Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, indicated that this was a bill that would benefit the consumer. I would point out to him that this particular proposal, as drafted, has the support of the American Bankers Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce and American Financial Services Association. I would suggest they are not protecting the interests of the consumer. That is not their role. They have a responsibility to advocate for their memberships, and I would acknowledge that they have been extremely effective, but those that are opposed to this particular proposal do represent the American consumer. Let me just enumerate some of them: The Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers Union, Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, the National Consumer Law Center. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important to point out that there was an American Bankruptcy Institute study that showed that while the credit industry estimates it may recover some $4 billion under the rigid standards of the means test, the study indicated that the creditors would only receive $450 million in actual collections. The Executive Office of the United States Trustee within the Justice Department conducted a similar study that reached similar results, estimating that the passage of the bill incorporated within the conference report last year, which is almost identical to the bill that is before us now, would have netted creditors no more than 3 percent of the $400 per household they claim to be losing. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have received no evidence, no empirical data whatsoever, that the credit card industry would likely pass on any of the potential savings, albeit minimal, from bankruptcy law changes to the consumer. It would go to the bottom line. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Administrative Law.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I authored legislation in the last Congress that would address in a more thorough and comprehensive way the effects of corporate bankruptcies on workers and retirees. At our markup on H.R. 975, the gentleman indicated a willingness to explore these questions, and I would ask the gentleman whether he would be willing to schedule hearings beginning in the spring in which we could begin to talk about this overall issue.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentleman for his answers and for his genuine commitment to providing relief for workers and retirees, and possibly we could have a field hearing on this particular initiative on Cape Cod either in May or June sometime. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) in offering this amendment. It would restore a modicum of balance to this unfair, unbalanced bill. The sponsors of the bill say they advocate personal responsibility. Yet the bill does nothing to curb the corporate abuses that have turned the Bankruptcy Code into a bonanza for a handful of unscrupulous executives. It does nothing to stop corporate insiders from stripping their companies of their assets, paying themselves exorbitant salaries and bonuses and leaving little or nothing for their workers. It does nothing to compensate workers whose jobs, pensions, health insurance and life savings have been wiped out by corporate bankruptcies. The amendment represents a first, modest, effort to restore some balance. To recognize the obligations that an enterprise owes to the working people who have labored to build and sustain it. The amendment will increase the chances that employees and retirees whose companies collapse into bankruptcy are able to retrieve some portion of what they are owed for back wages and benefits. And it will provide the courts with additional tools to recapture excessive compensation paid to corporate insiders. And I commend the gentleman from Utah for his willingness to offer it. As the gentleman has explained, this amendment consists of three components. The first increases the monetary cap on wage and employee benefit claims entitled to priority under the Bankruptcy Code from $4,650 to $10,000, and lengthens the reachback period for wage claims from 90 to 180 days. This change increases the likelihood that workers--particularly those at the lower end of the wage scale--would actually see some of the money they are owed. The second component lengthens the reachback period during which fraudulent transfers can be rescinded, from one year to two years, and provides that certain bonuses and other payments to corporate insiders can be rescinded during this period if they meet certain criteria. This provision gives the bankruptcy courts an additional tool for recapturing excessive compensation paid to officers and directors so that these can be available to help the company reorganize, or, in the alternative, can be distributed to employees, retirees, and other creditors. The third component requires the court to reinstate retiree benefits--including health and pension plans--which the company modified within the 180-day period preceding the bankruptcy filing, unless the court finds that the balance of the equities justifies the modification. This provision prevents corporate debtors from evading the requirements of current law by terminating retiree benefit plans on the eve of bankruptcy. These are good, sensible changes that will help people who lose their livelihood, their savings, and their health coverage. I sincerely appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from Utah to join in this effort. But as I'm sure he would agree, these changes are only a modest step--a baby step--and I hope we can continue to work together to address this issue in a more serious and comprehensive way.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Talking about the practical impact of the gentleman's amendment, it would end the practice of forum shopping; but even more meaningful, it would provide in very real terms an opportunity for small creditors, for retirees, for shareholders and others to participate in the process itself. Why should a court, with all due respect, in Delaware adjudicate a corporate bankruptcy that wipes out thousands of jobs in Ohio? Why should a judge in New York decide how to divide the spoils of an insolvent corporation in Massachusetts? The bankruptcy business, and it truly is a business, has been a windfall for certain jurisdictions; and they understandably resist any effort to reform the venue rules, but the rest of us ought to protect our constituents from this particular abuse, and I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, judges certainly should not be immune from criticism. I mean, healthy debate on the merits of judicial decisions is an important feature of our democracy. But there is a difference between legitimate criticism and overt pressure that threatens judicial independence. Like all Americans, Members of Congress are free to criticize judicial decisions with which we disagree. Our collective voice should be heard on matters of profound constitutional significance as we, too, are guardians of the Constitution. In fact, I joined most of my colleagues in voting for a resolution during the last Congress that was referenced by the chairman that expressed disapproval of this very decision on the Pledge of Allegiance and urged that it be overturned. However, I intend to vote present on this current resolution because it does not stop at expressing disapproval; it goes further, in a way that I believe would set an unwise and dangerous precedent. It is one thing to urge the judicial branch to use the normal process of appellate review to correct an erroneous decision. It is quite another to imply that judges who issue unpopular decisions in particular cases are unfit for office. Unfortunately, that is what H.R. 132 does. It not only expresses disapproval of the court's reasoning in the Newdow case, but it states that the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text. By linking future nominations to a particular ruling with which the proponents disagree, the resolution sends a not-so-subtle message to sitting judges, and in particular to potential nominees, that they had better tailor their constitutional views to those of the congressional majority if they wish to be confirmed. That, I submit, goes far beyond our appropriate constitutional role. The Framers of the Constitution recognized that an independent judicial branch is an essential guarantor of liberty in any democracy. To understand this, one need only observe those nations with a weak judiciary that is subservient to the political branches. Invariably such nations are democracies in name only. Those who profess fidelity to the Constitution must take great care not to chip away at the independence of the judiciary on which our liberty depends. For that reason, this resolution ought to be rejected. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, a constituent once asked if minor pieces of legislation that we consider on the suspension calendar actually matter, particularly those that concern foreign nations. My response was that it is important to remember, especially in this era of the Internet and instant communication and CNN, that what might appear to be trivial to us is seen quite differently elsewhere and can have significant long- lasting effects. This bill, for example. While to some it may seem to be an obscure piece of legislation dealing with a tiny, impoverished nation, one that is not on the Security Council, and given the challenges that we face with the war against terrorism and imminent invasion of Iraq, a distressed economy, a health care crisis, it might even seem to be an afterthought. But it is not an afterthought for the people of Nicaragua, and it should not be an afterthought for the United States. In fact, this bill has the potential to be critically important for Nicaragua's future, for Central America's future and, ultimately, for our own future. As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) indicated, Nicaragua, after Haiti, is the second poorest nation in the hemisphere. It was battered by years of war. It is a place where the magnitude of corruption by the political leadership has been enormous, especially recent ones. Now Nicaragua finally has a president in Enrique Bolanos, an honest man who genuinely wants to make a difference. This bill can help him and that fragile democracy that he presides over. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) have indicated, current U.S. law prevents us from providing certain kinds of foreign aid to countries that have seized the property of American citizens. Never mind that these seizures occurred under previous governments. Never mind that some of these claimants were not U.S. citizens at the time of the seizures, which I believe violates international law; but that is a debate for another day. This legislation changes that. As the chairman of the subcommittee indicated, after a certain period of time, new claims will no longer prevent Nicaragua from receiving U.S. aid and will not prevent the United States Government from assisting our fellow citizens who seek and deserve justice, and it will not end the Government of Nicaragua's responsibility to settle these claims. But this bill will do much to nurture Nicaragua's efforts to develop its democracy; and it will encourage a new spirit of respect and cooperation between that impoverished nation and the United States. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, my colleague, my chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), for introducing this bill. It is just more evidence of his attention to this hemisphere and his love for its people. He and I do not always agree on how to deal with all of our neighbors, but we do agree that they deserve far more of our attention, and our respect. So I am grateful to him for inviting me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the passage of this legislation is followed quickly by an increased program of U.S. assistance to Nicaragua, particularly to develop its judicial system and strengthen its legislative body. While I have full confidence in President Bolanos, it is the development of strong democratic institutions that will allow democracy to prosper and flourish in Nicaragua. Reports speak of a reconstruction program for Iraq in excess of $100 billion. For far too long we have failed to adequately engage in our own neighborhood. We cannot continue to ignore our neighbors in Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. To do so, we do so at our own risk. Once upon a time, Nicaragua was front and center in our policy debates. That war that many in this Chamber spent enormous time and effort on this floor debating and discussing has faded from our memories, and Nicaragua has receded from the spotlight. However, this modest bill, in a rather nuanced and subtle way, will help Nicaragua move closer to the democracy its people so justly deserve and desire. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), the chief deputy whip of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of this bill have assured the physicians of America that the bill will lower their insurance premiums. Yet it includes none of the provisions that would be necessary to bring about such a result. The bill does nothing to reduce the staggering number of medical errors that kill so many thousands of Americans each year. It does nothing to weed out the five percent of the medical profession who are responsible for 54 percent of the claims. It does nothing to regulate the rates that insurance companies charge for their policies. Instead of adopting any of these measures, the Republican majority has chosen to blame the victims--capping jury awards at artificially low levels that are insufficient to meet their needs, and that makes it difficult for them to find a qualified attorney who is willing to take their case. The cap on non-economic damages is cruelest to the most vulnerable: children and mothers who stay at home. They have no econimic damages. No loss of employment. No loss of past and future earnings. No loss of business opportunities. Apart from their medical bills, all of their losses are noneconomic--for pain and suffering. Physical impairment. Disfigurement. It's unconscionable for Congress to deprive these victims of the right to have a jury decide what their pain and suffering is worth. Stephen Olson was left blind and brain-damaged after an HMO refused to give him an $800 CAT scan when he was two years old. He'll need round-the-clock supervision for the rest of his life. The jury awarded him $7.1 million for his pain and suffering. But California has a cap of non-economic damages, so the judge was forced to reduce the award to $250,000. Is that really all he is owed for the irreversible damage that was done to him? Linda McDougal receive an unnecessary double mastectomy after doctors mixed up her lab results and erroneously told her that she had breast cancer. Under this bill, would receive a maximum of $250,000 for her lifetime of pain and disfigurement. Is that really all she is owed? Is that really all the compensation we would wish for our own mothers, sisters, and wives? The irony is that despite the claims of the bill's supporters, there is no reason to believe that the cap on non-economic damages will have a serious impact on insurance premiums. A report by the New Jersey Medical Society estimated that a state cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages might result in reductions of, at most, five-to-seven percent. Other studies suggest that insurance rates are affected less by the level of non-economic damages than by the amounts paid out for economic losses. And in California, whose 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, known as MICRA, was the model for many of the provisions of this bill, there is little persuasive evidence that the law has brought about any reduction in premiums. Indeed, a 1995 study concluded that premiums increased dramatically during the decade following enactment of MICRA, and only stabilized once the voters imposed rate regulation under a 1988 ballot measure known as Proposition 103. The sponsors of the bill are unwilling to take that step. Far be it from them to impose regulation on the insurance industry! Yet when it comes to litigation, these apostles of free markets opt for wage and price controls. They are horrified at the though that Congress would cap the amount of assets that wealthy bankrupts can shelter from their creditors, but have no compunction about capping the amount that malpractice victims can recover from their injuries. I suppose it's all a question of priorities. If medical care were really a priority for the majority, we'd be talking about increasing reimbursement rates. Improving the quality of medical training. Providing incentives for doctors to practice in underserved communities. Reducing the paperwork burden that drives dedicated physicians out of the profession. But we can't talk about any of these things. They cost money. And with new tax cuts promised and deficits mounting, investments in the health care system are simply not a priority. That's why we're debating a bill like this one instead. A bill that does nothing to address the legitimate concerns of physicians, while inflicting further harm on patients who have suffered enough.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, next week we will be considering most likely on the floor of the House a bill dealing with bankruptcy. Today we are considering a bill that is bankrupt, because it is an act of special cruelty that is being perpetrated on the most vulnerable of victims of malpractice, stay-at-home mothers and children, children like Steven Olson, who was left blind and brain damaged after an HMO refused to give him a $800 CAT scan when he was 2 years old. He is going to need round-the-clock care for the rest of his life. A jury, a jury, awarded him more than $7 million for his pain and suffering. But California has a cap on noneconomic damages, so the judge was forced to reduce the award to $250,000. That is $12 a day for the rest of his normal life expectancy. Is that all he is owed for the irreversible damage that was done to him? Is that fairness? Is that justice? I think we know the answer. Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of this bill have assured the physicians of America that this bill will lower their insurance premiums. The doctors are being deceived, for it includes none of the provisions that would be necessary to bring about such a result. The bill does nothing to reduce the staggering number of medical errors that kill so many thousands of Americans each year, according to some estimates, up to 98,000 deaths per year. That is a real crisis. It does nothing to weed out the 5 percent of the medical profession who are responsible for 54 percent of the medical claims. So what is going to happen is good doctors will continue to subsidize those that ought to be out of the profession. It does nothing to regulate the rates that insurance companies charge their policyholders. That did prove effective in California when it was passed in 1988. Instead of adopting any of these measures, the Republican majority has chosen to blame the victims, capping injury awards at artificially low levels that are insufficient to meet their needs and making it difficult for them to even find a qualified attorney who is willing to take their case. It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, for Congress to deprive these victims of the right to have a jury of their peers decide what their pain and suffering is worth. It is rather ironic that rather than regulating insurance rates, the apostles of the free markets opt to impose a system of wage and price controls. What irony.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair indicate how much time is remaining?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it pleases me to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a new Member and someone we are particularly proud of.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute, the balance of my time, to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who serves admirably on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This is Linda McDougal, and like Nathaniel and many others she too would be a victim of the underlying bill H.R. 5. She received an unnecessary double mastectomy after doctors mixed up her results, her lab results, and erroneously told her she had breast cancer. Under this bill her lifetime of pain and disfigurement would be worth $250,000 and not a penny more. I ask my friends, is that fair? Well, if my friends have any doubts, I would suggest they ask their mother, their sister or their daughter.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to pay tribute to Phillip A. Rollins, who stepped down from office this year after serving for 32 years as a District Attorney in Massachusetts. Since Phil is too modest to draw attention to his own accomplishments, I want to take this moment to share with you some highlights of his distinguished career in public service. Phil started in Cape Cod politics in the 1960s, serving in local government as a Selectman in the Town of Mashpee. He then ran and won a contested race against a longtime District Attorney, representing the Southern District of Massachusetts. From the start, Phil realized that the issues and problems facing the communities on Cape Cod and the Islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard were so unique as to require special focus. The solution was both innovative and practical. The Cape and Islands region needed its own District Attorney, and Phil Rollins had the skill to fulfill that vision. Over the years that followed, Phil Rollins racked up some impressive professional accomplishments. He was among the first in the Commonwealth to hire female prosecutors, he created a regional crime hotline and developed regional crime prevention strategies, and earned an outstanding reputation for innovation in child abuse and domestic violence. Respected and admired by his colleagues, he was twice selected to be the President of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. As he leaves office, he can look back with enormous pride on all that he has done to professionalize the work of prosecutors, and to improve the quality of life on Cape Cod and the Islands. Most of his crime initiatives are still in place, and he leaves a highly trained office with over 20 lawyers, and a budget of over $2.5 million. Those who have left his office are considered to be among the best and brightest lawyers in the state. So, I rise today as a former District Attorney myself, and as the Congressman of a very grateful Cape and Islands constituency to join with my colleagues in the US House of Representatives to recognize the important work of a fine public servant and longtime and very dear friend. Thank you, Phil.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 473, the motion to recommit for the bill H.J. Res. 124, my vote was inadvertantly recorded as a ``no.'' I had intented to support the Obey motion to recommit and vote ``yes.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let this session of the 107th Congress end without commemorating the passing of a dearly loved member of my constituency, Mrs. Jane Tobin of Monument Beach. Mrs. Tobin died, on June 16, 2002. She was a resident of Monument Beach since 1973, when she and her husband, Lt. Col. Edward Tobin moved there after his retirement. She is survived by her son, Peter and his wife Sharon, of Redmond, Washington, her grandchildren, Jason, Jodi, and Adam Bannerman, the children of her late daughter, Kathy Bannerman and her husband Moss, one brother, James Price, and countless nieces, nephews and friends. Known as Jen to her siblings, Jane was born on January 8, 1914 in Brooklyn, New York, the daughter of Jenny and Edward Price. She was the second oldest in a close knit family that included her three brothers, Edward, John and James, and one sister, Joan. Jane attended Our Lady of Guadelupe grammar school and graduated from Madison High School in Brooklyn in 1932. She married Edward Tobin, also of Brooklyn on October 5, 1940. Ed worked for Con Edison until the war broke out and he joined the Army Air Corps in hopes of becoming a pilot. An injury prevented this and in the early years of the war he served as a pilot instructor before being transferred to the Quartermaster Corps. During these years, Jane foreswore the comforts of her parents home to travel with her husband. She often reminisced about their early experiences, joking that off-base housing was so sparse they she and Ed once shared a ``cottage'' in Arkansas that had been a chicken coop. The young couple started a family in 1945 with the birth of their son Peter. Almost two years later they were blessed with a daughter, Kathy. Ed decided to make the military his career, and when he went to the Phillippines in 1947, Jane followed later on a troop ship with their two small children, Peter, then age 3 and Kathy, then thirteen months old. This ``adventure'' as Jane characterized it, began a series of journeys that would take her to military bases overseas and throughout the US, including the Phillippines, Cape Cod, Alaska and Newfoundland. When Jane and Ed returned to the United States from the Phillippines in 1948, they were quartered in the Nahant, Massachusetts, Mifflin Estate, which was the family home of John Cabot Lodge. This posting brought Jane's parents and siblings geographically closer to her and occasioned many happy family get togethers. It also began Ed and Jane's relationship with the great state of Massachusetts. In 1950 they were transferred to Camp Edwards on Cape Cod, where they bought their first home. Jane's innate curiosity and graciousness made her a perfect partner in her husband's career which, after Camp Edwards, took them to Chicago, Alaska, Texas, and Washington, DC, where Lt. Colonel Tobin retired. Ed then became a civilian employee, running base exchanges in Newfoundland, Amarillo Texas, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Throughout this period Jane made sure to go home at least once a year to see her parents in Brooklyn and to help care for them and other elderly relatives. In 1973 Ed retired completely and the couple headed East, where their fond memories of the Cape brought them back to Monument Beach. There, Ed could enjoy his fishing and golf and the two of them were often seen on late summer afternoons taking a quick dip at ``Mo Beach.'' They also bought a camper so that they could continue traveling and visit family members and the many friends they had made over the years. They were able to share the joys of retirement until Ed's death in August 1982. Deeply saddened by the loss of her lifetime partner, Jane's deep faith and courage helped her through this difficult period. Her desire to stay active and contribute found expression in her membership in the Ladies Guild at St. John the Evangelist in Pocasset, and her part-time volunteer job at the St. Peter's Thrift Shop in Buzzards Bay. Jane also continued to spend time with her family, traveling to Louisiana and Texas to be with her daughter Kathy and Moss and their young family, and to Australia where her son Peter and his wife were living (and where at age 80, she went scuba diving). Shaken by the sudden death of her daughter Kathy in 1993, Jane's remarkable faith and courage helped her through that most unexpected and dreadful of parental experiences. Although deeply saddened, Jane carried on with grace, never giving in to anger, bitterness or complaint. She continued her travels and volunteer work, and graciously opened her home and heart to family and friends every summer. Her thoughtfulness, genuine interest in people, and her warmth, openness, and grace drew people of all ages and backgrounds to Jane. Jane's reserve led her often to wonder why so many people wanted to spend time with her. When told that one of her doctors had referred to her in a medical report as ``a truly delightful patient,'' she was both skeptical and surprised. But such assessments came as no surprise to Jane's extended family and friends. Her innate modesty kept her from seeing what everyone around her saw--a woman who had led an extraordinarily interesting life, who was always interested in others, who did not judge people but accepted them as they were, and whose serenity and grace were an inspiration to everyone. At age 89, Jane's faith in God, which had characterized her life and inspired so many around her, took her to the home she had so faithfully sought. She was, in her words, ``ready to go,'' and her passing was as gracious as was her life. 1, along with many in my constituency and elsewhere are saddened by the loss of such a remarkable woman. Her presence enriched all who knew her, and I extend my heartfelt condolences all of Jane Tobin's family and friends.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, now that the House and Senate have both authorized the President to use military force against Iraq, it is more important than ever to listen to voices of wisdom about the costs of waging war and the challenges of keeping the peace. With that in mind, I commend to my colleagues the admonitions of a dozen older constituents--retired bankers, diplomats, journalists and college presidents--published recently in the Cape Cod Times: Twelve Old Men (on Cape Cod) Say ``No'' to a Unilateral Strike ``Older men,'' Herbert Hoover told the 1944 Republican National Convention, ``declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die.'' Our nation was, when Mr. Hoover made that statement, defending itself against fascists and militarists who had unleashed the dogs of war on us and our allies. Most of us served in that war, and we have vivid memories of it. Many of our friends--youth at the time--fought and died in defense of their country. But we and our allies prevailed, and freedom survived. Then, with the Marshall Plan, our nation waged peace, helping rebuild and democratize the countries we had defeated. In time, those countries became staunch allies. Today we are on edge of a different sort of war. Our President, under pressure from our allies and a few members of his own party, has with apparent reluctance asked the U.N. to pressure Saddam Hussein to live up to a number of Security Council resolutions. But Mr. Bush's vice-president, his national security adviser, his secretary of defense, and others, have made it clear that even though Iraq has agreed to let arms inspectors do their work, the White House objective still is a so-called ``pre-emptive strike'' intended to bring about the Iraqi regime change we failed to accomplish when we went to the defense of Kuwait, when the first President Bush was in the White House. Now--before more young men and women are ordered into battle by those older men who see war as a solution to the world's problems--is a time for the other older men, such as ourselves, to raise our hands and say to those who lead our nation: ``No!'' ``No'' to the pre-emptive war Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are, for whatever reasons, seeking to justify. ``No'' to those in Washington who would rain death and destruction on the Iraqi people in order to rid them of their leader. ``No'' to the notion that the immediate rewards such a war might accomplish will outweigh the furies it surely would incite, and the long-term chasm it would create between the West and the Muslim world. ``No'' to plunging into a new war and taking on the responsibility of occupying a conquered Iraq, while we still have not rolled up the Al Qaeda terrorist network, while Afghanistan shows signs of slipping into a bloody anarchy, and while there still is no real progress toward calming the violence in Israel/Palestine. We believe that as a member of the family of nations, the United States of America must, rather than rushing headlong into war, help establish an international consensus on dealing with whatever threat Iraq poses. We agree with our President that the U.N. resolutions against Iraq need to be respected and enforced. But such resolutions must be enforced by the U.N., or by U.N. approval of action by its member nations. We have seen too many wars. One Vietnam experience was enough. We believe that now, as always, war should be our nation's last option, not our first. And we believe that waging war on violence must begin at home, by raising our voices against a unilateral ``pre-emptive strike.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), my friend and colleague who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means and is a leader in the Massachusetts delegation.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who serves on the Committee on Financial Services and whose career has been earmarked by respect for the rule of law.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who serves as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on the House Committee on the Judiciary, as well as a member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, who recently returned from Afghanistan where she conducted a fact-finding mission. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), who serves with distinction on the Committee on International Relations and is the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Health Care of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for his perseverance. I know he has been here until the wee hours of the morning last night and this evening. And for those of us who oppose the underlying resolution, we are indeed in his debt. And I also want to thank him for his leadership within our caucus, not just simply on this particular issue but on many issues, particularly in terms of the continent of Africa. He is certainly someone who commands our respect. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to bring to the attention of the House disturbing reports that have recently appeared in the national press about alleged efforts to tailor intelligence information about Iraqi intentions and capabilities to fill the contours of administration policy. And I wish to note two particular stories from today's Washington Post and yesterday's Miami Herald. Mr. Speaker, I will insert the articles now in the Record. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 9, 2002] Analysts Discount Attack by Iraq (By Dana Priest) Unprovoked by a U.S. military campaign, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States, intelligence agencies concluded in a classified report given to select senators last week. However, the report added, ``should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred,'' he might launch a chemical-biological counterattack. Hussein might ``decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'' The assessment was first made in a classified National Intelligence Estimate, which includes the analysis and opinions of all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies, that was given to the Senate intelligence committee last week. A declassified ``white paper'' on Iraq was released days later. At the urging of the committee, which is controlled by Democrats, additional portions of the intelligence report were declassified by the CIA Monday and released last night. With lawmakers poised to vote this week on a resolution giving President Bush authority to attack Iraq, the new intelligence report offers grist both for supporters and critics of the administration's policy. The CIA assessment appears to suggest that an attack on Iraq could provoke the very thing the President has said he is trying to forestall: the use of chemical or biological weapons by Hussein. But the CIA also declassified other elements of analysis that seem to back up the President's assertion that Iraq has active ties to al Qaeda--a growing feature of the administration's case for considering military action. Among the intelligence assessments linking Iraq with al Qaeda is ``credible reporting'' that the group's ``leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities,'' according to a letter to senators from CIA Director George T. Tenet. Tenet added: ``Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship'' with al Qaeda, ``suggest Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.'' In his speech to the nation Monday night, Bush said: ``Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.'' The letter's release shed light on a behind-the-scenes battle over Iraq-related intelligence. The CIA's detailed, unvarnished view of the threat posed by Iraq is central, say many lawmakers, to how they will vote on the matter. Yet an increasing number of intelligence officials, including former and current intelligence agency employees, are concerned the agency is tailoring its public stance to fit the administration's views. The CIA works for the president, but its role is to provide him with information untainted by political agendas. Caught in the tug of war over intelligence, say former intelligence officials familiar with current CIA intelligence and analysis on Iraq, have been the CIA's rank and file and, to some extent, Tenet. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on the CIA to substantiate positions that have already been adopted by the administration,'' said Vincent M. Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA. Tenet last night released a statement meant to dispel assertions that the letter contained new information that would undercut the case Bush made Monday night. ``There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech,'' the statement read. ``Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD attack at this moment are low--in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD--there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build.'' In explaining why the items in the letter were not also released before, Tenet said he did not want to provide ``Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcomings, or with insight into our expectations of how he will and will not act.'' Still, he noted, the agency could nevertheless declassify further information not previously disclosed. Included in his letter were snippets of an Oct. 2 closed-door session. Included in that was questioning by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D- Mich.), in which he asked an unnamed intelligence official whether it ``is likely that [Hussein] would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?'' The official answered: ``... in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.'' Levin asked: ``If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis ... what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?'' The answer came: ``Pretty high, in my view.'' In his letter, Tenet responded to senators' questions about Iraq's connections to al Qaeda. ``We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade,'' Tenet wrote. ``Credible information'' also indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda ``have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.''