Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also want to acknowledge his leadership now as ranking member. It is obviously for me particularly being a Member from Massachusetts with a heavy heart that our dear friend and colleague Joe Moakley is not in his customary seat. Many of the issues that come before us in this Chamber are close calls. Not this one. The United States Coast Guard is so underfunded that its fleets are aging, its gas tanks are near empty, its supply of spare parts are low, its communications equipment is outdated, and its personnel is overworked. Why? Because for years now, the Coast Guard has been assigned mission after new mission, from search and rescue to ice breaking, from drug interdiction to environmental enforcement, without anything resembling commensurate funding increases. Some years we have been able to patch things over with supplemental appropriations. We have got our fingers crossed right now for a supplemental to address a deficit exceeding $100 million. In the meantime, the Coast Guard has become one of the oldest fleets in the world. I believe it ranks 39 out of 40. Its ability to respond to marine distress calls is dangerously stretched. It is true, literally true, that it is now a matter of life and death and it is no secret. Testimony at hearing after hearing has documented how personnel fatigue from double shifts struggle with old communications equipment to dispatch extended air and sea assets. From hurricanes and refugee migrations, SOS calls and oil spills, the wear and tear accumulates, placing at risk Coast Guard personnel and the lifesaving mission they are mandated to fulfill. Now so far the Coast Guard has bootstrapped itself into beating the odds and getting the job, all of its many jobs, done; in fact, with the highest marks of any Federal agency in terms of efficiency and management. But there is a breaking point. There will come a time when the American people will get from the Coast Guard not what they want, but what they are paying for. Put it another way, it is time for us to decide precisely what we want the Coast Guard to do and then to pay for it. This bill is a good start. President Bush set a constructive tone with a budget that proposed a $545 million increase over last year's funding level. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), who really does deserve the gratitude of all of those who benefit from our oceans and waterways, today has brought to this floor legislation with an additional $250 million for an overall authorization of $5.35 billion. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. As I mentioned, studies have repeatedly lauded the Coast Guard for its institutional efficiency, for its morale and commitment to duty, but these reviews always seem to conclude with a mournful refrain about what might be possible if only the commandant had the tools he really needs to work with. If fully funded, H.R. 1669 would mean the Coast Guard could cover more of the costs of salary, health care and housing, of technological retrofits to improve fisheries enforcement and drug traffic surveillance, of deferred maintenance repairs to get its aircraft off the ground and its ships to sea. When I first arrived in this body 4 years ago, I joined with my colleagues the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to form the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus. As former Coast Guardsmen, we sought to focus attention on the courageous service of the men and women who risk life and limb every day to enforce the law of the high seas and to save lives. Day in, day out they do their job. Well, now it is time for us to do ours. I support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear. This amendment does nothing, nothing for the Boy Scouts. They are already well protected, not by some statute, but by the Constitution. That constitutional principle is already well established. Under the first amendment, they cannot be denied for the use of any public forum that is made available to other groups. For example, back in 1968, a Federal Court of Appeals upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to use a high school gym for a Klan meeting. In this past March, a Federal District Court applied the same principle to the Boy Scouts when a school board in Florida attempted to deny them the use of school facilities. So my colleagues do not have to worry about the Boy Scouts. They are well protected now. The reality is that this amendment is not about the Boy Scouts. It is about a conservative social agenda that holds passionate views about sexual orientation. The Boy Scouts' policy on sexual orientation is well known. That is fine. The gentleman is entitled to his views, and the Boy Scouts' are entitled to their views. But they ought not to be entitled to use the Congress of the United States to make a political statement that promotes intolerance and discrimination. Vote no on the Hilleary amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, for millions of Americans, this weekend's Memorial Day observance carries deep and personal significance. For two residents of southeastern Massachusetts, Lucy Duffy and Jim Cadigan, the solemn occasion will echo with courage and heartache, seared with the pain and pride of sacrifice on behalf of a grateful Nation. Heading the Call When young Americans heeded President Woodrow Wilson's call to arms, one of those who crossed the Atlantic in the name of freedom was Sgt. Charles De Vries, an Army medic stationed at the Camp Mars-Sur-Allier, one of the largest American base hospitals in Europe During World War I, the French village of Saint Parize le Chatel and its neighboring hamlet of Moiry was home to this 44,000-bed facility. Day and night, Sgt. De Vries and his colleagues would tend to the wounded and dying. In war's shadow, Sgt. De Vries met Rebecca Goethe, a young French girl from a nearby town. They were married and, after the Armistice, returned to the United States to start a new life and family. This weekend, eight decades later, the daughter of that doughboy and village girl will represent the United States at ceremonies honoring Camp Mars-Sur-Allier--and the men and women who served and died there. On Saturday and Sunday, Lucy Duffy of Brewster, Massachusetts, will represent the United States as the Cercle Culturel d'Entradide Genealogique dedicates a permanent exhibit to the hospital. The people of the towns of St. Parize le Chatel and Moiry have never forgotten those who gave so unselfishly of themselves in the name of world peace. Located at the site of national cemetery where 2,000 victims of the Great War are buried, the memorial is inscribed with these moving words: Aux Americains Morts Pour la France, Le Droit et La Liberte 1916-1918 (To the Americans who died for France, Right, and Liberty). An American Hero Jim Cadigan of Hingham, Massachusetts, is a genuine American hero. Like an entire generation of Americans, he assumed the responsibility of our combat commitment in World War Two. On February 26, 1945, Second Lieutenant Cadigan, a member of Company C, 20th Armored Infantry Battalion, 10th Armored Division, led a platoon advancing on the German town of Zerf. Upon hearing that a second platoon had been ambushed and was pinned down by enemy fire, he charged fortified enemy positions perched on high ground and, without concern for his own safety, singlehandedly wiped out two German machine gun nests. Dozens of witnesses have testified that Lt. Cadigan killed or wounded 50 Germans and took 85 prisoners. The trapped US platoon was able to escape and reorganize, saving scores of American lives. Without Jim Cadigan's heroism, it's likely that none of those men, or their children, would be alive today. To this day, at annual reunions, his comrades from that battlefield long ago in Zerf gather to swap old stories and meet new grandchildren; each year, his comrades travel long distances to salute a man who, quite literally, saved their lives. Jim Cadigan is a legend in his home town of Hingham as well. This weekend, he'll serve as Grand Marshal of the Hingham Memorial Day Parade. People of all ages, from WW2 vets to elementary school kids, will have the opportunity to greet the brave soldier form down the street who has inspired such pride and respect. Hearts of Men In cities and towns all across America, Memorial Day will be marked with parades down Main Street, patriotic speeches on the town square, backyard barbecues and Little League games in the park. In many ways, this reflects the distinctly American values that Sgt. De Vries and Lt. Cadigan went overseas to fight to protect. For Cadigan and Duffy families, and countless others, Memorial Day is also a time for a quiet pilgrimage to cemeteries and memorials, for personal remembrance and reflection that stand the test of time. More than 20 centuries ago. Pericles offered a tribute to fallen Greek warriors that echoes to us through antiquity: ``Not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions, but there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 12, family and friends gathered at the Museum of Natural History on Cape Cod to celebrate the memory of our colleague, Priscilla Reetz. For 10 years in our Hyannis office--with Representative Studds, then Representative Delahunt, she worked each day to help people in need across the cape and islands, with a heart of gold and joyousness to spare. Actress, entrepreneur, novelist, kayaker--Priscilla touched countless lives, including ours, with irresistible zest. We are deeply saddened by her death, and will miss her dearly. Our thoughts and prayers are with her four children and seven grandchildren. It is with respect and admiration for this remarkable friend and coworker that I commend to you the obituary for Ms. Reetz that appeared in the Cape Cod Times on Thursday, May 10, 2001: Priscilla Doner Reetz, 72 Caseworker for Rep. Studds, Delahunt; storyteller; kayaker BREWSTER.--Priscilla Doner Reetz, 72, a resident of Brewster, died unexpectedly Monday in Brewster. She was the wife of the late Donald Reetz for 25 years. Mrs. Reetz was born in Watertown, N.Y., and received an associate's degree from Rochester Institute of Technology. She raised her family in Rochester, N.Y., and in the Finger Lakes region. At age 49, she began a career as a commercial actress in the Boston area. She moved to Brewster in 1982. She was the proprietor of a small antiques business, and was a fixture behind the counter at the Brewster General Store for many years. She was a storyteller at the Brewster Ladies Library and the Brewster Book Store. Mrs. Reetz was a caseworker in the Hyannis office of U.S. Rep. Gerry Studds, and later Bill Delahunt, for nearly 10 years. ``Priscilla loved her work because she got so much satisfaction from helping people in need,'' Delahunt said. ``From working with the disabled to those in need of housing, she moved mountains every day for countless Cape Codders.'' Mrs. Reetz was very interested in Chinese and American history. She was at work on a collection of poetry for children and a novel at the time of her death. She was an avid kayaker and loved kayaking on the bays and creeks of the Cape. She also hiked frequently with the Appalachian Mountain Club. She is survived by three sons, David Reetz of Santa Cruz, Calif., Garin Reetz of Dallas, Texas, and Allan Reetz of Meriden, N.H.; a daughter, Sarah Reetz of New York, N.Y.; and seven grandchildren. A memorial service will be held at 5:15 p.m. Saturday at the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History, Route 6A, Brewster. Memorial donations may be made to the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History, Route 6A, Brewster, MA 02631; or to Safe Harbor, c/o Community Action Committee of the Cape and Islands, P.O. Box 954, Hyannis, MA 02601.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. I was among its original cosponsors, and I want to take a moment to commend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for their leadership. The bill will make it possible for many more families to provide children with loving and permanent homes. But I would be remiss not to acknowledge my disappointment that the bill we are considering today is not the one that I cosponsored originally. It has been stripped of one of its most important provisions which was designed to help those adoptive families most in need of our assistance, those who adopt children with special needs. Children with special needs are those who, because of their age, race, disability or other characteristics, would be unlikely to find a permanent home without special assistance. Many are older, some have mental or physical or emotional problems. Not only are these children the least likely to find a loving home, but when they do find a home, their adoptive parents typically face financial burdens in caring for them. There are some 125,000, approximately, children in foster care now who are eligible for adoption and who continue to wait and wait and wait for a permanent placement. The vast majority of these children are so-called children with special needs. The credit actually does little for these families, unfortunately, because it can be applied to only such adoption-related expenses as adoption fees, court costs and attorneys' fees. Most special-needs children are adopted from foster care and publicly-supported institutions, and the families who do adopt them do not incur these kinds of expenses. That is why the Department of Treasury reported last October that only 15 percent of these families were able to claim any tax benefits under the credit for 1998. The provision that was removed from the bill would have remedied this situation by providing a $10,000 tax credit for families who adopt special-needs children irrespective of the nature of the expenses they incur in providing for the child. Mr. Speaker, this would have ensured that all adoptive parents could partake equally in the benefits of the credit. Most importantly, it would have provided a meaningful incentive to those who are eager to adopt children with special needs but maybe are unable to absorb all of the extraordinary financial burdens that this can entail. As an adoptive father myself, I believe we have a strong interest as a society, as a Nation, in encouraging all adoptions, but especially those that provide a permanent home to a child with special needs. As I indicated, I am going to support the bill, but I hope very much that a way can be found to reinstate the provision before it is sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Shortly we will be considering an amendment labeled the American Servicemembers Protection Act. It purports to protect American soldiers from the dangers they allegedly face from the International Criminal Court. In fact, it would do the opposite. The authors of the amendment make two claims about the International Criminal Court, and both are false. Mr. Chairman, the first is that the court does not guarantee due process. Clearly they have never read the treaty. It contains perhaps the most extensive list of due process rights ever codified: the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to confront one's accusers, the privilege against self-incrimination; and that is just to start. The critics also complain that the treaty does not provide for trial by jury. Well, under our Constitution, the right to a jury trial does not apply to military actions on foreign soil. And the last time I looked at the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the law that does apply to crimes by military personnel, it does not provide for trial by jury either. The second false claim is that the treaty places American soldiers at risk of prosecution abroad. Not only does it not do this, it helps prevent it from happening. Under the treaty, Americans charged with war crimes would be tried by our military courts, not the International Criminal Court. The court has no jurisdiction unless our government, the American Government, is unable or unwilling to prosecute. And that is the treaty's entire purpose. Not to replace national courts, but to ensure that crimes against humanity do not go unpunished when no legitimate justice system exists. These provisions were added to the treaty at American insistence, and rightly so. The truth is that our soldiers are at greater risk today without the treaty. Today they can be prosecuted by any nation for actions within its borders. The treaty corrects this by giving primary jurisdiction over American soldiers to American courts. Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to fear from this treaty and everything to gain, because we benefit from a world order that promotes stability, holds war criminals accountable, and it stems the rule of law. I hope that this amendment is rejected.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in cities and towns all across America, Memorial Day will be marked with parades down Main Street, patriotic speeches on the town square and little league games in the park. But for others--families and surviving comrades in arms--it is a day of pilgrimage to cemeteries and memorials, for a moment of remembrance. For some, this pilgrimage takes them to places far away from that town square; to places made infamous through the fury of war, and where now, peace holds its gentle sway. One such pilgrimage will take place in the French Village of Saint Parize le Chatel and its neighboring hamlet, Moiry. During World War I, this area was home to one of the largest US Army hospitals, the Camp Mars-sur Allier. Its 44,000 beds were filled with wounded Americans who went off to fight for peace and liberty in the homeland of Lafayette. After the Armistice, the villagers of Saint Parize le Chaatel and Moiry built a monument to this hospital on the site of a cemetery where over 2,000 victims of the war are buried. Inscribed on the memorial-- AUX AMERICANS MORTS POUR LA FRANCE LE DROIT ET LA LIBERTE 1916-1918--to the Americans who died for France, Right and Liberty. On this Memorial Day, a permanent exhibit commemorating the hospital, its staff and the soldiers and civilians who died and recovered there will open. At this ceremony, in an expression of the strong friendship between the United States and France, a new walkway to the memorial will be dedicated. I know that all my colleagues join with me in an expression of gratitude to the people of Saint Parize le Chatel and Moiry for their desire to ensure an appropriate and lasting memorial to those Americans who gave so unselfishly of themselves in the name of peace and freedom.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men of the cruiser U.S.S. Boise, who played such an important role in helping secure freedom from oppression during the second World War. They will be gathering once again for their annual reunion in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on May 3, 4, and 5 of 2001. It has been 56 years since the guns fell silent across the vast stretches of the Pacific and European theaters of combat. The passing of time has thinned their ranks, but the memories of their deeds in fighting for the liberty we enjoy today will never fade. Representative of the sacrifices of this Greatest Generation, is the late Robert Brooks of Weymouth, Massachusetts, whose wife, Eleanor, will attend this year's reunion. Robert was only 18 years old when he enlisted in the United States Navy in 1941. During the next four years, Bob and his shipmates would witness some of the most famous and horrific battles in history. The Boise was at Guadalcanal in 1942 and participated in the Battle of Cape Esperance, where she suffered damage from Japanese shells. She provided cover to Allied troops during the invasions of Sicily and the Italian mainland in 1943. The year 1944 found the Boise operating along the coast of New Guinea, and in October of 1944 she took part in the Battle of Surigao Strait, which was a part of the larger Battle of Leyte Gulf, among the greatest naval battles in history. The ship also had the honor of hosting General Douglas MacArthur for a tour of the Philippines and Borneo during June of 1945 before returning stateside in July of 1945. After the war, Robert Brooks, like most of his shipmates, returned to the States where he lived, worked, and provided for his family on the South Shore of Boston. When our country needed them, they answered the call. They did their duty, literally saved the world, and returned home to raise their own families during one of America's greatest eras of prosperity. Their legacy is the peace, security and opportunity of today's America. It is a gift so precious we can never repay them except by promising each other to never forget. God bless the men of the U.S.S. Boise, their families, and the United States of America.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I also thank him for crafting a very intelligent substitute. Last year, I was one of those Democrats who joined with my colleagues across the aisle to support legislation to repeal the Federal estate tax. I did so because I believed that the tax unfairly burdened small businesses and family farms which often had to be sold at below-market values because of liquidity issues. In other words, the heirs did not have the cash to pay the tax. Well, I still believe that; and that is why I am going to vote for the Rangel substitute rather than the committee bill, because if we adopt the substitute, many of those who are now required to pay the estate tax will have the cash under the Rangel bill. Secondly, and others have addressed this issue, under the committee bill many Americans would never reap the promised benefits even upon full repeal in 10 years. As others have suggested, currently, inherited property is assessed for valuation purposes at the time of death; but the committee bill, the Republican bill, would carry over for tax purposes a property's original value from the date of acquisition, from the date of purchase. It will undoubtedly increase capital gains tax upon sale and disposition; again, forcing heirs to experience the same liquidity issues upon sale that we are trying to address now. So I think for these reasons and for so many others that have already been articulated, it makes sense to support the Rangel substitute and to defeat the bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join today with people throughout Southeastern Massachusetts in celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the South Shore Association for Retarded Citizens. What began in 1950 with a small group of parents in Weymouth seeking options for their children, has since grown into a distinguished and highly successful effort to provide services to more than one thousand people with special needs on the South Shore each year. From summer day camps to transitional employment programs; from early intervention services to residential and workshop facilities; from individual to family support programs--South Shore ARC has given all of us opportunities to realize and meet our full potential. Throughout its history, South Shore ARC has been a leader in the community, utilizing public and private partnerships in its twofold mission of advocacy and the delivery of quality services. The organization has fought tirelessly for the rights of individuals with disabilities, and has been instrumental in the passage of legislation improving and expanding special needs education. Mr. Speaker, I invite you and our colleagues to join with me in congratulating the South Shore Association for Retarded Citizens for fifty years of service to the people of Massachusetts. This organization has fostered positive working relationships with our community, and has improved the lives of thousands of adults and children with special needs. I commend them for their decades of hard work, and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, as others have indicated, this past January and February El Salvador was rocked by two major earthquakes and thousands of smaller aftershocks. I think it was the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) who sponsored the resolution who indicated that some 1,200 people were killed and almost 10,000 were injured. Thousands of homes have been destroyed, and the country's infrastructure has been severely impacted. The property damage alone is estimated to be at least $3 billion, according to the most recent estimates; and these numbers, while horrific, do not tell the entire story. I traveled with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), my friend and the chairman of the subcommittee, to El Salvador in January and witnessed the devastation firsthand. We saw people's homes destroyed. We saw a neighborhood buried under a side of a mountain. We handed out survival packages provided by USAID to hungry and homeless families. That was before the February 13 earthquake. I think it is very important to understand that these people live in desperate fear of continued aftershocks in the coming rainy season, which only can mean further devastation in their lives. That psychological fear was truly palpable. After the brutal civil war and the destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch, these latest disasters may seem like more than a people can bear. But I want to let my colleagues know that these people are resilient. They are brave. They are meeting the challenges. But it is so clear that they need additional assistance. I think every American, too, should know that all Salvadorans are cooperating to rebuild their nation. Everyone from local officials to the president is working with one goal in mind, to get El Salvador back on its feet. As part of that recovery effort, the national government, led by the center-right party, the ARENA Party, is working closely with local mayors, many of whom are FMLN, a center-left party which includes many former guerrillas. These are the people who, 15 years ago, were literally at war with each other, and they are now working together in close coordination to recover from these earthquakes. Of course they have their differences, but they are resolving them through a democratic dialogue, much like we do every day in this institution. So from that perspective, and I know the chairman shares my viewpoint, it was a most encouraging trip. The Salvadoran leadership representing many diverse political perspectives deserves to be commended. After many years, democracy has finally taken root in El Salvador. It is in our national interest, and I would submit it is our moral responsibility, given our long history and involvement in El Salvador to nurture that democracy, to assist them in repairing the infrastructure so necessary to advance their economy and their fledgling democratic institutions. Salvadorans have the will to repair their country, but they need our help to do so. So much has been wrecked that they simply cannot repair the damage on their own. Now that El Salvador is finally a democracy, the kind of democracy that its people dreamed of for years, let us not turn our back on them. So I urge my colleagues to come together as the Salvadoran people have done. Madam Speaker, before I sit down, I would be remiss not to note the special relationship that two Members of this institution have with the people of El Salvador. One, of course, is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere. He indicated earlier that he has spent 35 years on El Salvador. What he did not speak to is the fact that those 35 years that he has been providing diapers and roofs and schoolhouses and desks were from his own resources. It is truly a labor of love. I think it is important that our colleagues know that the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Ballenger) and his wife, Donna, are truly held in high regard by the Salvadoran people. Of course, I also would be remiss not to acknowledge the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), my friend and the leader of the Massachusetts delegation. His name is as well known in El Salvador as it is in South Boston, for it was the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), more than any other American, that helped to bring an end to the bloodshed in El Salvador. So in his absence, I simply want to acknowledge that and to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for his courage, for his leadership, to let him know that we are proud of him, all of us, and to report to him that the Salvadoran people continue to be profoundly grateful to his contribution to that nation.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has had a long and abiding interest in matters in Central and Latin America and the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my dear friend and also a leader prior to his coming to Congress on issues involving El Salvador.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to pose the question of why did we see the spike in bankruptcy filings up until 1998 and then saw a dramatic decline of some 15 percent in the last 2 years? Well, in 1998, the FDIC, the government agency, found that as a result of interest rate deregulation, credit card companies had become more profitable and were able to extend more unsecured credit to less creditworthy borrowers. In other words, credit card issuers were handing money out to just about everyone. Anyone with teenagers knows that because they receive bundles of credit card solicitations. In other words, people who should not have been extended credit were getting it. This conclusion, I suggest, is supported by an astonishing fact. The median family income of filers has dropped from $23,250 in 1981 to $17,650 in 1997. And we wonder why we have a crisis. But, as the filings peaked in 1998, the credit card companies saw their profits stall and began to tighten their underwriting requirements. In the last 2 years, we have seen this decline. In other words, the invisible hands of the marketplace are working. As a University of Maryland study has concluded, the bankruptcy crisis is self-correcting. The reason is that lenders are profit- maximizing institutions that select their own credit criteria and they responded to this unexpected increase in personal bankruptcy. I find it rather ironic that proponents who usually proclaim the benefits of the free market would seek government intervention, a remedy, by the way, which will only impact the debtors and not impose any responsibility or accountability on creditors who behave irresponsibly. Let the market work and reject this bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I keep hearing from the proponents how the benefits of this bill will flow to the American people. Well, if they believe that, I have a bridge that I want to sell them. At one of our subcommittee hearings on this legislation last year I asked each of the panelists, and there were nine, whether the bill would result in lower interest rates to consumers. Every single one of them admitted probably not. Well, I appreciated their honesty. By the way, there is ample empirical evidence, hard evidence, to suggest that consumers will not benefit at all by this bill. The American people should know that in 1996, a Harvard University study pointed out that between 1980 and 1982 the Federal funds rate fell from 13.4 percent to 3.5 percent, a drop of nearly 10 percentage points. The average credit card interest rates went the other way. It rose from nearly 17.3 percent to 17.9 percent. The bottom line, the credit card industry will be the only beneficiary of this proposal, and to suggest otherwise does not hold water. So if my colleagues' concern is about credit card company profits, by all means vote for this bill. Be assured, however, if there is a concern that these companies are doing very well, if there are any doubts, pick up a copy of the January 26, 2001, edition of USA Today. The headline reads, and I am quoting, ``Adding fees, new ones, raising old ones, and credit card profits are soaring.'' Credit card industry profit rose to a 5-year high last year. In fact, credit cards are one of the most profitable businesses in banking, according to a CEO in a consulting firm that advises credit card issuers. The American people should also know that as profits rose, several major credit card issuers, including Chase and Providian, agreed to pay hefty penalties to settle complaints related to unfair late fees and other practices. And just this past week in Business Week, that liberal, liberal magazine, an article reflects how MBNA not only provided substantial contributions to both parties and to individual Members, but the MBNA credit card, which I understand is the third largest in the country, recently paid about $8 million for unfair practices and deceptive advertising. So given that the credit card companies will be the chief beneficiaries of this public subsidy, because that is exactly what it is, exactly what it is, it seems to me there ought to be at least a quid pro quo. Let us require responsible corporate behavior and continue the decline that we have witnessed over the past 2 years in bankruptcy filings, the 170,000 fewer in 2000 than existed in 1998; and let us support the substitute.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again let me be very, very clear. The priority that is now given to credit card debt under this proposal is vastly different and much of that debt will become nondischargeable and we will be chasing people for $80 a month while others are living, with these exempt assets, the life of luxury. That is totally wrong and unconscionable.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents an ill-considered change in public policy that totally advantages some creditors, particularly large credit card issuers, over families that seek bankruptcy relief because of financial catastrophes caused by major medical expenses, divorce, job loss, death of the family bread winner and the like. In fact, it was the former chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), that pointed out last year during the course of this debate that there were 75 consumer creditor enhancements in this bill. It also advantages the sophisticated debtor who has accumulated so-called ``exempt assets,'' to the detriment of the unsophisticated debtor who has no assets and is earning $40,000, $45,000, or $50,000 a year trying to put bread on the family table. The American people should know that a debtor can live in a mansion in Florida worth millions, have an individual retirement account of up to $1 million, have annuities worth additional millions of dollars, receive a nice big fat pension and not worry, because these assets are exempt and creditors cannot touch them. But if you do not have any so-called exempt assets and are barely making it and genuinely need bankruptcy relief, woe is you. Those credit card companies will be able to chase you forever. Just imagine how this different treatment of debtors will appear to the American people. You can properly call this not a tax break for the wealthy but bankruptcy protection for the rich. Every fair-minded American should find this offensive and unconscionable. We are in the process of establishing different classes of debtors. Now, proponents are concerned, justifiably, about the dramatic increase in the number of personal bankruptcy filings that peaked in 1998, as my friend from Texas indicated. I share his concern and their concerns. It is just that this bill is not the answer. It is not the panacea they claim. They predicted that unless we adopted an earlier version of this bill, those filings would continue to escalate. The original bill was introduced in 1997. Well, they were dead wrong. The bankruptcy rate declined by more than 9 percent in 1999 and further declined 6 percent in the year 2000. That represents 170,000 fewer filings in the year 2000 than in 1998. That is what they are not telling you, Mr. Speaker. That is a 2-year decline of greater than 15 percent in the bankruptcy rate. No doubt if the bill had passed when introduced in 1997, the sponsors would be taking bows for this positive trend. But it would have been undeserved. I have no doubt that they sincerely believe that the spike in the number of personal bankruptcies was caused by debtors, as I have heard the term, gaming the system, that bankruptcy was becoming a financial planning tool and that there was no longer a social stigma associated with bankruptcy and that the current Bankruptcy Code encouraged debtors to file for bankruptcy. Again in large measure they were wrong. Maybe they never carefully examined the evidence, because every independent analysis concluded that there was no data, no empirical research, no hard evidence that supported that theory. Let me add when I say independent analysis, I mean studies that were not bought and paid for by the credit card industry. Government agencies agreed with those independent experts. To note a few, a CRS report issued in 1998 states, ``There is a dearth of empirical data to support or refute the hypothesis.'' The CBO issued a report last year. One sentence sums it all up, and I am quoting: ``The available research casts a dim light on the causes of personal bankruptcy and its consequences for the cost and availability of credit.'' Myself and others proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, that would have added some balance to the bill, that would have equaled the relationship between creditors and debtors. But unfortunately they were not made in order. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the rule is rejected and that the underlying bill is defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for leading us in this resolution. It is so appropriate that we are naming a courthouse after Joe Moakley. We probably should also name a post office, and maybe we will do that at a later point in time. Because certainly, as has been referenced here, Joe Moakley has delivered the mail. I mean, he has delivered the mail for his district. He has delivered the mail for Massachusetts. As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has said, he more than anyone, along with Tip O'Neill, is responsible for rebuilding the city of Boston. And that will be a lasting monument to Joe Moakley, as well as Tip O'Neill. But appropriate I say a courthouse because a courthouse is a symbol of justice. And I thought it was fascinating the other day, because some of us attended his press conference, where he stated publicly that, as he looked back on his political career, the one aspect of his legacy that he was most proud of is what he did in El Salvador. What he did in El Salvador was really to begin the process of stopping a civil war that took oh so many lives. It was about justice. It was about social justice and economic justice. Beyond buildings and beyond bridges and beyond harbors, really the heart and the soul and the core of Joe Moakley is social and economic justice. And that is why it is so appropriate to name the ultimate symbol of a democracy, a courthouse, after Joe Moakley. On a personal note, I want to thank Joe Moakley for his wisdom, his counsel, for his kindness, his advice, and help to me. I know I speak for everyone in Massachusetts when I say, we respect him and, as importantly, we love him.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with my colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing the Federal Election Standards Act of 2001. Now that the dust has settled over the presidential election of 2000, I hope we will treat our recent experience as an opportunity to adopt long overdue reforms in the way we run our Federal elections. I hope we will enlist our best minds in the effort to develop better systems and procedures that will restore public confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the electoral process. And I hope we will provide State and local election officials with the wherewithal to take advantage of these improvements. The Act seeks to advance these goals by establishing a bipartisan commission to study the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures and develop standards of best practice for the conduct of Federal elections. It further authorizes grants and technical assistance to States which wish to adopt measures consistent with the standards. Title I of the Act establishes the National Advisory Commission of Federal Election Standards (the ``Commission''). Twelve of the 24 voting members of the Commission are appointed by Congress; the other 12 by leading State and local government associations. The Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission serve ex-officio as non-voting members. In addition to ensuring a balance among Federal, State and local interests, the Act requires that the members of the Commission include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, and that larger and smaller states from all geographic regions be fairly represented. The Commission will have three responsibilities which it must discharge within one year of its appointment. First, it will examine and report to the President, the Congress, and the State Secretaries of State regarding the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures in the several States. Second, the Commission will develop a set of standards for the conduct of Federal elections and make recommendations with respect to the periodic review and updating of the standards. Among the issues to be addressed by the standards are (1) procedures for voter registration and maintenance of lists of registered voters; (2) ballot design, voting equipment, the methods employed in counting [and recounting] votes, and the procedures for challenging the results; (3) factors that affect access to and the efficient and orderly operation of polling places, including hours of voting (which may include standards for a uniform national poll closing time for presidential elections); number and accessibility of polling stations; training of poll workers; methods of reducing delay; and steps to ensure that all voters who report to the polls have an opportunity to cast their vote; and (4) procedures for mail-in and absentee voting (including deadlines for receipt of mail-in and absentee ballots). Third, the Commission will make additional recommendations to Congress in regard to certain procedural aspects of Federal elections that are governed by Federal law (and would therefore require Congressional action to alter), such as whether Federal law should be amended to authorize Federal elections to be conducted (1) on dates other than those prescribed by current Federal law so as to permit weekend elections, voting on multiple days, or expanded early voting options; or (2) by means of the Internet. Title II of the Act authorizes the FEC to provide matching grants and technical assistance to the States to improve the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures. The Federal share may not exceed 75 percent of the total costs of the program, project, or activity, although the FEC may waive this requirement in whole or in part where appropriate. Grants may be used for programs, projects, and other activities whose purpose is to bring the conduct of Federal elections into conformity with the standards for Federal elections developed by the National Advisory Commission. Specifically, grants may be used to (1) hire employees or consultants to design and implement systems and procedures that meet the standards; (2) procure equipment, technology, and administrative and managerial support systems that meet the standards; (3) provide training or retraining to election officials, employees and volunteers in the proper use and maintenance of new systems and procedures that meet the standards; (4) enhance public confidence and participation in the electoral process by increasing awareness of new systems and procedures that meet the standards; and (5) evaluate the effectiveness of new systems and procedures put in place through Federal assistance under the Act. The Act would not mandate changes in State practices, nor would it federalize election procedures. Rather, it would encourage State election officials to upgrade and modernize their election systems by establishing benchmarks for the conduct of Federal elections and providing the States with the resources needed to meet them. In so doing, the Act gives maximum latitude to the states and localities in assessing their own needs and determining which solutions are most appropriate for their circumstances. Recent announcements of collaborative ventures among academic researchers and technology companies have fueled expectations of a technological ``fix'' to our nation's election problems. Such initiatives as the one launched this past December by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech are a very promising development, and ought to be encouraged. On the other hand, we must resist the temptation to look for attractively simple--and simplistic--solutions. The latest hi-tech equipment will be expensive, and the best technology in the world will make little difference if voters and election workers don't know how to use it. Thus, while some jurisdictions may choose to acquire new technologies, others may feel their resources would be better spent on voter education and training of election workers. I am hopeful that the Congress will take prompt action on this legislation, so that the most advanced nation on earth will have an electoral system that is second to none. Federal Election Standards Act of 2001 The Act establishes a bipartisan commission to study the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures and develop standards of best practice for the conduct of Federal elections. It further authorizes grants and technical assistance to States which wish to adopt measures consistent with the standards. National Advisory Commission on Federal Election Standards Title I of the Act establishes the National Advisory Commission on Federal Election Standards (the ``Commission''). Twelve of the 24 voting members of the Commission are appointed by Congress; the other 12 by State and local government associations. The Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (the ``FEC''), or their representatives, serve ex-officio as non- voting members of the Commission. In addition to ensuring a balance among Federal, State and local interests, the Act requires that the members of the Commission include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, and that larger and smaller states from all geographic regions be fairly represented. The Commission will have three responsibilities which it must discharge within one year of its appointment. First, it will examine and report to the President, the Congress, and the State Secretaries of State regarding the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures in the several States. Second, the Commission will develop a set of standards for the conduct of Federal elections and make recommendations with respect to the periodic review and updating of the standards. Among the issues to be addressed by the standards are (1) procedures for voter registration and maintenance of lists of registered voters; (2) ballot design, voting equipment, the methods employed in counting [and recounting] votes, and the procedures for challenging the results; (3) factors that affect access to and the efficient and orderly operation of polling places, including hours of voting (which may include standards for a uniform national poll closing time for presidential elections); number and accessibility of polling stations; training of poll workers; methods of reducing delay; and steps to ensure that all voters who report to the polls have an opportunity to cast their vote; and (4) procedures for mail-in and absentee voting (including deadlines for receipt of mail-in and absentee ballots). Third, the Commission will make additional recommendations to Congress in regard to certain procedural aspects of Federal elections that are governed by Federal law (and would therefore require Congressional action to alter), such as whether Federal law should be amended to authorize Federal elections to be conducted (1) on dates other than those prescribed by current Federal law so as to permit weekend elections, voting on multiple days, or expanded early voting options; or (2) by means of the Internet. Federal Election Standards Implementation Grants Title II of the Act authorizes the FEC to provide matching grants and technical assistance to the States to improve the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures. The Federal share may not exceed 75 percent of the total costs of the program, project, or activity, although the FEC may waive this requirement in whole or in part where appropriate. Grants may be used for programs, projects and other activities whose purpose is to bring the conduct of Federal elections into conformity with the standards for Federal elections developed by the National Advisory Commission. Specifically, grants may be used to (1) hire employees or consultants to design and implement systems and procedures that meet the standards; (2) procure equipment, technology, and administrative and managerial support systems that meet the standards; (3) provide training or retraining to election officials, employees and volunteers in the proper use and maintenance of new systems and procedures that meet the standards; (4) enhance public confidence and participation in the electoral process by increasing awareness of new systems and procedures that meet the standards; and (5) evaluate the effectiveness of new systems and procedures put in place through Federal assistance under the Act.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing legislation to abolish the electoral college and provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of the United States. Until our recent national crash course in the federal election process, most Americans saw the Electoral College as a harmless anachronism. But 10 days ago, for the first time in over a century, the nation watched as the oath of office was administered to an elected president who failed to secure a plurality of the votes cast. The Constitution is clear, and I do not question the lawfulness or legitimacy of electing a president under these circumstances. Indeed, I join all patriotic citizens in wishing our new president well. But we must also ask--as many of my constituents have--whether an electoral system that negates the votes of half a million citizens is compatible with democratic values. This is not a partisan question. Indeed, I first raised it on the eve of the election, when it looked as though the shoe might be on the other foot--when many were predicting that the candidate of my own party might prevail with a minority of the popular vote. And the answer to that question is far more important than the political fortunes of any one candidate or party. The Electoral College presents a troubling contradiction for our democracy in at least two respects. First, and most obviously, it cannot be squared with the principle of majority rule. To award the presidency to the loser of the popular vote undermines respect for the system and compromises the new president's mandate to govern. Second, the Electoral College is inconsistent with the principle of ``one person, one vote''. This is because the system by which electors are assigned gives disproportionate weight to less populous states. Massachusetts has one electoral vote for every 500,000 people, while Wyoming has one for every 160,000. In other words, a vote cast in Wyoming counts three times as much as a vote cast in Massachusetts. Some defend the Electoral College because it carries the weight of constitutional authority. I agree that the Constitution should be amended only rarely and with great care. But the system designed by the framers for electing the president has already been amended, by the 12th and 22nd Amendments. And until ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the U.S. Senate was elected not by the people, but by state legislatures. Few would argue that the original purpose of the Electoral College retains any relevance today. It reflected a mistrust of the electorate which we no longer endorse--the same mistrust that denied the people the right to elect their senators, and withheld the vote altogether from women, African-Americans and persons who did not own property. Far from embodying some essential constitutional principle, the Electoral College was a political compromise, born of an era in which the states were 13 separate sovereignties determined to defend their interests. While regional differences have not disappeared, they have been greatly diluted by the growth of a common national identity. After 200 years of migration of people and ideas, the states themselves are far more heterogeneous, and far more similar, than when the compromise was struck. While admitting that the original justification for the Electoral College no longer exists, its defenders claim that it serves some other, modern purpose. They argue, for example, that without the Electoral College, candidates will campaign only in major population centers, ignoring more sparsely populated regions. Yet even the residents of rural states tend to live within close proximity to a major metropolitan area. And even if their fears were to materialize, it is hard to see how this would be worse than the targeted campaigning in which the candidates recently engaged, writing off whole sections of the country and concentrating only on the so-called ``battleground states.'' With every vote in play, candidates would no longer have an incentive to take anyone for granted. Others contend that abolishing the Electoral College would further undermine the stability and finality of the electoral process. They point out that Florida's was not the only state race to be decided by a very small margin, and argue that if every vote were to count equally, recounts and court challenges would proliferate. Yet wouldn't this be likelier to happen if the Electoral College is retained? Without it, state wins and losses would no longer have electoral significance. All that would matter is the nationwide count. Let's not forget that what happened in Florida was only a glimpse of the problems the Electoral College can cause. Had neither candidate received the required 270 electoral votes, the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives--where the controversy could have taken weeks or months longer to resolve. I am under no illusion about the difficulty of enacting a constitutional amendment. But now is the time to act--while the memory of our recent experience is fresh. Congress has considered Electoral College reform before--but only when spurred on by electoral crises. The Senate held hearings in 1992, when it seemed that the Perot candidacy might deadlock the Electoral College. After George Wallace ran as a third-party candidate in 1968, the House actually approved a constitutional amendment, but it fell victim to a Senate filibuster. We shouldn't wait for the next crisis before confronting the problem. There have been several thoughtful proposals to reform the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment, and they deserve a hearing. My own view, however, is that halfway measures cannot address the fundamental contradiction which the Electoral College represents in a mature democracy. That's why the bill I am introducing today would abolish it outright. Public officials, from selectmen to senators, are chosen by majority vote. That's the way it's supposed to work in a democracy. And that's how we should elect the president of the greatest democracy on earth.