Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Arizona for offering this amendment. While I cannot support it, I appreciate his effort to ensure that Members have the opportunity to vote on the federalism issue alone, so that when the debate comes in the next amendment, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), it will not color that particular debate, because it is my understanding that the Hefley amendment was rewritten at the last moment to also prohibit implementation of the executive order on federalism but it really was not about Federalism, it was about denying Federal workers protection from discrimination based upon sexual orientation. So I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who allows Members who want to express their views on that subject to do so without voting for the Hefley amendment. The executive order is not about special rights, it is about equal rights; and it is not about quotas, it is about fairness. It certainly is not about affirmative action. It is about protection from discrimination, as both the gentleman from California and my friend and colleague from Massachusetts have already gone over. In fact, the executive order no more requires affirmative action based on sexual orientation than the original executive order that it amends, which, by the way, was promulgated by President Nixon back in 1969, requiring affirmative action based on race, religion, gender, age or disability. Not once has the gentleman from Massachusetts stated that the executive order that was issued in 1969 by President Nixon has ever been interpreted to require affirmative action or to confer special rights of any kind. These arguments, if they are made, are, at best, disingenuous. This amendment to the Nixon executive order simply extends protection from discrimination when it comes to hiring, firing and promotion to gay men and women if you work for the Federal Government. Nothing more, nothing else. Basically it means that Federal agencies must be fair in their employment practices. It is only about fairness, and insisting that the Federal Government, the executive branch, treat everyone the same, that is, on the merits. Some would suggest that amendment to the Nixon executive order is unnecessary, that gay men and women do not need to be protected in the workplace. I submit that is wrong. Look at this Chamber. Approximately 190 Members of this body declined to sign a pledge that sexual orientation is not and would not be a consideration in the employment practices in their congressional offices. Let us start there. For many gay Americans, losing a job is the least of it. Some statistics to reflect on, if you believe that gay men and women are not discriminated against: In 1995, 29 men and women were murder victims either because they were gay, or some thug at least thought they were gay. In 1996, the FBI reported over 1,000 hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation. The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming: Discrimination against gay men and women exists in our society. Let us remember, when a qualified person is denied an opportunity because of discrimination, we all lose. We lose the benefits that we might have gained from that individual's services. And, even more importantly, when we tolerate discrimination against anyone or any group, we are diminished as a society and as a Nation, and this Chamber ought not to be about division and discrimination. So I would submit we are simply better than that. Let us prove it tonight. Let us defeat the Kolbe amendment and the Hefley amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment because it makes sense. I think a little history is in order here. The so-called truth-in-sentencing grants, the statute authorizing these grants was enacted back in 1994. From then until now, a GAO study reports that only four States changed their statutory practices to comply with these grants, only four States. In 4 years, there have been some 27 States that could in fact file an application to secure these grants, but it was clear that it was not the truth-in-sentencing authorizing legislation that encouraged those States to do it, they decided to do it on their own, as they should. It has also become clear that the 24 other States that do not qualify under the truth-in-sentencing grants have no intention to change their current statutory practices to qualify for these grants. By the way, as the gentleman from Virginia alluded to, there is absolutely no evidence that the monies that have already been expended through these grants in any way, shape, or form reduce crime or violence in this Nation. In fact, the 24 States that are not in compliance show a similar decline in violence and crime as those who have adopted a truth-in-sentencing statutory scheme. It does make common sense. In fact, it might be worthy of consideration that this particular program over a period of time be phased out. The gentleman seeks only to remove one-half, $105 million, from the truth-in-sentencing source for other programs. He has enumerated them in his own statement: prison drug treatment programs, boys and girls clubs, the drug court program, child abuse training programs. These programs, these programs would be available to every single State in the Nation. As I indicated, or as the gentleman from Virginia indicated, in my home State, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has seen a dramatic decline in crimes of violence. In fact, the city of Boston has been used over and over again as an example of programs that do work in terms of prevention and treatment. Yet, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is not in a position to seek monies and funding because of the mandates under the truth-in-sentencing statute. So it does make sense. It is more fair. If we can divert these monies into programs that have been proven to work, every State in the Nation will benefit. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes for the Scott amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Again, I just want to report that this is a GAO study. The requesters were members of the Committee on the Judiciary, including members of the Subcommittee on Crime, and it states that according to their research, truth in sentencing grants were a key factor in four States. The gentleman is right. There were 12 States prior to the enactment of the truth in sentencing incentive program back in 1994 that were in compliance. But my point is specifically this, those States that are not in compliance now show clearly that a decline in crime, in violence is commensurate with those States that have received grants, that the bottom line, common sense dictates that this particular program has done nothing whatsoever to reduce violent crime in this country. The States know what they are doing. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as the gentleman knows, has an outstanding record in the reduction of crime and violence, and they are not in compliance. Let the States do what they know best, not the Federal Government, not bureaucrats in Washington. They know how to deal with the issue of violent crime.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me. I do not know what States the chair of the subcommittee is referring to when he talks about murderers being held for 7 or 8 years, and rapists and muggers out on the street. I served as district attorney, as the gentleman knows, in the metropolitan area in Boston. Every single individual who was sentenced and incarcerated for first degree murder is still serving.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, every single inmate that was incarcerated for first degree murder is still serving that time. It has nothing to do with this particular amendment. At the same time I hear the gentleman from Florida telling or instructing or exhorting 22 States to get with it. Well, I would suggest to the gentleman that the reality is that those 22 States would show a decline in the reduction of violence as significant as those that are in compliance. The bottom line, and I know the gentleman shares this concern, and this is his purpose, is to see crime and violence reduced in America. But if the program is not working, it makes sense to take another look at it.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it states, and I am quoting, The truth in sentencing grants were a key factor in four States, in four States.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to bring to his attention a study that was commissioned by the GAO back in February of 1998, this year.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. The report is a GAO report. It is dated February 1998. It is described as truth in sentencing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I can bring this to the attention of the gentleman, because it is a report to congressional requesters. There were 7, 8 members of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment, which would restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation to current levels. The Legal Services Corporation is a lifeline for thousands of people with no other means of access to the legal system. Last year, LSC resolved 1.5 million civil cases, benefiting over four million indigent citizens from every county in America. Who are these people? Over two-thirds are women, and most are mothers with children. Women seeking protection against abusive spouses. Children living in poverty and neglect. Elderly people threatened by eviction or victimized by consumer fraud. Veterans denied benefits, and small farmers facing foreclosure. These are the people who will be hurt if this amendment is not adopted today. If LSC is forced to absorb the huge cuts made in committee, half of the 1,100 neighborhood legal services offices will have to be closed. This will leave a single lawyer to serve every 23,600 poor Americans. Over 700,000 people in need of legal services will have to be turned away. We cannot--we must not--allow this to happen. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It's the decent thing to do.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as others have indicated, this amendment would strike funding for programs that are, not only compassionate, but are cost effective. In short, it is working. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want to undercut it. The sponsor of the amendment says he wants to redirect this money to veterans' health care programs but who does he think these funds are benefiting now? Because it is important to remember that roughly 30 percent of the homeless in America are veterans, and many of these are numbered among the 100,000 to 150,000 veterans who are living with HIV. These are the very people that HOPWA serves. It helps them live longer and stay healthier. It spares States and localities the far greater costs of hospital and emergency room care to which they would otherwise be forced to turn. If this amendment succeeds, thousands would be forced to choose between paying their medical bills or paying the rent. Many would end up in acute care hospitals at a cost 10 to 20 times that of the housing and services that they would receive in a HOPWA-funded residential facility. The rest could find themselves huddled in homeless shelters and sleeping on grates. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself and welcome the remarks of the other speakers and am pleased to hear the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chair of the subcommittee, will oppose this particular amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I happen to support the San Francisco policy. I believe that companies should provide benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. And I think it is reasonable for a local jurisdiction to choose to award county contracts to companies whose practices conform to local civil rights policies. But it really doesn't matter what I think about this policy, or any other * * * you think about it. The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the citizens of San Francisco. With all due respect to the gentleman from California, where did he get the idea that Congress has the right to step in and nullify the contracting decisions made by locally-elected leaders? This Congress has told local governments what to do about a lot of things. We have used federal grants to dictate local policies regarding abortion and contraception, educational standards, and juvenile crime. The list goes on and on. Whatever one may think about these federal mandates, most of them can claim at least some tenuous connection to the national interest. But what possible national purpose can we have in telling the County of San Francisco how to award its contracts? Next, we'll be placing street lights and directing traffic. I think that if members of Congress want to try their hand at local government, they should run for mayor. Otherwise, they should content themselves with governing the country. We have no authority to tell the people of San Francisco--or any other locality--whom they should select to perform their public contracts. I know of no legitimate national interest that can justify this kind of incursion into state and local prerogatives. Many groups, including the National Association of Counties, have expressed alarm over this amendment. It is a feeling we all should share. Let's defeat this outrageous amendment, and get back to the business we were sent here to do.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to express grave concern about what I believe to be devastating funding reductions for the U.S. Coast Guard in this bill. In my view, the decision to cut $29 million from overall FY98 levels, and to shift assets away from some of its most essential missions, will jeopardize the Coast Guard's capacity to safeguard environmental resources and maritime safety. In this context, the additional $15 million reduction in the operating account would seriously impair the Coast Guard's marine conservation, fisheries law enforcement and search-and-rescue capabilities. I am especially dismayed that these cuts were accompanied by an $33.8 million increase in funding for drug interdiction. While I strongly support efforts to intercept illegal narcotics, by land and sea, I was astonished to learn that this new commitment would come at the expense of long-established Coast Guard ice-breaking and fisheries management duties--through budget offsets totaling $20 million and $13.8 million, respectively. The historical pattern is all too familiar. Between operational cutbacks and expanded responsibilities, coastal communities will--once again--start calculating the odds of Coast Guard personnel reductions, decreased hours at sea and station closings. As I read this legislation, there are no provisions relieving the Coast Guard of responsibility for delivering fuel to the Air force in Antarctica, or for its patrols to protect endangered right whales. Nor do I see directives relating to the billions of dollars in damage prevented to private property--or to its most critical mission, search- and-rescue. In the last decade, the Coast Guard has responded to a half-million SOS calls, and saved nearly 45,000 lives in the process. These services are somehow supposed to continue, unimpeded by crippling cutbacks. The Congress cannot expect to have it both ways. We must decide what level of service we desire, then determine how--not whether--to pay for it. The consequences are matters, quite literally, of life and death. I appreciate the difficulties facing appropriators under current budget constraints, but the committee faced the same pressure while increasing overall Transportation Department funding by 11 percent. The FAA is slated for a four percent increase; the Federal Transit Administration will receive 11 percent more; Amtrak will increase by 12 percent, and National Highway Safety Administration will get an additional 38 percent. I do not presume to question the merits of these activities, any more than I contest beefing up drug interdiction efforts. I do, however, object vigorously to do so by arbitrarily diverting resources from essential Coast Guard missions. The Subcommittee Chairman, in remarks accompanying the Committee Report, makes an impassioned argument for strengthened interdiction on the seas. What he fails to discuss, however, is the full cost of these added burdens--in terms of foregone icebreaking, fisheries enforcement or rescues at sea. This bill enriches Paul, without even considering the impact on Peter. In so doing, it unnecessarily and irresponsibly places at risk marine resources, private property and human life.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in a colloquy. Before I do, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member regarding the hard work and the dedication by both staff on the minority and the majority side, as well as the kudos and praise that he proffered to the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask to engage the gentleman from Arizona in a colloquy.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona, as a former prosecutor, I have seen firsthand the devastating toll of illegal drugs on countless individuals, families and communities. As we strive to continue to reduce the demand for illegal narcotics, we must also do all we can to supply the men and women who patrol our borders with the tools they need to prevent drugs from reaching our shores. Today I rise in support of a new interdiction technology that could help law enforcement do its job. The innovative, sea-going Night Cat catamaran has outstanding fuel efficiency, remarkable speed, and superior handling and maneuvering capability, as well as a unique wave- piercing engineering which addresses the problems of physical stress and injuries to crew members caused by vertical acceleration in choppy seas. These advances would provide a dramatic increase in our ability to outmaneuver smugglers and maintain control in high-speed pursuits. There is a long list of recent rave reviews from Federal, State, and local anti-smuggling officials. In extensive tests last September that were funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, and carried out by the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Night Cat outperformed other craft up to 150 percent larger. Its design has been formally endorsed by U.S. Customs, U.S. Border Patrol, the DEA, U.S. Coast Guard, Navy Seals, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Now it is time to help realize the potential of the prototype Night Cat catamaran. Congressional support, by providing an additional $2.5 million, would allow research and development of a 40-foot vessel with night vision and stealth capability, and the manufacturing of two additional 27-foot vessels desperately needed in high-intensity drug traffic areas. Such vessels could be put to use to test this concept in an operational context before any additional funding might be sought. Too often the smugglers have the tactical edge. We owe our agents the most sophisticated and effective technology available for their safety and the success of their mission on our behalf. I recognize that the subcommittee has produced a bill within very tight budget constraints, and that this request comes very late in the appropriations process. I cannot at this time propose an amendment to transfer this funding from other activities included in this bill. Instead, I would hope to work with the committee to explore ways to work with this program as the bill proceeds to conference. Will the chairman agree to work in conference with the other body to find funding for the Night Cat pilot program?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my friend, Mr. McGovern, and our other colleagues in this special order on the home health care crisis. The Balanced Budget Act has had a devastating effect on home health care programs in many parts of the country. But the impact has been especially severe in Massachusetts and other New England states, which already provide more visits, at a lower cost per visit, than agencies in other states. In Massachusetts, the new per beneficiary limit means a loss this year alone of $100 million. That translates into 1.5 million fewer home visits for the elderly and disabled. On April 30, the South Shore Visiting Nurses Association was forced to eliminate 50 positions as a direct result of the $4 million in cuts it was forced to absorb. Home care providers across our state are facing cuts this year of 25 percent. What does all this mean for the people who need these services? Listen to some of the letters I have received: From a woman in Quincy: I take care of my elderly mother. She has Alzheimer's Disease and has had several minor strokes. At the present time I am fortunate enough to have home health care for her three mornings a week through Quincy Visiting Nurses. Without this assistance, my mother would probably be in a nursing home. I cannot praise the nurses and aides that I have dealt with enough. My mother is unable to dress herself, take a shower by herself, or make her own breakfast. This is what her home health aide does three mornings a week. I do the same on the other four mornings. The release that I feel having three mornings of not having to do these deeds helps me keep my sanity. I am a full-time teacher in Quincy and I also work two other part-time jobs. From a man in Harwich: My wife is 78 and has Alzheimer's Disease. I am also 78 years of age and have spinal stenosis. I am her care giver and wish to continue to care for her at home and not in a nursing home. . . . Presently we have the assistance of two [home health] aides, two hours in the morning and one hour in the afternoon which is covered by Medicare. . . . With over 100,000 Massachusetts residents with Alzheimer's Disease or related neurological disorders and other related elderly problems, we are not alone, but it feels that way with no future long term home health care. From a husband and wife in Whitman: We read with dismay of the federal cuts affecting home health care. For those of us in our older years, being able to stay in our own home is the only bright light on the horizon. Anything else is unthinkable. From a woman in Weymouth: I take care of my mother and have for the past eight years. The last four years have been 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We have [a home health care aide who] comes in twice a day for a total of four hours. . . . My mother has Progressive Supranuclear Palsy which is a devastating neurological disease. It takes everything but your mind. She is literally a prisoner in her own body. The rest of the family has chosen to give up on my mother, thinking the way a lot of people do, that she should be put in a nursing home. Congressman Delahunt, would you want to be put in a nursing home if the only people that understood your needs were the aide and your daughter? . . . My mother still wants to be alive and if she was to go into a nursing home she would die. She communicates with us sometimes by blinking . . . or breathing a certain way. Sometimes it takes a long time to figure out what she wants. In a nursing home they wouldn't do that. I promised her I would never put her in one, and I vow to keep that promise no matter what. I'm not well myself and these cut- backs might kill us both. . . . I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter and know you will do all you can to stop these cut-backs, for all those in need of home-care, for someday we may all need to depend on this system for love, care, and support because we have no one else to turn to or that cares. And finally, Mr. Speaker, one of the letters I have received from nurses and physicians. This one comes from an emergency physician from Hingham: As an emergency physician . . . I deal with the human side of health care financing decisions on a daily basis. . . . Most medical problems, recognized early enough, can be treated effectively in an outpatient setting. . . . At the present time . . . I am able to safely send elderly patients home with close nursing follow up rather than to admit to the hospital. I am afraid the proposed Medicare cuts will severely jeopardize this sensible medical option. There is also a human side to this issue. Frail, elderly patients do better in their own familiar home surroundings. I can attest by my own personal experience with my mother that her medical health and quality of life were markedly enhanced by having her medical care at home. Although she had multiple medical problems, she did not require a single hospital visit or admission in the last eight months of her life. These are but a few of the letters I have received from my constituents about this situation. In addition, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to place in the Record a series of articles that appeared recently in the Mariner Community Newspapers based in Marshfield, Massachusetts, and a transcript of the calls from readers that were recorded on their response line. Mr. Speaker, this testimony speaks far more eloquently than I can about the plight of those affected by this situation. But what is to be done about it? I know that a number of bills have been introduced to try to fix this problem. I have cosponsored H.R. 3205, which was introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), which would delay implementation of the per beneficiary limit for one year. The extra time would enable home health agencies to minimize disruptions in services by gradually reducing costs. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Balanced Budget Act, largely because of the cuts it inflicted on the Medicare program. I continue to believe that those cuts were a terrible mistake. The least we can do now is help cushion the blow. [From the Weymouth (MA) News, June 10, 1998] Losing Patients Over Home Health Care Cuts (By Alison Cohen) Millie and Mattie B. started their life-long love affair when she asked her aunt to see if Mattie would take her to the high school prom. ``I didn't have a date and there were four boys living across the street,'' Millie said. (The couple did not want their identities revealed.) She watched from her front windows while her aunt dutifully went across the street. ``I could see him come to the window--he'd been shaving-- and then I saw him nod his head yes, so I knew I was set,'' Millie said. Mattie smiles and gives his take on the request. ``I had the only car on the street, a '34 Lafayette.'' he said. ``That's why she asked me. That was more than 50 years ago and their dancing days are behind them now. Mattie, who turned 77 last week, spends his days in a wheelchair, the result of 12 years battling Parkinson's disease. Someone once said growing old isn't for sissies. Mattie and Millie are living proof. As Parkinson's progressively immobilizes Mattie's once-powerful body, it takes all his strength to get through what used to be the simplest tasks. It's only one of many medical problems that leave him weak and vulnerable. Millie, 75, wears a weight-lifter's truss around her waist. The weight she lifts is Mattie. More than once she's been forced to pick him up off the floor after he's fallen. Once she suffered a slipped disc in the process and permanently weakened her back. Every night she transfers him from his wheelchair to the bed. Now her spine curves and the discs along her lower back project out like ragged mountain peaks. ``I got this taking care of him,'' she says, as she shows the nurse her ravaged back. Worse yet, Mattie's voice dwindled to a mere whisper about six months ago. By the end of the day, he's exhausted from trying to communicate and she's exhausted from trying to hear what he's saying. ``It's frustrating,'' he says. Parkinson's is a chronic, progressive disease. Millie doesn't want to think what the future holds if she becomes too frail to help her husband get in and out of his wheelchair. ``I hate to think about it,'' she says. ``I don't think about it.'' Another challenge lurks in Mattie's near future. After four years serving his country in time of war and 37 years toiling to maintain Boston's schools. Mattie has discovered the federal government wants to balance Medicare's budget by imposing a cap on the amount of money home health care providers can receive for taking care of him and other patients. The cost-containment method chosen by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, caps reimbursement for each patient at a percentage of the agency's 1993-94 budget. Although South Shore agencies have yet to receive official notification of their maximum reimbursement level per patient, similar agencies in other parts of the country have been told they must serve even the most challenging patients for no more than $1,500 to $4,000. (See related story.) According to Meg Doherty, executive director of Norwell Visiting Nurse Association, some of the patients on her roster cost as much as $50,000 a year to maintain at home. And the fallout is already happening. On May 7, Easter Seals of Massachusetts announced it could not afford to provide home health care services with such unreasonable cuts. Life, for Mattie, already has dwindled to the size of the small summer cottage on the South Shore they winterized and moved to four years ago when it become impossible for him to maneuver the stairs in their South Boston home. Getting outside is a production--Mattie must move from his wheelchair to a walker to traverse the step separating the dining room from the back entry and a shallow flight of stairs leading outdoors. Getting to bed is an even greater challenge. Together they position his wheelchair near his bed. Millie struggles to push him up out of the chair as best she can. ``I fall right in,'' he says. ``She straightens my legs out and covers me with the blankets.'' Most of his days are spent watching television and talking with Millie. On weekends, he looks forward to spending time with the two of their six children who live nearby. The man who once prided himself on his ability to ``fix anything,'' now relies on a cadre of home health aides who come five days a week to assist him with the activities he once took for granted, things like showering, shaving and getting dressed. On the weekends, he must ask his son to handle that duty. A visiting nurse comes once a week to check his blood pressure and monitor his health. It's hard to put a price tag on continuity of care. Sometimes symptoms are subtle. An older patient doesn't experience the crushing chest pain that alerts middle-aged men they are having a heart attack. ``I start to lose my breath,'' explains Adolph Wacker, 84, a home health care patient. A visiting nurse checks Wacker once a week, looking for clues that would show whether trouble is looming. Wacker had five heart attacks, including a cardiac arrest, within a 15-month span. He also has a pace maker to regulate his heart rhythm. The hands that once deftly wielded butcher's knives tremble uncontrollably from Parkinson's disease. Wacker also suffers from diabetes. He's tethered to an oxygen pump because of chronic obstructive lung disease that leaves him vulnerable to pneumonia. His rapid decline made it necessary for Wacker and his now- deceased wife, Stephanie, to leave his Connecticut home and move in with their daughter, Barbara Steiglitz. ``It was obvious he couldn't go home and care for my mother any more,'' Steiglitz says. Steiglitz couldn't do it alone, either. A registered nurse, Steiglitz works three days a week for a long-term care facility in Dorchester. Although her mother, who suffered from advanced Parkinson's disease, could be left alone for short periods of time at first, it didn't last long. ``She wandered,'' she said. ``She would get to the end of the driveway and wouldn't know how to get back to the house-- and there's a swamp across the street and conservation land goes almost to Norwell.'' At the end, both Stephanie's mind and body failed badly. ``She needed total care,'' Steiglitz said. ``She was in diapers, she was senile and she could barely walk.'' Steiglitz put together a patchwork of family care, home health services and what Wacker himself calls ``my private baby-sitter'' to keep the two of them safe and healthy. Stephanie Wacker died Sept. 27, just a week shy of their 59th wedding anniversary. Wacker says they met when a fire alarm went off. ``She asked me what happened,'' he recollected. ``We got to talking, I walked her home. We started dating and a year later we got married.'' The two were very close, he says. It remains a marvel to him, perhaps because his father died when he was two, his mother when he was seven. ``My brothers and sisters took care of me until I was 16. Then I was on my own,'' he explains. ``We got married when I was 24.'' Wacker is a favorite with his caregivers. Home Health Aide Anne Marie Foley comes two mornings a week. She helps Wacker get up and dressed, brings him downstairs and makes his breakfast. The two of them swap recipe tips. ``He's an incredible cook,'' Foley says. ``His soups are wonderful. I'm trying to get him to write a cook book.'' A male home health aide, Frank Serra, comes once a week to help Wacker shower. Although Wacker would like to have a shower more frequently, especially in the hot, humid season, Medicare won't cover the costs because he isn't incontinent. The combination of lung disease and Parkinson's makes him increasingly frail. ``I try to walk up to the end of the driveway and back for exercise,'' he says. ``I have to stop twice on the way up. And I can't talk and walk at the same time or I run out of breath.'' Falling is an ever-present risk because Parkinson's disease affects both balance and gait. ``He fell in February and cracked his sternum,'' says his daughter. ``I really have to hire someone to be here when I'm not home.'' Wacker is philosophical about his own failing health. ``As long as you know your own capabilities, you get along pretty good. You have to accept the idea you can't do what you used to do. If you don't you go nuts and you end up in the hospital any way.'' As Wacker's health inevitably deteriorates, his daughter promises to advocate for the services he needs, and as long as there is a Medicare certified home health care agency providing services in * * *, he'll continue to get what he needs. That's the kicker. Home health agencies aren't run on volunteer power. Without a realistic reimbursement schedule to pay the nurses, therapists and home health aides for services delivered those agencies say they cannot continue in business. The U.S. Congressional delegation from Massachusetts hopes to derail the new system before it drives any more home health care agencies out of the business. Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Worcester, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy have filed companion bills in the House and Senate to address the problem. The bills will delay the effective date of the caps until Oct. 1, 1998, to allow time for agencies to adjust to the system. Additionally, the bills change the base year for calculating benefit limits from 1994 to 1995. ``This change means that payments will more accurately reflect the type of home care that is currently delivered,'' explains Kennedy. In testifying about his bill, McGovern has said that the one in 10 Medicare beneficiaries who use home health care services are ``poorer, sicker, more often female, more likely to live alone, and have more mobility problems than the Medicare population generally. Approximately 25 percent of these ``frail elderly'' in Massachusetts are over age 83.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I come from Quincy, which is a city bordering the capital city of Massachusetts, Boston. We do not have farms. We are lucky that we have gardens. My constituents are working people. Many of them are union members. They are Teamsters, they are carpenters. We cannot distinguish between beet sugar and sugar cane, but we do know something about commitments. We know something about fairness. And I understand that there was a commitment made to the small farmer here in America, to the sugar farmer. Many of them visited me during the course of the past 6 months. They have made production plans based upon that commitment. They have made family financial plans based upon that commitment. They have made business plans based upon that commitment. I know my people respect commitment. They honor fairness. They also understand that the small farmer in America is under siege by large multinational agribusiness interests. Let us support them. The small farmer is under siege. My constituents understand that. They respect the historic role of the small farmer here in America, its unique role in this country. We support the small farmer. Defeat Miller-Schumer.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I should note that my first name is also William, and I do support this bill that puts a moratorium on taxes. Mr. Speaker, I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who has clearly played a key role in bringing forth this particular proposal. As others have indicated, we are certainly witnessing today the emergence of a vast new global electronic marketplace, which is profoundly transforming the way in which both goods and information are exchanged. Government can either foster this development through wise policies, or impede it through foolish policies. I believe, as others, that it would be very foolish for us to allow the Internet to become encumbered with a patchwork of duplicative and overlapping taxes. The moratorium provided under the bill before us would ensure instead that policymakers have the opportunity to develop a coherent and uniform policy for the taxation of electronic commerce in the years to come. As I noted earlier in a hearing of the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) this past July, the matter is of immense importance to Massachusetts, a world leader in advanced technology, that is second only to Silicone Valley as a home to software producers and other high-tech companies. Last year, some 2,200 Massachusetts-based software companies had 130,000 employees and combined revenues of $7.8 billion. This is a large slice of our State economy and a boon to our Nation's balance of trade. Massachusetts was among the first States to adopt legislation exempting Internet access services from State sales tax. However, until more States follow Massachusetts' lead, Internet users in the Commonwealth remain vulnerable to discriminatory taxes from jurisdictions outside our borders. That is why this particular proposal is so desperately needed, and I urge our colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman that that, in fact, was the message that was delivered forcefully and eloquently by the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

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