Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would agree to a 2-to-1 split, I would say to my friend from California.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I urge defeat of the resolution. In the landmark case of Schenck versus The United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that freedom of speech should not be abridged, even in wartime, unless the circumstances are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger to the United States. That doctrine, I suggest, offers an appropriate standard for any preemptive unilateral action. It creates a burden of proof that was best articulated by a patriot from New England who served as Secretary of State in 1837, Daniel Webster. He stated that the need for self- defense must be ``instant, overwhelming, and leaving no chance of means and no moment for deliberation.'' I would add that the quantum of evidence necessary must be compelling and convincing; not the higher criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but at least compelling and convincing, because of the obvious magnitude of the consequences that are implicated here. The resolution before us permits the President to take us into war without satisfying either of these requirements. In terms of the clear and present danger test, only last Friday the CIA stated publicly that without material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade; and further, the evidence needed to support the proposition that Iraq is a clear and present danger is not compelling and convincing, but rather, murky and speculative. I was particularly disturbed to learn that a national defense intelligence estimate had not even been done before the option of unilateral preemptive military action had become administration policy. It is as if a policy had been crafted and there was no need for a factual basis based on our own historical precedents, the evidence, and the rule of law; a conclusion in search of facts, if you will. Now, the factual basis for congressional authorization is incorporated in the preamble of the resolution before us, but the allegations that are recited therein could be made about a number of countries, such as Iran and North Korea, the other original members of the ``axis of evil'' club, both of whom are further along in the development and capacity to deliver a nuclear device, and both of whom possess biological and chemical weapons. Our own intelligence for years has claimed that North Korea has enough plutonium for several nuclear bombs. So why the focus on Iraq? It is asserted that Saddam has used chemical weapons and thereby demonstrated the necessary intention. Well, in fact, we do know of at least 10 occasions in the 1980s that he used chemical weapons during the war with Iran because we supported him; yet we still took him off the terrorist list, opened an embassy in Baghdad, shared intelligence with the Iraqi military, and provided billions of dollars in agricultural credits. But since the last incident occurred in 1988, I would submit that that evidence is stale and fails the clear and present danger test. What is not mentioned is that he did not subsequently use weapons of mass destruction during the Gulf War because he was told that our response would be devastating. Yes, he is despicable and truly evil, but he is not stupid. He can be deterred. He is not an al Qaeda fanatic seeking martyrdom. That is not Saddam Hussein. Rather, he is a survivor; and his only concern is maintaining power. Now, the President in his remarks last night mentioned links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but that conflicts with reports that both the FBI and the CIA have failed to corroborate any relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda with credible evidence. The President further noted that some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq; and that is true, but they are in northern Iraq. They are in northern Iraq, protected by Iraqi Kurds who are opposed to Saddam. It is difficult to imagine such an alliance because they are natural enemies. One of the goals of al Qaeda is the destruction of secular Muslim regimes such as Iraq because they believe they have corrupted Islam. Remember, Iraq did not recognize the Taliban, unlike our allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Like all Members, I fervently hope that if this resolution passes, and I am sure it will, a preemptive military offensive will not be necessary; but sadly, this is not just about Iraq, because what we will have done goes far beyond the instant moment. It will have established, I fear, a precedent that will be used by other nations who have aggressive intentions against their neighbors and others that all they need is stale evidence, historical sins, and ill-defined allegations that can serve as the basis for unilateral preemptive military action. Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the resolution.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, A few years ago, a friend from the South Shore of Boston told me about his son who for years had struggled to overcome the deficits associated with a disease called ``Fragile X.'' Like most Americans, I had never heard of this disorder. I soon learned that Fragile X is the most common inherited cause of mental retardation. About one in 260 women is a carrier of the disease, and it affects one in 2,000 boys and one in 4,000 girls. Despite this high incidence rate, Fragile X is relatively unknown even within the medical profession. It is easily identified by a simple blood test, yet families often struggle for months, even years, searching for explanations for alarming developmental delays and behavioral problems associated with Fragile X. There are some common physical signs, such as large ears, long faces and flat feet, but half of all Fragile X children do not exhibit these characteristics. Other symptoms are less tangible, including hyperactivity, attention deficits, severe anxiety and violent seizures, making diagnosis difficult. As a result, it is estimated that over 80 percent of children with Fragile X are currently undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. It is fitting that we gather today to consider a resolution recognizing National Fragile X Research Day, and the urgency of the need for increased funding for Fragile X research. Two years ago this week, Congress enacted another bill I co-authored with Congressman Watkins, the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act, as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000. This law directed an arm of the NIH to expand and coordinate research on Fragile X, and authorized the establishment of at least three Fragile X research centers. I am pleased to report significant progress toward implementing these provisions. Early this year, the Institute began accepting applications for the Fragile X research centers, which may be ready to open their doors by this spring. Thanks to this federal commitment, many prominent scientists have undertaken Fragile X research projects--rapidly accelerating progress and leading to new breakthroughs about its cause. In a series of landmark discoveries, researchers have identified the set of genes which are normally regulated by the Fragile X gene. Scientists are also now pursuing promising drug therapies for Fragile X as new evidence has shown that this type of defect can be blocked by relatively simple medications. These new discoveries may not only lead to treatments for Fragile X, but also have uncovered striking connections between Fragile X and other neurological and psychiatric disorders--with implications for autism, pervasive development disorder, Rett Syndrome, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, Tourette's Syndrome, and numerous other disorders. All this holds great promise for the development of safe and effective treatments, but there's a great deal more to do. Among the thousands of Fragile X families across the country are your constituents and mine. And their experiences are likely similar to Patricia Crouse of Chatham, Massachusetts who wrote to me about her grandson: ``After searching for several months and spending a small fortune in doctor bills, my son and daughter-in-law finally found that the cause of their son's development delay is Fragile X. This is apparently just the beginning of a lifetime of special needs he will have unless the researchers can discover a cure or treatment.'' Or Blaine and Suzanne Smoller of Brewster, Massachusetts whose son Devin was diagnosed with Fragile X as a toddler. Devin is a bright and happy 12 year old--he is also easily distracted, prone to mood swings and hyperactivity, and has difficulty comprehending conceptual issues. Ensuring Devin receives the education and life skills needed to reach his full potential is a full time job--but because of the lack of understanding of Fragile X, the Smollers have also spent much of the last decade educating themselves, teachers, other parents, and friends about Devin's disorder. Awareness and early diagnosis is critical to effective therapy and treatment, and can provide emotional relief to families struggling through this maze of medical tests. Only with sound information can parents prepare for the special care and education services most Fragile X children will need--which averages more than $2 million over a lifetime. Accurate diagnosis helps not only the child and parents, but also siblings and extended family members who may have Fragile X, or who risk passing on the mutation. Countless parents agonize about a child who learns slowly, suffering from intense anxiety and temper tantrums. Do they go from doctor to doctor, without explanation? Do they have additional children with Fragile X before learning a mother is a carrier? Is a child deprived of treatment because she received inaccurate diagnoses? Do parents conclude they simply have a ``bad kid''? For years, Fragile X families and the FRAXA Research Foundation have worked hard to raise public awareness about the disease, and to increase funding for research. Until a cure is discovered, our goal is to provide families dealing with Fragile X with the most significant tool now available: knowledge. With a little help from Congress, these families will at least have a better shot at accurate diagnosis and access to treatment, as we also accelerate research toward overcoming this debilitating disease. I therefore urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this resolution--which recognizes the devastating impact of Fragile X, calls from an increase in federal research, urges medical schools and other health educators to promote this research, and commends the goals of National Fragile X Research Day.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It was I think 4 years ago that a friend of mine in the Boston area approached me and described to me the characteristics and the symptoms of this disorder called fragile X. Like most Americans, I had never heard of fragile X, but he told me there was a fellow from Oklahoma, a Republican by the name of Wes Watkins, that was the champion of those who were afflicted with this particular disorder, and he encouraged me to seek him out. I am glad I did. Fragile X, as others have said, is the most common inherited cause of mental retardation. We have heard the statistics, the high incidence rate, the fact that fragile X is relatively unknown, even among medical professionals. It is easily identified by a simple blood test, yet families are left often struggling for months, even years, searching for explanations for alarming developmental delays and behavioral problems associated with fragile X; and they live in a time of uncertainty. There are some common physical signs such as large ears, long faces, and flat feet; but half of fragile X children do not exhibit any of these characteristics. Other symptoms are less obvious, including hyperactivity, attention deficits, severe anxiety, and even violent seizures, making diagnosis difficult. Again, I think it was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) who indicated that it is estimated that somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of children with fragile X are currently undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. So it is fitting that today we consider a resolution recognizing National Fragile X Research Day and the urgency of the need to increase funding for fragile X research. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago this week, Congress enacted another bill sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) and myself; it was labeled the Fragile X Research Breakthrough Act as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000. This law directed an arm of the National Institutes of Health to expand and coordinate research of fragile X and authorize the establishment of at least three fragile X research centers. I am pleased to report significant progress towards implementing these provisions. Early this year, the institute began accepting applications for the fragile X research centers, which hopefully will be ready to open their doors this coming spring. Thanks to this Federal commitment, many prominent scientists have undertaken fragile X research projects, rapidly accelerating the progress and leading to new breakthroughs about its cause. In a series of landmark discoveries, researchers have identified the set of genes which are normally regulated by the fragile X gene. Scientists are also now pursuing promising drug therapies for fragile X as new evidence has shown that this type of defect may be blocked by relatively simple medications. These new discoveries may not only lead to treatments for fragile X, but also have uncovered striking connections between fragile X and a whole litany of other neurological and psychiatric disorders. So all of this holds great promise for the development of safe and effective treatments. But as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) has indicated, there is a great more still to be done. So I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). His work in this particular endeavor is part of a wonderful legacy that he can take with him as he leaves this institution after some 20 years. So I want to extend my congratulations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I promise my friend and my colleague that I will take up this cause, and I will always remember this particular story that the gentleman concluded his remarks with. I too want to share in dedicating this day to him. Again, I thank the gentleman for everything that he has done for so many.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There will be a series of amendments offered during the course of the debate on this bill by a bipartisan group of Members, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, who, after 43 years, recognize that there can be no doubt that our current Cuba policy has failed. It has failed the Cuban people because it certainly has not brought them freedom and political space, but it has also failed the American people, not just because it has denied us commercial opportunities but, more importantly, has unreasonably restricted one of our fundamental constitutional rights, the right to travel. Even Vice President Cheney admitted during the campaign, and I am quoting him now, ``restrictions, frankly, have not worked very well in Cuba.'' Well, furthermore, this policy opens us to charges of hypocrisy. Americans can travel to North Korea and Iran; by my reckoning, that is two-thirds of the axis of evil, but not to Cuba. That makes no sense, I would suggest. We also helped pass the United Nations resolution that calls for virtually unrestricted trade with Iraq, the crown jewel of the troika of the axis of evil, yet we continue an embargo on Cuba. Well, that makes no sense, either. If we do not approve of one-party states where elections are a sham, where political and religious dissent is repressed, and the president names the editors in chief of the three largest daily newspapers, why do we not restrict travel and impose an economic embargo on Egypt, rather than sending them a $2 billion check every year? Why do we not impose Cuba-like sanctions on Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive regimes on earth, where women cannot thrive and our own soldiers are prohibited from leaving their bases, and an adult American woman born in Texas cannot leave to come home to America because her husband will not consent. How can we justify that inconsistency? The amendments that we will be offering will eliminate that hypocrisy and help create a democratic opening in Cuba. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments and particularly also when the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) comes forward, to vote ``no.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I know some of my friends on the other side are concerned about or they have expressed their fears about bioweapons and bioterrorism, but I think I should point out that General Gary Spear who is the commander of the U.S. Southern Command said just recently in a New York Times article that he knows of no evidence that Cuba is producing biological weapons from biomedical research programs. Then, of course, we have the individual who should know, the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research who testified recently before a Senate committee, Mr. Ford, Secretary Ford. In a response to a question from a Senator, he said, ``Do I go home every night and worry about it? No.'' He also said that Cuba is far from the number one concern of the people in our government who monitor chemical and biological weapon threats. So I would hope that their fears would be somewhat alleviated, but we have an amendment before us that would, in effect, continue to subvert the constitutional right of Americans to travel by requiring a brand new presidential certification that applies to no other country but Cuba. For example, it would not apply to China, where just recently nine Chinese companies, presumably owned by the People's Army, sold goods and technology to Iran, where they were used for conventional and chemical weapons programs, but no need for certification when it comes to China. In fact, recent reports indicate that the United States is contemplating an expansion of our military ties with that Communist government, but certification of Cuba, of course. Some might suggest that not only is this inconsistent but hypocritical. While on the subject of Iran, I think it was the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that talked about Iran, and remember, that is one of the originals in the axis of evil, but no need for certification there either. This amendment does not mention Iran, and in case my colleagues did not know, Americans can travel to Iran today without a license. Supposedly we are worried about Iran and its support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. In fact, our own State Department recently announced that Iran remained the most active State sponsor of terrorism in 2001, but there is no certification for Iran in this amendment. Again, some might suggest that this is hypocrisy, and then what about North Korea, the other in the troika of the axis of evil. Surely one would believe that this amendment would include North Korea in its certification requirements, especially since there is no U.S. policy prohibiting travel to North Korea if an American citizen wants to exercise his or her constitutional right. Furthermore, we have an agreement with North Korea where we give them hundreds of millions of dollars of aid annually for not pursuing a nuclear weapons effort. I bet the Cubans would love that deal. The North Koreans are not included in this amendment. Inconsistent, hypocritical, I do not know. Then, of course, one might expect that there would be a certification requirement in this amendment for Saudi Arabia, since 15 of the 19 hijackers who were responsible for the death of more than 3,000 Americans on September 11 were Saudi citizens. Of course, there appears to be compelling evidence that Saudi money went to support the extremist religious schools, the so-called madrassas that are a breeding nest for terrorists, but no, they are not included either, despite being one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet. Maybe, just maybe, if Cuba had a few massive oil reserves, this amendment would not be before us. Again, I think it opens us to charges of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst. We could discuss other nations, Syria, Sudan, both of which Secretary Bolton said may be pursuing biological weapons, but I think my colleagues get the picture. This amendment makes no sense. It does not pass the smell test. It is not about terrorism or foreign policy. It is about domestic politics, and it deserves to be defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is what I am saying.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Current U.S. policy prohibits Americans from sending more than $1,200 a year to family members in Cuba. Understand, again, that this applies only to Cuba. No other country has this cap. And if you dare exceed this limit, be careful, the remittance police are watching and the penalties are severe. You can get 10 years in jail and a $55,000 fine. But, the law is actually rarely enforced. There has never been, in fact, a single prosecution. But that is going to change, because one year ago this week, President Bush personally directed the Department of Treasury to expand its capability to enforce limits on remittances to the fullest extent of the law. The White House, in other words, has made the enforcement of the Cuban remittance limits a national priority. While I oppose both the embargo and the travel ban, let me suggest that the cap on remittances is truly the cruelest aspect of our policy towards Havana. It restricts American freedoms. It limits family charity and denies hopes for tens of thousands of Cubans, and at the same time it breeds disrespect for our law because we all know that Cuban-Americans are doing the right thing and are circumventing this policy. This policy does not punish Fidel Castro. Instead, it punishes American citizens and their relatives in Cuba. Let us be clear, none of this money comes from the United States Government. None of this money goes to the Cuban Government and Fidel Castro. It is direct aid from ordinary people who care to ordinary people who need. And it is the official policy of the United States that you should only do just so much. This policy would be silly. It is a real tarnish on the golden rule. But it is tragic. And it is un-American. Tonight, if we support this amendment, we can end this policy, end this cruel aspect of our policy to Cuba.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this Congress the accomplishments of Captain Rick Yatto of the United States Coast Guard. We extend our appreciation for his three years of outstanding service as Commanding Officer of Air Station Cape Cod. Today, Captain Yatto will step down as the Commanding Officer of the largest Air Station on the East Coast. It is an assignment that is one of the most difficult in the entire Coast Guard, with a unique set of challenges both at sea and on land. On the water, the Air Station provides law enforcement and search- and-rescue coverage throughout much of the Northwest Atlantic, with a large boating and fishing community that operates in some of the most difficult conditions. In the past three years, the Air Station performed over 750 search-and-rescue cases and saved over 200 lives. On land, the Air Station is a large industrial complex spread out over 1,400 acres, with over 600 housing units, a medical clinic, and dozens of buildings that support hundreds of Coast Guard and military families. The Air Station is also located on top of a fragile underground drinking water supply, located next to one of the largest Superfund sites in the country. The job is so large, that those who work and live at the base often see Captain Yatto as the local mayor. However, unlike politics, in the Coast Guard there is no margin for error. During Captain Yatto's tenure, the Air Station has not only had its fair share of daring rescues, it has successfully tackled a host of environmental challenges critical to the future of the installation. The Air Station's success in pollution prevention, innovative environmental management, and energy efficiency has won national recognition from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the White House. In my district, the Coast Guard is widely respected as the oldest maritime service in the country, with a tradition forever linked to the heritage of Cape Cod and the Islands. Many of the first Coast Guard stations were built on the Massachusetts coast, manned by brave men from local families with deep roots in our community. Their gallant deeds and heroics are not only a part of the Coast Guard's proud tradition, they are permanently etched into the communities and family histories of the people I represent. This explains why the Coast Guard is so much a part of our community, why there is so much local pride in its rich tradition and in the work they do today saving lives, protecting our fisheries, the marine environment and defending our homeland. That pride in our Coast Guard will continue as long as it is led by people like Captain Rick Yatto and served by the fine men and women of Air Station Cape Cod. On behalf of a very grateful constituency, Captain Yatto: ``Mission accomplished, and job well done.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has dedicated her life to the safety and well being of the children and families in Weymouth, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a noble sense of compassion and integrity, who is being honored today on the occasion of her retirement from Weymouth Youth & Family Services after 30 years of devoted service. After receiving her Bachelor's Degree at the University of Massachusetts Boston, Gloria earned a Master's degree in Counseling Psychology from Cambridge College. As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Family Therapist, Gloria came to the aid of countless struggling families to overcome the challenges associated with poverty, substance abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, and other social ills. In 1971, Gloria was hired as the Community Education Director and Therapist for Weymouth Youth and Family Services. After ten dedicated years, Gloria's talents were recognized and she was asked to serve as the organization's Director, the position in which she has excelled in for two decades. Under Gloria's direction, Weymouth Youth and Family Services has provided food to the hungry, shelter to the homeless, financial assistance to the poor, and counseling to those in crisis. For several years, I have been a proud participant in the Weymouth Youth & Family Services' Annual Christmas Celebration, which Gloria founded and has raised thousands of dollars each year to benefit families in need during the holiday season. During her tenure with the Weymouth Youth & Families Services office, Gloria has faced head-on the difficult challenges facing the youth in the community--from suicide to drug use, from racism and to violence. Her work as part of the Teen Facility Development Committee, which converted the shuttered police station into a thriving teen center, stands as a testament to Gloria's commitment to providing a promising future for the youth in the Town. Gloria Burke is Weymouth's own in the truest sense. Born in the Town, she was educated in its public school system, and continues to live there today with her husband Jack, with whom she raised four children. I am honored today to call Gloria Burke one of my closest friends. She has been a role model for me and the many thousands of those in Weymouth who have been touched by her genuine giving and caring nature. I know that her legacy will continue to be a lasting inspiration to future generations who wish to serve the community.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree more with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). He is correct. The European Union has failed to meet its commitment. Let me also suggest that the Colombian Government in terms of professionalizing and providing the resources necessary for its own military has failed its people. During the course of World War II the American people paid 40 percent of the GDP to the war effort. In Colombia today it is less than 2 percent of the Colombian GDP that is devoted to the military. And I suggest that this is an absolute appropriate rationale for us not to appropriate additional funds until the Colombian and the Europeans stand up to the plate. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree. I think it is time we sit down and consult further with the Colombians, but on Sunday the Colombian people will begin the process of selecting a new president, a new president with different ideas, some of which we may embrace, some of which we may reject. What is the rush? I suggest this is risky, that this is premature and this is why the McGovern-Skelton amendment should be supported.

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

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as my friend, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on International Relations indicated, we have traveled together frequently to Colombia, so I am all too familiar with the incredible violence that has plagued Colombia for far too long. I acknowledge we must accept a certain responsibility, for it is our insatiable demand for cocaine and for heroin that has exacerbated that violence and brought it to a new horrific level. Assistance and support for Colombia is part of our responsibility, but it is extremely important that we be clear about what kind of assistance we should offer and what we should expect from the Colombians. I believe that what we have been doing recently lacks that clarity. The U.S. policy is undergoing a sea change in such an incremental fashion so as to be unnoticeable. That, I submit, is unfortunate and very risky. During debate on the original Plan Colombia, which I supported, I rejected the argument that our involvement in Colombia could lead us to a Vietnam-like quagmire, in part because there were clear and bright lines in Plan Colombia as to the limits of our support. But now we are beginning to blur those lines, Mr. Chairman. We are removing those conditions and restrictions contained in Plan Colombia on a piecemeal basis. We are on the verge of making commitments that quantitatively and qualitatively substantially change our role in Colombia. There have been recommendations that we increase military assistance and enlarge our direct counterterrorism role in Colombia, and I underscore ``direct'' role in Colombia, all this without a thoughtful and extensive debate that carefully weighs the implications of such a fundamental shift in American policy. For example, 2 weeks ago, Plan Colombia contained an explicit ceiling, 500, on the number of U.S. military personnel permitted to enter Colombia. On May 10, this House passed a defense authorization bill that would essentially allow the Pentagon to introduce an unlimited number of American troops into that brutal conflict without any consent or notice to Congress. Today, the supplemental contains $6 million to protect a single oil pipeline in Colombia. But let us be clear: It really is simply a downpayment, because it is estimated that the full cost to the American taxpayer to protect that one pipeline is $98 million, and I believe that those additional monies will be included in the regular course of the appropriation bills we have to consider. How much will the next pipeline cost the American taxpayers? One can imagine American taxpayer dollars being utilized to protect all sorts of infrastructure projects in Colombia: bridges, aqueducts. The United States ambassador in Bogota indicated that there are more than 300 strategic infrastructures in Colombia that need protection. Now we are also considering whether to eliminate the restrictions that limit our current assistance to counternarcotics purposes. As others have said, make no mistake, not only will this result in an increased involvement by American forces in an expanding conflict, but it will be interpreted in Colombia as a willingness on the part of the United States to become directly engaged in actual conflict. That will be the interpretation that the Colombian people will make on their own. Now, do we really want that? Do we really want to chart this course without more debate? I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this resolution, because I want to leave no doubt whatsoever about the depth of my support for the people of Israel. I grieve with them at the losses they have sustained, and stand in solidarity with them in their hour of peril. At the same time, I want to express my disappointment that the resolution fails to express concern for the loss of life on both sides of this conflict. Our hearts should go out to all innocent victims and their families, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian. I am also concerned that this resolution may complicate the efforts of the President to bring the parties together. America is the only power on earth that has the means and the will to move the parties toward a comprehensive peace that each can accept. The President and Secretary Powell have committed themselves to this effort. And we should do nothing in this chamber that might make it more difficult for the Administration to exercise its leverage with both sides to bring about this result. Finally, the resolution says nothing about what is required to achieve a ``just, comprehensive and lasting peace''. In my view, it requires mutual recognition of an independent, viable Palestinian state and an Israel that exists within secure and defensible borders. It requires that each side recognize the legitimate aspirations of the other--and put an end to the cycle of provocation and retaliation that has brought so much misery to them both. While only the parties themselves can set the terms for peace, this much is evident. On the Palestinian side there must be an end to terrorist violence and the financial and material support the terrorists receive from Arab states. On the Israeli side, there must be an end to the building of settlements, the bulldozing of neighborhoods, and other provocative acts that have driven the Palestinians to despair. Decades of conflict have taken a devastating toll on both communities, creating conditions in which the Israelis suffer unimaginable losses and the Palestinians have nothing left to lose. What seems tragically clear is that the violence will continue until both sides recognize that they have more to gain from peace than from continuing their armed struggle. This will take more than resolutions. It will take genuine resolve. The kind of resolve that was so movingly expressed by the late Prime Minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, in his final speech before his tragic assassination on November 4, 1995: I was a military man for 27 years. I fought as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe that there is now a chance for peace, a great chance. We must take advantage of it for the sake of those standing here, and for those who are not here--and they are many. I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take risks for peace. In coming here today, you demonstrate, together with many others who did not come, that the people truly desire peace and oppose violence . . . This is a course which is fraught with difficulties and pain. For Israel, there is no path that is without pain. But the path of peace is preferable to the path of war. Israelis and Palestinians have experienced much pain since Rabin offered those final words to his people. But the risks he believed worth taking are still the only viable option. Only by following the path he laid out can Israel and America keep faith with him and all who have given their lives for the sake of peace.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, when Arthur and Clarice Wortzel are honored this Sunday on Martha's Vineyard, it will be with mixed feelings. We will wish the Wortzels well as they embark on their new life in Wisconsin; but we will miss the boundless community spirit which has characterized their years on the Island. The Wortzels made Martha's Vineyard their home after many decades in the Foreign Service of the United States. Over the course of his distinguished career, Arthur Wortzel took on a variety of sensitive assignments. Mr. Wortzel and his wife, Clarice, became engaging ambassadors of American interests and values. After retirement, the Wortzels put their skill and resolve to work for the benefit of the year-round community on Martha's Vineyard--from Community Services to the Foundation for Island Health, from the Dukes County Health Advisory Council to the Martha's Vineyard Hebrew Center. No task was too small for their kindness; no task was too large for their talent. We're delighted the Wortzels can join their three children and their families in Wisconsin. We wish the Wortzels well and look forward to staying in close touch. Our community is better for their commitment, and we'll miss their wit, warmth and wisdom until their first visit back to the Island.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. It is simple and straightforward. And it's been well-presented and fully explained by previous speakers. It outlaws a practice that has cost the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans--the sealing of court records in class action settlements where the health and safety of the public are at risk. And if you have any doubts about the consequences of this practice, just ask the families of those who lost loved ones who were driving Ford Explorers outfitted with Firestone tires. At last count, 271 people had died. The company knew about the problem. But insisted on secrecy as a condition of settlement. And just kept on selling those tires to an unsuspecting public who were unaware of the danger. In committee, the lead sponsor of the bill stated that publicizing the details of settlement agreements would deter people from entering into them. Let's be clear. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. And he further suggested that the amendment would eliminate an effective negotiating tool for plaintiffs. His concern for plaintiffs and hard-working American families is noble. But I can't quite believe that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who support this bill, share that same concern. I believe that would be a real stretch, Mr. Chairman. But even if it were true, I submit that the price of secrecy is too high if it costs a single human life. Consumers are entitled to know when there are dangerous and defective products on the market. They are entitled to the information that will protect them and their families from the unconscionable conduct that we witnessed in the Firestone case. Well, let's exercise our collective conscience and do the right thing. Let's remember those families, who were the victims of corporate secrecy and greed. It's time to let the sunshine in, before more innocent people are hurt.