Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Now I am really confused, Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman from Texas can explain to me why the National Council of State Legislatures have registered their opposition to this bill. Maybe they have given up on the 10th amendment, also.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am really becoming more confused as I listen to this debate. When I first arrived in Congress some 5 years ago, I recollect very passionate rhetoric coming from the other side about States' rights and a new era in federalism. So it is really ironic that this particular week we are considering two bills that would send us off in an entirely different direction. This bill, the so-called, and let me suggest it is truly mislabeled, Class Action Fairness Act, would remove thousands of class action suits from State courts to Federal courts; and a consequence of that would be that ordinary citizens and hurting American families and consumers would be severely disadvantaged against large corporations. And that is why every consumer group in America is opposed to this bill. Every legitimate major consumer group is opposed to the bill. Now, the other bill that is scheduled for tomorrow, the so-called ``Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act,'' continues that relentless federalization of crime that has been roundly criticized by such conservative icons as former Attorney General Ed Meese and the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Rehnquist. I remember the Contract for America and, boy, suddenly it seems, oh, so long ago, the Contract For America. Well, according to the Judicial Conference, the class action bill would overwhelm Federal courts that are already staggering under their current caseload. Of course, for the innocent victims of corporate misconduct, this would mean years of delay before they would get their day in court. How many times have we heard on the floor of this House, ``Justice delayed is justice denied''? Well, one might suppose that this proposal was written by people who favor a larger role for the Federal Government, but that is not the case. The authors are the same individuals, and let me quote the Washington Post, that referred to the proponents as ``self-proclaimed champions of State power.'' One could also speculate that this proposal was generated by people who advocate a larger role for the Federal judiciary; but again, that is not the case. Some of the sponsors of this bill regularly come to the well and rail against judicial activism by ``unelected Federal judges.'' Now, a while back, these same Members were on the floor attempting to pass a bill, and I am sure some of the Members here remember it, called the Judicial Reform Act, which would have prohibited Federal judges from ordering a State or local government to obey Federal environmental protection, civil rights, or other laws if doing so would cost the States any money. Oh, if hypocrisy were a virtue. What that bill attempted to do was to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over violations of Federal law that were indisputably within their power and their sphere of authority. What this bill ironically attempts to do is to transfer to those same Federal courts jurisdiction over violations of State and local laws that have never been within the scope of the Federal courts and their jurisdiction. This is truly Alice in Wonderland: Up is down, and down is up. So much for federalism. So much for local control. Maybe it is too cynical to suggest that the reason for this about- face has more to do with the financial interests of powerful American corporations than concern for the appropriate division of authority between Federal and State courts. Maybe that is too cynical. Because it certainly has nothing to do with hurting American families, nothing whatsoever. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we come here today not to praise federalism but to bury it. So its demise has been slow and agonizing, and I guess this bill gives it the proper burial it does not deserve.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for his generous words and for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as others have alluded to, almost 4 years ago, President Andres Pastrana embarked on what was truly a courageous effort to bring peace to his nation. He began negotiations with the FARC and the ELN, the country's two main guerilla groups. He did so because he realized that, after almost 40 years of conflict, a negotiated agreement was the only answer to end the violence. These efforts focused world attention on Colombia. For the first time, the international community was brought directly into the negotiations. Hope prevailed that the brutal violence that has plagued that nation for decades would at long last end. I shared that hope. At President Pastrana's request, I myself went to the so-called demilitarized zone. I met with the FARC, which is the largest party to this conflict. I left, hopeful that the FARC was genuinely serious about the search for peace. They claimed that they were prepared to work to create a new Colombia that would embrace social and economic justice and bring peace to a population exhausted by violence. Sadly, they have proven they were not serious. At great political cost, President Pastrana gave the FARC every opportunity to prove their good faith. But they, the FARC, could not summon the political resolve, the will, the courage, if you may, to choose peace. Sadly, they were not serious. From an insurgency that once based its legitimacy on a promise of social and economic justice for all Colombians, the FARC have degenerated into criminal syndicates that traffic in drugs, that extort, that kidnap and that murder civilians. The FARC have failed to meet the challenge of peace. They have failed the Colombian people. So now I share what I know to be the profound disappointment felt by President Pastrana and the people of Colombia. But, fortunately, the peace process with the ELN is still continuing. Like the FARC, the ELN claim to want to address the social inequities that are at the root of the conflict. But the ELN have actually proposed how to do that; and, at least at this point in time, they appear to have the will to make peace. However, tragically, even while negotiating, the ELN also continue their armed campaign of kidnapping and sabotage. But what disturbs me most profoundly is the recent rapid growth of right-wing paramilitary groups, commonly referred to as the AUC. They commit more than 70 percent of the massacres in the course of the Colombian conflict, and their brutality knows no bounds of human decency. Their leadership readily admits to deriving most of their funding from drug trafficking. Klaus Nyholm, the head of the U.N. drug control program in Colombia, says that they are substantially more involved in the drug trade than the FARC. Most significantly for U.S. policy, the AUC, as mentioned by the gentleman from California, the ranking member, have extensive links with the Colombian military, according to our own Department of State report that was issued this week. That explains the reluctance of so many of us in this body to provide unconditional military assistance to the Colombian armed forces. While President Pastrana and Colombian armed forces chief Fernando Tapias deserve credit for taking steps to professionalize the military, unfortunately, far too many of these unsavory links remain. Until all relationships, at every level, between the military and the AUC are ended, the U.S. can and should condition its assistance. Unbelievably, these paramilitary groups rationalize their acts of terrorism as what is needed to fight the guerillas. They say they traffic in drugs only to support that fight. They say that what they really want is peace. They even claim that they are the Northern Alliance of Colombia, ready to help the United States fight the FARC. They are not Colombia's Northern Alliance. They are Colombia's al Qaeda. Let us be clear. There is no place for an AUC in a democracy. In a democratic society, it is the exclusive role of the armed forces and the police, working under the legitimate government, to maintain public order, to defend the nation, and protect individual civil liberties. And there is a legitimate government in Colombia duly elected by the Colombian people. The AUC are not the answer to Colombia's problems. In a very real way, the AUC are cooperating with the FARC and the ELN in sending Colombia into chaos and more bloodshed. We know what the FARC's position is. We have learned it the hard way. Now it is very important for us to be clear with both the ELN and the AUC. Let me say to them, now is the time to reveal your true selves, to show the world what you really want for your nation. You say you want peace. You put it on your websites. You make these public statements. Prove it. Declare an immediate, unilateral cease-fire and an immediate suspension of all criminal activities. Lay down your arms. You can do it today. Now. That way, the Colombian military can concentrate its efforts on the FARC; and the world can see that the other parties to the conflict are willing to act for peace, not just talk about it. So Senor Gabino, who is the leader of the ELN, and Carlos Castano, the leader of the AUC, now is the time, now, to decide which side you are on. Are you with the Colombian people who desperately want to end 40 years of horror? Or are you with those who would drown your nation in the blood of its own citizens? This resolution today makes clear which side the United States is on. This is just the beginning of our debate. We still must have an extensive review, including hearings, on the details of any U.S. assistance, just as there should be a peaceful debate inside Colombia on how to address that country's very real problems, particularly its glaring social and economic inequities. But there should be no doubt as to which side the United States is on. We are with the Colombian people.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, for all our colleagues in this chamber, the days are long and the rewards often intangible. Once in a great while, however, the results of our work together are so compelling that it's worth stopping for a moment to take notice. In this spirit, I rise today to celebrate the first anniversary of the implementation of the Child Citizenship Act of 2001. With the help of a remarkable bipartisan coalition--Congressmen Henry Hyde and Lamar Smith; Senators Don Nickles, Mary Landrieu and Ted Kennedy, to name just a few--we made history for tens of thousands of American families, and for the scores of overseas orphans they have embraced as their own. On February 27, 2001, United States citizenship was conferred automatically on every young child under age 18 adopted by American parents. By the most conservative estimates, more than 150,000 children woke up that morning as American citizens. The joy of that sunny morning brimmed on the faces of adoptive families, their relatives and neighbors from coast to coast. Spontaneous commemorations, public and private, sprouted up in dozens of communities across the country, from Atlanta to Alaska. It was a special pleasure to help host the national celebration one year ago today, in Boston's historic Fanueil Hall. Since its construction in 1742, that hall has occupied a hallowed place on our nation's trail toward freedom. It witnessed the revolutionary speeches of Samuel Adams, the anti-slavery oratory of Frederick Douglass, and the stirring call of Susan B. Anthony for women's suffrage. Last February 27, we gathered in that cradle of liberty to mark another step forward. The new law lives not only in the bright eyes of these children and the pride in their parents' hearts, but also in the story of human compassion. In addition to those ``overnight citizens'' of last February 27, the Child Citizenship Act has conferred automatic U.S. citizenship upon the lawful completion of each international adoption since. In 2001 alone, U.S. parents adopted over 4600 orphans from China and 4200 from Russia, 1700 from South Korea, 1600 from Guatemala, 1200 from Ukraine, 700 from each of Romania, Vietnam and Kazakhstan; 500 from India; 400 from Cambodia; and hundreds more from Bulgaria, Colombia, the Philippines, Haiti, Ethiopia, Poland, Thailand, Mexico, Jamaica, Liberia, and dozens of other nations--altogether, more than 19,000 overseas children since the new law took effect. Each is now a United States citizen. Not one had to struggle with the red tape or expense of the naturalization process. No federal agency was saddled with reams of paperwork to process their cases. The real meaning, of course, cannot adequately be measured in statistics. The deepest gratification lies in the strengthening of the family--the American family and the universal, extended family of which we are all a part. During the Faneuil Hall celebration, my own daughter Kara, herself a beneficiary of the Saigon Babylift 26 years ago and a naturalized citizen, stressed that U.S. citizenship is not a rejection of one's country of origin, but rather an opportunity to weave a new, deeply personal heritage. The enactment of the Child Citizenship Act was a model of bipartisan legislative collaboration. I still hope to build on this success to address, either administratively or through additional legislation, a number of questions that remain about the Act's application to children of American citizens living abroad. My only real disappointment--last February and still today--is the reluctance of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to streamline its protocols for issuing certificates of citizenship. Many of the 150,000 who assumed citizenship last year, and those since adopted, naturally desire official affirmation of their new status. Thousands have taken advantage of the new State Department procedures to acquire United States passports. The process is so straightforward that Senator Kennedy was able to hand-deliver the first such passport in the nation on the stage at the Fanueil Hall celebration, within two hours of the legislation taking effect. Inexplicably, however, the INS still has not followed suit. If an adoptive child who is now a U.S. citizen seeks an INS certificate, he or she must undergo the same lengthy, expensive and cumbersome process that faces a non-citizen seeking naturalization. This procedure is irrationally burdensome for both the applicant and the agency; and it offends nearly everyone who has the misfortune to have to undergo it. These children are already American citizens. All adoptive parents want is a piece of paper affirming that fact. It should be no harder than getting a driver's license--or a passport. Fortunately, this problem cannot negate the enormous benefits the law has conferred on adoptive families and our entire community. Especially in the wake of September 11, as we all struggle against global misunderstanding, this new law helps fulfill the lifelong dream of thousands of families and shows enormous respect to the compassion of our own great, diverse and generous nation.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the merits of reforming our nation's pension system, I would like to share with my House colleagues the experience of Ms. Betty R. Moss, a recent retiree of the Polaroid Corporation. Her compelling testimony, prepared for delivery before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, paints a vivid and disturbing portrait of the vulnerability of workers and retirees under our current pension and bankruptcy laws. I ask my colleagues to consider her poignant words, and join with me in enacting new protections to ensure retirement security for all workers and retirees. Testimony of Betty R. Moss Before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Dated Feb. 7, 2002 Good morning. My name is Betty Moss, and I am a former Polaroid employee. I am accompanied today by Karl Farmer, chairman of the Official Committee of Retirees for Polaroid Corporation. I am also accompanied today by counsel for the Official Committee of Retirees, Scott Cousins, of Greenberg Traurig. I am 56 years old and I live in Smyrna, Georgia with my husband, Lawrence. We have been married for 32 years and have one son, Tom. I started working for Polaroid more than 35 years ago as a file clerk, soon after finishing high school. My job was eliminated last July, and I retired from Polaroid, finishing my career as the Senior Operations Manager of Polaroid's Atlanta Business Center. As senior manager I was responsible for more than 100 employees as well as all administrative and operational decisions associated with Polaroid's business operations in Atlanta. My budget responsibilities totaled several million dollars, but the ``people responsibilities'' were even more important to me. I am quite familiar with Polaroid's management team and the company's current state of financial distress. I know first hand about the impact of the decisions made by the current management team on the employees for whom they were responsible. I've seen the impact on file clerks, on engineers, on call center representatives, on people at every level of the organization. These are people that I care about, and they are now in pain. When I retired in July, Lawrence and I decided to see America. We had always dreamed of traveling, so we packed a camper and headed west for a three-month journey. Four weeks later, our trip was abruptly halted in October, when I realized my severance checks were not being deposited into my checking account! We abandoned our trip and returned home, knowing that something was terribly wrong. Soon after, we discovered that our medical insurance had been canceled retroactively to the first of October. There was no notice, no warning--we simply found ourselves without medical coverage. I have Lupus and Lawrence is diabetic, so you can imagine our horror! And, while you might think that it was our being on the road that prevented notification about the cancellation of all our retirement benefits, I found that all Polaroid retirees--thousands of us--were in exactly the same boat. No one was notified about the loss of medical and other insurance coverage until days after the company filed for bankruptcy. Weeks went by before the company would even tell us whether we were covered by COBRA. As a Polaroid employee, I received health and life insurance coverage and I contributed to a mandatory retiree savings plan. When I retired, I expected to continue my health and life insurance at Polaroid group rates and enjoy the benefits of a healthy retirement savings plan through the mandatory Polaroid ESOP. In 1997, four years before I retired, my Polaroid ESOP shares were worth $60 each. Today, those shares are worth less than a dime each. Back in 1988, we were told that the ESOP was being established to protect Polaroid from being taken over by other companies. It did help keep us an independent company, and we rejoiced in that. In fact, we all proudly wore ID badges that called us ``employee owners''. Today, most of us wonder if it would have been better if we had been taken over. Besides keeping the company independent, we were told that the ESOP was also supposed to mean a healthy retirement for employees. When we were in the first 10 years of the ESOP, our former CEO used to promise ``95 in 95'' (in other words, that our shares would be worth $95 a share in 1995). At $95 a share, my retirement savings plan would have been worth about $285,000. Now it is worth less than $300. Under the mandatory ESOP, all employees were forced to participate by contributing 8 percent of their pay. We were told this was necessary to help fund the $300 million Polaroid had borrowed to fund the ESOP. None of us had a choice. No one could choose not to invest in the ESOP, regardless of whether our personal circumstances allowed us to ``give up'' 8 percent of our pay. When the first ESOP was paid off in 1997, Polaroid started a second ESOP (ESOP II), which continued the employees' forced investment in Polaroid stock. My 8 percent contribution purchased Polaroid common stock, which I could not sell over that 13-year period, no matter how well or how poorly the stock performed. The only exception was the legal requirement that we be allowed to diversify holdings the year after we reached age 55. We had absolute faith the ESOP would be there to supplement our pension fund and social security. We never envisioned that we would be creditors of a bankrupt Polaroid. The ESOP was promoted as a guaranteed retirement savings, which ``forced'' employees to save money for retirement. Thousands of employees relied on the ESOP stock to fund their retirement savings. Unfortunately, by forcing us to invest heavily in Polaroid stock for our retirement, the ESOP left us with almost no savings. Prior to 1988, my retirement savings plan was diversified and consistently showed an annual positive return. Up until 1988, I had made regular contributions to the 401(k) plan offered at Polaroid. After the ESOP was forced upon us, I could no longer afford to contribute much to the 401(k). At that time, I was only making about $35,000, and 8 percent of that started going into Polaroid stock through the ESOP. Average working people like me cannot raise their families, pay mortgages, educate their children, and still afford heavy contributions toward retirement. So, we had to rely on the ESOP as a major part of our retirement savings plan. By 1997, my ESOP holdings were worth about $160,000 when the Polaroid share price was about $60. Although it wasn't as great as ``95 in 95'', I still felt pretty good. Unfortunately, because of the forced ESOP contributions and because I had to buy Polaroid stock, my retirement savings were now heavily invested in one stock--Polaroid--which wasn't worth much by the time I retired. What looked pretty good in 1997 at $60 a share, is today worth about 8 cents a share, as a result of the decisions of the current management team. When I retired in July 2001, 1 took all of my ESOP shares and converted them into stock certificates. But all of those who were forced to invest so heavily in Polaroid stock cannot even say today that they own the stock. We later learned that State Street Bank & Trust, the trustee of the fund, started liquidating Polaroid's ESOP shares in mid-November 2001, and completely liquidated the fund by mid-December 2001. After the liquidation was complete, Gary DiCamillo, Polaroid's current CEO, sent out a letter on December 10, 2001 to all employees notifying them that ``it was in the best interest of participants in the ESOP fund to liquidate all shares.'' I would like to emphasize that these ESOP participants--the ``employee owners''--had absolutely no opportunity to approve this sale--it was done completely without their knowledge. Neal D. Goldman, the current Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Chief Administrative Officer, sent a December 18, 2001 letter to ESOP participants stating that an approximate total of 7.2 million shares had been sold at about 9 cents a share. If you do the math, that means shares of $687,000 in total value to be shared among thousands of participants. This is a stunning loss, since in 1997, the ESOP fund had an approximate value of $480 million. What baffles us is this: if the Trustee were truly acting in our best interest--to protect our retirement savings--why did they wait to sell the stock until it was virtually worthless? The stock has been on a downhill slide since 1997. Why not sell when it reached $ 10 a share 2 years ago? After all, this was a retirement savings plan! Why not when it reached $5? They could have sold it to protect our interests, even if we could not. Why not at least sell when Polaroid filed for bankruptcy and the stock was trading at about 70 cents a share? Many of us cannot understand how the trustee of a retirement savings plan acted ``in our best interest'' given this set of circumstances. Not only that, the liquidation of those shares means the ``employee owners'' have almost no influence. We used to own almost 20 percent of the company. Now we cannot even vote on the Polaroid bankruptcy and related matters. I still own all of my ESOP shares of Polaroid stock, which I will not sell, out of principle. But the recent demise of Polaroid has left me with a loss of approximately $200,000 in retirement savings. All of this is money that I would have contributed all along to my 401 (k) had I not been forced to participate in the ESOP. If I had been able to contribute that money into a diversified 401K program, I am certain it would now be worth more than $300. With the complete loss in value of my ESOP-funded retirement savings, and loss of severance pay that I was contractually entitled to receive after leaving Polaroid, retirement looks quite different from what we had planned. When we were young and first married, we went grocery shopping with a calculator. We used the calculator to be sure we only spent what we could afford, and we put back what we could not afford. After 35 years of working at Polaroid, I now worry that I will have dig out that old calculator again. My husband and I never wanted to be wealthy--we just wanted to be secure in retirement. Medical coverage alone now costs us around $7,500 a year. I will probably have to find a job later this year so that I can get medical coverage through another employer. However, with the job market being so tight, I'm not sure how easy it will be for a ``retiree'' aged job seeker to find an employer. As a former Polaroid manager, I continue to get countless calls from employees who formerly reported to me. They want to know how Polaroid could sell their ESOP shares without their permission. They want to know how it was in their ``best interest'' to sell the ESOP holdings at 9 cents per share, when their average investment cost was around $25 per share. I also get calls from other retirees like myself who have been dumped by a corporation that we helped build, and that once cared about us. Unfortunately, I can't answer these very important questions. However, I do know that most long- term and former employees strongly believe Polaroid has a fighting chance to survive this restructuring, to thrive again, and to reinstate the value the shareholders have lost. Perhaps selling the ESOP shares was not ``in the best interests of participants in the ESOP fund'' as Mr. DiCamillo explained, but rather in the best interests of Mr. DiCamillo and Polaroid's current management. These are the people who are now working diligently to sell off the company instead of working on a plan to restore Polaroid, which is truly ``in the best interests'' of all current and former employees, as well as shareholders and creditors. Thank you.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Karl Farmer, a retiree of the Polaroid Corporation, testified before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions last week. I would like to take this opportunity to see that Members of the House also benefit from his powerful testimony on the lack of worker and retiree protections under our current pension and bankruptcy laws. I ask my House colleagues to consider his experience, and join with me in enacting new safeguards to ensure retirement security for all workers and retirees. Testimony of Karl V. Farmer, Before the Senate Committee of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Good morning. My name is Karl Farmer, and I am a former Polaroid employee and chairman of the Official Committee of Retirees for Polaroid Corporation. I am also accompanied today by counsel for the Official Committee of Retirees, Scott Cousins, of Greenberg Traurig, as well as Betty Moss, another former Polaroid employee. I am 55 years old. I have lived in Roxbury, Medford, Bedford and Lawrence, Mass., and I recently moved to New Hampshire. I started working for Polaroid more than 30 years ago as an engineer and became a retiree after I left the company on September 29, 2001. At the time I started with the company, Polaroid was one of THE places to work. It was an especially good company for minorities, very progressive. Polaroid was doing affirmative action programs before it became fashionable or mandatory. It was a family company with a caring upper management. Up until 1988, 1 had begun to save for my retirement by contributing 2% of my pay to the Polaroid 401 (k). Polaroid matched that contribution dollar for dollar so that I was able to start building for my retirement with a diversified retirement plan. But in 1988 Polaroid started the mandatory ESOP plan which required employees to contribute 8% of their pay to the ESOP plan. I had always understood that most ESOP plans did not require workers to contribute to them, but Polaroid required that we contribute to this one. Because of the mandatory requirement that we contribute to the ESOP, I was no longer financially able to contribute to my 401(k). As a result, my retirement was then tied up almost exclusively with the ESOP and Polaroid stock. I have not figured out how much money I would now have if I had continued to contribute to my diversified 401 (k) instead of the ESOP, but I am meeting with a financial advisor from Fidelity next week, and I'm sure they'll be able to tell me the bad news. I didn't really realize the danger of not being allowed to diversify my retirement account until August 2001 when I was told my job was being eliminated, and I was promised a severance package, which included medical, dental and life insurance coverage at employee prices for six months, along with six months severance pay. This transition period actually took me to retirement--where I could count on my ESOP and pension plans. The day I was to receive my first severance payment I called to verify that it was being deposited. I later learned that many people who were supposed to receive severance payments that day did not, and the next day Polaroid declared Chapter 11. As a result, Polaroid is not paying my severance, or providing the medical, dental or life insurance it had agreed to. I have been left unemployed with no benefits. I had to break a lease and vacate my apartment. I had also taken out two loans on my 401 (k) plan, and I will now be unable to pay those back. As a result, I'm also going to be hit with a huge tax penalty for making withdrawals on my 401 (k). As for my ESOP plan, I had 3500 shares which, at their peak, were worth about $210,000. Without asking me, or apparently anyone else, management decided to liquidate these shares for about $300. We learned, after the fact, that State Street Bank & Trust, the trustee of the fund, started liquidating Polaroid's ESOP shares in mid November 2001, and completely liquidated the fund by mid-December 200l. After the liquidation was complete, Gary DiCamillo, Polaroid's current CEO, sent out a letter on December 10, 2001 to all employees notifying them that ``it was in the best interest of participants in the ESOP fund to liquidate all shares.'' Many of us cannot understand how the trustee of a retirement savings plan acted ``in our best interest'' by selling the ESOP stock when it reached 9 cents a share. Not only that, the liquidation of those shares means the ``employee owners'' have almost no influence. We used to own almost 20% of the company. Now we cannot even vote on the Polaroid bankruptcy and related matters. We decided to try to influence the process, even if we were disenfranchised former owners of the company. It took a big effort to pull folks together to fight for what's been promised. People are scattered and we do not have lists of everyone who has been affected. Still, we organized. I'm the chair of the Official Committee of Retirees of Polaroid, which was recently recognized by the bankruptcy court. This allows us legal representation with the bankruptcy proceedings. The offices of both Senator Kennedy and Representative Delahunt have worked very diligently with us in our fight for justice. And recently a letter was sent to Polaroid's CEO from the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation denouncing Polaroid's actions. Our committee and its constituents thank you and the other members of the Massachusetts delegation for those clear signs of support. In the same spirit, we urge you to change the rules on ESOP programs to allow employees some control of their own destiny.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues that I have requested that the General Accounting Office undertake a study of questions relating to the feasibility of federalizing security at nuclear power plants nationwide. As Congress examines ways to protect critical infrastructure in the wake of September 11, the vulnerability of commercial nuclear reactors has become increasingly evident. Even before then, the potential hazards associated with nuclear power have long required special vigilance; and the terrorist attack obviously elevates the gravity and urgency of security concerns. All of us who represent areas with commercial nuclear facilities share an urgent concern for safeguarding residents who live in close proximity to the 103 facilities across the country. Most Americans understand that we can't completely insulate the nation--and every person and property in it--from attack by suicidal terrorists. Nearly everyone appreciates the complexities and expense involved, and grasps the need to balance security precautions with civil liberties and economic impact. But the fact remains that there is no more fundamental responsibility of government than homeland defense, and that addressing vulnerabilities--including those associated with nuclear plants--are essential. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has acknowledged that the nation's commercial reactors were not designed to withstand the type of attack carried out against the World Trade Towers. In light of this new potential threat and in the context of analogous legislation relating to airport safeguards, it seems to me self-evident that we explore the prospect of a federal security force charged with protecting nuclear plants. Within hours of the September attacks, security at nuclear plants went on high alert. In my own congressional district, the Pilgrim facility took significant new precautions against potential threats to perimeter security from both the ground and the water. Although the immediate response was sound, I remain concerned about long-term protection of the plant. The NRC is presumably consulting with the new office of Homeland Security and various other federal agencies on coordinated efforts to buttress nuclear safeguards; however, its approach seems focused on existing protocols rather than new methods. Even as legislation to federalize airport screening regimes was signed into law, however, the equivalent discussion of a federal nuclear plant security force has received only scant attention. Historically, it appears the NRC has not moved aggressively to explore the potential authority for federalization under existing statute, much less for administrative or legislative initiatives to create a federal presence. Correspondence with my office over the last four months suggests the NRC is not inclined to examine section 102 of the Atomic Energy Act, which could offer relevant authority. The agency rationale is that ``the Commission is confident that substantial protection is being provided to plants.'' Perhaps that reluctance derives from a substantive disagreement about the need even to review a federal approach. In written remarks to a Senate colleague, the NRC Chairman stated last month that ``there have been no failures in nuclear plant security of the type that would warrant the creation of a new federal security force'' and warned that, by federalizing security, the government would incur an exorbitant cost ``all to address a non-existent problem''. I seek neither to raise undue alarm nor to condemn the current security protocol. However, in a series of meetings since September 11 with local, state and federal officials about public health and safety in the dozens of communities near the Pilgrim plant, one of the most recurring and compelling themes has been the need for serious and thorough consideration of a federal force. The consequences of getting this wrong are unthinkable. It seems to me that an independent examination of a number of technical and financial issues by the GAO would be invaluable. Accordingly, I wrote today to the Comptroller General to ask the GAO to: 1. Review current federal guidelines and protocols for safeguarding nuclear plants from the air (including through the use of no-fly zones); through perimeter ground security measures; and through coastal security measures; 2. Examine the jurisdictional issues and administrative obstacles to transferring responsibility for security from plant owners to the federal government; and 3. Analyze the cost of federalizing security--including initial training, upkeep, and long-term protection. I have no presuppositions about the outcome of such a study, or about the policy debate it could help inform. However, I remain deeply concerned about the consequences of failing to explore these issues on an expedited basis.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 234.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have to respectfully disagree with the chairman of the committee for the same reasons that were articulated by both the gentlewoman from Texas and the ranking member of the subcommittee. I think we have to put this in context and understand exactly what is required in terms of the Convention. The administration itself has acknowledged that this death penalty provision is not required to implement the Convention. I have no disagreement with the gentleman's premise that it is the United States Congress that imposes or reflects, if you will, the will of the majority of the American people. At the same time, this provision is going to cause serious problems. In fact, not only is it not required under the Convention, but, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) indicated, it will actually impair the fight against international terrorism by making it harder for the Justice Department to secure extradition in these kinds of cases. Our continued resort to the death penalty has brought condemnation from nations across the globe. Even some of our closest allies routinely refuse to honor extradition requests by the United States unless their judicial authorities can be assured that the defendants will not face execution. It has become a serious problem in terms of our legal relationships with our most steadfast allies, some of which were enumerated by the chairman of the committee. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms precludes extradition to the United States unless U.S. authorities give assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed. Similar rulings have been made by governments and courts in France, South Africa and elsewhere. I do not see how it serves American interests to enact additional provisions that do not exist currently in the law that will further complicate our ability to prosecute terrorists and further marginalize the U.S. within the family of nations. Now, the administration justifies the new death penalty provision by claiming that it merely tracks current law with respect to comparable domestic crimes. That, I am sure, is accurate. But the fact that the current law presents an obstacle to our law enforcement objectives is hardly a persuasive argument for compounding the problem. Reasonable people may continue to disagree with whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent to some categories of crimes, but I am at a loss to see how anyone can seriously believe that the prospect of the death penalty will deter suicide missions of the kind that this Nation witnessed on September 11. I dare say it will have no effect whatsoever, and I believe the administration implicitly concedes as much when it says that this new provision merely replicates existing death penalty provisions, provisions which did nothing to prevent those attacks from occurring. Now, again, I support the Convention. I believe it should be ratified and implemented with all reasonable dispatch. But we have a responsibility to achieve that goal in a way that generally advances our national interests. I hope the Senate will fix this legislation so that that can happen.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which includes reauthorization of the Striped Bass Conservation Act. When my predecessor, Gerry Studds, first introduced the Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984, the species had been battered by pollution and over-fishing. Harvests had plummeted so far, so fast--by over 10 million pounds over the preceding 10 years--that there was legitimate fear for the literal future of the species. If the problem was clear, the solution was not. Striped bass are highly migratory, and move primarily along the three-mile coastal zone which is under the combined jurisdictions of 12 states and the District of Columbia. Balancing the needs of the fish, the fishermen, and the regulators, Congressman Studds and his colleagues crafted a unique and, as it turned out, highly effective scheme to bolster state management efforts to restore the stocks. By all measures, the results of this cooperation among the states, and between the state and federal governments, have been astonishingly successful. Today, the fish are found in impressive numbers, up and down the coast. The federal-state partnership embodied in the Striped Bass Act has restored the species to its former, considerable glory as one of the most important sport and commercial fisheries on the east coast. These strides for conservation also have direct economic consequences. In my area, healthy striped bass stocks mean business for campgrounds in Truro or tackle shops in Edgartown--and striped bass fishing has even returned to Boston Harbor. It's a classic case of doing well by doing good.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the provision that was added by the Committee on Rules last night which would limit relief for the victims of terrorist attacks by immunizing wrongdoers in advance from the consequences of their own negligence and reckless conduct, has nothing whatsoever to do with stabilizing the insurance market, nothing to do with ensuring that people would be able to secure insurance against future acts of terrorism. It does not belong in the bill. The motion to recommit, as the ranking member alluded to, would delete it; and it would leave us basically with the bill reported out with strong bipartisan support from the Committee on Financial Services. If we are genuinely concerned about preventing an insurance crisis, we should agree to this motion and pass a clean bill. Let us not try to rewrite the fundamental rules of the civil justice system late at night without thoughtful and considerate debate. Note that the Committee on Rules' provision would prohibit the courts from awarding punitive damages in cases arising out of terrorist incidents no matter how outrageous the underlying conduct. For example, even for private airport security contractors who wantonly, recklessly, maliciously hired convicted felons, failed to perform background checks, there would be no punitive damages. Even for landlords who deliberately ignore safety codes and fail to install escape routes in their buildings, there would be no punitive damages. Nobody wants to hold parties responsible if they bear no blame, but this provision lets them off the hook, even if they knowingly engage in conduct that puts our fellow citizens at risk. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the motion to recommit would prevail, and I urge support for the motion.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill has become an attempt to rewrite the rules of our civil justice system. And I think it is important to note that statements by Members in the majority on the Committee on the Judiciary would suggest, and I know it was not their intention, but would suggest that the Committee on the Judiciary had hearings on this particular bill. Well, I think it is important that everyone in this Chamber and the American people should clearly understand that there were no hearings on this bill before the Committee on the Judiciary. Now, no one objects to responsible measures that help ensure the availability of insurance against future acts of terrorism. Indeed, given the collapse of the reinsurance market for terrorism coverage, it is incumbent upon us to respond. But the manager's amendment that we are considering today is not a responsible measure. It transfers to the taxpayers the risk of losses, which the insurance industry has said it is willing and able to absorb; and it asks the public to assume this huge contingent liability without imposing any obligation on insurers to provide affordable coverage to those who need it. But the worst feature of the legislation is one which has nothing whatsoever to do with stabilizing the insurance market. Section 15 of the bill would limit relief of the victims of terrorist attack by immunizing wrongdoers in advance from the consequences of their own wanton and reckless acts. This sweeping provision would prohibit the courts from awarding punitive damages; it would eliminate joint and several liability for economic damages; require courts to reduce damage awards by the amounts received from life insurance or other collateral sources; and waive prejudgment interests, even in those egregious cases, for example, where private airport security contractors who wantonly, recklessly, or maliciously hire convicted felons, who fail to perform required background checks, or who fail to check for weapons. Now, nobody wants to hold parties responsible if they bear no blame. But this bill lets them off the hook even if they knowingly engage in conduct that puts Americans at risk. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the bill would also place a cap on attorneys' fees, making it harder for victims to pursue meritorious claims in a court. But the caps apply just to plaintiffs' attorneys. Corporate defendants remain free to hire the most expensive lawyers they can find. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to see these provisions as anything other than a tax-free gift for corporations and an attempt to rewrite the rules of our civil justice system. I urge defeat of the previous question and the rule.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that this bill is not just about drugs, and it is certainly not just about Colombia. It is about stability in the Andean region. As someone who serves on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and who has traveled extensively in the region, I can tell my colleagues that this region, this region presently is on the verge of profound instability. Things are getting worse. Things are getting substantially worse. All of these countries are experiencing a level of civil unrest. I think that it is critical to understand. Colombia's economy is still stuck in the worst recession in 70 years. Ecuador's economy is a basket case. Peru and Bolivia remain desperately poor. The conditions in those nations continue to deteriorate. Now, this decline is partly a result of the extension of trade benefits to the Caribbean Basin, which I opposed. I opposed it because they lack the necessary safeguard in terms of workers, workers' rights, and environmental standards. I opposed it in part because I feared exactly what is happening: workers in the Andean countries are not competing with American workers. They are now competing with workers in the Caribbean because of CBI, and they are losing that competition. The economic impact of September 11 has not even been felt yet, but we know it will. So it should not come as any surprise that the peasants in those four countries are back growing coca and opium again. The successes that have been achieved in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia are eroding rapidly. They are at risk. The unemployment rates in these nations are escalating dramatically. That is why the economic opportunities provided in this bill are so critical, not just for ending drug cultivation and promoting stability, but they are essential for peace and harmony in the region. By the way, it is for the same reason that I have been urging the administration to accelerate the dollars that have been appropriated under Plan Colombia for alternative crop substitution and economic development. Now, I share the concern of my colleagues about labor rights in the region. I am not happy with the labor provisions in the bill. But if the state has failed, there is nobody to guarantee these labor rights, and state collapse may come sooner than we think in the Andean region. The region, believe me, has serious problems. We have seen what happens when states fail. We have the example currently of Afghanistan. We do not want to allow that to happen in the Andean region. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, from those first tragic moments on September 11, two things were immediately clear. First, fundamental, systemic changes have to be made in airline security. And second, Americans responded with enormous heroism. Every Member of this House has noted that this remarkable courage saved lives and reaffirmed our national spirit. Within hours, we saw Iron Workers clearing tons of rubble at Ground Zero with cranes, bulldozers and by hand. Round-the-clock emergency care from medical professionals. Teamsters trucking in rescue supplies from across the country. All members of labor unions. Many continue to work up to this very moment to honor the memory of the hundreds of union firefighters, union police officers, union paramedics, and union maintenance workers who died trying to help others. To honor the memory of the 1000 sisters and brothers--representing 24 unions--who perished that day. From the pilots and flight attendants who lost their lives on September 11, to the postal workers who were the first to fall victim to bioterrorism on our shores. These are genuine American heroes. They work hard and proud. Each day. For us. Which is why it is so unthinkable that unions are now under attack in this debate. We all agree about the urgent need to upgrade airport security. There is consensus about how to do it, and how to pay for it. Nearly 30 years ago, the airlines themselves testified before Congress that the only way to seriously combat hijacking threat was with federalized airport security. Apparently, the only real dispute today is over the possibility that taking these steps to protect public safety might also require hiring unionized federal labor. To those whose vision about public safety is blurred by hostility to unions, all I can say is: get over it. The men and women of organized labor have swept our floors and served our meals. Mined our coal and built our jet fighters. Staffed our emergency rooms and taught our children. They have made us great and they have made us good. Organized labor gave us the weekend. The middle class. The American dream. The vitality that makes us special among the family of nations. If we're at war, let's fight it with our best troops. If we want safe skies, the worst thing we can do is scapegoat those who have risked life and limb to keep our homeland secure. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan alternative.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I will address separately the deficiencies of this bill in regard to airline security. But there are parts of the manager's amendment that have nothing whatsoever to do with airline security. In September, we passed legislation that limited the liability of air carriers to the victims of the September 11 attacks. This amendment would expand that limitation to other parties yet unnamed and unknown, who face potential liability. Some of the parties covered by this sweeping provision may well be entitled to relief. But the language would limit liability, grant immunity from punitive damages and waive prejudgment interest even for private airport security contractors who wantonly, recklessly or maliciously hired convicted felons or failed to check for weapons. Nobody is seeking to hold responsible those who bear no blame for what occurred. But this amendment lets companies off the hook even if they knowingly engaged in conduct that put Americans at risk on that fateful day. It caps plaintiffs' attorneys fees, making it even harder for victims to pursue meritorious claims in court. And it stacks the deck still further by placing no comparable limit on the amounts that corporate defendants can pay their lawyers. These measures come barely a week after the House voted for a so- called ``economic stimulus'' package that gives away billions of dollars in tax rebates to U.S. corporations free-and-clear. Including $1.4 billion to IBM and $833 million to General Motors. All-in-all, $3.3 billion to seven blue-chip corporations, none of whom--none of whom--suffered specific harm as a result of the terrorist attacks. At least that giveaway did not reward wrongdoers at the expense of their victims. The giveaways in this bill do. I urge support for the bipartisan substitute and defeat of the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and let me respond for a moment to the gentleman from North Carolina. There is no one for whom I have such profound respect as I do the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and I listen carefully to what he says, because what he says always rings true. In this particular case, however, I do have a disagreement, because we hear much about roving wiretaps, we hear much about expanded powers; but I think it is absolutely essential to note that the expansion of powers do not go to the criminal side of the bill that is before us. In other words, the safeguards that are inculcated in our jurisprudence through the fourth amendment of the Constitution are still there. All those checks and balances are still there. Clearly, there is an unease; and I share some of these concerns. I do not think that there was any doubt in the aftermath of September 11 that it was clear that the administration was going to come to the Congress to seek additional authorities to deal with the terrorist attacks on our Nation. And while all of us were ready to and willing to grant them, what was appropriate, many, including myself, also braced for a frontal assault on civil liberties. In that regard, even the administration proposal was most notable, in my opinion, for what it did not contain: no new death penalty provisions, no new mandatory sentences. On the other hand, the proposal did contain a number of profoundly disturbing features, including provisions that would have authorized the indefinite detention of nonresident aliens, the use in evidence in a criminal prosecution of information illegally obtained by foreign intelligence services operating abroad in criminal prosecutions in the United States, and the use of wiretap authority under the so-called FISA Act, even when the real purpose of the wiretap had little or nothing to do with intelligence gathering. Now, we all know what happened here on the floor of the House when the committee bill came before the body. Much was accomplished in that committee. It has been mentioned time and time again that it was a unanimous vote, and both the chairman and the staffs on both side and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) really do deserve our gratitude. However, in the aftermath of what happened here, many of us could not support the bill. I was one of those who voted against it. But the good news is that there were subsequent negotiations with the Senate, and it has resulted in a better bill. Among other things, and it has been mentioned again and again, that there is a sunset provision. The sunset provision obviously will give us a second look and correct the problems that we hope will not arise, but many of us fear. At this point in time I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) because he participated in those negotiations and really did improve the bill that left the floor of this House. Having said that, I still harbor reservations about some aspects of the bill. For example, it allows disclosure of secret grand jury information to intelligence and national security officials without a court order. This is a serious departure from our criminal jurisprudence, and I cannot understand why it is included because securing a court order is a simple procedure. It would not hinder an investigation. However, notwithstanding such reservations, I have to acknowledge we have come a long way and I will support the bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying I look forward to working with the chairman of the committee, as well as the gentleman from Texas, in dealing with both issues here, keeping the Internet tax free and at the same time providing those options to the States so they can meet their fundamental responsibilities. As I indicated earlier, and I believe the gentleman from Texas was present in the Chamber at the time, we have a real problem, his home State being one in particular, where this year it is anticipated that in excess of $1 billion will be lost to that particular State in terms of anticipated sales tax revenue.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the bill we are considering today is clearly a substantial improvement over the original proposal considered last week by the House Committee on the Judiciary. That bill would have proposed a permanent moratorium on Internet access fees and a 5-year moratorium on so-called multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet. During the course of our proceedings, an amendment, which I cosponsored along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the subcommittee, did prevail in committee and reduced the duration of the moratorium to 2 years in both cases. My own preference would have been to continue the moratorium only to June 30 of 2002 as proposed in recent legislation filed by Senators Dorgan, Breaux, and Hutchison of Texas to hopefully solve the real problem. It is important to note, Madam Speaker, that much of the discussion of this issue has been misleading. Some have suggested that those in favor of a moratorium of short duration somehow support taxing the Internet. Well, let us be clear once and for all. I am not aware of any Member of this body on either side of the aisle who favors or supports a tax or a fee on accessing the Internet to sell or purchase anything. To my knowledge, that position is shared by the governors and State legislatures of all 50 States. Governors in State legislatures do not want to tax the Internet. Let me say that again, Madam Speaker. They do not want to tax the Internet. They simply want to collect the sales taxes that they have been collecting for years. Taxes for which they rely upon for nearly 50 percent of their revenues. But they cannot do that any more, Madam Speaker, because of the United States Supreme Court decision which prohibited a State from collecting sales taxes from out-of-State businesses which do not have a physical presence in that State. However, the Supreme Court said that Congress could authorize the State under the commerce clause to collect those taxes, but we have not done so. And the results of our failure have been devastating. Let me give some examples. Uncollected sales taxes on Internet purchases are projected to cost the States nearly $15 billion in anticipated sales tax revenues this year, this year alone. Unless there is a system in place that enables State and local governments to collect taxes on their sales to in-state residents, these annual losses from online sales will grow to $45 billion by 2006 and $55 billion by 2011 with total losses during the 10-year period coming to approximately $440 billion. What does this mean for the individual States? To take just a few examples, my home State of Massachusetts will lose $200 million this year, with losses climbing to approximately $830 million by 2011. Florida, which relies on the sales tax for some 57 percent of its annual revenues, will lose some $930 million this year with its losses 5 years from now exceeding some $3 billion. Texas will lose over $1 billion this year and a staggering $4 billion in the year 2006. These losses are magnifying the fiscal problems the States are already experiencing because of the economic slow down. In March, The Washington Post reported that the States' fiscal outlooks having been hammered by a combination of spiralling Medicaid costs and the forecast of lower State revenues from all sources, including personal income, corporate and sales taxes. One can only imagine what the consequences of the events of September 11 will mean to State balance sheets. But I did notice where the Governor in Michigan, Governor Engler was quoted just last week saying, and again these are his words, ``Our economies were weak beforehand, and now they are quite shaky.'' End of quote. Well, what does this really mean to the States? They will either have to curtail basic services such as police, fire protection, and education or raise income taxes, raise property taxes, raise corporate taxes or find some other revenue source to meet their obligations. I find it fascinating that there seems to be strong bipartisan agreement on a $2.50 increase per ticket to finance airport and airway safety. By the way, that new tax will be collected whether the ticket is purchased over the counter, or over the Internet. But there is no such consensus to help the States fund resources critical for police, fire, emergency medical responders, and the public health care facilities that were and will be the first responders if there should be, God forbid, another terrorist attack on this country. How ironic. And that is not all. By failing to act, we are putting at risk the thousands of small businesses that sustain our economy. Those main street merchants in our neighborhoods and communities who make up the local Chambers of Commerce who contribute so much to our community. How can they compete where there is no sales tax parity? We should not continue to stand by while remote sellers enjoy an unfair advantage over the so-called brick and mortar retailers. One can just imagine deserted shopping malls and empty store fronts in the downtowns of American communities. Well, the digital divide should not be extended to American businesses and those who patronize them. If we do not meet our responsibilities, we will be creating two classes of American businesses and two classes of American consumers and no level playing field for either. As Governor Engler of Michigan said, ``It is time to close ranks, come together, and stand up for main street America because fairness requires that remote sellers collect and pay the same taxes that our friends and neighbors on main street have to collect and pay.'' Former Senator Slade Gorton of Washington was right when several years ago he said, and again I am quoting the Senator, ``We kicked this down the road in 1998 when we should have debated it and resolved things. What we don't need is another extension. We should come back next year before the current moratorium expires and deal with these issues.'' So I say, Madam Speaker, it is time that we respect the States and the concept of Federalism that used to be in vogue in this body some time ago but seems to have fallen out of fashion, unfortunately. Despite our failure to assist them in their efforts, the States have met their end of the bargain. By their own initiative, they have formed the 30-State Streamlined Sales Tax Project. Twenty States have adopted model legislation that authorizes them to create a uniform simplified sales-and-use tax system, and a majority of the States will likely be on board within the year. They understand that the longer the issue is unresolved, the more serious the economic situation will become. Small businesses will be filing for bankruptcy and State and local governments will confront a severe fiscal crisis. It is time for us to meet our responsibility. It is time for us to enact legislation giving the States the authority to implement the streamlined and simplified system, which would enable remote sellers to collect and remit sales taxes without burdening the Internet or interstate commerce. I genuinely believe that the stakeholders, finally, on all sides of the issue are ready to move forward to develop this system; and it is up to us to see it happens before this extension expires. So, for now, I urge support for the bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of what can be accomplished when we get down to business and become serious and forget about sound bytes. This bill will truly make a difference. It is going to work. I am confident that it will reduce violence in this country. I spent some 20 years of my life prosecuting some of the most violent criminals anywhere, and I know there are not any simple answers. There are no quick fixes. There are no panaceas. But this bill works because it relies upon people who do have the answers, the people in the community who understand the problems. Unlike some bills that we have considered in the past, this legislation does not dictate policy from Washington. It embraces and supports broad-based, comprehensive local strategies that have proven to be effective and that work in the real world. Let me give my colleagues an example. Boston, Massachusetts, the capital city of my home State, like other cities, experienced a dramatic decrease in gang violence thanks to a balanced strategy of prevention, intervention, and enforcement. That strategy worked because everyone in the community at large was engaged, police, prosecutors, probation officers, correction officials, youth and social service personnel, teachers, judges, you name it, everybody was involved. Under some of the legislation that was considered previously, Boston would not have even qualified for a grant, and few if any States would. Under this bill, Boston and other cities will qualify for the money they need to continue the critical work and the effective work that they have been doing. These cities like Boston, like other communities throughout the country, do not need us here in Washington to tell them how to reduce violence. As I said, they have the answers themselves. What they need is a serious, substantial Federal investment in juvenile crime prevention. And what they need is our commitment to provide them with the resources that they do need. This bill does that. Let me conclude by congratulating the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). Let me congratulate the chair of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who, over the course of the past several weeks, has done much to diminish the so-called divisiveness that characterized the Committee on the Judiciary. This truly is an outstanding product, one that we can all be proud of, but I want to make particular mention of my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), whose sheer persistence and dedication and passion for this issue is reflected in this particular product; and one that he should be particularly proud of.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Act of 2001 which will coordinate and expand United States and international programs for the conservation and protection of North Atlantic Whale. This bill is designed to improve the management and research activities for right whales and increase the focus on reducing mortality caused by ship collisions, entanglement in fishing gear, and other causes. The most endangered of the great whales, the northern Atlantic right whale has shown no evidence of recovery since the whaling days of the 1900s despite full protection from hunting by a League of Nations agreement since 1935. Today the population of North Atlantic Right Whales remains at less than 350 animals. Right whales are at risk of extinction from a number of sources. These include, ship strikes, the number one source of known right whale fatalities, entanglement in fishing gear, coastal pollution, habitat degradation, ocean noise and climate change. This legislation requires the Secretary of Commerce to institute a North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Program, in coordination with the Department of Transportation and other appropriate Federal agencies, States, the Southeast and Northeast Northern Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Team and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, pursuant to the authority provided under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This legislation would require the Secretary of Commerce within 6 months of enactment, to initiate demonstration projects designed to result in the immediate reductions in North Atlantic right whale deaths. There are 4 distinct areas that I believe we should be focusing our attention on. First, we should develop acoustic detection and tracking technologies to monitor the migration of right whales so that ships at sea can avoid right whales. Second, we need to continue work on individual satellite tags for right whales. This is yet another way that we can track whale migration and alert ships at sea of the presence of whales and avoid ship strikes. Third, this legislation would speed up the development of neutrally buoyant line and ``weak link'' fishing gear, so that we can either avoid having whales become entangled in the first place or when they do the ``weak links'' break and they can more easily become disentangled. Finally this legislation supports research and testing into developing innovative ways to increase the success of disentanglement efforts. This legislation allows for the government to provide fishermen ``whale safe'' fishing gear in high use or critical habitat areas. This is crucial, because once we have developed this ``whale safe'' gear we need to get it in the water as soon as possible. I believe an assistance program that is fair to fishermen will be needed and we are asking the agencies to tell us the potential costs so we can ensure that the gear can be deployed where needed. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation and Commerce to develop and implement a comprehensive ship strike avoidance plan for Right Whales because ship strikes are the leading cause of right whale mortalities. The plan incorporates the Mandatory Reporting System which I helped shepherd through Congress in 1997. This system requires large vessels traveling through designated critical right whale habitats to contact area Coast Guard authorities. Ship pilots report course, speed, location, destination and route and are alerted to the presence or nearby whales. The system has helped mariners to better navigate away from these endangered animals. Through this legislation, the reporting system will be improved to include the collection and analysis of data on traffic patterns and ship strikes. This legislation also establishes a right whale research grant program. This program will establish a peer review process of all innovative biological and technical projects designed to protect right whales. In addition to the scientific community, this peer review team will also be comprised of representatives of the fishing industry and the maritime transportation industry. It is important that from the very beginning we have the input of the people who are on the water every day. Their knowledge and experience is absolutely necessary to developing innovative practices and techniques to save right whales. Congress has appropriated over $8 million dollars in the last two years to protect right whales. I believes that now is the time to develop a comprehensive plan that spells out what we can do immediately to better protect these whales and focus our research efforts on innovative ideas and technologies that can identify whale migrations.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those moments when we are truly tested. Can we rise to the call to defend our country and at the same time have the wisdom and courage to do it in a way that is true to the principles that make our country unique among the family of nations? I was one of the 36 members of the Committee on the Judiciary who joined together in unanimous support for the bill reported out of committee; and our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), worked tirelessly with members on both sides to strike a proper balance between national security and the values of a free society. They did this House, they did the committee, and they did the Nation a great service; and they do deserve our gratitude. Unfortunately, that carefully crafted bill is not the measure we are going to consider today. This morning, as others have said, the Committee on Rules replaced it with a new 187-page bill which nobody had the time to even peruse. While it appears to retain some features of the original bill, it apparently modifies or eliminates a number of the compromises which enabled us to come to that consensus. Just one example: it makes a dramatic departure from American criminal jurisprudence by allowing the sharing of grand jury evidence without a court order. History has taught us that sweeping new powers, once given to the Government, are prone to abuse. Remember, too often in times of crisis our government has sacrificed essential liberties to claims of national security. The Alien Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the internments of the Second World War and the ``red-baiting'' by the McCarthy and the House un-American Activities Committee. Today everyone deplores those excesses, but we must not forget that decent, patriotic Americans acquiesced in those measures under the pressures of the moment. I am not claiming that this bill falls into that category. What I am saying is that we should be willing to pause to reflect and examine exhaustively the provisions in light of that experience in the bill before us today so that unintended consequences can be corrected and any potential abuses that arise from our actions can be discovered and addressed. We have not done that today. I suggest if we proceed and do not defeat this rule, that we will have failed in our responsibility to the Constitution and to the American people.