of the Great Lakes region and the Nation--as well as the U.S. Coast Guard--are truly the beneficiaries of his stewardship.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today with news that the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have reached an important agreement. The Mashpee will be placed on the BIA's active consideration list for federal recognition. This agreement is an important milestone on what has been an exceedingly long and arduous road for the Mashpee. As some of my colleagues know, the Mashpee are long-time residents of Cape Cod in our area 5,000 years before there was a United States of America, much less the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts. The Mashpee literally met the Mayflower in 1620 and were the Native Americans who aided the Pilgrims through their difficult first months and who attended the first Thanksgiving feast. The history of the Mashpee Wampanoag in American life goes back to that meeting in 1620, but that only tells the most recent chapters of the story. With an unbroken chain of habitation spanning five millennia, the Mashpee accepted the Pilgrims and others--and went out of their way to offer assistance. And then, when European culture gave way to a fledgling United States, the Mashpee Wampanoag embraced their roles as both Native Americans and Americans. Mashpee Wampanoag Indians have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces in every war from the Revolution through Iraq. The Tribe's current Chief was part of the Allied invasion of Normandy in the Second World War, and the Chairman of the Tribal Council is a survivor of the siege on Khe Sanh. Mashpee Wampanoag Indians continue to serve and sacrifice with so many other Americans. But the Mashpee have a dream: Formal recognition of their cultural identity by the Federal Government. They have sought a decision from the Bureau of Indian Affairs since 1978. Today I am pleased to tell you that the Bureau has agreed to place the Mashpee's application on active status and has committed to issuing a decision by April of next year. This process, I have no doubt, will lead to recognition of the tribe by the federal government, as Massachusetts has since the early days of the Commonwealth. Many in this chamber are familiar with this issue and I thank my colleagues and their staffs for helping so much to this point. I ask for your continued support as the day of decision draws near. We all remember the Mayflower. It's now time to remember those who stood on the shore the day she landed, and, with open arms, embraced the Pilgrims--the Mashpee Wampanoag Indians.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I had a revelation during the course of the exchange about capping premiums. What I found particularly fascinating was that my good friend from Georgia, our own Dr. Phil, is an advocate for wage control. In other words, cap those fees as long as, I guess, it is lawyers. Maybe not for CEOs, but at least we know that he is a proponent of wage controls for lawyers. But when it comes to price control, it seems that the majority has a problem. So you are in favor of capping wages, but not in favor of capping prices, because really that is what it comes down to. I guess it is a new tradition within the Republican Party. In any event, for all the reasons that others have suggested, I think not only does this qualify as a bad bill because it is not going to accomplish the goal of lowering premiums, but I think, and I would suggest, it is a cruel bill, because this cap on so-called noneconomic damages impacts the most vulnerable among us, mothers who stay at home and particularly children, because they have no economic damages. They do not have such economic damages as the loss of potential earnings. So apart from their medical bills, all of their losses are noneconomic, like a lifelong physical impairment, or maybe a mental disability, or disfigurement. This bill will deny them the possibility of a life that at least has a modicum of respect and dignity in compensation for their loss, a loss which, by the way, they had no involvement in other than being the victim.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare next month to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, Americans will again turn their thoughts to those who sacrificed on the battlefield and the home front. The Greatest Generation of soldiers came from cities and towns all across our Nation. They were ordinary men called to a great crusade. Their mission was nothing short of making the world safe for democracy. Six decades ago, the soldiers of the 95th Infantry Division slogged their way through German-occupied France--one field, one bridge, one city at a time. They went to Europe, not as part of a conquering army, but as liberators to restore freedom to the land of Lafayette. Some of the men in the 95th Infantry Division never made it home. They rest in fields once made infamous by the fury of war, and now where peace holds its gentle sway. These men made the ultimate sacrifice for a noble idea. A simple, immutable truth as old as our Republic: That all people, everywhere, have the right to life and liberty. We're reminded of their sacrifice whenever we see children in a cemetery planting small flags near the headstones of our fallen soldiers; or in the expression of an aging veteran summoning all his strength to stand at respectful attention during the national anthem. They offered the last full measure of devotion to ensure our liberty for posterity. However, we are not the only ones who are grateful for their sacrifice. All around the globe, monuments and plaques recount the acts of bravery that secured for an oppressed people freedom from their Nazi occupiers. No where is this more evident--and appreciated--than in the villages of France. These commemorations have taken on a new significance this year as the world celebrates the 60th Anniversary of V-E Day. In one particular French town, Metzervisse, the Police Chief, Pascal Moretti, has made it his personal mission to remind succeeding generations about the critical role of American troops in liberating the community. When asked why he was interested in organizing these celebrations, ``Our children must understand the price of liberty,'' Moretti said. ``The blood they shed. What they did for us is wonderful. They gave us the most beautiful gift in the world: freedom.'' Toward this end, he created the Moselle River 1944 Organization to honor the Allied soldiers who liberated the cities and towns that border the East Bank of the Moselle River. Last month, more than 50 veterans returned to Metzervisse. This time instead of being met with a hail of gunfire or the thundering sounds of artillery, they were greeted with bands and a chorus of thank-you. For his work, Chief Moretti has been recognized with the Freedom Award at the America's Freedom Festival in Provo, Utah. Yet perhaps his greatest reward comes from the satisfaction of knowing that a new generation of French children is learning about a time when it seemed that liberty in their country was about to be eradicated by the Nazi regime, and the world responded to beat back the darkness. American school children learn that in the 18th century it was Lafayette and the French who helped secure the establishment of the United States. It seems altogether fitting that French school children in the 21st century should learn that the Smiths and Messinas of the United States returned the favor during World War II. I commend Chief Moretti for his efforts to honor our veterans of World War II and doing his part to sustain the historic bonds of friendship between our two nations. With preparations underway to commemorate the 60th anniversary of V-E and V-J Day next month at the National World War II Memorial, this admirer of the Greatest Generation, reminds us all that we should take a moment and thank those who served--and are now serving. And we must never forget those 400,000 Americans who gave their lives during the War so that the lamp of liberty would continue to shine.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the simple point that the amendment that was offered that was not made in order by myself, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) would not have allowed, under any circumstances, a safe haven anywhere for terrorists. It was a different approach. The standards were higher. I think that is an important point to make as a matter of record.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, this is an amendment. My cosponsors are the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). But, again, let me begin by saying this is not about Cuba. So let us make that very clear. This is about domestic terrorism and the definition of domestic terrorism. And while it does not create a new crime under the PATRIOT Act, the definition triggers an array of expanded governmental authorities, including enhanced civil asset seizure powers. It is so broadly defined that it could include acts of civil disobedience because they may involve acts that endanger human life, one of the elements that goes into the definition of domestic terrorism. For example, they could implicate anti-abortion protesters who illegally block access to federal clinics, which could be interpreted by a liberal activist Attorney General as endangering the lives of those seeking abortions, or environmental protesters who trespass on private land and climb trees to prevent logging, which could be interpreted by a conservative activist Attorney General as endangering their own lives or the lives of the loggers. Since such actions are usually undertaken to influence government policy, another of the elements that go into the definition of domestic terrorism, such activities could be treated in such a way as to have severe unintended consequences, particularly with regard to the government seizure of property and/or assets. For example, any property used to facilitate the acts, such as a church basement, or property affording a source of influence over the group, like a bank account of a major donor to a direct action anti- abortion group, could be seized without any criminal conviction and without a prior hearing notice under section 806, which is implicated into the PATRIOT Act. This amendment curbs those unintended consequences and possibilities and appropriately limits the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a Federal, substantive crime of terrorism, instead of any Federal or State crime. It also limits the definition to actions that are actually intended to influence government policy on a civilian population by coercion or intimidation, instead of the current standard that the actions ``appear to be intended'' to have that effect. I would conclude by reminding my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary that this amendment is drawn from the version of the PATRIOT Act that was unanimously approved by the Committee on the Judiciary in October of 2001, and I urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). And I also want to address the issue of oversight. And let me be very clear. The chairman has been most aggressive when it comes to oversight, and I want to publicly commend him, not just in terms of the PATRIOT Act, but many other issues that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. However, this is not about this particular chairman. It is about the responsibility of future members of the Judiciary Committee to exercise that responsibility. And I have a concern about oversight because, let us be honest, it is not easy dealing with the executive branch. We have all had that experience. We reach conclusions, but we really do not know. I can remember when the chairman himself discussed issuing a subpoena to bring the former Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft, before the committee to provide us information on the so-called heavy guidelines. That is what was necessary. Just recently, I read where the vice chair of the Government Reform Committee, looking into the expenditures of monies involving the development for the Fund of Iraq, expressed frustration with the lack of cooperation coming from the Pentagon. I have served on an invitation basis under Chairman Dan Burton investigating the misconduct of the FBI in the Boston office, and again, it required the threat of a contempt petition to gain information from the Department of Justice. If we need to go that far then to exercise our oversight constitutional responsibility, it is not an easy job to do. So that is why all of the discussions today about oversight are framed in that context.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I applaud the cosponsors of this particular amendment because it is a significant amendment. As it was indicated, under the PATRIOT Act the FBI can merely assert at this point in time that records are relevant to an intelligence investigation. That can be just simply about foreign policy objectives. In addition, it added a permanent nondisclosure requirement which, if violated, imposed severe sanctions on the recipient of the so-called national security letter. This was truly a profound expansion of government power where the subject of the order need not be suspected of any involvement in terrorism whatsoever, where there was no judicial review, where there was no statutory right to challenge, and where the order gags the recipient from telling anyone about it. A Federal District Court in New York has already ruled that the national security letters for communication records, as amended by the PATRIOT Act, are unconstitutional because they are coercive and violate the fourth amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and the first amendment as a result of the gag order. This amendment, I would submit, attempts to salvage the use of national security letters in intelligence investigations so as to comply with constitutional standards. It gives the recipient of a national security letter his day in court. He can consult a lawyer. A judge can reject or modify the FBI demand upon a finding that compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive. The recipient can also seek to modify or set aside the gag order if the court makes certain findings that it was unnecessary. The amendment goes further to modify the nondisclosure requirement so that the recipients can tell other people with whom they work about the demand so that they can comply with the order. As I suggested, the current law is of dubious constitutionality, and I would suggest this amendment would permit appropriate use of so- called national security letters that would not only pass constitutional muster but would be sound policy. It also, I believe, strikes a more reasonable balance between privacy and freedom on the one hand and national security on the other with only a negligible burden imposed on the government, and so I urge passage.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment and express my appreciation for the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) when he suggested that this has been a good process. We have significant disagreements, and they are healthy disagreements, I would add. But I think he made the point. There is no one, no Democrat and no Republican who wants to reconstruct that metaphorical wall that prevented the sharing of information. I do not know of anyone on either side. And that was the key and the linchpin, I would suggest, of the success of the PATRIOT Act. Now, some have suggested that there has been no abuse discovered by the Department of Justice, and I will accept that premise. But I would also put forth that the reality of the sunsets were an encouragement on the part of the Department of Justice to ensure full compliance with the law as it was then written. If you will, one could argue that it served as a deterrence, that it encouraged good behavior; and that is why some of us here on this side of the aisle are so passionate about the issue of sunsets. It is my understanding that this morning in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, there were a number of sunsets on various provisions that were approved, and they were full-year sunsets. I dare say, if various amendments relative to sunsets had been allowed and made in order, this debate could have been cut in half in terms of the time. I also want to speak to the issue of library records. My good friend and colleague on the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), talked about some using the library provision, if you will, as a red herring. Well, the reality is that library records under section 215 can be gleaned under section 215. Yes, according to the Attorney General, it has never been used, which just leads me to ask the question, well, why do we need it? But, yes, it ought to be a concern. I would further suggest that in terms of if there is no concern about libraries, if it is a red herring, why does the first amendment that we will consider that was made in order have to do with the issue?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the chairman for his support, and I thank the gentleman from Arizona in helping draft this particular amendment, and I particularly appreciate the example that he enumerated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, this has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with sending messages about terrorism. It is trying to find out what is happening in the Federal Government today, and we do not know. We have heard a lot today about oversight and accountability. That is what we are trying to do here. Remember the so-called Total Information Program that was the brainchild of the former National Security Administrator that we funded to the tune of $170 million, and then defunded it? It was too late. We wasted $170 million. That is what this is about. It is providing the tools to the United States Congress to do its constitutional job of oversight. Mr. Chairman, do you know what? We do not know what is happening. That is the real secret as far as the American people are concerned. We stumble on these things.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is interesting to go back a bit and to remember that the Department of State had worked for months on a plan, a plan that was fleshed out by bringing in experts from outside, by bringing in those with different perspectives. And yet, because there was some suspicion on the part of the Pentagon that State was not enthusiastically in support of the military invasion of Iraq, that that had to be put aside. And now we find ourselves, obviously, in a real mess

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may go to that issue of anti-Americanism once more, it was interesting during the course of the debate today on the reauthorization of the Department of State when during consideration of the rule an amendment put forth by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was not made in order because I would suggest that the seeds of that anti-Americanism is a perception that the United States operates on two different standards, and that is interpreted by many in this world to be rank hypocrisy. It was the President that said during his inaugural address that the United States ``will persistently clarify the choice for every ruler and every Nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom which is eternally right. America will not pretend that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making it clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.'' Noble words, a noble cause, and we all of course embrace that. Yet when we put forth this amendment which would have admonished and required a certification by the President that the thug, the bully, if you will, that rules Uzbekistan would change his ways, it was not made in order. One of our partners in this coalition of the willing is the thug, and I will take a moment here and put his picture up so Members and the viewing audience can see. This is Islam Karimov. This victim here was boiled alive in water, scalding water. This is a member of the coalition of the willing. According to our own State Department, Karimov heads a regime that does not allow freedom of speech or religion, that makes a mockery of elections, that holds thousands of political prisoners, and where security forces routinely use torture. This is the product of the thug Karimov's security forces utilization of torture, torture that goes back to the medieval times. And then 2 months ago his troops massacred hundreds of civilians who were simply protesting for justice and for liberty. And yet we continue to give him military assistance, some $400 million to date. The amendment that was offered by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) would have terminated that aid unless Karimov changed his behavior.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly.