Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, there is a wonderful irony in those figures, because those who criticize LSC for counting referrals as cases fail to appreciate that referrals are what an agency does for the thousands of needy people whom it is unable to help. And even without the proposed cuts, referrals must be made in many thousands of cases because current funding needs meet only the needs of 20 percent of those who are eligible. Let me suggest that that is unconscionable. When we speak of justice for all, remember that we are denying it to oh so many in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a crucially important vote. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the formality of a posthumous tribute conjures up the image of Dick Bigos enjoying a big bellylaugh. In the time it takes to write this, he would have launched a political candidate, confirmed a federal grant, arranged a human services roundtable--and taken in a Jerry Springer rerun. You can almost imagine him, with a half-smile, shaking his head at all of us trying to make sense of his death. An encounter with Dick could take many forms, but could never be a passive experience. His antennae were always up; he was always crunching the numbers--but never for personal profit. Dick was a good man consumed with our capacity and obligation to do better as a community. Day in and day out, year after year, he summoned the determination and tools to elevate our collective humanity. Dick was a shrewd and entirely selfless voice for those outside the corridors of power. If he didn't win you over with street smarts, he'd regale you with a gallows humor that left you laughing so hard you'd beg him to quit. His passion for justice was so contagious because he instinctively understood the needs of others--and then took on their causes, large or small, with unparalleled passion and tenacity. To the tasks at hand, he brought neither fame nor wealth. From his work, he sought only results to benefit others. Occasionally, he might indulge himself some satisfaction on a well-waged campaign, on a particularly clever strategy. In the end, however, he kept his eye on the prize--food, clothing, shelter, health care and respect for those who needed it most. Politics can be a tough business, especially if you enter it without official position or sanction. Dick rose to that challenge with clarity and confidence. Once each objective was defined, it was only a matter of time until the obstacles fell aside. Hurdles were leaped, rivers crossed, mountains climbed, walls shattered, alliances forged--whatever it took, Dick worked with or around the system on behalf of children, the hungry, the disabled, the homeless in our midst. In the process, Dick engaged Senators and sanitation workers, abused women and hospital administrators. He did not always endear himself to others. He could inspire, motivate, cajole--and sometimes irritate. But even those who brushed across this roughness came eventually to see the other side of Richard Bigos. Some of Dick's greatest admirers are those who first encountered him in the heat of battle. He could be a prickly combatant. But he also had respect for an able opponent--and with it a big heart and enormously generous spirit. When a former adversary found himself in personal crisis, the first and most discrete phone call was likely to be from Dick. Dick was not one for idle sentimentalism. So in his name, let's cut to the chase. The only way to genuinely honor his memory is to draw on his decency and drive as we greet each other and each day. Dick taught us by example that commitment and courage are renewable entities--that the demands of one campaign only illuminate the rationale for others. As time dries our own tears, the lasting measure of our loyalty to Dick will be how widely we open our eyes and hearts to the human condition which was his life's mission.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, where I come from, generations of otherwise well-adjusted people have suffered the ill effects of the well-known ``Curse of the Bambino.'' Since the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth, life has never quite been the same, although I am one of those with deep, quite faith that the Curse of the Bambino officially expires as we enter the new millennium. But I would like to discuss with you a different kind of curse. Call it the ``Curse of the Can-Do''. This curse afflicts the United States Coast Guard, and 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's 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. I take the House floor tonight to thank my colleagues who in the last few days have helped lead us in that direction--but also to warn that we're still sailing into a very stiff wind. Last month, this House took historic steps to shore up Coast Guard resources to save lives, prevent pollution, fight drugs, help the economy, respond to natural disasters, and enhance national security. It's up to us to see these efforts through. The FY2000 Transportation Department appropriations bill passed recently by the full House would reverse more than a decade of chronic underfunding that has made it nearly impossible for the Coast Guard to do the work the Congress has assigned it. 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 floes of Alaska; from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Coast to the banks of the Mississippi; I commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey of the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo of the Transportation Subcommittee. Their leadership has underscored the stark fact that the demands on the Coast Guard has vastly outpaced its resources. That there is no longer margin for error. And that the consequences 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. During the 1990s, the Coast Guard reduced its workforce by nearly 10 percent--and operated within a budget that rose by only one percent in actual dollars. Over this period, it also has responded to a half- million SOS calls, an average of 65,000 each year--and in the process, has saved 50,000 lives. Every year, the Coast Guard performs 40,000 inspections of U.S. and foreign merchant vessels; ensures the safe passage of a million commercial vessels through our ports and waterways; responds to 13,000 reports of water pollution; inspects a thousand offshore drilling platforms, conducts 12,000 fisheries enforcement boardings, and prevents 100,000 pounds of cocaine from reaching America's shores. Two centuries of experience have taught us to rely on the professionalism, judgment, compassion, commitment and courage of the U.S. Coast Guard. From hurricanes to airplace crashes, from drug smugglers to foreign factory trawlers, the Coast Guard is always on call--just as it has been for 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 winds and the whitecaps, it has been tempting to task the Coast Guard with new and burdensome missions. Far too tempting. Historically, the Coast Guard has discharged whatever duties it was assigned. As a Service originally created in 1790 to regulate maritime duties, its responsibilities have--appropriately--grown with the changing needs and technology of the times. As co-chair of the House Coast Guard Caucus, along with Representatives Howard Coble and Gene Taylor, I have had grave doubts for a long time. Most recently, much has been made of the demands on the Coast Guard for work in the area of illegal drug interdiction. As a former prosecutor, I'm 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 life. We can't just wish away the costs, and I'm not ready to start treating search-and-rescue like a luxury we can do without--any more than you can move cops off the beat, then complain about street crime. We have stretched the Cost Guard so thin for so long that it can barely be expected to fulfill its credo, Semper Paratus--``always prepared''. And there are scores of new missions 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 its ``top-notch planning and performance budgeting overcame short staffing and fraying equipment.'' It all came down, they concluded, to that Curse of Can-Do. ``The Coast Guard,'' they said, ``is a CAN-DO organization whose `CAN' is dwindling while its `DO' is growing'' This can't continue. Not when the average age of its deepwater cutters is 27 years old, making this force the second oldest major naval fleet on the globe. 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 four hours of sleep at night. Not when the Commandant testifies before Congress that there's not enough fuel to power his boats and planes. And not when Coast Guard radio communications units are 30 years old, like the one described in a recent news account that began this way: 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 work `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 ``block 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 to carry them out.'' A 1997 General Accounting Office review was even more blunt. It projected $90 million annual reductions in operating expenses just to bridge the gap. GAO was alarmed by ``the sheer size of the gap and the dwindling number of available efficiency-related options.'' Where I'm 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 were to turn. That's why when the ink dried on the House DOT appropriation, there was reason for new and genuine hope. Like having Pedro Martinez in the starting rotation, it felt like this really could be the year. The DOT 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 airplanes, helicopters and motor lifeboats--and upgrade, rather than abandon, Coast Guard stations and the communities they serve. Years from now, the 395 House colleagues who voted for the DOT bill can look back and take satisfaction from the knowledge that they helped saved a life, a coastal community, an international alliance--or maybe even a marine species or two. But that old curse still hovers over the Coast Guard. Just this week, the Senate Subcommittee came in $200 million lower. The timing could not be worse. The Senate action followed two rounds of Coast Guard cutbacks for the current fiscal year, reducing cutter days and flight hours by 10 percent. 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 2000 Defense Authorization--but with no money to pay for them. There's more. The good news is a new effort, through the pending Military Construction bill, to restore $800 million in supplemental funding. 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 express gratitude for the progress made in this chamber thus 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's what it will take for the Coast Guard to do the job we have assigned it to do. To contain oil spills. To catch smugglers. And, most important of all, to save lives.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in marking the solemn anniversary of the senseless murder of James Byrd. Random acts of violence have become a tragic part of modern American life, but James Byrd was not selected at random. No, he was singled out for death solely because of his race. Just as the youngsters at the Jewish day school in Los Angeles County were singled out because of their religion. Just as Matthew Shepard and Private First Class Barry Winchell were singled out because of their sexual orientation. They were not random victims. They were targeted not because of what they did or where they were, but because of who they were. Each of these vicious acts was intended to send a message, a message of hatred and intimidation. Well, it is time for us to send a message in response. It is time to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. The Delahunt-Thune amendment just simply extends the current existing status quo for an additional 2 years upon the date of expiration of the current moratorium. That date is October 21, 2001.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It would include everything that is currently embraced by the existing moratorium.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, last year, in 1999, State and local governments lost $525 million in anticipated sales tax revenues on e- commerce or so-called Internet sales. Researchers from the University of Tennessee estimate that on-line sales will grow to $200 billion by 2003. Unless there is a system that is in place that enables the States and local governments to require out of State merchants to collect taxes on their sales to in-State residents, they will lose more than $20 billion annually by 2003. This chart on my right lists all 50 States in their projected sales tax revenue losses for the single year of 2003. Some examples are instructive. Florida will lose $1.4 billion in sales tax revenue. Texas will lose more than $1.7 billion in revenue. It is important to note, by the way, that Florida relies upon the sales tax for 57 percent of its total revenue, and Texas relies upon the sales tax for 51 percent of its total revenue. It is easy to imagine how these kinds of losses affect a State or local government's ability to provide for basic services such as police and fire protection or a viable educational system. They will either be compelled to cut back these services or more likely raise income taxes and/or property taxes. No way will this underlying bill cut taxes. It is important to be clear about that. At best, it will only shift them. Now, how do we get to this point, where the States are forced to deal with ever-increasing shortfalls in anticipated sales tax income? Well, in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that a State could not compel an out- of-State business to collect the sales tax for a product or service sent into that State. This inability to collect from out-of-State merchants coupled with the dramatic but very recent explosive growth of e-commerce has created a serious fiscal problem for State and local governments. Furthermore, this issue is not just about declining sales tax revenues to State and local governments, it disadvantages small business as well. Those merchants in our neighborhoods and communities that make up our local Chamber of Commerces, how can they compete when there is no sales tax parity. One can imagine deserted shopping malls and empty storefronts downtown. The digital divide should not be extended to American business or to those who patronize them. We will have two classes of American consumers and two classes of American business and no level playing field for either. The States understand these issues, and by their own initiative, have formed the so-called streamlined sales tax project. Let us leave it to the States. Mr. Chairman, later on, I will submit an amendment that will reduce the 5-year underlying proposal to 2 years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. I, too, support the moratorium. In fact, I was one of the early cosponsors of the Cox-Wyden legislation, because it seemed to me essential that Congress provide sufficient breathing room to develop a more uniform, fair, efficient neutral system of taxation of transactions, whether it be on the Internet or whether it be out of a brick-and-mortar enterprise. And over the past 2 years, the States have made considerable headway in this effort. I see no reason why it should take them 5 more years to complete it. In fact, a 5-year extension will eliminate a major incentive for them to get the job done. That is why the 5-year extension is opposed by the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council on State Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the E-fairness Coalition, and scores of other business organizations. The gentleman from California referred to the bipartisan nature of the original moratorium bill. What I would suggest, too, is that there is a bipartisan concern about what we are about to do here today with a 5-year extension. It is clear that a 5-year extension is opposed by 36 governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, including Governor Leavitt of Utah, Governor Sundquist of Tennessee, Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Ryan of Illinois, Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania and Governor Taft of Ohio, all staunch Republicans, not a tax-and-spend liberal among them. But they are opposed to the underlying bill, because they realize that a 5-year extension will accelerate the erosion of the sales tax and diminish the ability of the States to fund vital services, States that depend on the sales tax for as much of a third of their total revenue. They also understand that small businesses will suffer the longer the underlying issues are not addressed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the ranking member of the subcommittee would manage it for the opponents, and I presume the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) or the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) would manage it for the proponents.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would advise the gentleman that I am asking for 10 minutes; that we should limit the time for the debate on the Chabot perfecting amendment and my underlying amendment to 10 minutes, to be divided equally between the sides.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and he did so for the purpose of my making a unanimous consent request. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the debate on the perfecting amendment and the underlying amendment, the Delahunt- Thune amendment, be limited to 10 minutes, to be divided equally between the sides.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) in offering this amendment. It would extend the Internet tax moratorium for 2 years rather than 5 years beyond its current expiration date to October 21, 2003, and it would leave in place the existing provisions grandfathering the 10 States that had some form of Internet tax-related tax when the moratorium was first enacted in 1998. The amendment would allow the States a reasonable extension of time to simplify their system for taxing transactions so as to foster the growth of electronic commerce, while continuing to meet their responsibilities to provide essential services to their citizens. Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. I support the moratorium. In fact, I was among its early cosponsors, because it did seem essential to me that Congress provide sufficient breathing room and time to develop a more uniform, efficient and fair and neutral system of taxation. Over the past 2 years, the States have made considerable headway in this effort. I see no reason why it should take them 5 more years to complete it. In fact, a full 5-year extension, all it will do is eliminate a major incentive to address the real issues here. That is why a 5-year extension is opposed by the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and numerous other groups, both business and labor. That is why a 5-year extension is opposed by 36 governors, Republican and Democrats alike, including Governor Leavitt of Utah, Governor Sundquist of Tennessee, Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Ryan of Illinois, Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania, and Governor Taft of Ohio. These governors realize that a 5-year extension will accelerate the erosion of the sales tax and diminish the ability of the States to fund vital services. States that depend on the sales tax for as much as a third to a half of their total revenues will be forced to either cut spending or raise other taxes to make up the shortfall, the income tax or the property tax. That is why the administration opposes the 5-year extension. Let me read the statement of administration policy issued yesterday, May 9: ``The administration would support a 2-year extension of the current moratorium. The proposed 5-year extension would significantly reduce the incentive for States to simplify their tax systems right now, to the detriment of all interested parties, particularly small business.'' We talk about encouraging e-commerce. A 5-year extension discourages Internet sales. A 2-year extension fosters and embraces e-commerce. The only information, the only hard data that we have so far, it is not simply rhetoric, it is evidence and it is clear and convincing, State governments lost $525 million in taxes on online sales last year alone. That is only the beginning. Unless there is a system in place that enables the States to collect taxes on the sales, they will lose more than $20 billion per year by 2003. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Delahunt-Thune amendment would provide a reasonable extension of the moratorium without changing the rules in midstream and without eliminating the incentive for all interested parties to devise an efficient, equitable, and technology- neutral system for the taxation of sales of goods and services, whether it be online or in the stores, in our communities and neighborhoods. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the organizers and runners of the Squirrel Run III, also known as the Third Annual Jimmy Kennedy Memorial Run for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis [ALS], on June 10 in Quincy, in the Tenth District of Massachusetts. The race honors two members of a highly respected Quincy family who succumbed to the ravages of ALS, which is better known as Lou Gehrig's Disease. Christopher Kennedy, former president of the Quincy School Committee, dean at Northeastern University, and honored civic leader, died at the age of 66. His youngest son, Jimmy (``Squirrel'') lost his agonizing 2-year battle in 1997, succumbing just before his 31st birthday. ALS is a disease with no known cause or cure. It is relentlessly progressive and always fatal, attacking and destroying nerve cells called motor neurons, which control the movement of voluntary muscles. Gradually and inexorably, day-to-day existence becomes increasingly difficult. Fine motor control is first to suffer, followed by functional capabilities such as standing and walking. Ultimately speech becomes impossible and the ability to swallow is lost. Finally the victim is unable to breathe. In perhaps the cruelest twist of all, while the body wastes away, the mind and senses are competely unaffected. Throughout the terrible process, the victim's intellect remains intact, providing a clear and cruel awareness of their situation. Victims have related that suffering from ALS is akin to taking part in their own funeral. Family, friends, and physicians can only stand helplessly by and watch the terrible and inevitable deterioration. ALS cuts across all racial, gender and social lines, claiming more than 5,000 victims every year, with approximately 13 new cases diagnosed each day. An estimated 300,000 Americans, who are alive and apparently well today, will be diagnosed and ultimately die from ALS. In the brief time since its inception, the Squirrel Run has been an amazing success, especially considering this grassroots effort was conceived and intiated by two proud amateurs, starting with nothing but pain and frustration. The Quincy natives, Richard Kennedy and Martin Levenson, have teamed to make the Squirrel Run a visible and successful example of how hard work, dedication and commitment to a cause can make a difference in peoples' lives. All proceeds from the Squirrel Run go directly to the Day Neuromuscular Research Lab at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The Day Lab is at the forefront of the battle against ALS, and world- renowned for research into its cause and cure. The success of the Squirrel Run will benefit citizens of the Commonwealth of Masssachusetts as well as ALS victims worldwide who are desperately seeking a cure. I urge my colleagues to join me in saluting the commitment of all those associated with Squirrel Run III and to draw on this dedication to redouble our own efforts to accelerate reserach to overcome the challenge of ALS.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does have teeth. Historically, it is no secret. The military in Colombia has had an abysmal human rights record. It has been appalling. Until recently, the majority of human rights abuses, better than 50 percent were perpetrated against the civilian population by the Colombian military. But it would be unfair, and it would not reflect the current reality in Colombia if we did not acknowledge the significant progress that has been made under the leadership of President Pastrana and the new head of the Colombian armed forces, General Topeos. According to our own State Department records, from 1994 to 1998, the percentage of human rights abuses directly attributable to the military declined from better than 50 percent down to 3 percent. President Pastrana and General Topeos correctly point out the recent dismissal of seven generals, two of whom are under indictment, and the referral of three colonels to the civilian courts for prosecution for human rights violations as evidence that things are changing. This is nothing less than astounding, given the historical record. But let us be clear. I am not suggesting in any way that we or the Colombian government should be satisfied. There is still a long road ahead of us, particularly in light of recent human rights reports from well-respected human rights organizations asserting continuing links between the Colombian military and the paramilitaries. We have to go further, much further. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Latin American director of Human Rights Watch, who urged that new conditions be placed on all security assistance to Colombia, and I submit that this amendment does exactly that. The amendment goes much further than the current Leahy amendment. It would apply not only to the two counternarcotics battalions that are envisioned in the bill, but it would apply to the entire military structure, the culture, if you will. Mr. Chairman, passage of this amendment, I submit, has the potential to effect a fundamental change in the Colombian military that will ensure once and for all its compatibility with democratic principles and respect for human rights. I have no doubt also that it will advance the peace process that recently has produced positive results. Because we are truly serious about substantial and permanent reduction of the flow of cocaine into the United States from Colombia, it is absolutely essential that this peace process be advanced. Historically, it is no secret that the military in Colombia has had an abysmal human rights record. It has truly been appalling. Until recently the majority of human rights abuses--better that 50 percent committed against the civilian population of Colombia--according to the Department of State annual human rights reports--were directly attributable to the military. Not to the paramilitary. But to the Colombian military itself. But it would be unfair. And it would not reflect the current reality in Colombia, if we did not acknowledge significant progress under the leadership of President Pastrana and the new head to the Colombian Armed Forces, General Fernando Topeos. According to DOS--from 1994 to 1998 the percentage of human rights abuses directly attributable to the military declined from more than 50 percent to less than 3 percent. President Pastrana and General Topeos can correctly point to the dismissal of 7 generals--2 of whom are under indictment and the recent referral of 3 colonels to the civilian courts for prosecution for human rights violations as evidence that much has changed. This is nothing less than astounding given the historical record. But let's be clear. I am not suggesting in any way that we or the Colombian Government should be satisfied. There is still a long, long road ahead of us. Particularly in light of recent human rights reports, from well respected human rights organizations, asserting continuing links between the Colombian military and the paramilitaries. We have to go further--much further. The respected co-chair of the Human Rights Caucus, Representative Lantos, in a Dear Colleague letter he has circulated in support of the aid package points out that all assistance provided to Colombia will go to fully vetted forces pursuant to the so-called Leahy amendment. Which means that every single soldier assigned to these two Counter-Narcotics Battalions envisioned will be reviewed and scrutinized to determine their commitment to human rights. I agree with Mr. Lantos that it is important that Leahy applies. However, if it stood alone, I believe it would be insufficient. And would not support the Aid package. I agree with the Latin American Director of Human Rights Watch--who according to a story in the February 24 edition of the Washington Post urged that strict new conditions be placed on all security assistance to Colombia. I submit that this amendment accomplishes just that. This amendment goes much further than the current Leahy Amendment. It would not apply only to the two Counter Narcotics Battalions envisioned in the bill. It impacts the entire structure--the culture if you will--of the military as an institution in Colombia. There are two key provisions: It transfers from military tribunals to civilian courts, the prosecution of human rights violations by military personnel. This represents a major breakthrough for those concerned with human rights abuses in Colombia. Furthermore, it confers upon the head of the armed forces the authority to summarily dismiss military personnel who commit gross violations of human rights. It is important to note, Since the early 1990's, the head of the CNP has had this authority. And from a force of some 100,000--14,000 members of the department were discharged pursuant to this authority. Since that action the CNP has had a solid record on human rights. Previously they had shared the poor record of the Colombian military. Passage of this amendment, I submit, has the potential to effect a fundamental change in the Colombian military that will ensure it's compatibility with democratic principles and respect for human rights. I have no doubt it will also advance the peace process that has recently produced positive developments. Because if we are truly serious about substantial and permanent reduction of the flow of cocaine from Colombia into the United States--the stability that will come from social and economic justice that peace would achieve is absolutely essential.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, he goes on to point out: ``Unlike the groups in El Salvador's FMLN and Guatemala's URNG, Colombia's three guerilla groups fight separately, violating human rights frequently, and are held in low esteem by most citizens. The paramilitary death squads operate in the open, resembling private armies more than shadowy groups of killers and are somewhat independent of the Army.'' ``Here in Colombia,'' he points out, ``the Government seeks to bring guerillas to the negotiating table.'' He concludes by saying, ``With the exception of the United States, no foreign source arms or combatants. Instead, the drug trade pervades, corrupts, and finances all sides.'' ``On deeper examination, this conflict, the western hemisphere's oldest and most brutal, bears only a passing resemblance to Central America.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. And he is my dear friend. Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that I disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the incredible work that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) did in Central America during the 1980s. More than any other individual in this institution, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) can take credit for saving thousands and thousands of lives, and I want to acknowledge that. But I do disagree. Colombia is not Central America. Colombia is not El Salvador. There was recently an article in a report called the International Policy Report. The agency or the think tank that produces this particular publication is headed by the former ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, who, by the way, was discharged from that ambassadorship because of his position on the issue of El Salvador by President Reagan. Now, in fairness, I have to acknowledge that Ambassador White was clear that he disagreed with this particular package, but on other grounds. This article that was written by his associate I think captures the fact that the analogy between Central America and Colombia is inaccurate. I am going to read some excerpts: ``Colombia's decades-old conflict and the effort to end it are far more complicated than the violence El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua suffered during the 1980s.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. We have heard a lot today about OPEC and sending the message to OPEC and how there was an expression of surprise that OPEC would be fixing prices. Well, they have been doing it since 1960. It should not come as a surprise. Is OPEC a problem? Of course OPEC is a problem. At the same time, there was reference to Secretary Richardson being dispatched by the President. Let us go back a bit in history. In 1990, it was President Bush that dispatched a half a million men and women in combat to the Gulf. Let us be candid. They were not dispatched there to safeguard democracy. They went there to protect economic interests of the United States. They went there because of the oil. Not only did we fail to remove Saddam Hussein, but when we had the leverage in terms of our relationship with OPEC, when they needed us, what happened, when we could have absolutely once and for all crushed the cartel? Nothing happened. That is what happened. That is why we are in the problem today. Not because of the failure of this administration but what went on back in 1990. Mr. Chairman, with gas prices hitting record highs, approaching the $2-a-gallon mark, consumers are understandably searching for villains. OPEC is an easy target. Last year, OPEC removed about 6 percent of world production from the market. These cutbacks have significantly reduced worldwide stockpiles of crude oil and refined petroleum products, and nearly tripled crude oil prices to around $30 a barrel. According to the Energy Department, this winter distillate fuel stocks nationwide were nearly 32 percent below last year. The supply shortfall was even more severe in the Northeast, where distillate fuel stocks were 13 million barrels below average levels. The Clinton administration's sluggish response has made it another easy target, especially when the original rationale for inaction was ``Sorry, can't intervene. Leave it to market forces.'' I, for one, believe government intervention is entirely appropriate. When the price of home heating oil triples in a few weeks, the public interest demands that we help. I believe we must act aggressively to lower prices by increasing supplies; provide additional relief to the most vulnerable; and combat any anti-competitive actions--both domestically and abroad. While we're sorting causes from effects, let's look a little deeper. It should come as no surprise that OPEC is a cartel. We've known that since 1973. And we haven't done much about it for almost 20 years. When American troops marched toward Iraq in 1991, their mission was broader than saving democracy in Kuwait. They were also there to keep our hands on the oil spigot. When former President Bush had the leverage to keep that spigot open, he blew it. By failing to take care on the cartel then, former President Bush allowed American families today to be held hostage to OPEC nations. Now, almost a decade later, there's a chorus of outrage against OPEC. And for good reason--the cartel's continued efforts to restrain supply has affected prices throughout the world. But when there is a drastic price hike in home heating oil--as much as 300 percent in a year, and 100 percent in just a few weeks--when the majority of supplies come from domestic producers, then factors other than OPEC reductions may be at work. When I hear accounts of a $9 per barrel fee assessed on crude oil during the refining process in domestic ports, then we have an obligation to oppose any unscrupulous actions by domestic producers, too. And an obligation to intervene. Beyond stepping up pressure on OPEC to boost production, I support an immediate release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to exert a downward pressure on prices. This is a step that is completely within our discretion. Back in 1991, within hours of the first air strike against Iraq, former President Bush authorized a draw-down of the reserve. When the Energy Department activated it, crude prices plummeted by nearly $10 per barrel overnight, falling below $20 per barrel for the first time since the original invasion. Some of our colleagues oppose a draw-down out of blind faith in the ``invisible hand'' of market forces. To them, I ask, what about price supports for domestic cartels--for example, for dairy farmers. Why a helping hand for farmers, but no hand for the elderly trying to heat their homes, or the small independent trucker trying to bring goods to the market? So let's be clear. OPEC production cuts are a big factor. But there's a lot more to this current crisis, and a lot more at our disposal than relying on OPEC production to increase supplies and reduce prices. For instance, what about suspicions of domestic price gouging? Yes, it's possible there are culprits within our own borders. The fact that fees are added at different points along the process of moving crude oil to consumers--from processors to refiners to shippers to dealers--makes it hard to pin down all the factors which have contributed to the price spikes. No matter who you blame or how you calculate it, however, consumers are now paying two-and-a-half times the cost of crude straight out of the ground. Although milder weather is on its way, we can not wait idly for the sun to shine and for OPEC to convene next week while soaring gas prices continue to afflict and affect families and businesses. So, I rise in support of immediate action. With or without this bill, the Administration has the authority to withhold foreign assistance. It has the authority to draw down from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It has the authority to create heating oil reserves to provide supplies to cushion against future shortages and price hikes. The Congress has the authority to broaden LIHEAP to struggling families who can't pay exorbitant heating bills, and to invest more in energy conservation and renewables to wean us off dependency on foreign oil and help our environment. At a time when U.S. taxpayers are suffering, our government has every right--and an obligation--to press OPEC countries, who receive substantial U.S. aid, to consider the impact of their policies on the streets of the United States. I urge the administration to act now--and to learn from and help compensate for the mistakes of almost a decade ago.