Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Montana on his eloquence. I also want to let him know, however, that this is one Member from an urban area that understands that there is no subsidy in this program. And let me be clear about that and if there are Members from the urban cities and suburbs that think there is, there is not a cash subsidy here. That is a misrepresentation. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment offers us a really easy choice. Do we really want sugar grown by American farmers? Do we really? Because if we do not, then vote for this amendment, because its import will effectively put out of business farmers dealing in sugar in this country. Understand that and be clear about it. Now, some argue that this amendment would produce savings for consumers. Well, let me suggest, do not hold your breath. Okay? Do you really believe a Milky Way bar or a can of Pepsi is going to go down in price? Give me a break. The hard empirical evidence establishes clearly that none of the savings on cheap, subsidized, foreign sugar will be passed along to consumers. And neither will increased wages for the workers in my friend from Illinois' district. Be assured of that. Be assured of that. So if you support American farmers, if you are concerned about environmental standards and want to protect American jobs, then vote against this amendment and support the committee's sugar provision in the farm bill. It is an easy choice. Mr. Chairman, make my sugar American. Oppose the Miller-Miller amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 18, family and friends gathered together at St. Helen's Church in Norwell, Massachusetts to mourn the loss of John J. Corcoran, a victim of the tragic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11 . The memorial service was a stirring reflection of the life and spirit of Mr. Corcoran. From the depths of grief came a deeply moving tribute from his sister, Debi Corcoran of Helena, Montana. Her words of eulogy were so genuinely inspirational that I commend them to all of my congressional colleagues: On the morning of September 11th, my brother Jay kissed his two children and his wife good-bye and raced to catch United Airlines flight 175 from Boston to Los Angeles, where he would resume his job as a Merchant Marine engineering officer. At 9:03 a.m. EST, his plane crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center, killing all on board and thousands within the building as the tower crumbled to the ground. There had been the possibility that Jay had missed his flight, so my family and I, like many other families, held a vigil of prayer for most of the day while we awaited official world from the airlines. Even when the call finally came, it was all too surreal I had just spent the most wonderful family reunion with all my sisters and brother at West Hyannisport for my mother's 72nd birthday just two weeks before. It had been the first time in five years we had all been together. We shared so much joy and laughter and gave each other so much love and support for all the struggles and challenges going on in each other's lives. We headed off in our separate directions, refreshed and renewed by the blessings only family love gives. Today, we unite again as a family to ease the pain, dull the shock and fill each others spirits as we acknowledge our brother's departure to his home with the Creator. In all these days of telephone communications with my family, we've each had time to express our deepest thoughts, our rawest emotions, and without exception they have been expressions of love, compassion, and peace. My brother and the thousands more who ascended en masse into God's light were the recipients of an energy called hate. We know this one well. We've seen it in our schools, our cities and towns, and throughout the world. We are familiar with it's bitter taste. But where does it come from? And why was it directed at us--America? Do we need to look at the way we consume disproportionate amounts of the world's resources while billions live in poverty? Do we need to examine the overdue responsibility to rein in greed and waste, and the need to share more equitably with all our brothers and sisters? It would be easy for us to shun culpability, to proclaim victimization, to extoll political rhetoric and allow military action to be our reaction. But, I don't believe my bother and all those other beautiful spirits made the supreme sacrifice so that we can go on with business as usual Might makes right! The have and the have nots! An eye for an eye! Money is power! I believe their prayers of the families who lost loved ones and the human community at large are that we act, and not react. That we take this seed called love and grow a new garden; a world where love, sharing, charity, compassion and caring are our mantra and not more, more, more! I believe we are at a crossroad as human beings. We have free will. We have the right to choose. Will our recourse be one of hate, anger, revenge and the subsequent and eventual destruction of humankind and Mother Earth? Or do we take responsibility--each and everyone of us and become a conduit of God's love, acknowledging the circle of light that connects all of us? We cannot harm another without harming ourselves and that is why all the world feels our pain and grieves with us; and that is why all the world anxiously awaits our response. Let our collective goal be justice for all. As one who has my blessed brother departed from this physical plain too soon and with such horror, I choose to stand for love, compassion, peace and for a true change on all our parts. As children of God, I ask you all, to look into your hearts and see what kind of a world you want your children to grow up in, and to then decide to make it so. It is within all our power to change our world. May there be peace on earth. May the heart of all people be open to themselves and each other, May all people awaken to the light of their own true nature, May all creation be blessed, and be a blessing to all that is.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I, too, take the floor to oppose the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Florida. That amendment, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has indicated, would reinstate the ban that for the past 9 years has prohibited the District of Columbia from providing the most minimal protections to citizens who live with their domestic partners; the right to visit a partner in the hospital and not to be turned away; the opportunity for local government workers to buy health insurance to cover their partners at their own expense. And I want to commend the committee for at last allowing the District to use its own local funds to implement this modest measure. Their action is consistent with the atmosphere of tolerance and reflection which has characterized our debates since the terrible events that occurred on September 11. It has been genuinely inspirational to see Americans come together from all parts of our national community to mourn, to heal, and to honor our heroes, and yet today we have this amendment. Well, one of those heroes was a 31-year-old rugby star from San Francisco whose name was Mark Bingham. He was one of the four passengers who thwarted the hijackers on United Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania, and he was a gay man. Well, he was a hero who may very well have prevented that plane from destroying this building in which we are now debating. And this is how we thank him for his heroism. What a disappointing contrast, to the actions of Senator John McCain, one of Mr. Bingham's favorite political figures, who flew to San Francisco from Washington yesterday to attend his memorial service. Let me quote Senator McCain: ``We now believe the terrorists intended to crash that plane into the Capitol, where I was that morning. I may very well owe my life to Mark Bingham,'' and so may we all here. Mr. Bingham had the good fortune to live in one of the 117 jurisdictions across the country that provide health benefits to domestic partners. It is time for Congress to let the people of the District of Columbia do the same thing, and may I submit to my colleagues, it is time for us to heed the word that is inscribed right there in the center of the Clerk's counter, and that word is ``tolerance.'' Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, on September 11, America was assaulted, attacked, not with missiles, but with knives. This amendment reflects that new reality. It reduces funds for programs that could violate the ABM treaty and shifts that money to counterterrorism and sends the message that America honors its commitment. Former Secretary of Defense Mel Laird, who played a key role in the treaty's ratification under President Nixon, recently said, and I am quoting, ``An amended ABM treaty remains as relevant to peace and security today as it was 30 years ago. Deep-sixing the treaty instead of negotiating amendments would only create a less stable relationship.'' Last week, there were reports that the U.S. was about to withdraw from the treaty, but since then, Secretary Powell has reaffirmed our commitment to a new understanding with Russia on missile defense. That is eminently wise. Russia will be a key ally in the days ahead as the administration attempts to create an international coalition to fight terrorism. So let us support those efforts and commit resources to the real threat we face today.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I share the serious misgivings which others have expressed about this legislation. But I intend to support it--for two reasons. First, because I believe it is needed to preserve the viability of an entire industry--an industry which is at risk of collapse if we do not act now. And second, because it will provide swift compensation to the victims and their families. They deserve everything we can do for them. The bill will give these families a way to obtain compensation without the expense, uncertainty, and pain of protracted litigation. My chief concern is that the bill fails to provide any relief for the tens of thousands of airline workers who have been displaced as a result of the events of September 11. These workers are the heart and soul of the industry. It cannot function without them. Were the need for this legislation any less acute, this issue alone would have caused me to oppose the measure until it could be addressed. But under the circumstances, I feel it would be even more unjust to hold these victims hostage. Again. We have been assured that this matter will be taken up separately. If that promise is not kept we will bring shame on the House. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to some people who get precious little praise in this institution. I ask permission to insert in the Record a letter to the Speaker from Mr. Leo Boyle, President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, pledging that members of his organization will provide free legal services to any family wishing to participate in the compensation fund. This means that claimants will be able to keep 100 percent of the proceeds. This is just another example of the selflessness with which people from every walk of life have come together in our common cause. Association of Trial Lawyers of America, September 21, 2001. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker and Hon. Richard Gephardt, Democratic Leader U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker and Mr. Leader: The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) commends the United States Congress and President Bush for their leadership and decision to put families victimized by our national tragedy first and to ease their pain by expediting appropriate relief to them through the ``September 11th Compensation Act of 2001.'' ATLA agrees with you that extraordinary situations demand extraordinary responses. At least seven thousand families are hurting more than any of us can imagine. And, because the first priority of every American should be prompt and full justice for the thousands of families who know first-hand the unspeakable horror visited upon the world on September 11, 2001, members of ATLA will provide free legal services to any family wishing to pursue justice through the fund established by this unprecedented, humanitarian legislation. ATLA believes that 100 percent of the compensation from the fund should go directly to these families. The officers and Executive Committee of ATLA have volunteered to be the first attorneys to provide legal services free of charge under this program. God Bless America. Sincerely, Leo V. Boyle, President On behalf of the 60,000 men and women of ATLA

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I caught the earliest flight possible from Boston today because I felt it was important to be here to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for their resolve and commitment to achieve a result that would be truly effective. This is truly remarkable, and they deserve our gratitude. It is also, I suggest, a good day for children, not just here in the District of Columbia but all over America. Given the events of the past week, it is good to stand here and to say it is a good day. It is a good day. As the majority whip indicated, today is a new day for reform. Maybe this bill is also a new day for the children and the future of America. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) have worked together with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for months, through many drafts, to reach agreement. It is honestly a tribute to their shared concern for children, which they do share, and particularly the children of the District, that they have been able to put aside the usual political differences and work together to achieve a well-crafted, thoughtful bill that I am confident will make a huge difference in the lives of many, many children and their families. If anyone had any doubt about the importance of this legislation, and it has been alluded to by the gentlewoman from Maryland, the gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, but it cannot be stated often enough, they would only have to read the shocking series which ran in The Washington Post. Those articles documented the fate of 180 of the 229 children who died in the District of Columbia between 1993 and the year 2000 after their families came to the attention of the District's child protection system. We cannot, again, say it often enough. According to The Post, at least 40 of these children died because government workers placed them in unsafe homes or institutions or otherwise failed to take timely action to protect them. It is too late to do anything to save those children, but this legislation will help ensure that the children currently in the system and those who come after them do not suffer a similar fate. I genuinely believe that this bill will do more. The children who never had a family, who have never known what the term ``home'' really means, I would suggest never really have a break in life, and often end up in our prison systems. There has been study after study which corroborate the relationship between crime and the dysfunctional family. One study by a professor at the University of Rhode Island, Professor Gellis, who examined 50 inmates who were serving time in the San Quentin institution in California, revealed that of those 50 inmates serving time for armed robbery, every single one of them was a legacy of a dysfunctional family, had been abused or neglected as children. What better anti- crime initiative than this legislation before us? Now, I want to join with my colleagues who have already sung the praises of the staff members that have been involved in this. I want to make special mention of Cassie Bevan, on the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and John Bouker, on the staff of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). This is not the first time I have worked with Cassie. We have worked together on a number of other children's issues, especially in conjunction with intercountry adoption. I have learned to trust her judgment, to value her tenacity, and to admire her deep commitment to the well-being of children everywhere and her love for children in need. I would also note that the same is true of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). And this is truly profound and inspirational for many of us.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The hour is late. There probably are very few folks here in this Nation that are watching us tonight. But I think this is one of those truly great moments in the history of this institution, tonight. Let me echo the sentiments expressed earlier by the gentleman from California about the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). Since I have been here for some 5 years, there is no one that has advocated for justice, for human rights as the gentleman who will be sorely missed in this institution. It is clear that across the Nation, the anguish and the grief runs so deep. And the events of this week have saddened us all, all Americans. It has really seared the hearts of the Members in this institution and Americans everywhere. Our pain has given rise to a profound anger. And as the gentleman from Washington indicated, it is a righteous anger. It is a righteous anger, almost in the Biblical sense of that term. Our challenge now, and truly I suggest the test of our democracy, is to harness that anger and to respond in a manner that is firm, that is clear, that is resolute and is just, and that befits a great Nation. And that not just merely respects our ideals but honors our ideals. I believe that we are doing that right now. I have never been as proud of serving in this Chamber as I am at this very moment. So many Members have stayed, and we are all tired. We are all weary. It has been an extraordinarily emotional week for all of us. But this is truly a proud moment. Now I think it is critical that we remind ourselves and our fellow citizens that we must never confuse that righteous anger with hate. They are different. Earlier tonight, both the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas, and the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri, observed with great eloquence that America is great because America is good. That is true. We rightfully claim a unique moral voice among the family of nations. That is why, despite the imperfections that were alluded to by the gentleman from Texas in his remarks earlier, America represents the hopes and dreams of a world that truly yearns for peace, for freedom and for justice. Hatred has no place in America. Hatred had no place in America in the aftermath of the outbreak of World War II. And it has no place in America tonight. Hatred is an attack on and an insult to our values and our moral authority. Those who committed the atrocities that stunned the Nation represent the face of hatred. We can never yield to hate. For if we do, they will have robbed us, not just of our innocence but our values and our ideals and everything that this country is about.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Across the Nation, the pain and the grief certainly runs deep. Yesterday's events have saddened and seared the hearts of all Americans. But only, only as we put human faces on the thousands of casualties can we even begin to comprehend the magnitude and the impact of this unspeakable attack on our homeland. People from my district like Jeffrey Coombs of Abington, Massachusetts, aboard Flight 11; Brian Sweeney, a Barnstable resident, on Flight 175; and Stuart Meltzer, who worked on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center, whose family on Cape Cod followed televised news reports with horror, and continue to hope that he is alive. In their names, and in those of all the other victims, we will find and punish those who committed these atrocities. This was an assault not only on America and her citizens, but on all that America represents, and on the hopes and dreams of a world that yearns for peace, freedom, and justice under law that is so special to America. In striking at us, the terrorists sought to exploit the openness of our society and to shake the foundations of the civilized order which America sustains. Well, they will fail. Our challenge now, and the test of our democracy, is to harness our anger and our passion to respond in a manner that is firm, clear, and just, that befits a great Nation and honors our own ideal and our history. We will heal these wounds and we will honor the memory of those that we so tragically lost. God bless America.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, an often overlooked hallmark of our democracy is the smooth transition of power from administration to administration. This seamless transfer is made possible only through the dedication and hard work of countless numbers of career Federal employees. Often underappreciated and maligned by the public, these career bureaucrats effectively carry out the day to day functions of the Federal Government for the benefit of the American public both at home and abroad. In this respect, the recent performance of the U.S. delegation to the 53rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in London exemplifies the type of excellence in public service for which we can all be proud. Considering that several highly contentious issues came before the plenary, the Bush administration is to be commended for sending nothing less than a topnotch team to London. And I applaud the decision of this administration to maintain longstanding U.S. policies that uphold the responsible protection and conservation of the world's cetaceans, especially large whales. Strong U.S. leadership will be vital to thwart future attempts to reverse global whale conservation measures put forward by pro-whaling nations as part of their determined strategy to undermine the IWC. This administration must remain vigilant, and a very brief summation of the issues that arose at this year's meeting will help explain why. Perhaps the most contentious issue which emerged in London was the proposal by Iceland to rejoin the IWC. In 1992 Iceland, a whaling nation, withdrew from the IWC in part due to the adoption by the IWC of a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. Iceland intended to rejoin the IWC this year but with a reservation against the moratorium. While supportive of Iceland rejoining the IWC, the U.S. delegation strongly, and rightly, opposed the reservation arguing that it would have established, if accepted, a harmful precedent with significant repercussions affecting the adherence of treaty obligations by nations under virtually any international agreement. Such a precedent could severely disrupt the framework of U.S. foreign policy. Iceland was re-admitted but denied voting rights in the plenary, a decision which sparked significant controversy. Undoubtedly, hard feelings generated in the plenary will linger. Yet the administration was correct in its position. And while it is important for the administration to attempt to restore amicable relations with the Government of Iceland, it should remain clear in communicating its opposition to Iceland's reservation against the global moratorium. Another item of controversy was the maintenance of lethal scientific research whaling conducted by the Government of Japan in the Southern and North Pacific Oceans. Since 1987, Japan has exploited a loophole in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) to maintain whaling under the auspices of self-administered scientific lethal whale research permits in the Southern and North Pacific Oceans. Over 700 minke whales have been taken annually. In 2000, Japan expanded this program to include sperm and Bryde's whales; both species are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Japan's recalcitrance in the face of world opinion to continue this lethal research whaling--a practice which the IWC's own Scientific Committee has ruled consistently to be unnecessary for the management an conservation of whale stocks--led to the Clinton administration's decision last year to certify Japan as in violation of the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act, and to consider retaliatory economic sanctions on Japanese fishery products. The 68 members of Congress who have agreed to cosponsor my resolution, H. Con. Res. 180, strongly oppose such ``scientific whaling,'' and we very much appreciate the decision of the Bush administration to join us in robust opposition to this illegitimate scheme. Newer and much lower abundance estimates for Southern Hemisphere minke whale populations helped persuade the IWC plenary, led by the U.S. delegation, to again pass this year a resolution condemning Japan's controversial research and calling on Japan to refrain from continuing these programs. But regrettably, Japan appears unwilling to discontinue or even scale back this illegal whaling contrivance. Should the Japanese decide to again move forward, the administration should re-certify Japan as in violation to the Pelly amendment and this time impose real sanctions. The administration should also continue to engage with Japan in the development of new and better non-lethal scientific methods to obtain data to study whale populations. Another issue adroitly handled by the U.S. delegation was the emerging question of whether the decline in some global commercial fisheries is linked to a corresponding increase in the consumption of fish by recovering whale populations. In its efforts to justify the resumption of commercial whaling, Japan has postulated a simplistic theory: world fisheries are depleted due to increased foraging by increasing numbers of whales. Moreover, this theory is used conveniently by the Japanese to justify the necessity of its lethal scientific whaling programs. Recently, Japan and other nation's have promoted this concept in other international fisheries organizations, such as the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization's Committee on Fisheries (COFI). This tactic has raised concerns within and outside of the IWC that the organization is being undercut in an area within its competence. The U.S. delegation rightly maintained that the competition claim is grossly oversimplified and biologically unsound. Nevertheless, the U.S. delegation considered it necessary for the issue to be held within the IWC--the one international organization recognized for the management of whale stocks. As a result, while remaining emphatically opposed to lethal scientific whaling and skeptical of the competition theory, the U.S. delegation prudently reached agreement with Japan on a resolution, subsequently adopted by the plenary, that lays out how the IWC will address the question of competition between whales and fisheries in the immediate future. In essence, this resolution acknowledged the competence of the IWC in this area and urged the IWC to engage with FAO and other regional fisheries management organizations to initiate relevant ecosystem-based, holistic and balanced research to investigate this theory. Representatives of the environmental community objected to this strategy arguing that it legitimized ``junk science'' and that it was an ill-advised concession to Japan. And time might very well verify those concerns. But at the moment, I agree with the decision of the U.S. delegation that accurate, balanced and non-lethal scientific research offers perhaps the best opportunity to expose the scientific flaws and gaps of this questionable theory once and for all. The U.S. must maintain a strong presence on the IWC Scientific Committee and in the activities of other regional fisheries management organizations to ensure that objectivity is maintained. I commend the U.S. delegation for its continued efforts to develop a consensus for a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) to govern the future governance of whaling. The U.S. delegation rightly maintained that the RMS must be addressed comprehensively, and not through a piecemeal approach. Despite the fact that little progress was made to resolve difficult issues concerning transparency, supervision and control, the U.S. delegation remained engaged with all nations in an attempt to bridge differences. What has become clear is that the lack of progress on the RMS rests squarely on the shoulders of the pro-whaling bloc led by Japan and Norway, and not on the U.S. and its like-minded allies. This is surprising considering that many of the features being proposed for the RMS mirror elements that are common to other fisheries management regimes of which the pro-whaling nations are signatories. I also appreciate the actions of the U.S. delegation in strong support of other important conservation proposals raised during the plenary. While I was disappointed to learn that proposals to create whale sanctuaries in the South Pacific and South Atlantic Oceans failed to pass, I was proud to hear that the U.S. delegation strongly supported both proposals. I was also pleased that the U.S. delegation joined a substantial majority of other nations to pass a resolution condemning Norway's desire to export minke whale blubber to Japan, and another resolution that reaffirmed the competence of the IWC in regards to the management of small cetaceans, such as Dall's porpoises. The administration was right to hold the line and support these efforts. In closing, I would like to commend the leadership of the U.S. delegation to the 53rd meeting, the Commissioner, Mr. Rolland Schmitten, and the Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Michael Tillman, both from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service. Their dedicated and tireless service on behalf of the American public in support of sensible, long- term protection of the world's great whales is remarkable. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the other members of the delegation who so ably supported Mr. Schmitten and Dr. Tillman so that they might excel under trying circumstances. Their preparations for this meeting in the midst of the political transition between elected administrations was nothing short of outstanding. They are all a credit to public service in the very best sense, and their efforts are noted and appreciated by the Congress.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call to your attention an issue of great concern to me and the constituents throughout my southeastern Massachusetts congressional district--the current crisis in home health care services. As you are well aware, in 1997 Congress approved the ``Balanced Budget'' Act (BBA). This legislation sought to slash Medicare benefits by $115 billion--the largest reduction in Medicare payment rates in the program's 35 year history. I opposed this ``reform'' bill because I thought it recklessly threatened the quality and dependability of health care for Medicare recipients. Regrettably, it has fulfilled these fears--resulting in $240 billion of cuts, $124 billion more than originally intended. The BBA has resulted in a 53% drop in federal reimbursements for home health services in Massachusetts--well over $350 million in lost Medicare revenue. 31 Massachusetts home care agencies have closed--and other on the South Shore and the Cape & Islands have limited services to homebound patients. It is clear that the ``unintended'' consequences of BBA has had and continues to have a devastating impact on our health care system. And now Congress is backpedaling, trying to address the immediate consequences of the BBA, while searching for comprehensive approaches to the long-term solvency of the overall Medicare program. In this light, I would like to share with my colleagues an editorial from the Cape Codder newspaper that followed a month-long series of articles outlining critical steps in addressing the challenges in home health care. And I hope this will serve as a useful source of guidance as we continue these deliberations. [From the Cape Codder, July 6, 2001] Assuring Home Health Care For a month, Jennifer Brockway has been reporting on one of the more frightening prospects facing an increasingly older Cape Cod population: the specter of rising health needs and the drastic decrease in home health care aides. This gap between supply and demand will threaten thousands of us who want to grow old in as independent a fashion as possible. We want to avoid hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facilities. That's why so many retirees are moving here in the first place. Those struggling to right a sinking ship offer a wide array of solutions. But, as Brockway reported, remedies will require action by both state and federal governments, as well as the health care industry itself. Our month-long series identified the following steps as crucial: The long-term community--home health care and nursing and rehabilitation homes--must form a united front. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates must be increased to reverse damage caused by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act and compensate for rising health care delivery costs. Home health aides must be paid a wage allowing economic self-sufficiency. They currently earn about $10 an hour, $7 less than what's needed to afford a median-priced home on the Cape. Family health insurance must be made affordable for all direct-care workers. Training programs for direct-care workers must be increased and expanded to the home care industry. An active recruitment program must be instituted to capture the high school students, immigrants, and older adults re- entering the workforce. Opportunities for career advancement in direct care must be encouraged. Home health agencies must allow greater involvement of home health aides in agency operations and patient care decisions. Aides should be made to feel like respected stakeholders through acknowledgment of their skills and contributions. As with most complex issues, there is no magic bullet. Solutions require crossing many jurisdictional and geographic boundaries. It means forming unique alliances. And unless other problems facing Cape Codders--inadequate housing, childcare and transportation--are addressed simultaneously, the current challenges facing home health care indeed will become a crisis.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear that it is lawyers that are responsible for the rising cost of health care premiums, but it is not lawyers who are responsible for awarding damages. It is jurors.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I joined with Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut in introducing the ``American Citizens' Protection and War Criminal Prosecution Act of 2001.'' This bicameral legislation seeks to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to bringing war criminals to justice, while ensuring that U.S. servicemembers and civilians are not put at risk of unwarranted prosecution before the International Criminal Court or other foreign tribunals. I am pleased to be joined in introducing the House bill by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Houghton, and the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Lantos. As my colleagues know, the United States initially withheld its support for the Rome Statute. President Clinton signed it last year only after securing numerous changes that ensure a fair trial for the accused and protect U.S. servicemembers and civilians from arbitrary assertions of jurisdiction by the ICC. The American role was pivotal in negotiating these concessions, and it remains so today, as negotiators continue to work to improve the rules and procedures under which the ICC will operate. But some have urged that the U.S., rather than seek improvements, withdraw from this process altogether. The measure introduced by the senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and recently passed by this body as an amendment to the Department of State Authorization bill, would effectively end U.S. participation in negotiations and forbid U.S. cooperation with the ICC. I believe the concerns that caused this House to take that action should be fully addressed before the President and the Senate consider further steps to ratify the Rome Statute. But this can be accomplished only through engagement, not retreat. At a time when the United States is increasingly perceived as ``going it alone,'' this is not the moment to abdicate our responsibilities by abandoning our historic commitment to the rule of law. Our legislation seeks to reaffirm that commitment while ensuring in no uncertain terms that U.S. servicemembers and civilians are not placed at risk. The bill would protect Americans from prosecution before the ICC in two ways. First, it would require that whenever a U.S. citizen is accused by a crime under the Rome Statute, the U.S. government must investigate or prosecute the case itself--unless the President determines that it is not in the national interest to do so. Second, the bill would prohibit the extradition of any American citizen if the U.S. is investigating or prosecuting the crime under U.S. law. It would also bar extradition if the individual has been tried and acquitted of the crime or, after an investigation, no reasonable basis has been found to proceed with a prosecution. If, notwithstanding these protections, a U.S. citizen were ever to come before the ICC, the bill would require the President to take steps to ensure that the defendant receives legal representation and every benefit of due process. The bill would also encourage active diplomatic efforts to address continuing U.S. concerns with provisions of the Rome Statute. And, whether or not we eventually become a party to the Statute, the bill would authorize the President to provide support and assistance to the ICC in the prosecution of accused war criminals--particularly those accused of committing atrocities against U.S. servicemembers or civilians, or citizens of friendly nations. The President must have this authority to defend our citizens and protect our national interests. And through our cooperation, to demonstrate our unfailing commitment to the cause of justice throughout the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both chambers and with the Administration to ensure that the United States continues to play its proper role in fostering a more just and peaceful world.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the underlying bill and against the alternative as well, because I do not believe that I know what I need to know before casting a vote of such profound consequence. I am not ready to decide the intricate and fundamental questions raised by this legislation on the basis of a single hearing held on a single afternoon at which the subcommittee heard only 5 minutes of testimony from only four witnesses, a hearing which many Members, myself included, were not even able to attend. Proponents of the bill have warned, and I speak to the underlying bill, that this is but the ``opening skirmish of a long battle against eugenics and the post-human future.'' They say that without this sweeping legislation, we will make inevitable the cloning of human beings, which I believe everyone in this Chamber deplores. Supporters of the substitute respond that the bill is far broader than it needs to be to achieve its objective, and that a total ban on human somatic cell nuclear transfer could close off avenues of inquiry that offer benign and potentially lifesaving benefits for humanity. They may both be right, but both bills have significant deficiencies. The underlying bill raises the specter of subjecting researchers to substantial criminal penalties. It even goes so far as to create a kind of scientific exclusionary rule that would deny patients access to any lifesaving breakthroughs that may result from cloning research conducted outside of the United States. To continue the legal metaphor, it bars not only the tree but the fruit, as well. This seems to me to be of dubious morality. The substitute would establish an elaborate registration and licensing regime to be sure experimenters do not cross the line from embryonic research to the cloning of a human being. Not only would that system be impossible to police, but it fails to address the question of whether we should be producing cloned human embryos for purposes of research at all. I find this issue profoundly disturbing. I believe the issue deserves more than a cursory hearing and a 2-hour debate. It merits our sustained attention, and it requires a characteristic which does not come easily to people in our profession: humility and patience.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, 10 years in prison, a criminal fine of $250,000, a $50,000 civil penalty. Are these punishments for bank robbers, ax murderers, Al Capone, John Dillinger? No. No. This is what can happen to a United States citizen exercising his or her constitutional right to travel to Cuba without a license. What is this license? In this case it is permission. Permission from our own government to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. We are treating our own citizens like school children who need permission to leave their classroom. We would expect this from the Cuban government, not from the government of the United States. In fact, what we have done is erect our own Berlin Wall preventing free travel of American citizens. To paraphrase a former president, President Reagan, it is time to tear the wall down. The travel ban has allowed our preoccupation with Fidel Castro to undermine a fundamental constitutional right. So let us invade Cuba, again, but let us do it this time with academics, missionaries, investors, human rights activists, and tourists. Let the college kids on spring break be the vanguard of this invasion. I know and I am confident that the result will be victory for the Americans and for the Cubans.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him in this matter. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by echoing the sentiments that have been expressed by others regarding the hard work and the dedication of both the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). The bill is a good product. I think all of us wish that there were more resources to work with. Having said that, it is a reflection of what I believe to be the priorities and values of the vast majority of Members in this House. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, would require the State Department to report to the United States Congress on the implementation of legislation that was passed in the Colombian Congress last month. That bill will soon be officially transmitted to President Pastrana. It is anticipated that he will sign this particular proposal. Although much improved from its earlier versions, this legislation still contains ambiguous provisions that could threaten civilian oversight of the military in Colombia and place at risk the progress that has been made toward reforming the military under the leadership of President Pastrana and Armed Forces Chief Fernando Tapias over the course of the past several years. Continued progress towards genuine and permanent reform should be a prerequisite for American assistance to Colombia's security forces. Only a few years ago, the Colombian military had the worst human rights record in the hemisphere. Until the military is professional and free from links to so-called paramilitary groups, it will be a part of the problem in Colombia rather than the solution. No military force should be entrusted with the kinds of extraordinary powers that could be interpreted by some to be included in the current draft of this legislation. And while the current leadership is reform- minded, Colombia will elect a new government next May. So it is impossible to predict who will interpret and implement this legislation in the future. Will it be those who insist on continued reform or those who would return to the days of impunity on the part of the military? The United States has made a massive commitment in the Colombian military predicated in part on its commitment to reform. This legislation pending before the chief executive of Colombia could imperil that commitment. It is imperative that we closely track its implementation if it should become law. I know this amendment that I propose to offer was not protected under the rule and the gentleman has made a point of order against it. I have had discussions with the gentleman from Arizona and understand that he is willing to work together to include a reporting requirement in conference. At this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to confirm my understanding of our agreement. I would ask the gentleman whether he agrees with the intent of this amendment and will work with me to have the reporting requirement included in the conference report.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to discourage people of faith. I want to encourage them. But that is not what this debate is about. In fact, I am more confused now than I was before after listening to the colloquy between the sponsor of the bill and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hastert). We are going to work on this in conference. We are going to work on States' right. I thought we did that some 200 years ago. Whatever happened to States' rights? It seems that devolution, that fundamental principle of the Reagan revolution is no longer operative. I look at my friends on the other side of the aisle. The Contract with America which spoke so clearly about local control seems to have been discarded. Well, it is clear to me that States' rights in this Chamber are no longer in vogue today or with this administration, at least on this particular issue. Remember, last week we learned that the Salvation Army had lobbied the White House for a regulation exempting them from State and local laws to protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Then there was an uproar, and that effort was quickly abandoned. Well, they will not need a regulation if this bill becomes law today as it is presently drafted because religious organizations will be able to evade State and local laws simply by receiving a Federal grant. They will be free to deny a job to qualified workers. We must not let this happen. Support the substitute. Defend States' rights and defeat the underlying bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, after offering this amendment, I intend to ask unanimous consent that it be withdrawn. Its purpose is to really send a message, and there is no need for me to insist on a vote at this time. More than 2 years ago now, and I believe to the collective relief of nearly every Member of this body, the Independent Counsel Act expired. Since then, almost all of the investigations pending at that time have been brought to a close. Yet 2 years after the expiration of the statute, one Independent Counsel, David Barrett, is still going strong at the cost of some $2 million a year to the American taxpayers, with no end in sight. Mr. Barrett was appointed in May of 1995 to look into charges that former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros had understated to the FBI the amount of money he had paid to a former mistress. It took Mr. Barrett more than 4 years and $9 million, but he eventually got his man. In the fall of 1999, almost 2 years ago, the former Secretary pled guilty to a single misdemeanor, for which he paid a fine and a $25 assessment for court costs. That was the rather anticlimactic end to the case involving Mr. Cisneros himself, but it was not the end of Mr. Barrett's investigation. It seems he was just getting rolling. He has kept a grand jury in session ever since, apparently hoping to determine whether during all those years someone, anyone, in the Government tried to shield the former Secretary from his investigation. As of today, Mr. Barrett has spent $15 million on a 6-year fishing expedition. It is costing the taxpayers another $1 million every 6 months, and he has not caught a single minnow. Any ordinary prosecutor who carried on this way would have been sent packing years ago, but Barrett was appointed under the Independent Counsel law, and that means not even the court that appointed him can put an end to this inquiry. In June of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted Barrett yet another 1-year extension. The one judge who filed an opinion made it clear that they had no other choice in the matter under the language of the statute. So if Barrett says he has not finished yet, there is nothing the court can do. As the judge put it, and I am quoting from the opinion, ``The law literally construed may be that Mr. Barrett can go on forever so long as he claims or shows active grand jury activity, no matter how unpromising. We apparently have little choice but to accept representations of productive activity at face value, despite persuasive reasons for doubt.'' Well, the court's message was clear. Congress may have killed the Independent Counsel Act, but like the heart that continues to beat after the brain is clinically dead, Mr. Barrett simply does not know how to stop, and the court is unable to pull the plug. The Barrett investigation is the last gasp of a statute whose folly is now generally acknowledged on both sides of the aisle. If there were any remaining doubt, Mr. Barrett's performance certainly reinforces the wisdom of our decision not to reauthorize the Independent Counsel statute. Judge Scalia had the foresight to recognize that Congress had created a monster it would ultimately be unable to control. He even foresaw that one day there would be a David Barrett, as he wrote in an opinion, and again I am quoting from that court opinion, ``What would normally be regarded as a technical violation may, in his or her small world, assume the proportions of an indictable offense. What would normally be regarded as an investigation that has reached the level of pursuing such picayune matters that it should be concluded, may to him or her be an investigation that ought to go on for another year.'' What a perfect description of the Barrett inquiry. And it may ultimately be up to us to put a stop to it. In his request for his most recent extension, Barrett told the court that he hoped, and I am using his word, and I am quoting him, he ``hoped'' he would complete his investigation by the end of this year. Fair enough. My amendment would have given him until December 15 to wrap up his affairs so he could finally turn out the lights, close the door, and look for a real job. Call it a ``welfare-to-work'' program. Mr. Chairman, I genuinely hope that Mr. Barrett is listening and that he will transform this hope into a reality. Then it will not be necessary to press this amendment at a later date. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), but the reality is, is that we all claim we want the Coast Guard to stop the flow of illegal drugs into this country, and to save our depleted fisheries, and to protect the coastal environment from oil spills, to intercept illegal immigrants, to secure international ports from terrorists, to conduct ice-breaking operations so critical supplies of home heating oil can reach our constituents, and to maintain aids to navigation for commercial and recreational boaters, and, of course, to save lives. If we want those things, we have to ante up. I understand the difficulties as articulated by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), but we have to find a way. The facts are with inexcusably inadequate resources, the Coast Guard does a heroic job of balancing their multiple responsibilities with heroic professionalism. At the same time budget constraints have been so severe and so chronic that the Coast Guard can barely keep its fleet in the water and its airplanes in the air. The authorization bill recently passed and championed by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) responded to those challenges by boosting the Coast Guard's operating budget for the next year by 250 million, and thus far in the appropriations process, that promise stands unfulfilled. We have to do better. We have to find a way, otherwise we face the predictable consequences of a crippled Coast Guard, lost property, lost commerce and, of course, lost lives, both the lives of the men and women in the Coast Guard who serve us every day, as well as those who use the seas either for enjoyment or to secure a livelihood. Let me just finally remind my colleagues that just recently came reports that the Coast Guard recalled port security forces that were sent overseas to protect U.S. naval units after the destroyer Cole was attacked. Why? Because it can no longer foot the bill. That, Mr. Chairman, is simply disgraceful, and it is unacceptable.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise to mark an exciting occasion that, as David McCullough stated in his testimony, is some 200 years overdue, but better late than never. I would take this occasion, also, to thank David McCullough for his contribution to the American people. Clearly, if there was a historian laureate as there is a poet laureate, I think we could all agree, the overwhelming consensus, it would be David McCullough. He has made history come alive in such a way that he has captured the attention of the American people. I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I think it was several Members who indicated their disappointment that he will not be returning in the next term. Let me add my voice to that. But let me reassure them that he will be very much involved and engaged in this effort as it proceeds over the course of the next several years. We have had many conversations regarding this, and I know he will continue to play a huge role. Well, this legislation would at long last honor John, Abigail and John Quincy Adams, towering figures, as has been pointed out, to whom this Nation owes its very foundation. A family without peer in our Nation's history. As my colleagues may understand, this is a special moment for me personally as a native son of Quincy, Massachusetts, where both John Adams and John Quincy Adams were born and raised. I sense, I feel deeply a certain political kinship, if you will, with this family as the first resident of Quincy to serve in this body since Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams, and obviously the grandson of John Adams, served in this body from 1859 to 1861. Furthermore, Abigail Adams, wife and mother of the two Presidents, was from neighboring Weymouth, also part of our congressional district and where my own grandparents farmed and raised their children in the early 1900s. Personally, this association is deeply humbling and yet the source of great inspiration. As it is in Weymouth and Quincy and throughout the region, the birthplace of this Nation, from the pilgrims' first landfall in Provincetown on Cape Cod and settlement in Plymouth, Massachusetts, to John Hancock, also of Quincy, who presided over the Continental Congress that declared our independence, no family in American history has contributed so uniquely to the creation, the birth of this country, and to our democracy and to its survival as have John Quincy and Abigail. The citizens of Quincy, Weymouth and Braintree and across the south shore of Boston have long recognized the magnitude of this legacy with great pride. It is enormously gratifying that we may now share in this pride with fellow Americans by authorizing a fitting memorial in the Capital. It is and has been no easy task to enhance public appreciation of the Adams family when the objects of your admiration do so little to cooperate. This was a fiercely ambitious and industrious family, but they also displayed a frankness and selflessness that is rare in public life. That may account, I would submit, for the lack of appropriate public recognition until now. The tendency towards self-effacement is reflected in a 1776 letter from John to Abigail in which he said, and I am quoting, ``Let me have my farm, family, and goose quill; and all the honors and offices this world can bestow may go to those who deserve them better and desire them more. I covet them not.'' On another occasion, he wrote, ``Mausoleums, statues, monuments will never be erected to me.'' This modesty was becoming, but certainly unwarranted. Few families in American history have given so much to their country over so many generations as statesmen, diplomats, advocates and authors. For any student of the first two centuries of American history, it seems incredible that there is no such tribute. It should be a highlight of every school pilgrimage to Washington. Well, today we are addressing this omission. One of the most remarkable experiences of my 5 years in Congress occurred just 2 weeks ago during a subcommittee hearing on this bill chaired by the Congressman from Colorado, and to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude for his handling in such an expeditious fashion by bringing this legislation to the floor. I am sure he agrees that it was a riveting history seminar by two of the most eminent scholars of our time, David McCullough and Joseph Ellis. They painted a portrait of John Adams as the Colossus of Independence, we have heard that from others, who chose Jefferson to draft the Declaration and nominated Washington to command the Continental Army. As others have referenced and David McCullough suggested, while Jefferson was the pen of the Declaration, it was Adams that gave it voice. And later, with a nascent America drawing its very first breaths, he was our most effective diplomat in the 1780s, winning recognition of our national sovereignty from European powers and securing loans from the Dutch to finance the revolution, thus keeping an infant Nation alive during its most precarious years. A man of extraordinary courage, he instinctively embraced the public interest, even when it conflicted with his own self-interest, as when, as our second President, he steered America clear of the public outcry for war with France at the expense of his own reelection. At his side throughout was a one-woman cabinet, Abigail Adams, whose influence would be impossible to overstate. She possessed a keen intellect.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, she was also an unwavering moral compass for her husband and for her son. She expressed with incredulity that patriots striving for independence could conceive of a new nation embracing the concept of slavery. She was their conscience. And their son, John Quincy Adams, diplomat, Secretary of State, author of the Monroe Doctrine, tireless abolitionist, and sixth President of the United States, died in this Chamber, in Congress, while the war with Mexico was being debated. With so many lawyers and legislators nearby, I just want to say a brief word about the lasting contributions of John and John Quincy Adams to the development of the rule of law, not just here in America but around the world. It is truly a living legacy that continues to have powerful influence in the 21st century as we observe emerging democracies everywhere following, embracing the Adams model. As early as 1776, Adams wrote, ``The surest way to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws was by guaranteeing an independent Judiciary.'' ``Judges,'' he said, ``should be subservient to none nor more complacent to one than another.'' In 1780, he had the opportunity to put these ideas, these concepts, into action as the framer of the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the oldest written constitution still in force and the first to enshrine the concept of a coequal and independent Judiciary, ``peopled by judges,'' as he said, ``as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.'' He was keenly aware that it is an independent Judiciary that can best protect fundamental personal liberties against the tyranny of despots and the tyranny of majorities. And when, 9 years later in the Constitutional Convention, our constitution was being considered, the framers adopted the system conceived by Adams, including his system for ensuring the independence of judges through life tenure, fixed compensation, and removal only by impeachment. When, in 1801 his Presidency was drawing to a close, John Adams appointed John Marshall as the fourth chief justice of the United States, an appointment that would do more than any other in the history of our Nation to confirm the power and the independence of the judicial branch of government. The Adams vision of the rule of law that a truly independent Judiciary is absolutely essential to a healthy and vibrant democracy has been proven by history, and it is high time that we celebrate that. Not so long ago we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the arrival of John and Abigail Adams as the first occupants of the White House. With remarkable parallels to the 41st and 43rd Presidents, what an appropriate time to honor the Adams legacy, and I am confident that we shall. As Mr. Ellis his observed in his testimony before the subcommittee, Washington and Jefferson required Adams' company during their lifetimes. They need him now in their repose. So do we. So on behalf of the residents of Quincy and Weymouth, Braintree, and the south shore, I suggest we need to honor the Adams legacy now to achieve a more profound appreciation of this masterpiece of human genius and divine blessing called America.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Coast Guard is included in the supplemental budget, but I am very concerned about the direction of the 2002 Coast Guard budget. If there are no changes, it is predictable that we will be standing here again this time next year, hat in hand, advocating for the Coast Guard, just as happened last year, when we painted ourselves into the same corner requiring $655 million in supplemental Coast Guard funding. Now, everyone knows that budget constraints have been so severe and chronic that the Coast Guard can barely keep its fleet in the water and its planes in the air. By the way, the Coast Guard operates the second oldest major naval fleet in the world, 39th out of 40. That is shameful. We reduce operational funding while cutting back on capital investment; we short-change housing, health coverage and retirement. Then we wonder why retention and training suffer. We admire the rescues, such as depicted in the movie ``Perfect Storm,'' but divert assets away from the core mission of saving lives. And, remember, the Coast Guard saves 5,000 lives each and every year. The 2002 authorization bill passed by this House just 2 weeks ago responded to these challenges by boosting the Coast Guard's operating budget for next year by $300 million. That promise stands unfulfilled thus far in the appropriations process. The funding bill approved since by the Subcommittee on Appropriations cut that $300 million, as well as an additional $60 million to embark on a program of replacing aging Coast Guard cutters that, on the average, are 27 years old. The consequences are real, Mr. Speaker. Just this week came reports that the Coast Guard recalled port security forces that were sent overseas to protect U.S. naval units after the Destroyer Cole was attacked. Why? Because we cannot afford it any more.