Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the proponent of the amendment is aware of the fact that U.S. personnel are already prohibited from being under the command of another nation, and therefore would always be subject to the UCMJ.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to reality, too, as the gentleman from California just did. I think it is important we not deceive ourselves. While the United Nations clearly needs our leadership, we also need the United Nations, particularly in the area of peacekeeping. There are some 16 peacekeeping missions deployed around the world today. They number at least 70,000 troops. Ten of them, 10, are American. These so-called ``blue helmets'' have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and some of them have been killed while doing so. Are there problems? Clearly there are problems. Is progress being made? Yes, progress is being made. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and myself recently met with Prince Zeid. There is progress being made, but this amendment does not help the cause. Just imagine, if you will, the cost to the United States in terms of dollars and blood if Americans were required to fill those roles. This bill could very well force the U.S. military, which is as we know already stretched dangerously thin, to deploy to more and more inhospitable venues. One example that we are all familiar with, Haiti. There are 6,700 United Nations troops in Haiti today along with 1,400 U.N. police working to keep order, and more are scheduled. Without that United Nations presence, the United States would be left with the responsibility of restoring order, providing security, and rebuilding a functioning government. This is nation-building for real that hopefully will transpire in Haiti. Otherwise, we will be looking at a failed state close to our southern borders with all the consequences that that will implicate. It is the United Nations that is keeping Haiti from total collapse into anarchy. I have no doubt that the expenses associated with that scenario, if there is a total collapse, will vastly exceed our annual commitment to the United Nations, both voluntary and assessed, for years to come. Not only would we have to commit U.S. troops to restore order; we might have to deal with a humanitarian crisis that could very well compel us to use Guantanamo for something significantly different from its current use, much like we did in the early 1990s when it was a refugee center for Haitians who were fleeing from their country in makeshift crafts and dying by the thousands. As the world's richest nation and the sole superpower, this unpleasant task would fall to us alone. Do we really want to assume that burden? That is just one example. Multiply the potential by 16, by a factor of 16, if this particular provision should eventually become law. We put ourselves, our troops, our taxpayers at great risk.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I do obviously support the acceptance by our ranking member of the amendment. I think it is important to note for the record that there are currently investigations that are ongoing, and for the information of my friend from New York, the Secretary General has been very explicit that he will fully cooperate. We have received information back that that cooperation is, in fact, occurring, and he has publicly stated, without equivocation, that there will be no immunity for members of the United Nations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again, let me provide this as an update, because this is a report by the Associated Press from today, titled ``U.N. Oil-for-Food author of e-mail memo says he never discussed Oil-for-Food contract bid with Kofi Annan. The executive who wrote an e-mail suggesting that the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan may have known about a U.N. contract awarded to his son's company has denied ever discussing the firm's bid with Annan, a law firm said Wednesday.'' So, again, I think it is worthy of a review, clearly worthy of an investigation; but I do find it interesting that when we talk about investigations that we have not taken the opportunity to investigate the report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction of the report by an American official indicating that the Coalition Provisional Authority provided less than adequate controls for approximately $9 billion of development funds for Iraq funds provided to Iraq through the national budget process. We cannot find that money.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time. I also read the same report that the gentleman from New Jersey referred to, but I would like to provide him an update at this point because I am sure he received his information from a newspaper report, if I am correct.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that when we talk about reforming the United Nations that we have to be clear about what the United Nations is. It is not simply the Secretariat. The Secretariat is just the staff. They are the hired help. They run the day-to-day affairs of the United Nations; but it is the Member states that set policy, that make decisions that are responsible for oversight in implementation of the United Nations resolutions. In particular, it is the function of the Security Council to carry out those responsibilities. The United States is a permanent member of the Security Council, with the power to veto any resolution. When the Security Council does not want the United Nations to work, it will not work. The Gingrich-Mitchell report put it this way, and I am quoting, ``Too often the phrase `the United Nations failed' should actually read `members of the United Nations blocked or undermined action by the United Nations.' '' An excellent example of this concept is the sanctions against Iraq in the Oil-for-Food program. The United States advocated for the sanctions on Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War and then supported the Oil- for-Food program, advocated for it, but it was the Security Council, not some amorphous United Nations somewhere up in New York, that had the responsibility to oversee the Oil-for-Food program and the sanction regime. But when Jordan and Turkey notified the Security Council that they intended to purchase oil from Iraq, in direct violation of the sanctions regime, the Security Council simply took notice, whatever that means. I still cannot figure it out, but they did nothing else. It did not block Jordan and Turkey from this trade. It did not sanction those countries. It did not instruct the Secretariat to take any action. It did nothing. As a result, Syria and Egypt then began to purchase oil from Iraq as well, and it is important to understand that this ended up as the largest illicit source of revenue for Saddam Hussein, and it had nothing to do with the Oil-for-Food program, nothing to do with it at all. The moneys derived from these so-called trade protocols far exceeded the money that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the Oil-for-Food program. This chart next to me shows that the so-called trade protocols generated over $8 billion in revenue for Saddam Hussein. My friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations talks about $10 billion; 8 billion of that came from the Security Council's inaction while looking the other way. Even some of the money that Saddam stole from the Oil-for-Food program could have been saved by aggressive oversight by the Security Council. It is important to note it was the Security Council that approved all prices on oil exports from Iraq, and every contract needed their approval for humanitarian goods coming into Iraq, and yet when the Secretariat brought 71 contracts to the attention of the Security Council because of concerns of pricing irregularities, the Security Council did nothing, did nothing, and Saddam profited and stayed in power as a result. Why? Why did the Security Council not address any of these issues? Because the Security Council, including our own government, and there was two administrations involved, both the Clinton and the Bush administration, reached a political decision that it was not in their interests to fully enforce the sanctions. That has to be understood. So when we talk about making the United Nations more effective, let us be clear that the changes that are being proposed, and that I embrace, do not fully address the problem. What is ultimately required is improving the way member states work together, and some level of transparency in the internal workings of the Security Council, not unilaterally withholding dues. I am convinced that those eight Ambassadors who sent that letter to our congressional leadership are correct when they say withholding dues to the United Nations may sound like smart policy, but would be counterproductive. It would create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen the opponents of reform. It would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives that we embrace. Please understand that.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I also want to add to the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), when it comes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I have served with the chairman both on the Committee on the Judiciary and on the Committee on International Relations. I have profound respect and deep affection for him, but I do not like his bill. It is clear that there is a consensus that the United Nations needs reform. We want reform. Our allies want reform. The Secretary General wants reform. Just this week a congressionally created task force chaired by the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the former majority leader Senator George Mitchell issued a report urging adoption of many of the proposals put forth by the Secretary General; but it did not recommend that Congress withhold dues to serve as a catalyst to bring about those reforms. Presumably, they were in agreement with the eight former U.S. Ambassadors to the United Nations, both Republican and Democrat, who stated yesterday in a letter to the congressional leadership, and I would ask my colleagues to pay close attention to this particular excerpt, ``Withholding U.S. dues to the United Nations may sound like smart policy, but would be counterproductive. It would create resentment, build animosity and actually strengthen opponents of reform. It would place in jeopardy the reform initiatives most important to U.S. interests.'' Remember, these are Americans who represented our Nation at the United Nations. They understand how the institution works. They know how to get things done. Yes, Madam Speaker, I am optimistic that reform will occur, but it will not happen as a result of this bill, it will happen in spite of this bill. If it were a thoughtful effort to effect change, why did the committee proceed before the Gingrich-Mitchell task force that we created and funded back in December even made its recommendations? No, this bill will not promote U.N. reform, Madam Speaker. It is more likely to undermine those efforts. Support for this bill will reinforce a growing belief that we are not committed to strengthening the United Nations, to working with our like-minded allies to make it a more effective tool to promote our interests. I recognize that some, a few, on the other side honestly believe we should end any participation, any U.S. participation in the United Nations. They prefer to go it alone, but they forget that without the United Nations it would fall on us to do much of what the United Nations is doing on the planet today, and that the United Nations has supported the United States in some of our critical foreign policy needs. It was the United Nations that organized and ran the elections in Iraq and in Afghanistan and played a critical role in forcing the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. The Ambassadors are correct, resentment towards the United States will increase. That is because what this bill simply says is unless you do everything we want, we will cut off your funds. In other words, if you do not play the game according to our rules, we will take our ball and go home. This take-it-or-leave-it approach does not help us, it hurts us. A recent GAO report stated, and again I am quoting, ``Recent polling data show that anti-Americanism is spreading and deepening around the world. Such anti-American sentiments can increase foreign public support for terrorism directed against the United States, impact the cost and effectiveness of military operations, weaken the United States' ability to align with other nations in pursuit of common policy objectives, and dampen foreign publics' enthusiasm for U.S. business services and products.'' That is a quote from our own GAO. This bill is bad for our national security interests, it is bad for America, and I hope it is defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, one thing that I feel confident in doing is to reassure my friend, the majority leader, that denying the Cuban people toothpaste and toilet paper will not bring down Fidel Castro. The reality is that Fidel Castro has been in power for more than 45 years, despite the existence of an embargo on a whole variety of items. What we have done by denying families here in the United States the ability to send toilet paper and toothpaste to their families back in Cuba is to deny something very fundamental that reflects the deepest American tradition and values of helping our extended families who still live in their countries of origin. At one level it is about toothpaste and toilet paper, but the real issue here is about family. That is what this is about. Let us not even make this a debate about Fidel Castro, because, trust me, Fidel Castro will survive whether there is an ounce of toothpaste that goes into Cuba from a Cuban American family. That is not what this amendment is about. I respect the fact that there is diversity of opinion in terms of how we deal with the Castro government, but let us get past the politics and understand that this is about family, because I can assure you that standing with the Cuban people means to provide them the kind of assistance on a regular basis so that they can live a life, at least in their home, in the privacy of their daily existence, a life that has some dignity. Some dignity. That is the least we can do for the Cuban people.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, from the Revolutionary War to the mountains of Afghanistan and the sands of Iraq, Massachusetts' sons and daughters have answered the call for military service. This weekend, after three decades of active duty service, Colonel Deborah Andwood will retire from the U.S. Army Reserve. In her 30 years of service she's gone from being a cold warrior to homeland defender. Colonel Andwood's commitment, dedication and professionalism has earned the respect and admiration of our entire community. For several years, Colonel Andwood has served our Commonwealth as the Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer for the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency. In this capacity, Colonel Andwood has assisted in coordinating responses for such events as the Democratic National Convention, LNG tanker arrivals and the 2004 World Series. It is with some special pride, as a fellow native of the city of Quincy, that I commend to my colleagues the following narrative prepared recently by her fellow officers as they get ready to say farewell and thank you. Award Narrative--Colonel Deborah J. Andwood COL Deborah Andwood distinguished herself by exceptionally meritorious service while serving in successive assignments of great trust and responsibility. COL Andwood received a direct commission as Second Lieutenant in the Women's Army Corps shortly after receiving her Bachelor of Science degree in Education from Westfield State College. Following completion of Active Duty assignments as a Signal officer, COL Andwood joined the U.S. Army Reserve. COL Andwood served as the unit Training Officer in the 1037th U.S. Army Reserve School. COL Andwood completed the Transportation Officer Advanced Course and was assigned to the 1172nd Transportation Terminal Unit. She successfully completed assignments of increasing responsibility as Warehouse Officer, Chief of Cargo Documentation, Vessel Operations Chief, and Assistant Operations Chief. Later, COL Andwood was assigned to the 1173rd Transportation Terminal Unit as Vessel Section Chief and Battalion Executive Officer. After successfully completing her tour as Battalion Executive Officer, COL Andwood was selected as Battalion Commander of the 1205th Transportation Railway Battalion. Through her efforts in recruiting, retention and training, she improved her battalion's rating to an overall C-3 status for the first time. A significant accomplishment leading to this was the effectiveness of her unit's on-the-job railroad training program that greatly enhanced the unit's MOSQ level. COL Andwood's leadership resulted in IDT attendance remaining above 85% and outstanding performance by her unit at multi-increment Annual Training. In addition to the Railway Battalion, COL Andwood was responsible for effectively managing two subordinate units, one of which was mobilized and demobilized to support Operation Joint Endeavor. Upon successful completion of her tour as Battalion Commander, she was assigned as Logistics Officer in the 1021st CA Group (RTU). From 1997 to 1998, COL Andwood served in an Individual Mobilization Augmentee position as Air Movement Control Officer, 37th Transportation Command in Germany. From 1998 to 2002, COL Andwood served as Combined Arms Staff Service School (CAS3) Staff Group Leader, 13th Battalion, and 6th Brigade. In her role as Staff Group Leader, COL Andwood had a significant impact on the preparation of U.S. Army Reserve and National Guard Captains for promotion to field grade officers and staff assignments of increased responsibility. Upon successful completion of her tour as CAS3 Staff Group Leader, COL Andwood was assigned as an Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer for the State of Vermont in 2002. In January 2003, COL Andwood was selected for the Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer in her home state of Massachusetts. COL Andwood has been responsible for the preparation and participation in numerous emergency preparedness exercises for the Commonwealth, the New England region, other Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regions, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. She has contributed to the effective working relationships between State Joint DoD services team and the federal, state(s), and civilian authorities tasked with responding to the all hazards requirements of the federal response plan. During her tour, COL Andwood significantly contributed to the education and preparedness of the Joint Service region and State Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officer teams in New England, New York, and New Jersey by the planning, coordination, and execution of a 3-day conference in Boston. Federal, state, and local agencies were brought together to provide education and interaction in preparation for the Democratic National Convention. In July 2004, COL Andwood was called to active duty as a team member at the Joint Operations Center in Milford, Massachusetts during the Democratic National Convention as part of the DoD response in the event of an emergency or disaster. COL Andwood's dedication and selflessness at all levels within the disaster preparedness community has substantially advanced the state of readiness of the State Emergency Preparedness Liaison Team, the coordination with the Massachusetts National Guard, and the preparedness and training of the Defense Coordinating Teams that COL Andwood has supported. Her outstanding achievements and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon herself and the United States Army.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, at a national summit last month hosted by the Travel Business Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, hundreds of travel and tourism executives gathered in Washington to discuss the impact of America's deteriorating global image on the U.S. economy. As a Representative of coastal Massachusetts, where declining international travel and tourism is a local economic development issue--and as a member of the International Relations Committee, which grapples with our foreign policy, as well as the Judiciary Committee, which oversees our visa protocols--I was asked to address the summit. I sought to convey that the perception of America around the world has lasting consequences for us at home, and was pleased to see these themes highlighted in a June 1st column by Tom Friedman of the New York Times. His admonitions, like those of scores of business leaders at the summit, are serious and disturbing--and I commend the Friedman column to my congressional colleagues. [From the New York Times, June 1, 2005] America's DNA (By Thomas L. Friedman) A few years ago my youngest daughter participated in the National History Day program for eighth graders. The question that year was ``turning points'' in history, and schoolchildren across the land were invited to submit a research project that illuminated any turning point in history. My daughter's project was ``How Sputnik Led to the Internet'' It traced how we reacted to the Russian launch of Sputnik by better networking our scientific research centers and how those early, crude networks spread and eventually were woven into the Internet. The subtext was how our reaction to one turning point unintentionally triggered another decades later. I worry that 20 years from now some eighth grader will be doing her National History Day project on how America's reaction to 9/11 unintentionally led to an erosion of core elements of American identity. What sparks such dark thoughts on a trip from London to New Delhi? In part it is the awful barriers that now surround the U.S. Embassy in London on Grosvenor Square. ``They have these cages all around the embassy now, and these huge concrete blocks, and the whole message is: `Go away!' '' said Kate Jones, a British literary agent who often walks by there. ``That is how people think of America now, and it's a really sad thing because that is not your country.'' In part it was a conversation with friends in London, one a professor at Oxford, another an investment banker, both of whom spoke about the hassles, fingerprinting, paperwork and costs that they, pro-American professionals, now must go through to get a visa to the U.S. In part it was a recent chat with the folks at Intel about the obstacles they met trying to get visas for Muslim youths from Pakistan and South Africa who were finalists for this year's Intel science contest. And in part it was a conversation with M.I.T. scientists about the new restrictions on Pentagon research contracts--in terms of the nationalities of the researchers who could be involved and the secrecy required--that were constricting their ability to do cutting-edge work in some areas and forcing intellectual capital offshore. The advisory committee of the World Wide Web recently shifted its semiannual meeting from Boston to Montreal so as not to put members through the hassle of getting visas to the U.S. The other day I went to see the play ``Billy Elliot'' in London. During intermission, a man approached me and asked, ``Are you Mr. Friedman?'' When I said yes, he introduced himself--Emad Tinawi, a Syrian-American working for Booz Allen. He told me that while he disagreed with some things I wrote, there was one column he still keeps. ``It was the one called, ``Where Birds Don't Fly,''' he said. I remembered writing that headline, but I couldn't remember the column. Then he reminded me: It was about the new post-9/ II U.S. Consulate in Istanbul, which looks exactly like a maximum-security prison, so much so that a captured Turkish terrorist said that while his pals considered bombing it, they concluded that the place was so secure that even birds couldn't fly there. Mr. Tinawi and I then swapped impressions about the corrosive impact such security restrictions were having on foreigners' perceptions of America. In New Delhi, the Indian writer Gurcharan Das remarked to me that with each visit to the U.S. lately, he has been forced by border officials to explain why he is coming to America. They ``make you feel so unwanted now,'' said Mr. Das. America was a country ``that was always reinventing itself,'' he added, because it was a country that always welcomed ``all kinds of oddballs'' and had ``this wonderful spirit of openness.'' American openness has always been an inspiration for the whole world, he concluded. ``If you go dark, the world goes dark.'' Bottom line: We urgently need a national commission to look at all the little changes we have made in response to 9/11-- from visa policies to research funding, to the way we've sealed off our federal buildings, to legal rulings around prisoners of war--and ask this question: While no single change is decisive, could it all add up in a way so that 20 years from now we will discover that some of America's cultural and legal essence--our DNA as a nation--has become badly deformed or mutated? This would be a tragedy for us and for the world. Because, as I've argued, where birds don't fly, people don't mix, ideas don't get sparked, friendships don't get forged, stereotypes don't get broken, and freedom doesn't ring.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am sure that the good lieutenant has recognized what a wonderful advocate he has had here on the floor of the House. I think that the gentleman should be commended for his perseverance, for his integrity, and for all that he did, not just for this particular young man, but what the gentleman does in terms of the moral integrity of this institution. I congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment. Since the BRAC list was announced, many of my constituents have been asking the same question. Did the Pentagon, did the White House, take into account the homeland security implications of closing military bases? The honest answer is that it doesn't appear so. In fact, it doesn't appear that anyone is obligated to consider the homeland security implications of these base closings. On September 11, 2001, fighter jets from the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, were the first military presence to arrive on the scene in New York City. Just last week, the Air Wing escorted an Al Italia flight to Bangor, Maine, after it was discovered that a passenger on board was on the no- fly list. Yet, Otis is slated for closure on the BRAC list. It takes nine minutes for the fighters on Cape Cod to reach New York City. Nine minutes because they can take off and land in totally unrestricted air space. The same can't be said of Atlantic City--where some of the planes may be reassigned. We shouldn't have to ask commercial air traffic to back off so we can scramble our own planes to defend us. Contrary to the prevailing logic at the Pentagon, national defense and homeland security are not conflicting priorities--they go hand in hand. Many of these bases--like Otis--complement the defense of our homeland. I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, imagine that your house is on fire, and the first thing you do is call 911; but the fire truck which was purchased during the Eisenhower administration gets a flat tire. The siren is not working, and then the hose springs a leak. Now you have lost your house, all of your possessions, and hopefully not your life. Now imagine you are at sea. You call for help. The mayday call will be answered by the United States Coast Guard with ships and planes that are called legacy assets. Presumably that is a euphemism for old, really old. In fact, the Coast Guard operates the second oldest naval fleet in the world. The North Korean and Iranian naval fleets are in better shape than the United States Coast Guard. Many so-called legacy assets are riddled with structural defects, putting Coast Guard personnel and people who call on them for help at risk, like the nine Coast Guard personnel who were aboard the 1942-era cutter Storis who nearly died when the davit lowering their lifeboat ripped away from the steel superstructure crashing them into the frigid Bering Sea. The rescuers literally became the rescued. And remember last year, the Coast Guard's main search and rescue helicopter, the Jayhawk, experienced in-flight engine failures at a rate of 329 per 100,000. The FAA acceptable standard is one per 100,000 flight hours. These failures limit the Jayhawk's ability to hover over, and place the lives of its crew and passengers and those below in danger. The undisputable fact is that the demands on the Coast Guard have vastly outpaced its resources. I think we can all agree, there is no margin for era, particularly in this post-9/11 world, when the Coast Guard cannot escort an LNG tanker because the cutter's hull has fractured; when the parents of an overdosed teenager discover that the Coast Guard boats were not fast enough to interdict the drug smugglers; when family members of deceased fishermen discover that the Coast Guard could not have got there sooner because the helicopter had to turn around because of engine problems. I sincerely appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the Committee on Appropriations have been most patient in seeking the answers to the questions that they have posed, but I deeply regret we have come to the point where Congress feels it is necessary to threaten the future, the very existence, honestly, of the Coast Guard; and OMB and the administration should comply sooner rather than later with the request put forward by the chairman so we can put this matter behind us and meet our responsibilities to the brave Coast Guard personnel as well as the American people. In the end, we should be looking for ways to speed up the Deepwater program and encourage the purchase of additional cutters and aircraft. What the service needs with its multiple missions and increasing responsibilities is not further reduction, but rather increases; increases, not of millions, but of billions, of dollars because it is that critical. Unless we do not really care about patrolling ports, bridges and power plants, unless the 5,000 lives that the Coast Guard saves on an annual basis are now expendable, and we all know that is not true, that is not the case. But the reality is a crippled Coast Guard means lost property, lost commerce, and lost lives. We can do better.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me just suggest the following, with all due respect to my friend from Wisconsin and my friend from Virginia. The figure of $400 is a mythical figure. It is inaccurate. In addition to that, be rest assured, if you are a consumer, you will not benefit one penny from this bill. Do my colleagues know who is going to benefit? The credit card industry. Anyone familiar with the history of this bill knows that it was written by and for the credit card industry, and they spent north of $40 million to make sure that they got what they wanted. The American people are the losers here, unless you happen to be a senior executive of a credit card company or an investor in credit card companies, because they are going to make a good score here today, but the American taxpayer is going to pay for it. According to the CBO, the bill will cost taxpayers $392 million over a 5-year period and simultaneously reduce tax revenue by $456 million, increasing the budget deficit, by the way, that we are all so concerned about. The bill is nothing more than a public subsidy for one of the most profitable businesses in our economy. What is sad is that we could have produced legislation which would have been fair and balanced. We continue to hear that fair and balanced theme, but the credit card industry would not allow it. They would not tolerate any effort to make them accountable, no matter how minimal. To cite just one example, myself and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) proposed an amendment to limit the interest charged on a credit card to 75 percent. I said 75 percent. The credit card industry said, no; and, of course, their supporters defeated our amendment; and this amendment is not before us today. I would suggest 75 percent is not bad, even by Mafia standards. Loan sharking used to be a crime in this country. Maybe this bill should be renamed as the Loan Sharking Decriminalization Act of 2000. We hear the term personal responsibility, but when it comes to the concept of corporate responsibility, silence.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is correct when he says 8 years. I dare say we could spend another 8 years, but given the quality of this bill, given the reality that it imposes no responsibility whatsoever on the credit card industry, naturally we will be opposed. Responsibility. We hear personal responsibility. What about corporate responsibility? Responsibility is a two-way street. To get a fair and balanced bill, we need amendments. We need amendments like the one that the gentleman from North Carolina and myself filed which would have limited the interest on credit cards to 75 percent. Sure, that might have shifted, if you will, some of us to support the bill. But, no, the credit card industry bought and paid for this legislation. Somewhere north of $40 million was part of that effort. Let us not kid ourselves. This bill was written for and by the credit card industry. It has nothing to do with the consumer. But that is why we needed amendments, to make it fair and to make it balanced. Let us not just use those words.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made a statement, if I understand correctly, that passage of this proposal before us today would translate into a savings of $400 for each family in America.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield further, the $400 would actually go back to the American family? Is that what the chairman is suggesting?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. And we never could have done it, Mr. Speaker, in 45 days. Never.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if I may just pose a question, again there is a wealth of history that I am looking at right here in terms of the issue of ethical standards in this particular institution. Has there ever been before a moment in terms of ethical standards where a unilateral initiative has been imposed on the body without a collaborative effort, without consultation?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. I have to say they have all served this institution well. They provided me with a real history lesson here this evening. I am probably, maybe with one exception, their senior in terms of age, but they carry a wealth of insight and experience in this issue. What I found particularly interesting was that single experience I had serving on that subpanel in many ways reflected what they each individually came to a conclusion. What I discovered was that it worked. We worked hard, much harder than I anticipated. It was long hours. We brought before that subcommittee a significant number of Members of this House. They fully cooperated, each and every single one of them; and we worked in a bipartisan fashion. The two Republicans that served on that particular panel, I knew one before and I happened to be a classmate, and the other one I never really had any contact or communication with. And I have to tell my colleagues I was extremely impressed with their concern about this institution, with their professionalism, with their standards and their willingness to work in an extremely collaborative way. It truly was a lesson that bipartisanship exists in this institution, and particularly in the rubric in the format of an ethics investigation is absolutely essential. We talked about the House today, and we all obviously go back to our home districts, and we hear our own constituents decry what they perceive to be the strident level of partisanship that, unfortunately, does exist today within this institution. But my experience on that subpanel was really informative, that those who love the institution, those who understand that if there is a lack of confidence in the integrity of this institution by the American people that we erode the health, if you will, the viability of our democracy. It really is a sad comment that, without consultation, in a unilateral move, these rules changes came to the floor and were adopted. Because I think the real issue here will be not just the erosion of the respect of the institution over time, but there will be demands from the outside. There will be a legitimate question posed by the American people as to whether this House can, in fact, police itself, whether we have the capacity to maintain high standards. If we abrogate that responsibility, not only do we do damage, in my opinion, to this institution, but we chip away at the health of American democracy. People will begin to believe the worst. What is happening in that institution? Are there backroom deals going on? Or is the partisanship so absolutely venomous at this point in time that they cannot work together and there should be some sort of independent group or independent commission that polices those Members of Congress? That would indeed be unfortunate, in my judgment.