Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, as the dust settles 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. In this regard, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues an initiative launched just yesterday by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Caltech, to develop a new voting machine that will be easy to use, reliable, secure and affordable. With an initial grant from the Carnegie Corporation, the venture will bring together a team of leading experts in technology, design, and political science to develop technological solutions to the problems that have occurred not only in Florida but throughout the country. This is a very promising development, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we will do all we can to foster such private sector initiatives. But we must also be sure that State and local election officials have the wherewithal to take advantage of new technologies. That is why when the 107th Congress convenes in January, I will join with Congressman Graham and a number of our colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of future Federal elections. The ``Federal Election Standards Act'' would establish a National Advisory Commission on Federal Election Standards to study the accuracy, integrity, and efficiency of Federal election procedures and develop standards of best practice for the conduct of Federal elections. The commission would have one year to complete its work. Once the commission has issued its report, the bill would authorize Federal grants and technical assistance to States that wish to adopt measures for reform of their election procedures in a manner consistent with the standards. 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. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the next congress will take prompt action on this legislation, so that the most advanced nation on earth will have an electoral system that is up to the task. [MIT News Office] MIT, Caltech Join Forces to Develop Reliable, Uniform US Voting Machine (By Sarah H. Wright) Cambridge, MA, Dec. 14.--The presidents of MIT and Caltech have announced a collaborative project to develop an easy-to- use, reliable, affordable and secure United States voting machine that will prevent a recurrence of the problems that threatened the 2000 presidential election. The announcement was made in a joint video news conferences at MIT and Caltech on Thursday. ``It is embarrassing to America when technology fails and puts democracy to such a test as it did this month,'' said Caltech President David Baltimore, who opened the hour-long live teleconference in Pasadena, California. ``Academic institutions have a responsibility to help repair the voting process so that we don't see anything like this again. This project is intended to protect the system from the problems we've seen in the last election,'' Dr. Baltimore said. MIT President Charles M. Vest, speaking from Cambridge, echoed Dr. Baltimore's concern for the security and credibility of the voting process. ``We must find a solution. Each of us must be confident that his or her vote has been reliably recorded and counted. A country that has put a man on the moon and an ATM machine on every corner has no excuse,'' said Dr. Vest. ``America needs a uniform balloting procedure. This has become painfully obvious in the current national election, but the issue is deeper and broader than one series of events,'' said Vest and Baltimore in a Dec. 12 letter to President Vartan Gregorian of Carnegie Corporation of New York. Gregorian said, ``I want to congratulate the two presidents of our nation's most distinguished universities for their leadership in this welcome and timely initiative on behalf of our election system. Voting is the fundamental safeguard of our democracy and we have the technological power to ensure that every person's vote does count. MIT and Caltech have assembled a team of America's top technology and political science scholars to deal with an issue no voter wants ignored. This research is certain to ensure that America's voting process is strengthened-'' Gregorian said he will recommend the Carnegie Corporation board fund the $250,000 initial phase of the research. The grant will used by a team of two professors from each university who are experts in technology, design and political science. The four members of the team are Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professors Stephen Ansolabehere of political science and Nicholas Negroponte, chairman of the MIT Media Lab; and Caltech Professors Thomas Palfrey of political science and economics and Jehoshua Bruck of computation and neural systems and electrical engineering.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in this era of visual images and electronic cacophony, a great many people yearn for a voice of wisdom. A voice of calm and common sense. For a great many years, residents of Quincy, MA, have been blessed with such a voice--that of Roy Lind of radio station WJDA. When Roy retires soon, after decades of leadership in our community, he will leave a legacy of civic commitment that spans several generations. As I think back, it seems as though Roy was always at the kitchen table, sharing a cup of coffee as we pondered the great, and not so great, questions of the day. His voice provoked, illuminated and motivated us. Day in and day out, for 39 wonderfully full years, his has been a voice of passion and compassion, of humility and humor. While Roy is rooted firmly in the challenges facing the South Shore, his work has been anything but parochial. A Quincy native, he started at WJDA in 1959 after a tour of duty in Korea. Along the way, he's covered space launches, interviewed Presidents, and announced the America's Cup. He does his homework, then weaves the local with the national in ways that helps others better understand the world around us. That's why Roy has been recognized by his professional peers for excellence in radio documentary. Roy asks a good question, and gets a direct answer. For those of us accustomed to how his voice has educated his audience, it's heartening to sense the growing national thirst for straight talk these days in other public arenas. Roy has taught us that it is possible to dissect a public issue without dissembling his guest; to get to the heart of a problem without going for someone's jugular; and to cut through double-talk without coarsening the tone of public debate. And in the Quincy tradition, he has also taken the time to give back to his community in countless other ways, as honors from the Quincy Jewish War Veterans and the Scituate Rotary can attest. As his distinguished career soon comes to a pause, many of Roy's loyal listeners will continue to hear his voice: a comforting baritone, a voice of reason and mutual respect and love of life--in short, the voice of the South Shore.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 534. I particularly want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California, for her authorship and her fine work on this very significant bill before us. This bill is about fairness, the most American of virtues, if you will. It is really, truly about preserving local businesses that are a cornerstone in our communities. For small business, arbitration is often an effective alternative to going to court to settle disputes, and where arbitration is in their interests, sensible business people will generally agree to do that. But they do not need to be coerced. Chances are that when coercion is involved, it is because the party with greater leverage stands to gain from a procedure that deprives the other party of its rights and remedies under State law, laws that were enacted to protect the less powerful from predatory practices. By passing H.R. 534, we can level the playing field, so that both the manufacturer and the dealer are free to negotiate dispute resolution procedures that are truly voluntary and truly in their mutual interest. Some have charged that this interferes with freedom of contract. Nothing could be further from the truth, unless you define ``freedom of contract'' as the freedom of giant multinational auto makers to impose one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it contracts on small, locally owned dealerships. Let us pause and remember who these local dealers are. They are the people who sustain our local economies, who offer valuable goods and services to consumers and provide jobs, and they pay taxes. They are the people who contribute to their communities in ways that cannot be measured in terms of dollars and cents. It is the local dealer who sponsors the little league team; it is the local auto dealer who funds the after-school programs, and church picnics, and food banks, and domestic violence shelters. It is the local auto dealer who is often the president of the local chamber of commerce and also the chairman of the United Way. The people we are talking about are an integral part of the fabric of our communities. They are truly a mainstay of the American way of life, and they are slowly, inexorably being squeezed out by economic forces that they cannot control, but by forces we can control. We have heard a lot about globalization lately, and many of us are frustrated by our inability to temper its negative effects on the health of our communities. The use by large corporations of unfair, unbalanced franchise agreements is only one of those effects; but it is one that we can address, and we do it with this bill. Some have complained that the bill does not go far enough, that consumers and other segments of the small business community deserve comparable attention. Well, they are right, but that is not an argument against this bill. It is an argument, in fact, in favor of it. But by passing H.R. 534 we will be raising the bar for what constitutes fair dealing in all commercial relationships and setting a precedent that will ultimately lead to greater fairness and greater freedom for all. Again, I conclude by thanking the sponsor of this bill for her outstanding work, and urge its enactment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the thirtieth anniversary of U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. For all of us who go to the sea, for pleasure or by profession, the Air Station has been an enormously reassuring presence all these years. Since its commissioning in 1970, Air Station Cape Cod has performed more than 10,000 search-and-rescue missions, saved 3,500 lives and saved more than $450 million in property--all this while safeguarding our natural resources and seizing shipments of illegal drugs bound for our shores. It's all in a long day's work--and often a long night's work as well--for the personnel of the U.S. Coast Guard. While the breathtaking heroics of the men and women of the Air Station have recently been made famous by recent feature films, perhaps the most fitting tribute comes from the grateful communities served by the men and women of the Air Station. I am pleased to enter in today's Congressional Record the following words of appreciation from a recent edition of the Cape Cod Times newspaper. [From the Cape Cod Times, Aug. 30, 2000] Air Station Cape Cod Turns 30 (By Kevin Dennehy) Air Station Cape Cod--Ed Greiner won't soon forget the week last summer he moved his family to Cape Cod to assume his duty as executive officer at the local Coast Guard installation. That same weekend, John F. Kennedy Jr.'s airplane dove into the Atlantic Ocean. And within hours, the tragedy sparked one of the largest Coast Guard searches ever undertaken off Cape shores, and a media swarm that enveloped the Upper Cape air station for several days. But then, it was not that much different than what the Coast Guard does on a regular basis, Greiner says. ``Sure, it was hectic,'' he said yesterday. ``But it was a large version of what we're trained to do, and do everyday.'' They've been doing what they do at Air Station Cape Cod since August 1970. Yesterday, the Coast Guard marked its 30th anniversary with a quiet ceremony at one of the station's hangars. It's been a busy three decades. Since 1970, pilots and crews have responded to more than 9,500 calls--nearly one search-and-rescue mission per day during that time. As of yesterday, they'd saved 3,312 lives and prevented the loss of $455 million worth of property. ``For recreational boaters and those who use the water to make a living, it adds a measure of safety,'' Greiner said. ``If folks get into trouble, we're always standing ready to assist.'' One of the busiest of America's 24 air stations, Air Station Cape Cod started operating when Air Station Salem and Air Detachment Quonset Point, R.I., were consolidated in 1970. About 400 employees work at the station, including 250 active-duty members. And with more than 2,000 people--including those from other military branches--living in the nearly 700 units of Coast Guard housing, it's the largest continuous presence on the base. These days, the Coast Guard uses four Jayhawks and four HU- 25 Falcon jets to conduct nearly 300 rescue missions each year. The Coast Guard also assists in law enforcement and fishing zone enforcement; is involved in drug interdiction; and repairs navigational aids throughout the northern Atlantic. ``It's a great job,'' said Lt. Bill Bellatty, who flies a HH-60 Jayhawk helicopter at the station. ``It's always great when you save lives. It's when it's nasty out that it's terrible. That's when we earn our money.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to join my good friend from Texas, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, in support of this amended bill. I want to express my truly profound gratitude to him for his willingness to address the concerns that were raised by the administration and others regarding the bill as originally introduced. The bill before us is a consensus effort. In this time of cynicism about government and the sometimes strident debate we hear, this kind of bipartisan effort should remind the American people that Members with different perspectives who work hard and act in good faith can accomplish an excellent and bipartisan result. Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership. I also want to acknowledge the critical involvement of Senator Don Nickles, the author of the companion bill in the Senate, as well as Senators Kennedy and Landrieu who worked so closely with us to get this measure, hopefully, to the President's desk. Finally, let me express my appreciation to a number of key staff members without whom we would not be here today. I notice George Fishman, counsel to the subcommittee, and Peter Levinson of the full committee staff also played a key role. I would be remiss not to note the contribution of a Senate staffer, McLane Layton of Senator Nickles' staff, who has not only been a major force behind this legislation but is herself the parent of children adopted from Latvia. Her concern and passion to remedy discrimination against adopted children is truly remarkable. I would also be remiss not to mention my own legislative director who has poured his heart and soul into this effort, Mark Agrast. Mr. Speaker, today is truly a good day, a day that has been long in coming for adoptive parents like myself who feel deeply that their children who were born overseas have been treated differently, as if they were less American than are children who were born in the United States. For the law currently provides that our foreign-born sons and daughters are aliens. They do not have the benefits of citizenship when they arrive on our shores, come into our homes and fill up our lives with joy and love. No, we must petition for naturalization on their behalf, as if we, their parents, were not American citizens. That is unacceptable to Americans who have adopted and particularly for those who are considering adoption. That lengthy process of naturalization requires them to deal with a bureaucracy that is already overburdened and lacking in resources, for no valid reason. It is insulting to parents who have already overcome innumerable administrative obstacles to adopt our children and to bring them home. And more importantly, it is disrespectful to our children. This bill would change all that. Under the bill, citizenship would be conferred automatically on all adopted children once they are in the United States. Parents will no longer be required to submit an application to have their children naturalized. Adopted children will no longer be the subject of discrimination. And parents will no longer need to worry about whether their children are citizens or not. And, of course, the INS will be relieved of the need to spend its limited resources on some 16,000 naturalization cases for the past year alone, and that number is expected to increase. Furthermore, this bill would avoid some heartbreaking injustices that have sometimes tragically occurred. Some parents have discovered to their horror that their failure to complete the paperwork in time can result in their forced separation from their children under the summary deportation provisions Congress enacted back in 1996. That was the experience of the Gaul family of Florida who adopted their son John at the age of 4. Though he was born in Thailand, he speaks no Thai, has no Thai relatives, knows nothing of Thai culture and has never been back to Thailand, until the U.S. Government deported him last year as a criminal alien at the age of 25 for property offenses that he had committed when he was a teenager. One may ask how this could happen. The Gauls had obtained an American birth certificate for John shortly after adopting him and did not realize until he applied for a passport at age 17 that he had never been naturalized. They immediately filed the papers; but due to INS delays, his application was not processed before he turned 18. An immigration judge ruled that the agency had taken too long to process the application, but that did not make any difference. The 1996 law allowed him no discretion to halt the deportation. At least that is how the INS interpreted it. In another recent incident, Joao Herbert, a 22-year-old Ohioan adopted as a young boy from Brazil, was ordered deported because as a teenager he sold several ounces of marijuana to a police informant. It was his first criminal offense, for which he was sentenced only to probation and community treatment. But under the law he was an aggravated felon subject to deportation because he had never been naturalized. He has now been in detention for a year and a half because the Brazilians consider his adoption irrevocable and refuse to accept him. And were they to do so, it is uncertain how he would get by. Like John Gaul, he knows no one in his native country and no longer understands his native tongue. No one condones criminal acts, Mr. Speaker; but the terrible price these young people and their families have paid is out of proportion to their misdeeds. Whatever they did, they should be treated like any other American kid. They are our children, and we are responsible for them. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides relief from deportation to one particular group of noncitizens who are subject to deportation under the 1996 law, namely, those who voted or registered to vote in U.S. elections in the reasonable mistaken belief that they were citizens at the time. This is a modest but important change that will correct a glaring injustice in our immigration laws. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support and the full support of the administration. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and his staff and our colleagues at INS for their cooperation and hard work in enabling us to reach this result. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of this legislation.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to describe the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am very glad to join my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, in urging support for this bill. I understand the other body has agreed to accept this amendment, and I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith); the full chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and Senators Abraham, Kennedy and Landrieu for all of their efforts to help us resolve the impasse over these final amendments to this important legislation. The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is of enormous importance to adopted kids and their families, and this implementing legislation is absolutely critical to ensuring that both parents and adoptive families can participate in the intercountry adoption process with full confidence and a greater sense of security. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the ranking member; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson); the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), who has worked so hard on so many issues dealing with adoption, and the many other Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard on behalf of this legislation. Again, I want to thank Senators Helms, Biden and Landrieu for working with us in such a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to achieve this splendid result. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to a number of staff members without whose dedication and persistence we would not be standing here today. So let me name Kristen Gilley, who is here with us, and David Abramowitz of the Committee on International Relations; Cassie Bevan of the House Committee on Ways and Means staff; George Fishman and Peter Levinson of the Committee on the Judiciary staff; and my own legislative director, Mr. Mark Agrast. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, there are plenty of needles within 1000 feet of schools, housing projects and playgrounds. Unfortunately, they are dirty needles and their use is spreading AIDS and promoting drug abuse, but this amendment will do nothing, nothing to change that tragic reality. We are really kidding ourselves if we believe we can stop drug abuse by banning one of the few public health measures that actually makes a difference in the real world. When I was prosecuting and putting people in jail for drug use, for drug trafficking, I supported local needle exchange efforts because they work. They do not encourage drug abuse, and they do save lives by halting AIDS and other serious diseases transmitted by dirty needles. Serious problems demand serious solutions. Reject this amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), asked, Is this legislation necessary? And he points to the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming who died for no other reason other than he was gay, and to James Byrd in Texas who died for no reason than because he was black, and I would add Joseph Ileto of California who died for no other than reason other than he was Asian. Is there a need? I submit there is a clear need. When such actions take place in other countries, when individuals are persecuted because of their identity, whether it be racial or religious, our law, the United States law, recognizes this is no ordinary crime and grants them a remedy. We entitle them to petition for asylum. Why would we do less to protect our own citizens from the very same crimes? Is there a need? Yes, there is a need. Some have said we should not pass this law because hate crimes are a local matter. Well, I agree, and I know that the authors of this legislation, this motion, also agree. The vast majority of those crimes are investigated and prosecuted at the State and local level. In this measure, if it is enacted, it will continue that same status quo. All this legislation will do is to ensure, when local authorities request assistance, or are unable or unwilling to act, Federal law enforcement agencies will have the ability to come to their aid. That is why the sheriffs of this country and the chiefs of police in this country support this legislation. Support the motion.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I know it is not the intention of my friend and colleague to mislead, but I think it is very important to be clear here that those individuals that are presently incarcerated facing the death penalty in Texas would still be there facing that death penalty if the instructions that will be offered in the Conyers motion prevail. It is clear that there is nothing in the Conyers motion that would preclude a State prosecution, absolutely nothing whatsoever; and to suggest that is, I would submit, unintentionally misleading. I also find it ironic that my colleague has concerns about the States' positions on these particular issues, as if the Attorney General will not work with the States to do what is right. The gentleman should be aware that the legislation is supported by the National Sheriffs Association and by the International Association of the Chiefs of Police.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, last month marked the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The federal government commemorated this historic milestone through many activities--from President Clinton announcing new proposals to make it easier for Social Security disability beneficiaries to contribute to the workforce without losing their benefits, to the House approving the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, to the opening of a new exhibit that examines the history of the disability rights movement at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. These activities are a long overdue symbol of federal commitment to individuals with disabilities. And to build on this momentum I would like to submit the eloquent testimony of Mr. Elmer Bartels, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, regarding employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. [From the Cape Cod Times, June 4, 2000] Employers With Labor Shortages Should Look to Vocational Rehabilitation (By Elmer C. Bartels) It is a fact that today more individuals with disabilities are in the workplace earning real wages than ever before. Certainly the booming economy has a lot to do with it, but there is much more to the story than just that. The unsung hero in the struggle to enhance employment opportunities for people with disabilities is the Federal/ State Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, authorized and funded under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For nearly 80 years, and against great odds and prejudices, the State Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program has helped people with disabilities prepare to enter the workplace. Every state has a vocational rehabilitation agency whose sole purpose is to assist people with disabilities obtain the skills, training and confidence necessary to enable them to take their rightful place in the economy. However, until the passage of Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in 1975 and later the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, opportunities in the workplace were limited and often resulted in placement in sheltered workshops. mainstream opportunities However, with advances in technology and the shortage of qualified workers, new mainstream work opportunities are becoming more available for persons with disabilities. When the Work Incentives Improvement Act (WIIA) was signed into law on Dec. 17, another impediment was removed in addressing the nation's efforts to encourage people with severe disabilities to go to work. Nationally, there are, according to the General Accounting Office, about 2.5 million people with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits under both Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) who could possibly benefit from WIIA. (This population represents about 27 percent of the total number of individuals who are eligible to access the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program.) WIIA's assurance of the continued availability of health insurance, under both Medicaid and Medicare, for SSI and SSDI recipients, will remove a formidable barrier to their employment. Public vocational rehabilitation counselors assess the skills and interests of people with disabilities, help them development individualized plans for employment, and purchase or arrange for the services or training they need to become qualified for jobs. 225,000 people helped This program can provide any reasonable and necessary services to help individuals with disabilities get ready for real work. Last year, the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program helped 225,000 people with disabilities across America enter the work force. In Massachusetts, the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, through the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, helped 4,800 individuals with disabilities go to work in 1999. Federal funding for vocational rehabilitation was $2.4 billion in 1999. The states matched those federal funds with $600 million of their own, resulting in a $3 billion national Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. The distribution formula of federal funds to the states is based upon the population and per capita income of each state. The $3 billion spent nationally on vocational rehabilitation services produces $2.6 billion in employee earnings and $850 million in state and federal revenues during a single year of employment alone. this is an incredible return-on-investment in light of the fact that those earnings continue for years without the expenditure of additional vocational rehabilitation dollars. a 5-to-1 return on the dollar The Social Security Administration reports that each dollar spent for the vocational rehabilitation of SSA recipients results in $5 in savings to the Trust Fund and treasury. The 225,000 individuals with disabilities employed last year will continue to earn real wages and pay state and federal taxes far in excess of the investment made in their employment future by the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Despite the extraordinary success of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program, half of the states restrict the number of people with disabilities served due to a lack of funds. It is estimated that an additional $600 million in federal monies, plus the state match of $120 million, would eliminate waiting lists in every state and help another 54,000 people with disabilities go to work. Additional public vocational rehabilitation services and the guarantee of medical coverage under the WIIA would significantly reduce the unacceptably high rate of unemployment among people with disabilities. According to statistics compiled by the GAO, it is estimated that between 15 million and 20 million Americans have health-related work limitations. Each year the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program serves 1.2 million people with disabilities who want to work. High unemployment rate A recent Harris survey indicates that 71 percent of working-age Americans with disabilities are unemployed and of that number, 72 percent want to work. However, 42 percent of working-age Americans with disabilities believe that they are too disabled to work. The highly qualified, professional vocational rehabilitation counselors of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program work with individuals with significant disabilities to help them recognize that it is possible for even the most significantly disabled individuals to increase their economic and personal independence through work. The passage of WIIA and the guarantee of continued health insurance coverage for Social Security recipients makes work a realistic goal for many more people with significant disabilities. A recently completed seven-year study by the Research Triangle Institute, confirmed once again the success of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program by showing that it is highly effective in placing people with disabilities into productive jobs. No other federal or state program has received this type of scrutiny and measured up to such a high level of successful outcomes. independent lives It proved once again that the federal/state effort to improve the lives of persons with disabilities by allowing them to live independent and productive lives is on the right track. In particular, the study shows that: Graduates of Public VR worked an average of 35 hours per week and earned an average of $7.35 per hour; 37.5 percent of the graduates earned more than $7 per hour; 78.4 percent of graduates work in professional, managerial, technical, clerical, sales or service jobs; 85 percent of graduates were working in the same or other job one year after graduation; 67.6 percent of graduates were satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs; 67.1 percent of graduates were satisfied or very satisfied the opportunity for advancement with their jobs; 61.5 percent of graduates were satisfied with fringe benefits with their jobs. The number of hours worked by consumers, the wages they earned, and their satisfaction with jobs and working conditions are all strong endorsements of the efficacy of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Clearly, the Rehabilitation Act, and the ADA have helped to create a societal expectation that people with disabilities can and should have the opportunity to work. Now, WIIA provides for the health care supports essential to individuals with disabilities who want to work. Adequate funding of the Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program will help thousands more people with disabilities obtain good jobs. The administration and Congress will demonstrate fiscal responsibility and a wise investment in the human resources of our nation by adequately funding Public Vocational Rehabilitation in the federal year 2001. The American economy needs workers, people with disabilities need work opportunities, and the federal treasury needs more taxpayers. The Public Vocational Rehabilitation Program pays for itself many times over in taxes and human potential realized.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about the amendments regarding needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia that are being offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). The bill before us already bars the use of Federal funds to pay for these programs. But the Souder amendment would go further. It would prohibit the people of the District from using their own money, money obtained through local taxation, for programs that are widely supported by the local citizenry. This is unfair to D.C. citizens who find themselves subject to the whims of representatives whom they did not elect. But I would submit it is also a terrible precedent for the country as a whole, because despite the squeamishness of some Members of Congress at the mere sight of a needle, the truth is that these programs work. They prevent HIV infection. They do not encourage or increase drug abuse. In fact, there is solid evidence that they actually help reduce drug abuse by encouraging injection drug users to enter treatment. It is bad enough for legislators to overrule local decision-makers in matters of this kind, but it is the worst kind of irresponsibility for us to substitute our own uninformed opinions for the sound judgment of the public health community, to say, in effect, Our minds are made up. Don't confuse us with facts. I have seen what needle exchange programs have accomplished in Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman. I know they save lives. If the Souder amendment becomes law, more people in Washington, D.C., may be infected with the AIDS virus. More people will die of it. And our Nation's capital will continue to lose ground in its fight to protect the public health of its citizens. On the other hand, if the Souder amendment is enacted, local needle exchange programs in the District will somehow manage to carry on their work without the benefit of public funding as they have been doing with the current restrictions. But the Tiahrt amendment would have a serious and immediate impact on these existing programs. It would prohibit them from distributing sterile needles within 1,000 feet of a school or university, public housing project, student center or other recreational facility. I realize the gentleman is trying to protect children from exposure to unsafe needles and the drugs that are used to inject. I only wish the problem were that simple. As a former law enforcement official, I have spent considerable time in our inner cities. The reality is there are plenty of needles out there well within 1,000 feet of schools and housing projects and student centers, and those needles are not sterile. This amendment will do nothing to change that tragic reality. It will not keep out the drugs and drug paraphernalia that litter these urban battlegrounds, if you will. It will not keep out the diseases that are spread by ignorance and lack of sanitation. What it will do is make sure that these kids who inject drugs and who live in these neighborhoods, the very young people who are at most risk for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other diseases transmitted through infected needles, will have no recourse but to reuse unsterile equipment. We cannot cure the problem by throwing a cordon around our public institutions. Only good science and sound health policy can do that. I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, which would prevent the execution of a woman who is carrying a child. As the lead sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act, I commend the authors of the bill for their concern that innocent human beings not be executed. However, I urge them to recognize that there may also be a second innocent human being involved in such cases--namely the mother herself. Unfortunately, this very limited measure does nothing to prevent the execution of an innocent adult human being for a crime she did not commit. The Innocence Protection Act of 2000 (H.R. 4167), which Mr. LaHood and I have introduced, would prevent such a thing from happening. Its two principal provisions concern the two most important tools by which the possibility of error can be minimized: DNA testing and competent legal representation. This legislation arose out of a growing national awareness that the machinery by which we try capital cases in this country has gone seriously and dangerously awry. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, a total of 653 men and women have been executed in the United States, including 55 so far this year alone. During this same period, 87 people--more than one out of every 100 men and women sentenced to death in the United States--have been exonerated after spending years on death row for crimes they did not commit. It is cases like these that convinced such organizations as the American Bar Association--which has no position on the death penalty per se--to call for a halt to executions until each jurisdiction can ensure that it has taken steps to minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. It is cases like these that convinced Governor Ryan--a Republican and a supporter of the death penalty--to put a stop to executions in Illinois until he could be certain that ``everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty.'' It is cases like these that should convince every American that Governor Ryan and the American Bar Association are right. We may not all agree on the ultimate morality or utility of capital punishment. Indeed, you have before you a pair of cosponsors who differ on that question. I spent my career as a prosecutor in opposition to the death penalty. Congressman LaHood is a supporter of the death penalty. But we agree profoundly that a just society cannot engage in the killing of the innocent. We have come together in this bipartisan effort to help prevent what Governor Ryan has called ``the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life.'' I have heard some suggest that the concerns expressed by Governor Ryan are somehow peculiar to the State of Illinois. Nothing could be further from the truth. The system is fallible everywhere it is in place. Only last month we received fresh evidence of this with the release of the first comprehensive statistical study ever undertaken of modern American capital appeals. The study, led by Professor James Liebman of Columbia University, looked at over 4,500 capital cases in 34 states over a 23-year period. According to the study, the courts found serious, reversible error in 68 percent of the capital sentences handed down over this period. And when these individuals were retried, 82 percent of them were found not to deserve the death penalty, and 7 percent were found innocent of the capital crime altogether. These are shocking statistics, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to imagine many other human enterprises that would continue to operate with such a sorry record. I dare say that if seven out of every 10 NASA flights burned up in the upper atmosphere, we'd be reassessing the space program. If commercial airlines operated their planes with a 68 percent failure rate, we'd all be taking the train. Yet even if these statistics are wildly exaggerated, where the taking of human life is involved, it seems to me we must strive to reach ``zero tolerance'' for error. As Governor Ryan recently said, ``99.5 percent isn't good enough'' when lives are in the balance. Nothing we can do will bring absolute certainty. Judges, jurors, police, eyewitnesses, defense attorneys, and prosecutors themselves-- all are human beings, and all make mistakes. As a prosecutor for over 20 years, I certainly made my share of them. But we do have the means at our disposal to minimize the possibility of error. And where lives are at stake, we have a responsibility to put those tools to use. The Innocence Protection Act will help ensure that fewer mistakes are made in capital cases. And that when mistakes are made, they are caught in time. I hope that the authors of today's bill are truly serious about the need to prevent the execution of the innocent, and that they will join the 79 members of this House--both Republicans and Democrats--who have cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, well, this day has been long in coming. And while I still have some reservations about certain provisions of the bill, it certainly is a good day. I might add parenthetically that today happens to be my birthday, and passage of this measure certainly would be the most memorable of birthday gifts. I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations; the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member; and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), my friend and colleague, who is the father of two adopted children from Korea; and our colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), who has been a leader not only in this particular effort but on other important adoption initiatives; as well as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith); also, a number of key officials at the Department of State who contributed substantially to this effort. Their advice and input are genuinely appreciated. I also want to express my appreciation to Senators Helms, Biden, and Landrieu, with whom the amended bill was carefully developed in the course of extensive consultations. And finally, I want to thank the many adoptive families, adoption experts and child service organizations that have been so generous with their encouragement and counsel on the many difficult issues that we had to confront. At our hearing on the bill last October, I promised to do all I could to see that this would be an open process and that their concerns would be heard. I believe that promise has been kept, Mr. Speaker, and that the extensive input we received has resulted in a bill that merits wide support. Mr. Speaker, I think many of my colleagues are aware of the fact that, for me, this is no ordinary piece of legislation. And intercountry adoption is not some abstract or theoretical policy question or concept. This past April 6, my family marked the 25th anniversary of the arrival of my younger daughter, Kara, who was airlifted out of Vietnam during ``Operation Baby-Lift'' just days before the fall of Saigon. I cannot express adequately to this House how profoundly her arrival changed our lives. Her mother, Katy, her sister, Kirsten, and I often reflect on how much richer and fuller our lives are because she is part of us, she is our family. But our experience is far from unique, as I am sure can be verified by my friend, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). It is shared by hundreds of thousands of families across this country, including a number of my colleagues in this House who have adopted from abroad. Intercountry adoption is not the answer to all the problems affecting children around the world, but it has given loving homes and a chance in life to needy children who could not be cared for in their countries of origin. When the process works, it results in the successful placement of happy, well-adjusted children with responsible parents who will love and care for them. But problems, including some very serious problems, do occur. And while most of the leading international adoption agencies maintain high ethical and professional standards, sadly, this is not always the case. Documented abuses range from the charging of exorbitant fees by so- called ``facilitators'' in some countries to child kidnapping, baby smuggling; and coerced consent from birth mothers do occur. In some cases, information has been improperly held from adoptive families with regards to the child's medical and psychological condition. And tragically, some adoptions have been disrupted because the adoptive families were poorly prepared for their parenting responsibilities as a result of the failure of the agency to provide the necessary pre- and post-adoption counseling. Such concerns have caused a number of countries, including Russia, Romania, and Guatemala, to actually suspend overseas adoptions until safeguards could be put in place. For example, last March a special United Nations investigator reported to the Human Rights Commission that Guatemalan babies have been reduced to ``objects of trade and commerce.'' And that is a quote, ``objects of trade and commerce.'' According to her report, prominent lawyers, doctors, and judges in Guatemala were involved in a series of abuses from falsifying birth records to tricking or drugging frightened birth mothers into signing over their children. That is why the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is of such importance and this implementing language is so critical. It will help eliminate these abuses and enable both birth parents and adoptive families to participate in the intercountry adoption process with full confidence and a sense of security. It is also important to understand the importance of the United States' role on this issue. As the largest receiving country for adopted children, the United States played a prominent role in negotiating the Convention. Since Americans adopt four out of five children that are placed through intercountry adoption, it is certainly in our national interest to secure ratification. And while 40 nations have already ratified the document, many more are simply waiting to see what we will do. U.S. ratification will signal our commitment to these standards and will reassure sending countries that we intend to abide by them. And I am hopeful that it will encourage people everywhere to consider the benefits of international adoption. On the other hand, should we fail to ratify, we will deal a serious setback to the Convention and will cause major sending nations to reconsider whether to continue to send their children here. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this legislation represents a compromise on many tough issues. And every compromise involves some degree of sacrifice by all concerned. I am, therefore, very grateful that so many organizations representing such a broad spectrum of opinion have been willing to put aside their broader agendas and give their support to the bill. Again, I want to thank all who have contributed to this effort. But before I conclude, I would be remiss not to take particular note of the extraordinary contributions of the following staff: Kristen Gilley of the Committee on International Relations; David Abramowitz of the Committee on International Relations minority staff; Cassie Bevan of the Committee on Ways and Means of the majority staff; and Mark Agrast, my own legislative director. As I suggested, this has been an arduous and lengthy process. I have no doubt that this legislation has involved more meetings and conversations and discussions than possibly any other proposal in the 106th Congress. But for their efforts, it is clear that we would not be here today. Their dedication, their persistence and their commitment bordered at times on the Herculean. We all, particularly those who adopt children from overseas, are deeply in their debt and we recognize that their motivation was a deep and profound concern, love, if you will, for children everywhere on God's good Earth who are in the most desperate of situations. So, on behalf of all of us, especially those children, I thank my colleagues. They have truly made a difference. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would simply conclude by saying I am sure that my family is watching, and they heard the reference by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) to the agency that placed Kathryn with the Pomeroy family, and I do not want to leave the floor and receive a telephone call, so I really want to acknowledge the Holt International Children's Services in Eugene, Oregon, giving me the greatest gift of all, which was my daughter, Kara. I particularly want to acknowledge Susan Cox, who several years ago I encountered and engaged me in this particular legislation; but, as I said, in my remarks, it certainly is a good day. Mr. Speaker, it is a good day for hopefully tens of thousands of children all over this planet who will find a deserving home. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I want to commend the members of the Committee on Appropriations and, in particular, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for recognizing the important role that women play in Southeast Europe in the former Soviet Union. I would also like to note several innovative steps that the Europe and Eurasia Bureau of AID has taken to ensure that gender issues are considered in our programming. By gender issues, we mean identifying and analyzing the problems and possibilities that may affect men and women differently and using that information to carry out programs which address the needs and opportunities of both women and men. For example, at a policy level, gender issues are integrated throughout the new E&E strategic framework, the policy document which will shape AIDS work in the region for the next several years. This is a first step for a USAID regional bureau. The language includes the following: gender is being integrated into the Europe and Eurasia programs to ensure that the United States is promoting equal access and opportunities, equal rights and equal protection in its assistance programs. At a program level, preliminary work on this new approach of considering the problems of both men and women has already produced promising results. In central Asia, a recent AID study examined health costs by gender and found that men and women used health facilities differently for general care and that the costs are significantly different. Men go to hospitals and women go to local clinics, since hospitals are much more expensive than clinics. The study recommended that clinics create outreach programs specific to men. This will result in considerable savings in health funding. In the Ukraine, creating more women entrepreneurs was an important way to combat the problem of high unemployment rates for women. But absent specific attention to women, business programs often tended to focus principally on men. Consequently, in 1999, AID asked business development implementers to analyze the best methods for reaching women as well as men. The best methods for reaching women based on this analysis resulted in many more women entering the market economy. In one business training center, woman clients increased 23 percent between 1999 and 2000.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I thank her for her comments, and again I want to acknowledge her leadership and that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in making this a reality. Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, one of the great rewards of public service is the opportunity to work with some of the finest people in this great land. It is with pleasure and pride that I honor today the men and women of Local 103 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on the occasion of an historic milestone in its long and accomplished legacy. At the turn of the last century, 12 courageous men gathered in Boston to charter an IBEW local. The national labor union had been formed a decade earlier in St. Louis to help safeguard health and safety for a trade in which half the workers died on the job. Since then, Local 103 has grown to represent over 5,000 men and women working in construction and telecommunications in 106 Massachusetts cities and towns, with over 200 contractors and 30 collective bargaining agreements. In recent weeks, it was my privilege to participate in a commemoration of Local 103's one-hundredth anniversary. Over the last century, the IBEW has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for our community, and it has been a personal and professional inspiration to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Local 103 on behalf of its extended family. The able leadership of Local 103 has earned the respect and admiration of all of us who struggle for fundamental safeguards for working families. The breadth and stature of the leadership of Rich Gambino and his entire team would bring a proud smile to the faces of the 12 pioneers who assembled in 1900 with such vision. We take a moment to salute their memory--Leonard Kimball, Henry Thayer, John McLaughlan, Joseph Hurley, WC Woodward, James Reid, FC Stead, Joseph Matthews, Francis Wachler, Everett Calef, Theodore Gould and WW Harding. We honor their legacy by reaffirming their commitment to paving the way for fair, safe and rewarding work environment for all working men and women. To commemorate their work and aspirations, following are my remarks to the sisters and brothers of Local 103 to celebrate the dawning of the next century for the IBEW: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, May 6, 2000. Dear Friends: To greet the members of Local 103 is to see the face of the American middle class--the people whose mothers and fathers built this nation and the foundation for its future. From the presidential campaign to the corner grocery, one word you hear a lot these days is ``vision''. To some, it's little more than a throw-away line. But the rank-and-file of 103 has endured a century of world wars and building booms, of depressions and picket lines, of nonunion competition and responsibilities as big as the Hancock Tower. And the members of 103 have not only endured, but have thrived in ways that literally light up this Commonwealth. The work of Richie Gambino, the 5000 brothers and sisters of Local 103, and their predecessors over the last century, have laid a sound foundation for our community with genuine vision. Vision for economic opportunity and social justice; for traditional industry and for e-business; for global commerce and human rights. This vision is an engine of skill, hope and compassion which challenges friends, neighbors and even your adversaries to aspire to the standards of excellence personified by those dozen men who gathered 100 years ago in downtown Boston to lay down a marker for fundamental fairness for working people. Every stride we have made along the way has been earned by the proud work and outstretched hand that defines the vision of this extended family. We respect these humble beginnings by gathering today to reaffirm our commitment to collective bargaining and the equity it ensures--from wages to health care to retirement security. Over the last 100 years, this nation has been transformed in dozens of historic ways. But certain truths stand unchanged--and they are embodied in the principles for which we together stand, in Washington and here at home. Please accept my very best for a joyous celebration. Sincerely, William D. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that this is about fairness. It is that simple. And it is time. Mr. Chairman, we have discussed this in the committee before. It is time to address it. I think each and every Member in this body has dealt with a family that finds itself in limbo waiting for a loved one to come back. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing it forward, and I would hope that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) would recede on the point of order.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, where I come from, in metropolitan Boston, generations of otherwise well-adjusted citizens have suffered from the ill effects of a well-known curse. It is referred to as the ``Curse of the Bambino.'' Since the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth, life has never been quite the same, although I am one of those with deep quiet faith that the curse of the Bambino officially expires as we enter into the new millennium. I would note, for my colleagues and friends, folks like Mr. Freedman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), that if they check today's American League standings, they would find that the Yankees are in second place and the Red Sox are in first. I rise today, however, Mr. Speaker, to discuss a different kind of curse. Call it the ``Curse of the Can-Do.'' The curse afflicts the United States Coast Guard in its long proud tradition of never turning down a call for help, of never shirking new responsibility, even when the gas tank is literally on empty. It is too late for the Red Sox to get Babe Ruth back, but we still have an opportunity to ensure the readiness of the Coast Guard to discharge its lifesaving mission. So I take to the House floor to thank some colleagues who recently have helped lead us in that direction, but also to warn that we are still sailing into a very stiff wind. Last month, the House took historic steps to shore up Coast Guard resources to save lives, to prevent pollution, to fight drugs, to help the economy, to respond to natural disasters, and to enhance national security. Now it is up to us to see these efforts through. The fiscal year 2001 transportation appropriation bill, passed recently by the full House, would reverse more than a decade of chronic underfunding that has made it nearly impossible, nearly impossible, for the Coast Guard to do the work the Congress has mandated that it do. For the first time in recent memory, there is now genuine hope that we can adequately safeguard the lives and livelihoods of those who live and work on or near the water, from the small harbors of New England to the ice flows of Alaska; from the Great Lakes to the gulf coast to the banks of the Mississippi. I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). Their leadership has underscored the stark fact that the demands on the Coast Guard have vastly outpaced its resources. There is no longer margin for error, and the consequence of any such error is literally a life and death matter. Despite the fact that there are no more Coast Guard personnel today than there were in 1967, it is indisputable that day in and day out no public agency works harder or smarter. As a reminder, during the 1990s, the Coast Guard reduced its workforce by nearly 10 percent and operated within a budget that rose by only 1 percent in actual dollars. Actual dollars. Not dollars adjusted for inflation, but actual dollars. Over this period, it has also responded to a half million SOS calls, an average of approximately 65,000 each year, and, in the process, has saved 50,000 lives. Every year the Coast Guard performs 50,000 inspections of U.S. and foreign merchant vessels. It ensures the safe passage of a million commercial vessels through our ports and waterways. Every year it responds to 13,000 reports of water pollution. Every year it inspects 1,000 offshore drilling platforms. Every year it conducts 12,000 fisheries enforcement boardings. And every year it prevents 100,000 pounds of cocaine from reaching American shores and infecting the streets and neighborhoods of our communities. Two centuries of experience have taught us to rely on the professionalism, judgment, compassion, commitment and courage of the Coast Guard. From hurricane to airplane crashes; from drug smugglers to foreign factory trawlers, the Coast Guard is always, always, on call, just as it has been for some 200 years. We have learned to trust the Coast Guard with all we hold dear: our property, our natural resources, and our lives. In Washington, a long way from the sea and the wind and the whitecaps, it has been tempting to task the Coast Guard with new and multiple and burdensome missions. Far too tempting. As co-chair of the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus, along with my colleagues, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), I have had grave concerns for a long time. Most recently, much has been made of the demands on the Coast Guard for their work in the area of illegal drug interdiction. As a former prosecutor, I am all for fighting the drug war, and have fully supported calling upon the Coast Guard to step up its interdiction efforts, but not at the expense of its core mission, the saving of human lives. We just cannot wish away the costs, and I am not ready to start treating search and rescue like a luxury we can do without, any more than we can move cops off the beat and then complain about street crime. We have stretched the Coast Guard so thin for so long that it can barely be expected to fulfill its credo, Semper Paratus, ``Always Prepared.'' And there are scores and scores of new missions waiting in the wings. This year, the Coast Guard was the only Federal agency to earn an A from the Independent Government Performance Project for operating with unusual efficiency and effectiveness. That assessment placed the Coast Guard at the very top of 20 executive branch agencies because, and I am quoting now, ``because its top notch planning and performance budgeting overcame short staffing and fraying equipment.'' It all came down, they concluded, to what I mentioned earlier, the curse. The ``Curse of the Can-Do.'' ``The Coast Guard,'' they said, ``is a can-do organization whose `can' is dwindling while its `do' is growing.'' This just simply cannot continue, not when the average age of its deep water cutters is 27 years old, making this the second oldest naval fleet on the planet; not when fixed-wing aircraft deployments have more than doubled, and helicopter deployments are up more than 25 percent without any increase in the number of aircraft, pilots or crews; not when duty officers suffer chronic fatigue because staffing constraints permit only 4 hours of sleep at night; and not when the United States Coast Guard commandant testifies before Congress that there is not enough fuel to power the United States Coast Guard fleet; and not when the Coast Guard radio communication units are 30 years old, like the one described in a recent news account that began this way, and again I am quoting: ``If you dial 911, say the word `fire' and run outside, a fire engine will show up at your driveway. If you pick up the handset on your VHF-FM radio, say the word `Mayday' and jump overboard, you could very well drown or die of hypothermia.'' Study after study has documented these hazards. A recent interagency task force concluded that obsolescence presents a threat that the Coast Guard could soon be overwhelmed by a mismatch between its missions and the quantity and quality of the assets necessary to carry them out. A 1997 General Accounting Office review was even more blunt. It projected $90 million in annual reductions in operating expenses just to bridge the gap. The GAO was alarmed by the sheer size of the gap and the dwindling number of available efficiency-related options. Well, where I am from, a marine distress call is an urgent plea for emergency law enforcement and rescue personnel. When oil spills jeopardize economic as well as environmental resources, when frozen rivers trap heating oil barges, when the well-being of both fish and fishermen are threatened, when offshore danger strikes, we know where to turn, to the United States Coast Guard. That is why when the ink dried on the House Department of Transportation appropriation, there was reason for new and genuine hope. It was like having Pedro Martinez in the starting rotation, it felt like this really could be the year. Well, the bill approved recently for next year increases Coast Guard accounts by nearly $600 million, a 15-percent boost. It also includes $125 million to help modernize aging planes, helicopters, and motor lifeboats and upgrade rather than abandon Coast Guard stations in the communities that they serve. Years from now, the 395 Members of this House who voted for that bill can look back and take satisfaction from the knowledge that they helped save a life, a coastal community, an international alliance, and maybe even a marine species or two. But that old curse still hovers over the Coast Guard, the curse of the ``can do.'' Just this week, the Senate came in at $250 million less than the House appropriation. The timing could not be worse. The Senate action followed two recent rounds of Coast Guard cutbacks for the current fiscal year, reducing cutter days and flight hours by 10 percent. I wonder if the men on the fishing vessel that are being rescued in this picture to my right would approve of a 10-percent reduction, meaning a slower response time. I ask my colleagues and the American people to reflect on this photo and the reduction that I just mentioned. Why? Because the Coast Guard responded to natural disasters but the Congress failed to pass emergency supplemental funding and because a variety of overdue personnel benefits for everything from housing to health care were mandated by the current defense authorization but with no money to pay for those increased costs. There is more. The good news is a new effort through the pending military construction bill to restore $800 million in supplemental funds. But since only a third of that is designated as emergency expenses, the baseline for future Coast Guard budgets next year and beyond would be seriously compromised. So I rise today to express gratitude for the progress made in this chamber so far but also to raise a warning flag about the two challenges immediately ahead. Specifically, I urge my colleagues to hold firm in conference on the House approved allocation in the transportation appropriation bill and then to recede to Senate conferees regarding the $800 million in the MILCON measure. That is what it will take for the Coast Guard to do the job we have assigned to it, to contain oil spills, to catch smugglers, and, most important of all, to save lives.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the fine work of both the subcommittee chair, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). At the same time, I, too, want to express my disappointment to have to participate once again in what has become an annual ritual in which the Committee on Appropriations slashes funding for Legal Services and the House restores it. While I regret the necessity for this amendment, its passage is absolutely critical; and I am proud once again to join with the ranking member and the gentleman from Minnesota in offering it. Last year, LSC provided support to 237 local Legal Services programs serving every county and congressional district in America. Ninety- seven percent of the funds we appropriated went directly to local programs. This appropriation is truly a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people with no other means of access to the legal system. Last year alone, Legal Services closed nearly one million cases brought on behalf of some two million individuals. Now, who are these people? Over two-thirds are women, and most mothers with children, women seeking protection against abuse of spouses, children living in poverty and neglect, elderly people threatened with eviction or victimized by consumer fraud, veterans denied benefits, and small farmers in America facing foreclosure. Let me tell my colleagues about one recent case in my own congressional district. A woman, whom I will call Pauline, was married to a man I will call Frank. Frank, on a regular basis, brutalized Pauline in front of their two children. After repeated exposure to this behavior, the children became fearful and disruptive in the schoolhouse. Eventually, after one particularly brutal beating, Pauline sought help from Legal Services for Cape Cod and the islands. They helped her get a divorce and a permanent abuse prevention order. Since then she has managed to put her life back together, and now the children are excelling in school and their behavior problems have ceased. These are the kinds of people who will be hurt if this amendment is not adopted today. If LSC is forced to absorb the huge cuts made in committee, over 200 of the 925 neighborhood Legal Services offices will have to be closed. This will leave one Legal Services lawyer to service every 23,600 poor and disadvantaged Americans. Over 250,000 families in need of legal services will have to be turned away. Nevertheless, as the gentleman from Minnesota suggested, we will hear from some critics of LSC that we should cut the funding for the program. Why? Because a few local grant recipients overstated the number of cases they handled back in 1997, chiefly by reporting telephone referrals as cases. Never mind the fact that the agency itself uncovered the problem, the agency itself brought it to the attention of the Congress, and the agency itself moved speedily to correct it. Never mind the fact that despite the cries of fraud and abuse, neither LSC nor its affiliates derive any financial gain from erroneous reports because case numbers have no bearing on the program's funding goals. Allocations are based on eligible population living in each service area, not on the numbers of cases handled or even referred. This has been pointed out, yet repeatedly the allegations continue to be made.