Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the supporters of this measure are so determined to end safe and legal abortion in this country, no matter what the procedure, that they are unwilling to consider reasonable amendments that would protect the health and life of the woman and also would ensure the constitutionality of the underlying bill. We will vote shortly to reject the Greenwood-Hoyer-Johnson amendment, which would permit the particular medical procedure banned by the bill if the physician determines that it is necessary to spare the woman from serious adverse health consequences. I understand from the hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary that supporters of the bill expressed concern that the term ``health consequences'' could very well allow the attending physician too much latitude. But what is fascinating is that another amendment that was proposed by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and myself that would have placed even more stringent restrictions on the use of this particular procedure, permitting it only to protect the mother from serious adverse physical, and let me repeat, physical health consequences, was not made in order. This rule should be defeated, Mr. Speaker, because without the language that I just enumerated, this bill can put women at risk and threaten their daughters with prosecution if they care for them in the way they determine to be medically safe and sound. Furthermore, without this language, the bill is susceptible to being considered by the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional again. Now, why pass an extreme measure that would be found unconstitutional, rather than accept an amendment that would address its potential constitutional defects? Perhaps because we are not serious about enacting a bill into law that passes constitutional muster, using this bill, if you will, as a perennial political exercise. But I would suggest that that is not what we ought to be about. Let me submit that this bill, as it is presently before this body, is a disturbing example of legislative excess.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and he is absolutely correct. What this bill does is bad enough, but what it fails to do is even worse. The sponsors have named it the Pension Security Act, but it does nothing to protect workers and retirees from the corporate abuses that have put their hard-earned savings at risk. If this is the Republican's pension security plan, one shudders to think what they would do with Social Security. At company after company, top executives have awarded themselves millions in bonuses, stock options, severance packages, driving their companies into bankruptcy and leaving their workers holding the bag. What does the Pension Security Act do for them? Not a thing. Airline executives lose billions, lay off thousands of workers, but then go and set up secret trusts to protect their own retirement assets and put it out of the reach of creditors. What does this bill do for them? Not a thing. Polaroid executives in my home State of Massachusetts cancelled retirees' health insurance and terminated workers on long-term disability, all the while awarding themselves millions in bonuses and severance packages. Once the company was sold, the new CEO terminated the pension plan as well. What does the Pension Security Act do for them? Not a thing. We are in the midst of an unprecedented wave of business failures, rising unemployment and growing numbers of Americans who cannot afford health insurance premiums, let alone a 401(k) plan. What will the Pension Security Act do for them? Not a thing, nothing at all. This bill is a fraud, and it deserves to be defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it is with enormous pride that I rise today in tribute to the Zildjian family of Massachusetts, whom we join today in marking an anniversary of an American success story. The Zildjian cymbal sets a standard for excellence--with skill, perseverance and devotion to family, employees and the community. They arrived on our shores with an idea and a dream, and worked hard and smart to fulfill it. Now musicians around the world--from symphony percussionists to R&B drummers--swear by K/Z HiHats and Remixes and enrich the quality of our lives every day through the gift of music. On Friday of this week, May 9, a variety of friends and admirers will gather at the company offices in the town of Norwell, Massachusetts, to celebrate the 380th anniversary of the Avedis Zildjian Cymbal Company. Zildjian Cymbals is the oldest, continuously owned family business in the United States--now in its 74th year of operation. However, the firm has a history going back almost four centuries. Zildjian was originally founded by Avedis I, an alchemist and subject of the Ottoman Empire living in Constantinople in 1623. He created a process--still a Zildjian trademark--to treat metal alloys to create cymbals of superior clarity and quality. As a result of his discovery, he was given the title ``Zildjian'' or Cymbalsmith by the Sultan. After three centuries of manufacturing cymbals in Constantinople, the family business relocated to Quincy, Massachusetts, largely at the behest of Avedis Zildjian III, who had immigrated to the United States in 1909 and went into business for himself. When it came time for him to take over the family business in Turkey, Avedis pushed for America as the company's home. Although the foundry's establishment coincided with the beginning of the Great Depression, devotion of the family and from some of the great musicians of his day, helped Avedis persevere. Eventually, the company flourished. In 1972, Zildjian opened a new manufacturing facility in Norwell, Massachusetts where an untold number of cymbals have been created by more than 100 dedicated employees and sold to musicians in every genre in dozens of countries around the world. After handing over the reigns of the company in 1977 to his son, Armand, Avedis Zildjian passed away in 1979. Under Armand's leadership, Zildjian continued its leadership in the production of high quality cymbals and opened a drumstick factory in Alabama. In 1995, Zildjian became the first Percussion Company to obtain the ISO 9001 Quality Certification, a standard recognized around the globe for facilities that meet and exceed rigorous quality standards. In 1999, yet another milestone was reached, as Armand Zildjian appointed his daughter, Craigie, to be the Chief Executive Officer, the first woman to hold that distinction since the entity's inception in 1623. With the passing of Armand Zildjian in 2002, Craigie Zildjian is poised to continue the Zildjian name brand and tradition of superior workmanship into the decades to come. On May 9, 2003, a host of well wishers will join the entire Zildjian community and gather at the company headquarters to commemorate Zildjian's contribution to our universal heritage, our region's economy, the lives and livelihoods of its employees and the entrepreneurial spirit reflected in the evolution of this fine corporation. The festivities would doubtless have made Avedis Zildjian proud. And it is with equal pleasure that I enter this tribute into the Congressional Record so that this milestone is officially recognized and recorded in the official history of the United States of America.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who dedicated his life to ensuring that the veterans and working men and women of our country had access to the best quality health care available. He was an individual of the highest integrity and character. Sadly, he passed away on Thursday, January 23, 2003, after a long illness. Hailing from Mashpee, Massachusetts on Cape Cod, his was a life devoted to his fellow men. John Lawlor Quigley was born on April 29, 1922. He was married to Jean Regan and leaves three children--Jan, Kristen and John. He was also the proud grandfather of nine grandchildren. He served his country honorably as a member of the United States Marine Corps during World War Two, and earned the Purple Heart for being wounded on Iwo Jima in 1945. After the war, he returned to Massachusetts, determined to become a positive force in his community. He graduated from Georgetown University and Boston College Law School with a law degree before making a run for Massachusetts House of Representatives. Though unsuccessful at his first run in politics, it may have been a blessing in disguise as his work then focused exclusively on veterans and health care issues. John's commitment to America's veterans and to equal healthcare access for working families was instilled in him from an early age. His father, Lawrence F. Quigley, an 11 term mayor of Chelsea, Massachusetts, was the Commandant of the Chelsea Soldiers' Home, a state facility for homeless veterans as well as those with medical conditions necessitating long term care from 1934 to 1948. John succeeded his father and oversaw the Home for over 3 decades, from 1948 to 1980. The Quigley legacy over the last 7 decades is such that the Home's hospital has been renamed after John's father and in a sense it is fitting that John's final moments were spent in a place that he had nurtured and had truly become part of the fiber of his being. He also was heavily involved in health care issues nationally. He served as President of the Massachusetts Hospital Association from 1961-62, Director of the American Hospital Association's Region 1 and President of the New England Healthcare Assembly. Membership in these organizations enabled John to tackle the many varied and constantly evolving issues in the healthcare industry. It was a platform he used to good effect. The loyalty of his peers, employees and fellow veterans is proof of that. In addition to his many personal and professional responsibilities, John also made the time to be an active member of his community through involvement in a number of civic organizations. He lived his life with a concern for his fellow man and genuinely cared about the future of America. John Quigley is an example for all of us and as he looks down on us today, I want to add my voice to the chorus of accolades he has earned many times over for his devotion to veterans, love of country and dedication to family. I salute you and may God bless you.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to vote for this bill. It includes provisions that I strongly support--including the ``AMBER Alert'' system that would aid in finding missing children. But those children have been taken hostage by a bill that also includes so- called ``sentencing reforms''--radical, sweeping changes to the Federal sentencing system that were never considered by any committee of either House. Provisions that would cause an explosion in the number of people behind bars--including many who simply do not belong there. Just three days ago, the Justice Department reported that the number of people living behind bars in the United States had exceeded two million for the first time in our history. Two million. And included in that number is a staggering 12 percent of African-American men aged 20 to 34. If this bill is the congressional response to that situation, the public may well conclude that we have finally taken leave of our senses. The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is seven times higher than that of such advanced nations as Germany, Italy, and Denmark. A primary reason for this is that a large number of our prisoners are serving long terms for minor nonviolent offenses. And if this bill becomes law, there will be a lot more of them. Men in prison cannot raise families, cannot hold jobs, cannot pay taxes, and cannot support the economy. And when they get out, many who might have turned their lives around will have become hardened criminals, ready to return to the only life they know. Conservatives and liberals alike have recognized that this situation poses a threat to the future of our cities, our families, our economic well-being, and the health of our democracy itself. Growing numbers of prominent conservatives have joined in calls for an end to mandatory minimum sentences. Yet this bill takes a giant--and potentially catastrophic-- step in the wrong direction. When Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it created a system of guidelines for judges to follow. But Congress also recognized that no system of guidelines can anticipate all of the facts and circumstances of a given case. And it wisely preserved sufficient flexibility to allow the judge to depart from the guidelines when necessary. This bill would substantially eliminate that safety valve, barring judges from making ``downward departures'' in a large number of cases-- effectively transforming the federal guidelines into a system of mandatory minimum sentences. When Chief Justice Rehnquist learned of this proposal, he wrote: ``this legislation, is enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' Justice Rehnquist is certainly no liberal. But even his concerns have been brushed aside. Similar opposition was expressed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the American Bar Association, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute and many other groups and individuals. All to no avail. It is true that during conference, a number of improvements were made to the original language. But the final version retains many features of the original, and barely begins to address the concerns raised by the Chief Justice. Title IV of the bill prohibits all downward departures in connection with child-related offenses and sex offenses. In all other cases, it discourages judges from making downward departures by subjecting them to burdensome reporting requirements and Justice Department scrutiny if they do so. And it directs the Sentencing Commission to amend the guidelines to ensure that downward departures are ``substantially reduced.'' Since there has been virtually no debate on these radical proposals, we must guess at the reasons for them. Apparently, they are based on the belief that judges have been abusing their departure power by handing down overly lenient sentences. No doubt errors and abuses occur. Judges are human, and some sentences will be too lenient while others are too harsh. But the system already provides a remedy for this: the government can and does appeal downward departures it considers inappropriate. And it wins approximately 80 percent of such appeals. The truth is that the vast majority of the downward departures are sought, not by the judge, but by the government itself. Of the nearly 20,000 downward departures granted in 2001, 79 percent were requested by the prosecution--most in return for the cooperation of the defendant, and the rest in five Mexican border districts in which the government uses departures to clear cases more quickly. If the sponsors of the bill have concerns about the rate of downward departures, the Justice department is where they should be making inquiries. As a former prosecutor, I can see plenty of reasons to question the overuse of departures as a law enforcement tool. Inf act, the one thing that pleases me about the language as it came out of conference is that it instructs the Sentencing Commission to review not just those downward departures that are initiated by the sentencing judge but all downward departures--whether requested by the prosecution or the defense. I certainly hope that in fulfilling the congressional mandate to review these departures and ensure that their incidence is ``substantially reduced,'' the Commission will do so in a thorough and even-handed way. Nevertheless, if there is a problem with departures, depriving judges of the ability to exercise discretion cannot be the answer. A rigid, mechanical system of sentences cannot do justice--either to the accused or to the society to which the millions we imprison today will one day return.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am genuinely concerned about our justice system in this country, both civilly and criminally. This bill is but the latest in a series of assaults by this Congress on the right of the people to apply to the courts to seek redress for their grievances. And it is also but the latest in a series of assaults on the right of the States to provide remedies under the law for the wrongs done to their citizens. If we continue, Mr. Chairman, we will have a justice system that is available only for business litigation. That is the direction in which we are going. What situation, what emergency would have prompted the sponsors of this bill to deny victims their remedies? According to the findings in this bill, the emergency is ``lawsuits have been commenced'' against the gun industry. I am not kidding. The reason given is that lawsuits have been commenced. One wonders what other industry would have the clout, let alone the audacity, to come to Congress and seek blanket immunity from the consequences of their misbehavior because lawsuits have been commenced against it. Lawsuits are commenced every day. Most of them never reach a jury. Sure enough, when I asked the industry witness how many of these lawsuits had actually resulted in a jury verdict awarding damages against the industry, he could come up with only one case in which a verdict had been returned, one case; and then it turned out upon further questioning that even that one award had been reversed on appeal. The truth is that this legislation will continue to erode our justice system as well as the 10th amendment. I cannot believe that this body continues to allow the rights of the individual States to be encroached on by the Federal Government. Whatever happened to devolution? Whatever happened to the 10th amendment? The State courts have been doing their job well. There has been no rash of questionable verdicts, no epidemic of excessive jury awards. In fact, the proponents have been unable to point to a single final judgment in any court in this country that supports the rationale for this legislation, not one. So, please, let us hear no more about lawsuits that have been commenced. Let them ask for immunity when the courts actually start holding them accountable for their negligence. That is when the proponents of this bill should come back to this Congress.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As others have stated, this for me, too, is a day of disappointment and sadness, profound sadness, of human rights violated, and of diplomatic opportunities squandered. As a sovereign nation, only Cuba can decide how to attend to its own national security. But over the last 3 weeks, decisions have been made in Havana that seriously undermine efforts to normalize relationships with the United States. I come to the floor today as part of a group, the so-called Cuba Working Group. It is bipartisan in nature, 25 Republicans, 25 Democrats. We have spent considerable time and effort to tear the wall down that has divided our people for some 40 years. This has put us at odds with the White House. It has put us at odds with many of our colleagues that are sitting here today. But we are not at odds today. At this moment, we stand together. In the past I have called on President Bush to lift the U.S. restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba, to let our people go. Well, today, I call on President Fidel Castro to let his people go. For me, this issue is more than political, it is personal, because some of those who have been arrested are my friends. I want to speak about 2 of them. My colleagues have heard their names here. Hector Palacios, a Varela Project organizer, and Oscar Dhepe, an independent journalist. Their arrests and convictions pain me more than anyone in this Chamber can comprehend. They are men of exceptional character and integrity who seek peaceful change. They are not agents of violence or insurrection. Far from it. They acknowledge Cuba's advances in health and education brought about by the revolution, and they want to accelerate that progress in other areas, so they work through modest, small, yet courageous acts within the Cuban Constitution. They create and have made every effort to create political space. Hector's apartment houses one of the first so-called independent libraries in Cuba, a few shelves devoted to old medical encyclopedias and geography texts, some children's books donated by members of my office. But when Hector was arrested, these books were taken away. Doctor Seuss is not a threat to the Cuban revolution. During our visits, we talk about how to hasten a climate of mutual respect between the people of our 2 countries, between our governments. Ironically, they argued persuasively for an end to the embargo and travel restrictions on Americans to Cuba. Let me quote from Oscar Chepe, who presently is incarcerated for 20 years in a Cuban jail. This is his quote. These are his words: ``Experience demonstrates that isolation breathes life into totalitarianism. On the other hand, contact between peoples free individuals from falsehoods and from the lives without dignity that they are forced to lead.'' As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) indicated, we are told that these arrests had nothing to do with the content of their words. Rather, they are intended to send a message to the United States in response to a perceived pattern of illegal provocations from our own State Department. Well, I submit that the message we have received is very different and deeply disturbing. It is that diversity of thought is not welcome in Cuba, even at the expense of jeopardizing progress toward normalization. How else can we explain 20- and 25-year sentences for Hector and Oscar and dozens of others after only cursory consultations with their lawyers and quick trials, closed to the public, foreign diplomats, and the international media. It is inconceivable, if one knows these men, that they were conspiring with the United States. Like dozens of other detainees, they were working in behalf of the Cuban people. Nobody else. They posed no threat to the Cuban Government. As I said, I disagree with some of my colleagues in Cuba. For example, I have chosen to travel there, to visit with people like Hector Palacios and Oscar Chepe. And unlike my friends from Florida, some of my friends, I oppose U.S. policies which prevent ordinary Americans from offering the same solidarity to those seeking change in our relationship with Cuba, a relationship that has been stated so eloquently by another prominent Cuban dissident who was recently released from serving 5 years in a Cuban jail. His name is Vladimiro Roca, and he said that the relationship ought to be characterized by dialogue, negotiation, and reconciliation. Again, those are his words. But that is a debate for another day. I might have written this resolution somewhat differently, but I commend my colleagues for bringing it to the floor of the House; and I urge my colleagues all of my colleagues to support it; and I ask the Cuban Government to release these people.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey be granted an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman's position, and I do agree with the chair of the subcommittee's position, the gentleman from Arizona. I think he articulates the reasons that we ought to support the money allocated to Turkey. And yet I have a question for him, if I can attract his attention for a moment, either the gentleman from Arizona or the chair of the full committee. Again, while I applaud the democracy that we have noted in Turkey and the fact that they have been steadfast allies of this country, and that they did have a very healthy parliamentary debate and reached the conclusion, as democracies do, that they would not accept what I understand was a $30 billion package, at the same time I just recently read and I would like----

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to congratulate her for presenting to the American people the truth. I was so impressed as I heard my colleagues come to the floor and describe the realities of what is occurring. The gentleman from Texas just alluded to the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs and praised him for his efforts. It is fascinating to read in today's Roll Call that he was castigated and admonished by the House Republican leadership for his efforts in this regard. That, I suggest, says something loud and clear to the American people. We know what is happening. The veterans know what is happening. But it is time for the American people to be informed, and I congratulate the gentlewoman for her efforts. What I find particularly fascinating is sometime supposedly next week we will be considering a supplemental budget in the amount of $75 billion, some $63 billion of which I think we all support. It is for our troops and for the men and women that find themselves in harm's way. The rest of the money, much of it, is allocated to other nations: $1 billion for Turkey, monies for Egypt, for Jordan. And for what reason I cannot understand. But if we can afford to take care of the rest of the world, we should be able to take care of the men and women that served us, not just in this war, not just in the Vietnam conflict, not just in Korea and World War II, but all of our veterans. It is absolutely unconscionable. It is un-American. Those men and women that will be coming home from the Middle East and leave the military, many of them will assume the title ``veteran.'' While we honor them while they are there, we are disrespectful to them when they come home, and that has to stop. We, and I know the gentlewoman has been a leader in this regard, have to design a strategy when it comes to that supplemental budget to take care of those men and women and not to continue the disrespect that has been shown to them.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his spirit of collegiality. Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to conclude with was this observation, and I direct it to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: if we are unable to work out in the course of our consideration of the supplemental budget full funding for all veterans services, then it is time for the veterans in this country to take action. Many of us have read in our history books that there was a march on Washington in the early 1930s. It is time for the veterans organizations and for the American people to march again.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, tonight the invasion of Iraq has begun. Overwhelmingly, it is the men and women of the American military who are carrying out this operation. That's why, although nobody can predict the twists and turns this war will take, I have no doubt that our troops will ultimately prevail. They are the best trained, equipped, and motivated soldiers the world has ever seen. They make us proud even in peacetime. And they will do so again in this conflict. So it is right that the U.S. Congress should come together to express the Nation's respect and gratitude. And this resolution is a good first step. But it is only a beginning. We must follow up these flattering words with concrete measures of support for our troops, and for those veterans who served before them. Let me be clear: I oppose this war. I voted against the Congressional authorization to use military force. I would prefer that our fellow citizens in the military were not risking their lives in this invasion tonight. But now that it is underway, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the U.S. armed forces have our full and sustained support. Within the Congress and across our Nation, we still have profound disagreements over the rationale for this pre-emptive strike. For my part, as a member of the International Relations Committee, I have been thoroughly dismayed at the handling of the buildup to this war. I believe it is particularly misleading to argue that this assault is part of the fully justified and necessary response to the savagery of al Qaeda. I strongly object to language in this resolution that does exactly that. This is not to say that I oppose liberating the Iraqi people or ending the brutality of the Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who has visited unspeakable horror on Iraqis and their neighbors. And I find myself concurring with those in the Administration who believe that this could be exactly the kind of radical strategy that could shock the Middle East into real change. But the way that the Administration so thoroughly assaulted the structures of world order in its rush to war could make our coming victory in Iraq a Pyrrhic one. The White House attitude has isolated our nation from the rest of the world more thoroughly than at any time in recent history. It has alienated some of our closest allies, seriously damaged the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and potentially undermined the international order that the United States worked so hard to establish after World War II. Either the Administration does not realize, or else it refuses to accept, that we need that international order. It is precisely because of this global cooperation that we have been so successful in the war against al Qaeda. Since for the most part, that is not a war in the traditional sense. It is one waged in the shadows, through intelligence agencies, special forces operations, and old-fashioned police work. Due to the sheer obscenity of the September 11 attacks, and the threat to the international order that this organization represents, most of the world welcomed the chance to assist us in fighting al Qaeda. And the help of many nations--yes, even that of France--has made a great contribution to our efforts against the terrorists. But the Administration's belligerent swagger into war with Iraq has squandered that goodwill. Its ever-changing rationales for this action--particularly its assertion of direct links between Saddam and al Qaeda, which our own CIA refuses to corroborate--have undermined our credibility. Its refusal to estimate the cost of the invasion and subsequent occupation has stripped the budget resolution the House considered tonight of any connection to reality. Its abandonment of our veterans calls into question our long-term commitment to our serving military. Its penchant for secrecy and intolerance for dissent feeds conspiracy theories about our true intentions. And its assumption that might makes right sends a terrifying signal to a world that only recently had begun to embrace the traditional American view that legitimacy is derived from democracy and the rule of law. Although I am certain that our military will win the war in Iraq, I am greatly concerned that the Administration will lose the peace. Time will only tell who is right. Many in this chamber will continue to have great differences with the Administration on this policy. But there is one thing on which I agree wholeheartedly with the President: our men and women in uniform deserve our deepest respect and appreciation. These American citizens are willing to die so that we may live; to risk life and limb for the sake of our national security. And they will do their job effectively, honorably, and without unnecessary partisan rancor. I call on my colleagues, and all Americans, to acknowledge their sacrifices by living up to the ideals for which they are fighting.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. I want to commend him and congratulate him for his leadership on this issue. I believe this is a very sound amendment. It is a good initial step, and I would seek the time for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my friend, the gentleman from Utah. Mr. Chairman, by increasing the monetary cap on wage and employee benefit claims and lengthening the reach-back period for wage claims, the amendment increases the likelihood that lower-wage workers would get back some of the money they are owed. That is an excellent start. But at some later point, I hope in time for the House-Senate conference on this bill, I would like us to focus on the treatment of severance payments under current bankruptcy law. Some Courts have held that these payments should be prorated over the entire course of the individual's employment. As a result, only the small fraction of the severance payment that is attributed to the reach-back period may be treated as a priority claim, which unfortunately means that the employees receive much less than the monetary cap. This is a concern I hope we can address. Would the gentleman be prepared to continue to work together so that this problem might be addressed when the bill goes to conference?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the American people should not be deceived as to who really benefits from this so-called reform because it is not the American consumer. It is not the American taxpayer or the worker who loses his job or someone facing catastrophic medical expenses or the small business entrepreneur who is also hurt by provisions in this bill. No, the big winner here is the credit card industry because passage is going to mean billions of dollars to their bottom line. The American consumers should understand that the interest rate on their credit card will not decline because of this bill. Over a 12-year period when the Federal fund rate fell from 13.5 percent to 3.5 percent, a line of some 10 percentage points, the average credit card rate actually rose to nearly 18 percent. Furthermore, it is going to cost the American taxpayer $500 million over 5 years to transform the Federal bankruptcy system into a collection agency for the benefit of the credit card industry. We are going to hear a lot and we have heard during the course of our hearings about personal responsibility. Well, no one disagrees with that particular principle, but it ought to be a two-way street. Whatever happened to creditor responsibility? The former Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, Henry Hyde, identified some 75 creditor enhancements in this bill. Passage of this legislation will undoubtedly exacerbate the imbalance between creditor and debtor. A respected consultant for the credit card industry stated that the principle factor in increase in bankruptcies has been the dramatic lowering of loan standards, of underwriting. And every single time we attempted to introduce some reasonable measures to ensure appropriate lending practices, we were defeated by the credit card lobby. And meanwhile, they induced consumers to take on an ever-increasing amounts of debt by inundating the American people with some $5 billion of solicitations yearly. They have increased rates and fees on current accounts often with inadequate or misleading disclosure, and they engage in relentless marketing efforts that target children, the deceased, and in one particular case, even a dog. Some of the major players such as Providian and MBNA have paid healthy penalties to settle claims regarding late fees and other practices. What has happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the credit card industry has created a culture of debt that is overwhelming millions of Americans, and that is particularly frightening in this extremely precarious economy. So let us be responsible and accountable. Let us defeat this bill because it is not bankruptcy reform. It is a bill that simply bankrupts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the committee, the former ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, two amendments rejected by the Committee on Rules which I had hoped to offer illustrate the double standards represented by this bill because wealthy debtors with their lawyers and financial advisors can continue to game the system, and corporate insiders who have managed healthy businesses into bankruptcy can still be awarded with golden parachutes. Meanwhile, people of modest means will be denied a genuine fresh start, and retirees whose pensions and life savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies will get little relief. My first amendment would have placed reasonable limits on exorbitant retention bonuses, obscene severance packages, and other outlandish payments to corporate insiders whose companies are bankrupt or insolvent; and the amendment would have reserved those assets for the benefit of employees, retirees, and other creditors. In the State of Massachusetts, Polaroid executives canceled their retirees' health coverage days before filing for bankruptcy and then terminated workers on long-term disability when the company reorganized. At the same time they awarded themselves more than $5 million in various bonuses and incentive payments shortly before filing for bankruptcy and then another $6 million in so-called retention bonuses afterwards. Of course, this pales in comparison to Enron, where their CEO, Kenneth Lay, received gross profits of $247 million, or Global Crossing where Gary Winnick, their CEO, grossed $512 million, all the while eliminating thousands of jobs and driving their companies into bankruptcy. My second amendment would have helped eliminate the most notorious abuse of all, the financial planning strategy whereby debtors purchase expensive homes in States with unlimited homestead exemptions, declare bankruptcy, and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors get little or nothing, like the convicted Wall Street investment banker who filed bankruptcy while owing some $15 million in debt and fines, but still kept his $5 million mansion complete with 11 bedrooms and 21 bathrooms. Yet while the so-called bankruptcy abuse prevention bill obsesses about whether small debtors can manage to pay $100 a month in Chapter 13, it continues to tolerate this outrageous abuse. Mr. Speaker, this is not the only exemption that allows the wealthy to shelter their assets. In addition to the million dollar mansion, they can receive a substantial pension, have an IRA up to a million dollars, and own annuities worth additional millions and not worry about it because depending on where they live, these assets are exempt and creditors cannot touch them. This bill does nothing about that. What message does it send when Congress subjects middle-class debtors to a means test while permitting the wealthy to continue to place their millions out of reach of their creditors? We are creating different classes of debtors, and every fair-minded person should find this unconscionable. This rule should have provided an opportunity to deal with these issues, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote down this unfair and one-sided bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. The rule fails to allow the House to consider two amendments I had intended to offer to illustrate the double standard represented by this bill: A bill that denies a fresh start to people of modest means while allowing wealthy debtors and corporate insiders to continue to abuse the bankruptcy system. It was one thing to consider this kind of legislation when our nation was enjoying the prosperity of the 1990s. But this debate takes on a certain surreal quality when we consider the depths of the economic difficulties our country is facing at the moment. With unemployment rising. Growing numbers of working Americans who can't buy health insurance at reasonable rates. Retirees whose pensions and life savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies. And what are we doing about it? We're helping the credit card companies squeeze a few more pennies out of these same working families. And we're ignoring the massive abuses that have turned the Bankruptcy Code into a bonanza for a handful of unscrupulous executives. Some months ago, the Financial Times published an analysis of the profits amassed by top officers and directors of the 25 largest companies to declare bankruptcy during the previous 18 months. According to the report, ``in just three years, they grossed about $3.3 billion before their companies went bust, having wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value and nearly 100,000 jobs.'' And so, as Global Crossing was losing $9.2 billion and eliminating over 5,000 jobs, its chairman, Gary Winnick, grossed $512 million. While Enron lost $18.8 billion and eliminated 5,500 jobs, its CEO, Kenneth Lay, and the chairman of its energy services subsidiary, Lou Pai, made gross profits of $247 million and $270 million, respectively. The sources of these windfalls included such now-familiar devices as retention bonuses. Severance payments. Forgiven loans. And dividends on holdings of company stock. In my corner of the world, Polaroid executives cancelled their retirees' health and life insurance coverage and terminated workers on long-term disability--all while awarding themselves more than $5 million in various bonuses and ``incentive'' payments before filing for bankruptcy and another $6 million in retention bonuses afterwards. Officers and directors received severance packages while employee severance was terminated. Officers and directors were able to redeem their company stock while employees, forced to put 8 percent of their salaries into the stock option plan, were prohibited from withdrawing the funds and watched their holdings evaporate. No sooner was the sale of the company completed than the new CEO terminated the retiree pension plan. What happens to people who lose their livelihood, their savings, and their health coverage? Lots of them wind up unable to pay their debts and forced into bankruptcy. So in fact, we have corporate bankruptcies causing personal bankruptcies. And the only response from Congress has been to push an industry-sponsored bill that would make it harder for these people to get a fresh start. A bill that penalizes the very working families that have been victimized by corporate misconduct, while preserving the loopholes and exemptions that allow corporate insiders to shelter their ill-gotten gains when they declare bankruptcy. I had sought to offer an amendment that would begin to redress the balance. It would have placed reasonable limits on exorbitant ``retention bonuses,'' severance packages, and other payments to corporate insiders of companies that are bankrupt or insolvent. The amendment would not have prohibited such payments to the extent that they are truly necessary to keep key employees in place. But it would have permitted them only when the court finds that, first, the employee has a bona fide job offer from another business at the same or greater rate of compensation; second, the services provided by the person are essential to the survival of the business; and third, the amount of the payment is not excessive when measured against the amounts paid to nonmanagement employees in the ordinary course of business. The amendment would have empowered the court to return excessive payments to the bankrupt company, so that these funds can be available to help the company reorganize, or, in the alternative, can be distributed to employees, retirees, and other creditors. It would have restored some semblance of fairness to this unbalanced bill. The second amendment I had hoped to offer would have helped eliminate the biggest loophole in the Bankruptcy Code, by placing a meaningful national cap on the homestead exemption. I say ``meaningful,'' Mr. Speaker, because the $125,000 cap that is currently in the bill is qualified by a series of exemptions that assure that those who engage in flagrant abuse of the bankruptcy system by sheltering homestead assets can continue to do so. My amendment would have left the cap at $125,000 while eliminating the exemptions for transactions conducted more than 1,215 days preceding the bankruptcy filing and for interests transferred from a debtor's previous principal residence acquired within the same state prior to that time. The rationale we have been given for the so-called ``needs-based'' reforms proposed in H.R. 975 is to eliminate abuses of the bankruptcy laws--abuses which proponents of the legislation have characterized as the use of the Bankruptcy Code as a ``financial planning tool.'' Yet while the bill obsesses about whether small debtors can manage to pay $100 a month in chapter 13, it continues to permit--indeed, it endorses--the most notorious abuse of the consumer bankruptcy system of all: The ``financial planning'' strategy whereby debtors purchase expensive homes in states with unlimited homestead exemptions, declare bankruptcy, and continue to enjoy a life of luxury while their creditors get little or nothing. If we are truly serious about curtailing abuses, it seems to me that this is the place to start. With the owner of the failed Ohio S&L who paid off only a fraction of $300 million in bankruptcy claims while keeping his multi-million-dollar horse ranch in Florida. Or the convicted Wall Street financier who filed bankruptcy while owing some $50 million in debts and fines, but still kept his $5 million Florida mansion--complete with 11 bedrooms and 21 baths. Or the Miami physician with no malpractice insurance, who was named in four separate malpractice actions, filed for bankruptcy protection, and kept a $500,000 home--complete with a 100-foot swimming pool. Or the movie actor, Burt Reynolds, who declared bankruptcy in 1996, claiming more than $10 million in debt. Reynolds kept a $2.5 million home--appropriately named ``Valhalla''--while his creditors received 20 cents on the dollar. The situation in Florida has become so notorious that one Miami bankruptcy judge told the New York Times, ``You could shelter the Taj Mahal in this state and no one could do anything about it.'' The sponsors of the bill will claim that they have closed the loophole by putting a cap on the exemption. But the provision is riddled with loopholes that ensure that wealthy debtors who are sophisticated enough to plan ahead will still be able to shelter their assets without ever being subject to the cap. Under the bill, they can purchase a homestead to shelter their non-exempt assets and simply wait the 1,215 days before filing their petition. And the bill expressly permits them to transfer their assets from a previous principal residence into a new one at any time prior to their bankruptcy filing without being subject to the cap, provided that the former residence is located in the same state. What message does it send, Mr. Speaker, when Congress subjects middle-class debtors to a means test while permitting the wealthy to continue to place their millions out of reach of their creditors? What message does it send when we impose tough repayment plans on working families that are barely making ends meet, while allowing corporate insiders to drive their companies into bankruptcy and pocket millions of dollars in bonuses, severance packages, and other ill-gotten gains? I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and vote down this bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. In response to my colleague and dear friend from Texas, it is not the cap. It is not the cap that disturbs us. The question is, is it a genuine cap, or is it a sham? I suggest that this cap is a sham. There are more loopholes in this particular provision than one can even comprehend. This is not about the individual, the average, middle-class American who earns 25-, 30- or $35,000, but it is about the sophisticated investor, it is about the sophisticated individual who has access to the very best in terms of legal talent and financial advice, who knows how to game the system. We are talking about not $125,000, but about the millions, the millions, that are being prevented from going to legitimate creditors because of this particular exception.