Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. Since coming to the Congress I have been asked to vote on legislation on a variety of subjects which I considered ill-conceived or even foolish. But I have never seen as silly a piece of legislation as the bill before us today. One might have expected opponents of needle exchange programs to mount an effort to prohibit federal funding for such programs--if the Administration had taken steps to authorize the release of funds. But Secretary Shalala announced just 10 days ago that the Administration does not intend to release the funds. This must be one of the few occasions in Congressional history in which members are attempting to deny the Administration the authority to make a decision they agree with. Personally, I do not agree with the Administration's decision, and I therefore regard this legislation as not only unnecessary, but unwise in the extreme. In 1989, Congress barred the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services could determine both that such programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and that they do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. In enacting this provision, Congress sought to ensure that the decision as to whether such programs merit federal support would be made by public health experts acting on the basis of sound science, rather than by politicians re-acting on the basis of uninformed opinion. Pursuant to that mandate, the Secretary conducted an exhaustive review of the scientific literature. Her investigation yielded an impressive body of evidence that properly administered needle exchange programs are an effective weapon in preventing HIV transmission, and that, far from encouraging drug use, they can actually play a role in encouraging injection drug abusers to enter treatment. In my own state of Massachusetts, these programs are doing precisely that. Last week, the Secretary reached the only conclusion the data would support, and issued the long-awaited determination that the Congressionally-mandated criteria had been met for federal funding of these programs. Yet instead of announcing that federal funds would be made available, the Secretary announced a continuation of the status quo. It's hard to see how the status quo could have provoked this kind of reaction. It's as though the proponents of the bill were so eagerly anticipating a different decision that, when it didn't come, they decided to offer their bill anyway. It goes without saying that no hearings have taken place, and the committee of jurisdiction took no action on the bill. As a former prosecutor and a member of the Judiciary Committee, I take very seriously the epidemic of drug addiction in our society. But we cannot make responsible public policy on fear and ignorance. Yesterday, I received a Dear Colleague letter from proponents of the bill citing a Canadian study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in support of their claim that drug addicts who participate in needle exchange programs are more likely to contract HIV than those who do not participate. What they failed to tell you is that the authors of the study have stated categorically that this claim is a mischaracterization of their research. Writing in the New York Times on April 9, Professors Julie Bruneau and Martin Schechter said that the reason the addicts who took part in needle exchange programs in Vancouver and Montreal had higher HIV infection rates than those who did not is that these programs are in inner-city neighborhoods where they serve those who are most at risk of infection. Having misstated the conclusions of this study, the supporters of the bill ignore the numerous other studies conducted and compiled by such agencies as the National Research Council, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health. This voluminous research has persuaded such respected organizations as the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the American Bar Association, to give their support to needle exchange. It is time for Congress and the Administration to follow suit. Indeed, it is long past time. While we wait, the epidemic continues to decimate our cities and towns. Like the mad emperor of the ancient world, Congress fiddles while Rome burns.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I am really surprised to hear that the science is divided, because everything that I have read and examined indicates that the science is rather clear. I just cannot imagine if the science was divided that the American Medical Association would give support to needle exchange programs. I cannot imagine the American Public Health Association would give support to needle exchange programs. I cannot imagine that the American Nurses Association would give support to needle exchange programs. I cannot imagine that the American Academy of Pediatrics would give support to needle exchange programs if there was not clear and convincing proof, clear and convincing proof that these programs work. And they do work, Mr. Speaker. And I hear many here talk about their experience as fighters in the war on drugs. Well, let me assure my colleagues, I stand second to none when it comes to that war. I dare say that I put more people in jail for drug distribution and narcotic abuse than all of the Members in this body combined. But also let me tell my colleagues this. This program works. I heard the minority leader speak to the issue of local option. I know it works because it works in Massachusetts. It has worked in Massachusetts. It has prevented clearly the spread of HIV. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. And, again, according to the study that was just released, it does encourage the addict to seek treatment. And guess what that translates into? That translates into a reduction of people on the streets dealing in drugs. Massachusetts has once more proven they are right. We had a debate on juvenile justice here, and I kept advocating that that approach was wrong and looked to Massachusetts. The statistics were there then, and they are there now. If we believe in States' rights, if we believe in States' rights, and I know Members on the other side advocate constantly for States rights, leave this local option available because it does work. I am not surprised by the results of the HHS study. I could have told my colleagues what it was going to show, because it has been my experience. Let me just conclude by saying the minority leader was absolutely right. This is a win/win. It is a win against the spread of HIV, and it also is a win against the war against drugs. Defeat this bill, I implore everybody, all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think what is most interesting is that upon a careful and thorough analysis of the language that presently exists in title V, that there has been a conclusion by many legal scholars that that language is patently unconstitutional as a result of the decision in Missouri v. Jenkins. It is also clear that the Department of Justice will recommend a veto of this bill if it should pass, if this language is not deleted and the Boehlert-Delahunt amendment does not pass.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said in terms of the holding in the Missouri v. Jenkins case, and the gentleman from Illinois indicated that he was quoting from Missouri v. Jenkins. He quoted earlier from Thomas Jefferson, or at least he credited Thomas Jefferson the quote that taxation without representation is tyranny. Mr. Chairman, I would correct the gentleman, because I come from that part of the country where the gentleman was born and raised who had made that quote. His name is James Otis and he lived on Cape Cod. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the gentleman misquoted or misread the Missouri v. Jenkins decision, but it clearly stated that Federal courts could not impose a tax levy on a State or local government. In the Federal district court which had earlier issued an order that did impose a tax levy in that tax case, it was overturned by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. The Boehlert-Delahunt amendment simply codifies the Missouri case. It prohibits a court from directly imposing a tax increase on State and local government or any other.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, some context is needed to understand this amendment. Reference was made earlier to the Missouri versus Jenkins case. Back in 1990, the Supreme Court rendered a decision involving the State of Missouri; and it held clearly that the Federal courts could not directly impose a tax levy on State or local governments. As far as I can tell, every member of the Committee on the Judiciary, on a bipartisan basis, understands and supports that concept. That is a principle everyone embraced. This amendment which I have filed with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), would simply do just that. Let me repeat, the amendment would prohibit a court from directly imposing a tax increase on State or local government, or any other political subdivision, for that matter, as a remedy for an illegal or wrongful action by that particular State or local government. This amendment, the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment, makes clear that the levying of taxes is not an appropriate judicial function. It leaves it to State and local governments to decide how to fund a judicial remedy to some illegal or wrongful action that they themselves are responsible for. It may involve spending cuts. It may involve borrowing. It may even involve raising taxes. But it is the State or local government's decision, not the court's decision, how to fund that particular remedy. That is what this amendment is all about. In fact, when I offered this amendment at the subcommittee it was agreed to. I might add, there was considerable discussion at that point in time. It was voted unanimously, on a voice vote. However, the bill came out of the full committee dramatically changed, changed to the point that it is now considered unconstitutional by hundreds of legal scholars. The Department of Justice also agrees, as it is presently drafted, it is of dubious constitutionality, and that based on these and other concerns with the bill, the Attorney General will absolutely recommend a veto unless amended. As presently written, a court could not even issue an order which would require a State or local government to impose a tax. That is absurd. It is the end of an independent judiciary, because it is utterly meaningless for the courts to order a remedy without the ability to compel the wrongdoer to implement that remedy. Just imagine how State and local governments could flout court orders by simply claiming they did not have sufficient cash on hand to comply with the remedy. It is no exaggeration to say that a State or local government could very well avoid responsibility for its malfeasance in the operation of a sewage treatment plant that polluted our constituents' drinking water if this amendment fails. That is one of the reasons that every major environmental group in the country opposes the underlying bill. The bill as it now stands is worse than the perceived abuses it was meant to cure. Speaking to that issue of perceived abuses, let us be honest. Despite what we hear, there is no outbreak of judicial taxation cases in this country today. They simply do not exist. The truth is clear. It is very simple. The Federal courts have not directly imposed a tax, except for the single school desegregation case, Missouri versus Jenkins, which I referenced earlier and the gentleman from Illinois alluded to. That case was overturned in 1995 by a unanimous Supreme Court that rejected the concept of direct imposition of taxes by a Federal court. Adoption of the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment would accomplish the goals articulated by many of those who advocate judicial restraint. Let us exercise some common sense and support the Delahunt-Boehlert amendment.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Will the gentleman continue to yield? Could he reveal to us the number of candidates that are on it?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would inquire of the majority whip to give us the names on that particular list.

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

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to a remarkable institution located in my Congressional District, that through years of hard work and sacrifice has become one of the premier social service centers for Vietnam-era veterans in the country. For the past fifteen years, the Nam Vets Association of the Cape and Islands has provided a haven in Hyannis, Massachusetts for the veterans throughout our region. I would like to recount the story of how this organization was created by a handful of men, and how it has since affected so many lives. In 1983, after viewing the unveiling of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, five Vietnam vets from Cape Cod decided to create an organization to address the human service needs of veterans at home. The five leased a small room staffed by a single volunteer to provide peer counseling. Today, the association purchased its own building and developed it into a well-equipped, one-stop Veterans Service Center that distributes over 55,000 meals annually from its food pantry, and provides over 1,300 units of social services a month. The Nam Vets Association stepped in to provide desperately needed services that the state was not equipped to supply. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts granted Nam Vets a contract to oversee the delivery of these services but required a $10,000 balance in the association's account before disbursing any funds. Short on cash, but not on valor, James Michael Trainor, then the group's president, mortgaged his own home to obtain the funds to ensure that the necessary care would be delivered to Cape and Islands vets. The Nam Vets have also struggled through times when there was no state support. When the Commonwealth rescinded funding due to state budget constraints, the association's Board of Directors, made personal loans to cover staff salaries and maintain operations without interruption. Over the past decade and a half, the Nam Vets Association has opened its doors to all local veterans. As the executive director John Eastman said, ``Let no generation of veterans ever forget another generation of veterans.'' The Outreach Center has become a major health care facility--providing prescription drugs, psychiatric diagnosis, and follow-up counseling. For years, the Center was the only place on the Cape and Islands where these types of services were made available to veterans. The Nam Vets have also become deeply involved in addressing the problem of adequate housing by providing assistance to vets and their families in finding affordable shelter. In 1993, working with the Barnstable Housing Authority, Nam Vets won a HUD Section 8 Single Room Occupancy Program grant to address the needs of the area's single homeless vets. The structure that became the SRO is affectionately knows as ``The Homestead'' and was originally intended to house 40 to 60 homeless veterans. Since 1994 it has processed over 300 applications. The Nam Vets Association also participates in the VA's Homeless Provider Program which markets foreclosed properties at a discount to non profit agencies. Nam Vets has successfully found two homes for needy families through this program and is currently looking for other affordable homes to meet demand. The Vietnam Veterans of America Convention recently acknowledged something I have known all along, that the Nam Vets Association is worthy of national attention. The Convention honored the Nam Vets with the 1997 Community Service Chapter of the Year award for their outstanding commitment and for the variety of the services they provide to the community. As we celebrate Vietnam Veterans Day in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts this Sunday, I am proud to say I represent the members of the Nam Vets Association of the Cape and Islands and commend them for their years of hard work to establish this service organization. Its founders have worked countless hours to ensure that needed assistance is available to those who have made such sacrifices for our country. Next time any of my colleagues visit Cape Cod, I encourage you to stop by the Hyannis Village Green and view the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial, which the Nam Vets built with their own hands--an act which symbolizes not only their commitment to their country but their continued dedication to honor all those who served.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that listening to the colloquy between the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas, I do not know how, but it might be appropriate to redesignate the bill before us as the Sonny Bono Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, much has been made about the ability of the performing rights societies, principally ASCAP and BMI, to drive a hard bargain. They have been described as monopolies. I would just simply quote a great South Boston philosopher, Paddy McPhagan, who clearly would say in these circumstances, ``Give me a break.'' These organizations are not monopolies. They are trade associations, collective bargaining units, if you will, which enable authors and composers to negotiate contractual terms that are fair and are equitable. It is absurd to suggest that the thousands of songwriters who belong to these trade associations could ever negotiate a contract on their own. I understand why the restaurant association would want to focus on the market power of ASCAP and BMI, but I think it is important to remember what this issue is really about. It is about the people that are part of these trade associations, the songwriters who create American music. They are mostly people whose songs we all know by heart but whose names none of us, or most of us, would not even recognize. As Mac Davis testified at our hearing, the people who write the songs are the low men on the totem pole, the tiny names in fine print and parentheses under that star's name on the label, the last guys to get credit and the last guys to get paid. They are the ones who create the music that fuels an industry that pours millions of dollars into our economy and generates millions upon millions of dollars in taxes. Yet the songwriters get the smallest piece of the pie, pennies, if you will. Mac Davis is one of the lucky ones. He is a renowned songwriter. His musical gifts have been recognized and he has done extremely well. But most songwriters write hundreds of songs over the course of a long career before they achieve financial success, if they ever do. George David Weiss, who is the current President of the Songwriters Guild and one of America's truly great songwriters, commissioned a study that established that 10 percent of his colleagues are able to earn a living writing songs. He quoted a study that was done in 1980 and I am quoting now. Song writing is an occupation which has a high degree of risk, a high degree of failure, a low chance of success and in general miserly rewards. Like all true artists, they do what they do because they love it. When it comes to being compensated for their labors, they are willing to accept the verdict of the marketplace. But what they cannot accept is having their work stolen from them, and that is what the Sensenbrenner amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McCollum amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill. I think it is important to understand that this bill is not simply a means to encourage American creativity and to protect the products of that creativity. Just as importantly, it is about the future of our national economy. I suggest that is not an exaggeration. Most importantly, it is about our balance of trade, a balance of trade that for some time has registered a substantial deficit, a deficit that exploded last month as a result of the financial crisis in Asia, and according to most economists, a deficit that will continue to escalate because of that crisis. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to not pass this bill if we hope to control this burgeoning trade deficit and protect our national economic well-being. Furthermore, it is essential that the Sensenbrenner amendment that we will be considering shortly be defeated and the McCollum-Conyers substitute pass. Otherwise our trading partners will claim that Congress has enacted an overly broad exemption to our copyright laws that violates our international treaty obligations. If we do not defeat the Sensenbrenner amendment, not only will this be unfair to songwriters, but it will further exacerbate our trade deficit. America is the world's leading producer and exporter of copyrighted products. The entire world clamors for American software, American movies, American television programs, American videos, American literature, and American music. Just these core copyrighted industries produce a surplus of $50 billion annually in our trade with the rest of the world. Just imagine what our trade deficit would be if that $50 billion annual surplus were at risk or declining. Imagine how many well-paying American jobs would be jeopardized in just these industries, which create new jobs for American workers at nearly three times the rate of the rest of the economy. Well, if we want to avoid that disastrous scenario, we must pass this bill; because if we are to maintain American leadership and retain our comparative advantage in this aspect of international commerce, we must adapt to changing international standards of copyright protection, and this bill does just that. The emerging world standard for the term of copyright protection in Europe and throughout most of the developed world is the life of the author plus 70 years. In 1995, the European Union adopted this standard, but only with respect to works that enjoy comparable protection in the country of origin. This means that until the United States extends its copyright term to 70 years from its current term of 50 years, U.S. works will not be entitled to protection for the full term accorded to works in the European markets. If this situation persists, it will put our creative industries at a serious competitive disadvantage and will substantially and adversely affect our overall trade posture. Rather, we should foster and nurture our creative industries for the sake of our economic future. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for American prosperity. Support the bill as amended by the McCollum-Conyers substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, which would broaden the visa waiver pilot program to make tourists from Portugal and Greece eligible to participate on equal terms with their European neighbors. These two countries are presently the only members of the European Union who do not benefit from this program, and it is high time that Congress corrected that inequity. There is only one fair justification for excluding these or any other countries from the waiver program: namely, where there is a high rate of abuse. Yet there is no evidence that visitors from Portugal are any likelier than others to overstay their welcome in the United States once their visas have expired. In fact, the evidence refutes any suggestion that there has been an increase in illegal immigration from Portugal in recent years. Yet the continued exclusion of these countries from the pilot waiver program creates a hardship for the many visitors who wish to come to this country and enhance our local economies. It creates a hardship for the many families in this country with relatives in Portugal who seek to travel here to see them. Many of those families are from southeastern Massachusetts, where the Portugese-American community has made enormous contributions to our local heritage. These citizens and their family members overseas deserve to be treated fairly, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from the list of cosponsors of H.R. 94.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to echo the sentiments expressed by Mr. Stupak that it was an extremely informative and educational trip for myself as well as for every Member of Congress. I did learn something about food. As you know, I come from Massachusetts, which is not necessarily considered an agricultural economy. However, I should point out that Massachusetts is the second leading producer, it might be the first, but I will concede to Wisconsin, the second leading producer of cranberries, and most of those cranberries happen to be cultivated and grown in my district, which includes the south shore of Boston as well as Cape Cod and the islands. But I did learn this that I had never known before. When we talk about globalization, when we talk about trade, you mentioned, for example, that 70 percent of the food that is consumed in the State of Michigan during the course of the winter is imported. When we talk about globalization, we are really talking to, I would suggest, the beginning of the end of a way of life, but because what I learned on this trip as it related to agriculture is that it is the small farmer in America that is losing, not the large agribusiness, not the large multinational conglomerate, if you will. But again and again we heard that the small farmer just cannot make it. They cannot survive. And my memory, and maybe it is a romantic view of American history, was a small farmer in America that really produced not just food, but in many respects our national prosperity.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield, I do not think that there is any Member of this body that would disagree with the fact that it is unconscionable to allow food that is contaminated to be imported into this country. I want to get back to the statistics that you talked about in terms of your home State of Michigan and Mr. Bonior's State where there were in excess of 300 children under the ages of 10 who contracted hepatitis. But putting aside the human anguish, putting aside the fact that this is just unacceptable to the American people, what I would dare say is that the cost of treating the victims of that epidemic in terms of our health care dollars has to be substantial. Somebody is paying the bill. And it would appear to be the people of Michigan in that particular case, but people all over this Nation in terms of allowing into this country the import or importation of food products that very well might be endangering the health of Americans, there is a dollars and cents cost to that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is less than 25 percent this past year of what occurred 6 or 7 years ago.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a question, what kind of inspection occurs when these food imports enter into the United States?

Mr. DELAHUNT. So from the time it was first diagnosed that this epidemic broke out, it has almost doubled in terms of the number of young children that have been conclusively diagnosed and contracted hepatitis as the result of the importation of unsafe food from Mexico?

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman repeat that, please.