Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. It was not the expensive boat ride. But I think really what that particular statistic does really talks to what we are about, which was fair trade. We ought to have probably a picture of the car that was produced here, produced in Atlanta, Georgia, just to remind the American people that that car was $20,000 here in the United States and $45,000 in Japan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think a fact that I shall never forget upon visiting that Ford factory was that the cost of the car that they produced, which was the Sable, a fine car, in the United States cost approximately $20,000. When that car was exported to Japan, the consumer in Japan had to pay approximately $45,000 for that vehicle.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what does that mean?

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is like running on a treadmill. That is exactly what it is like.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Anytown USA.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is important to remember, too, we are not just talking blue collar workers here. There were people that were concerned and frightened about their jobs as middle managers. I can remember reading 2 or 3 years ago a series in The New York Times about corporate downsizing and restructuring. The victims of corporate restructuring and downsizing are out there, too. The individual that was making $65,000 or $75,000 or $85,000 a year, we should speak about him, too, because he has or she has not had an opportunity to secure a job, similar kind of employment, that exceeds in many cases more than 60 percent of what his or her income was. The gentleman spoke earlier about the small business person. Does anybody in America recognize what is happening in the community? The gentleman talked about the drugstore. I have this vivid memory of every day, on my way home from school, stopping at the independent drugstore: The individual who sponsored the Little League team, who knew my name, who traded with my parents, who was an integral part of the community. That does not happen today. That store is gone. The hardware store, that was part of the song that that folk singer sang to us. Rather than going down and getting your nails and hammer at the hardware store in our local town, where again we knew that individual and we connected with the owner, with the proprietor, he or she is also gone. Today we walk into Home Depot. Maybe an argument can be made, and I have not heard it yet, that we are better off as a result of the efficiencies that are occurring there. But there is something missing in terms of the quality of life with these people going on. Remember community banks? Is there anybody in America that has not witnessed the incredible acceleration of the demise of community banks? I know in New England we really have two banks left. If you are a middle-class person, and you need a loan real quickly, go in and knock on that friendly door.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And we become a society of have and have-nots. And that is part of the problem.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Because without a healthy middle class, democracy starts to erode.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is it not absolutely critical that whatever we talk about in terms of our own responsibility, it is to ensure that those standards that were created, as the gentleman said, through struggle and toil, stay the same so that we continue to have a healthy middle class that really sets us apart as a healthy democracy?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will continue to yield for a moment. If those that went before us had not prevailed, would there be a middle class in America today?

Mr. DELAHUNT. But what about the other 80 percent? What about the middle class in America? It is really about the middle class, because if we do not have a viable middle class, the poor and the disadvantaged have nowhere to go but even further down. So what we are talking about is a global commerce, an international trade where the American people, through its Congress and through its President, write the new rules, the new rules that will encourage trade, but where every single American and people all over the world will benefit, not just a few.

Mr. DELAHUNT. As the gentleman says, it is almost as if there is a loss of a sense of community; that these people who really made America great, the small farmer, is at such an incredible disadvantage because of unfair trade. Unfair trade. And those are the people we ought to be concerned about. Who is standing up for the small farmer here in America today? It is certainly not the multinational conglomerate. I was pleased to hear my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), talk about that we are not opposed to trade. Because the reality is every single Member that participated in that trip wants to encourage trade. We are pro-trade. We are pro-fair trade. But what we want to be able to do is to write the rules of international commerce so that every single American benefits from the prosperity that is generated by global trade and by the global economy. That is what we are about. And that was really the first very small step along that road. The very first step. But what we have discovered in real terms is that not everybody is playing by the same rules. We have to have a set of rules where there is a minimum wage; where there are child labor standards; where there is a 40-hour workweek; where there is paid vacations; where there is a weekend. It is not about exploiting other nations, it is about raising their standard of living and not suppressing our own standard of living to benefit the few. If we can pause and reflect, we think of in the past 10 years how well the stock market has done. Broken all records. Every day there is a new record. I daresay that the stock market has probably increased, since 1980, 700 or 800 or 900 percent, and my gut tells me that I am underestimating that. But what is happening to the median income of the American people in this country? The top 20 percent have done well.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I rise to express my strong support for it. The age of the Internet promises enormous benefits--instantaneous communication from one end of the planet to the other, paperless financial transactions, access to vast libraries of information at the touch of a button. But these benefits are not without a price: the same technology that facilitates unprecedented access has also fostered a new breed of sophisticated criminals. Today's Internet pirates can download perfect digital copies of copyrighted works--from movies to musical recordings to video games--and distribute them to other Internet users without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holders. Software piracy carries enormous costs for our society. Last year, it cost copyright holders between $11 and 20 billion worldwide, with $2.3 billion lost in the United States alone. That, in turn, meant the loss of many thousands of American jobs, higher prices to honest software purchasers, and a billion dollars in lost tax revenues. Most people who commit these crimes do so for financial gain. But increasingly these crimes are being committed by computer hackers who obtain copyrighted software from lawful users and post it on electronic bulletin boards, free for the taking. The present copyright law can do little to either deter or punish these crimes, because under current law there can be no culpability unless the defendant was seeking commercial gain. H.R. 2265 corrects that problem by criminalizing computer theft of copyrighted works whether or not the defendant derives a direct financial benefit from his actions. I believe this measure will help preserve the creative incentive on which so much of our prosperity--and the future of the Internet itself--depend. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the relief provided by this legislation is of exceptional urgency, and I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hyde, Chairman Smith, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Watt, for their cooperation and assistance in bringing this legislation forward on an expedited basis. These bills concern two men, now in their seventies, who have been American citizens for over 50 years. Each served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II, and each was captured by the Nazis and interned at the infamous concentration camp known as Buchenwald. The first man, Roy Desmond Moser, was held as a prisoner of war at Stalag 9B, one of the most brutal of the Nazi POW camps. From there, he and 350 of his American comrades were transported to Berga, a sub-camp of Buchenwald. There they were confined in unhealthy, degrading and inhumane conditions, subsisting on a starvation diet, subjected to forced labor, and brutalized by camp guards. After only 6 weeks at Berga, 24 had perished from starvation, overwork, disease and physical abuse. In early April 1945, the remaining prisoners were driven on a death march away from the advancing Allied front. Of the 280 American POW's who survived, most weighed less than 90 pounds when they were finally liberated. The second man, John Andre Chalot, was too young to enlist in the U.S. Army, so he went to Canada and joined the Royal Canadian Air Force. He flew Spitfires with the RCAF based in England from 1940 to 1943, and transferred to the U.S. Army Air Corps, 358th Fighter Squadron, in 1943, receiving a commission as a second lieutenant. Early in 1944, Mr. Chalot was flying a P-51 mission over Germany when his plane was hit and he crash-landed in Holland. With the help of the Resistance, he managed to get to Paris, but was arrested and imprisoned there. In August 1944, he and his fellow prisoners, including 168 Allied airmen, were crowded into boxcars and transported to Buchenwald, where they suffered extreme deprivations and were even subjected to Nazi medical experiments. Mr. Chalot and most of his fellow airmen were eventually transferred to Stalag Luft III, a POW camp, where they remained until their liberation. After the war, both men returned to the United States to resume their lives. Mr. Moser retired after 32 years on the Boston police force and lives with his family in Holbrook, MA. Mr. Chalot is a retired postal worker in Bradenton, FL. Up to this point, their stories are not dissimilar from those of the hundreds of other American POW's who were transported to the death camps. But unlike their comrades-in-arms, Mr. Moser and Mr. Chalot discovered after the war that they were not American citizens. Mr. Moser had come to the United States from Canada at the age of 6 months; Mr. Chalot had immigrated from France before the age of 2. Neither had been naturalized at the time of their military service, although both were granted citizenship upon their return. The fact that they were not American citizens had made no difference to the U.S. Army, nor had it prevented the Third Reich from sending them to Buchenwald. But 50 years later, when they applied under a United States-German agreement for compensation as American nationals who were victims of Nazi persecution, each was informed that he was not eligible because he was not a U.S. citizen at the time. I am sure all of my colleagues would agree that this is a great injustice which we must correct. The bills under consideration would make Mr. Moser and Mr. Chalot eligible for compensation by deeming them to be naturalized U.S. citizens as of the date they began their military service. It is urgent that we pass these bills now, because the State Department is about to forward to the German Government the list of those who are eligible to participate in the program. After what these men suffered in the service of our country, this is truly the least we can do. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, let me first acknowledge the hard work that was done on this particular proposal by both the Chair, my friend and colleague from North Carolina, and by the ranking member. As they both indicated, this bill is mostly about fairness, but there is even a trade deficit reform or concern, rather, addressed in this proposal. Because of the opinion that was rendered in the case that has been referred to, La Cienega, there is now a cloud over the copyright of virtually every piece of American music written before 1978. American musicians, composers, and publishers now stand to lose some 1 and one- quarter billion dollars a year, and a significant portion of that 1 and one-quarter billion dollars is generated by overseas sales as American music is universally acknowledged to be the most popular on the planet. In fact, music is one of our most valuable exports and one of the few bright spots in our balance of trade. We will hear this week in the course of the debate on fast track about how our former trade circle with Mexico is now a deficit of some $17 billion, and of course our trade deficit with China escalates by billions with every new report. Well, we cannot afford to lose the income derived from foreign sales of pre-1978 musical works. It is painfully clear we are in no position to exacerbate our ballooning trade deficit, and unless we pass this bill and reverse the La Cienega decision, that is exactly what will happen. But this measure is, as both gentlemen indicated, much more than just trying to do something about our balance of trade problems. It is about being fair, being fair to thousands of hard-working, talented creators of American music who, for 86 years, were told by the Government and the American judicial system that their work was protected by the Copyright Act of 1909. They were told all that was necessary to protect their works was to place the familiar copyright symbol on the printed musical score, the sheet music, if my colleagues will. We have all seen that symbol; it is the C in a circle. They were told that it was not necessary to place that symbol on the recording of their composition. They relied on the interpretation of the Copyright Act of 1909 because that is all the Government, through the Copyright Office, said that the Copyright Act required. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Federal court decisions that confirmed the position of the Copyright Office. So this was the law for 86 years, until 1995 when La Cienega arrived on the scene. The bill before us today would rectify this injustice, and I urge swift passage as any delay places at risk an entire industry and threatens to stifle that incredible creative talent of American song writers.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Tom Flaherty, a constituent of mine from Eastham, MA, who has been actively involved in the government-sponsored civics education program known as ``We the People.'' This program focuses on teaching students the importance of the freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights and Constitution. Each year, this program brings together high school students from across the Nation. In the spirit of competition, they test their knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights learned through the ``We the People'' program. The program focuses on ways to challenge students to learn in creative and innovative ways, which make learning fun and help students retain what they have learned. They then have the opportunity to showcase their knowledge at the local, State, and national level. Tom is a history teacher at Chatham High School on Cape Cod who also serves as the district coordinator of the ``We the People'' Program for the Tenth Congressional District of Massachusetts. His most recent competition this past spring yet again yielded winning results as his team returned to the national level, winning the category for ``Best Team for Expertise on the Extension of the Bill of Rights.'' I was proud to welcome students and a teacher who are so committed to learning the fundamental fabric of our Nation's government. Most recently, Tom also participated in the Civitas Program, which is jointly run by the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Information Agency, along with teachers from the Council of Europe. This project seeks to provide teachers in Bosnia and Herzogovina with the tools to prepare students and their communities to be responsible citizens through participation in elections and by becoming actively involved in the political process. Tom went through an intensive 2-week program to train over 500 teachers throughout Bosnia and Herzogovina with materials and methods developed from ``We the People'' to educate and teach democratic principles. Traveling to a war-torn area to help construct the fundamental building blocks for a burgeoning society truly shows Tom's commitment to our democratic principles and his genuine dedication to teaching these principles. Mr. Speaker, I commend Tom and his Chatham High School class for their passion for learning and hope they both realize they may be directly helping to build democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovinia.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment. I am particularly pleased to hear so many Members on the other side speak to the issues of States rights, devolution. It was the authors of the Contract With America that said they wanted to return power to the people through State and local governments. Yet the bill, H.R. 1534, that is before this Congress would take local land disputes that have always been decided by State and local authorities and turn them over to the Federal courts. Whatever happened to devolution and State rights? It also was the authors of the Contract With America that said they wanted to limit judicial activism. Yet the bill sweeps away the abstention doctrine which in effect restrains judicial judges. It also eviscerates the ripeness doctrine which prevents premature Federal involvement in such cases. It invites the Federal courts to strike down the actions of zoning boards and city councils across the land. Mr. Chairman, let us give federalism, devolution, and States rights another chance and let us support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, when the 104th Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996, they unintentionally denied American parents who were adopting orphans from other countries the right to decide where their child would be vaccinated. That amendment required applicants for immigrant status, including children who will be adopted by American parents, to present evidence of numerous vaccinations for diseases ranging from mumps to hepatitis B before they can be admitted to the United States. This, despite the fact that there has never been a single documented case of an adopted child from another country posing any public health risk. This unintended consequence of the 1996 act has provoked major concerns among adoptive parents and for good reason. It is important to note that every year, American families adopt some 12,000 orphaned and abandoned children living in countries that cannot care for them. These adoptive parents and families endure innumerable bureaucratic obstacles and delays that frequently take many months or even years to overcome. International adoption is an expensive process. It is time consuming and it is often frustrating and can certainly be an emotional roller coaster for many, many parents. I know from personal experience, as my younger daughter Kara came from Vietnam. The daughter of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], came from Taiwan, and the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] has a son and a daughter from Korea. I certainly want to acknowledge the help and support of these Members for this proposal before the Congress. Madam Speaker, the new requirement that I referred to only serves to impede the process of intercountry adoptions and may very well create potential health risks to the children themselves. I would simply ask a rhetorical question: Would any parent want to be required to rely on the medical care available in such nations as Bosnia, Afghanistan, Romania, Haiti, or a long list of other war-torn or Third World countries? I am confident that their preference, like mine, would be to have their child vaccinated by their family doctor here at home in the United States. Let me tell my colleagues about one of the families affected by the bill, the Collins family of Hingham, MA. In September 1995, before the current requirements went into effect, they adopted a child from China who experienced a severe reaction to a DPT vaccination she received after arriving in the United States. While such reactions can be serious wherever they occur, Judy and Richard Collins were relieved and grateful to be able to ensure that their daughter, Brittany, had the very best of care here at home. They are now about to complete the adoption process for another child from China, and I sincerely hope that they will be able to provide him or her with that same level of care. Additionally, there is evidence that vaccinations in some countries can be unsafe or ineffective promoting adverse reactions and that unsterile needles and syringes have been used. These are real health threats, especially for the many children raised in orphanages who may be malnourished or sickly and whose medical records are often incomplete or are inaccurate. Madam Speaker, as I said, there is not a single case documented of a child placed for adoption who came to this country and created a public health risk. It is only common sense that parents who have been through the rigorous international adoption process will do anything they can to assure that their adopted child will receive the best possible medical care as soon as they arrive here, home in America. Remember, they are not unwanted children. To the contrary. They are often the children who bring great joy to childless couples. This bill, sponsored by myself and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], restores common sense in the case of adoptive children immigrating to the United States. It would exempt foreign-born orphans aged 10 and younger who are adopted by American families from this vaccination requirement. It has, as has been indicated, the full support of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and was passed unanimously by the Committee on the Judiciary. Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the time and thoughtful review given to this proposal by both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas, as well as the support of Chairman Hyde and our ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt]. I also want to acknowledge the priority given to the swift passage of this measure by both the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas, as it is important to remember that this requirement is now in effect and may very well be impeding the entry of orphaned children into the United States where their American families are anxiously awaiting them. This bill is strongly supported by the adoption community, parents groups, and physicians with expertise in the medical aspects of international adoption. These groups include the Joint Council on International Children's Services, Adoptive Families of America, the National Council for Adoption, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Child Welfare League. I strongly agree with them and enthusiastically support this proposal and urge its passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mrs. Emerson]. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2464, as amended.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], who has done so much in the area of the adopted children of this Nation.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, which would partially restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation to a level of $250 million. For over 20 years, Legal Services has been a lifeline for millions of poor Americans with no other means of access to the legal system. During the past year alone, the Corporation funded programs that helped over 4 million people resolve some 1.4 million cases. Who are the people behind these statistics? Women seeking child support or protection against abusive spouses. Elderly citizens lost in the maze of Government red tape. Homeless veterans seeking access to benefits. Abandoned children in need of shelter and care. Slum tenants facing eviction and small farmers fighting foreclosure. Those are the people we are talking about. If this amendment fails, thousands of them will have no place to turn. We know this because that is what happened 2 years ago, when Congress slashed the Corporation's budget by over 30 percent. Because of those cuts, Legal Services handled 300,000 fewer cases in 1996 than in the previous year. In my district in southeastern Massachusetts, this meant that hundreds of families were denied assistance. Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not become a nation in which only people with financial means can afford an attorney. I urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, more than 20 years ago, my predecessor in this Chamber helped enact landmark legislation to ensure that foreign fleets would no longer be allowed to deplete fish stocks off our coasts. Well, here we go again. Unless this amendment is approved, factory trawlers are poised to return--this time with advanced technology aimed at two of the few healthy stocks we still have left: Atlantic herring and mackerel. In late July, this House passed legislation banning factory trawlers from harvesting Atlantic herring and mackerel until a fisheries management plan is in place. Similar legislation is pending before the other chamber. Even since then, a great deal has happened that brings the devastation of mackerel and groundfish stocks off the New England coast closer to a reality. At least one factory trawler has been granted an exemption by the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] and, as we debate, is being retrofitted to set sail for the waters off the New England coast. This one vessel alone is capable of harvesting 50,000 metric tons of mackerel a year--a third of the sustainable yield for the whole Atlantic coast--not to mention the likely impact of bycatch from this harvest on haddock and scores of other marine species. And now, we learn that at least two other factory trawlers may be charting course for the east coast. A classified advertisement, in the October issue of ``National Fisherman,'' seeks ``captains, mates, engineers, deckhands * * * to fill positions'' on ``two freeze trawlers locating on U.S. East Coast to fish herring and mackerel.'' This is an emergency. If you had heard the testimony at last spring's hearing, it would be alarmingly clear that no one--including NMFS-- knows enough about the population dynamics of herring and mackerel to risk placing such enormous new pressures on these species. And those of us who live in the coastal communities which depend upon them to sustain a healthy economy. Without this amendment, we stand to repeat the mistakes of the past. Everything we've gained these past decades is at risk if we don't pass this amendment. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, large Russian and Polish vessels plied our shores and threatened to decimate our fishing industry and our stocks. It took the passage of the Magnuson Act to push them from our waters, leaving what we thought was plenty of fish to go around. Less than a year after the House reauthorized that statute, we face the prospect of factory vessels again invading our fisheries. This is absurd. New England fishermen--already stressed by declining stocks, higher prices, and shortened seasons--continue to face bleak times as we await the slow process of rebuilding groundfish stocks. Already, we have too many boats chasing too few fish; and far too many vessels that will never again go to sea at all. To allow these huge trawlers to return would be a disaster of major proportion. Unless we pass this amendment, local fleets trying to diversify their harvests will be driven from the seas, with drastic consequences to their livelihood and way of life. For the sake of both fish and the fishermen, it is my own hope that the Fisheries Council will implement management plans that make further congressional action unnecessary. This House spoke clearly in July and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment, to show that we can learn from our mistakes.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, when President Theodore Roosevelt established the first wildlife refuge in Florida 94 years ago, he could hardly have imagined a national system of 500 refuges covering 93 million acres. Today, we have another opportunity to make a genuine contribution to this remarkable legacy of wildlife conservation and management. It is in that spirit that I rise today in support of H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Chairman and Ranking Member have worked together to craft a bill that ensures the future biological integrity of our refuges. Legacies are not historic relics: like the species that inhabit our refuges, they survive only if they prosper and evolve. This bill will help protect species large and small, beautiful and not-so-beautiful, endangered and common alike, and specifically recognizes the benefits that refuges bring to people who live and work near them. The bill explicitly encourages the Interior Department to work with local communities, states and private and non-profit groups. It is precisely such a partnership that has characterized our progress toward one of the newest additions to the refuge system, in Mashpee on Cape Cod, home to over 180 migratory fish and bird species. Like so many others across the country, the Mashpee Refuge has value even beyond its statutory objectives--in this case, in safeguarding the quality and quantity of the area's fragile water resources. This imperative has become particularly acute with recent findings that pollution emanating from a nearby military reservation is seriously contaminating groundwater and jeopardizing future drinking water supplies. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to enact H.R. 1420--and then to pay for it by passing a 1998 Interior appropriations bill that includes the $700 million for land acquisition provided for in the budget agreement. This bill draws on historic, bipartisan support for the basic mission of the refuge system, and makes adjustments that keep this refuge system alive and vibrant. I urge my colleagues to again join me in helping the House send this legislation to the President.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the appropriations bill which Chairman Porter has brought before this Chamber. This legislation was carefully crafted to restoring bipartisan priorities for Federal health, labor, and education policy, and deserves the enthusiastic support of this House. I also want to draw particular attention to a small provision which has enormous implications for many communities across the Nation, including the town of Bourne, on Cape Cod, in my congressional district. As many of my colleagues know, the impact aid program was created in 1950 to ensure compensation to local communities for at least part of the cost of educating children of families associated with military bases or other Federal installations. On reliance of that assurance, cities and towns have expended considerable sums to educate these kids. The Federal formulas were never even close to covering the actual educational costs, but for awhile there was at least lipservice to the commitment. For the past dozen years, however, Washington has done all it can to abandon its obligations altogether--while towns like Bourne have struggled under the weight of these extra financial burdens. The irony is that, as impact aid communities do their best to maintain opportunity for federally connected students, now 15 percent of the student population, the quantity and quality of school services inevitably suffer. In 1 year alone, Bourne was forced to lay off 74 school employees. And when Washington saves, Bourne pays--in the form of increased local property taxes to defray the increased expenses, which compromise a substantial portion of the town's school budget. Local communities are perplexed at a Congress which decries unfunded mandates, but then shrugs its shoulders year after year at this direct, and regressive, hit on the local tax base. In all, the town of Bourne has subsidized the cost of educating federally related students to the tune of $7 million. I rise today, however, to suggest that, through the work of impact aid towns across the country, and the assistance of Chairman Porter, there is some hope. After a decade-long decline, this bill would increase impact aid funding levels for the 2nd year in a row--$66 million more for fiscal year 1998. This increase, which restores program funding to its 1979 level, will not cover all current impact aid costs, much less retroactive obligations. However, it suggests that we are deciding, for the year to come, to do no more harm--and for that, at least, 1,800 school districts across America are grateful.