Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, much of the controversy surrounding H.R. 408 concerns the redefinition of the ``dolphin safe'' label--an issue of particular significance to me and to the residents of the 10th Congressional District of Massachusetts, home of the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, a world-class marine mammal research facility. One of the reasons I opposed this bill when it was first brought to the House floor was that there is no scientific justification for a change in the dolphin-safe label. Common sense suggests that the repeated harassment and chasing of dolphins jeopardizes their well- being. Along with a number of my colleagues, I wanted to see evidence that chasing and netting dolphins in the course of tuna fishing was safe for dolphins before agreeing to change the definition of the ``dolphin safe'' label. The bill before us is a compromise between proponents of an immediate label change and those of us who contend instead that policy should reflect scientific method. The bill mandates a 3-year study on the effect of the intentional chase and encirclement on dolphins and dolphin stocks taken in the course of tuna fishing. Based on the initial results of this study, the Secretary of Commerce is required to make a finding between March 1 and March 30, 1999, as to whether the intentional chasing and netting is having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stocks. If the Secretary does not make a finding of significant adverse impact, then the label will be redefined to allow its use on tuna harvested with the encirclement method. At the conclusion of the 3-year study, section (5) requires the Secretary to make a similar finding and if significant adverse impact is found, then the definition would revert back to its current meaning as defined in the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act. Mr. Speaker, the bill does not include a definition of the term ``significant adverse impact,'' but it is my understanding that it would include any impact that retards or impedes the recovery of the depleted dolphin stocks. For example, in the recovery of the grey whale, scientists observed population growth rates of between 4 and 6 percent. Similar growth rates are expected in the depleted dolphin stocks. Therefore, if the study shows that the depleted stocks of dolphins are not growing at the expected rates of 4 to 6 percent, I presume the Secretary will be required to make a finding that chase and encirclement is having a significant adverse impact on the dolphins and the label will not change. The bill is an imperfect attempt to help make certain, above all, that dolphins are not put at unnecessary risk--and that marine mammal policy derives from sound science.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my gratitude to the chairman of the subcommittee, who has really provided some leadership in this matter that concerns us all here. More than 20 years ago my predecessor, Gerry Studds, 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 once more. Unless we vote today to approve H.R. 1855, factory trawlers will return and will bring with them an updated high-tech version of overfishing aimed at two of the few healthy stocks we still have left, Atlantic herring and mackerel. As the House deliberates today, at least one displaced factory trawler is being retrofitted in Norway in preparation 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 in 1 year, one-third of the maximum sustainable yield for the whole Atlantic coast, not to mention the likely impact of bycatch on haddock and scores of other marine species. We just do not know enough about the population dynamics of herring and mackerel to risk placing such enormous new pressures on these species, species on which the industry, marine mammals, coastal communities and the entire coastal ecosystem depend. Without this bill, we stand to repeat the mistakes of the past. In the late 1960's and 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. Meanwhile, however, we allowed our own industry to expand. Soon it was vastly overcapitalized, putting renewed pressures on groundfish. We are all too aware of the consequences. Yet less than a year after reauthorizing the Magnuson Act, we are watching factory trawler vessels again prepare to invade our fisheries. New England fishermen, stressed by declining stocks, higher prices and a shortened season, 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. Without this bill, local fleets trying to diversify their interests will be rewarded only by drastic levels of new competition that will remain with us forever. For the sake of both fish and the fishermen, it is my own hope that the Fisheries Council will develop and implement management plans that make further congressional action unnecessary. I strongly support H.R. 1855 because it encourages the council to complete this important work and because it shows that we can learn from our mistakes.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this bill because I prosecuted violent criminals for more than 20 years; and unlike the juvenile crime bill we passed last May, I know this bill will work. It will reduce violence because instead of dictating policy from Washington, it relies on balanced, proven local initiatives which have worked in the real world, and it focuses on preventing crime, which is the best use of tax dollars. In Boston, this balanced approach has already worked. Boston has not had a single juvenile homicide for more than 2 years. Yet the Washington-imposed mandates in the bill passed last May would preclude Boston and most other cities and towns in this Nation from even applying for Federal help. Our communities do not need Washington telling them how to reduce violence. What they do need is resources to get the job done, and that is what this bill is about. I support it, and I want to extend my congratulations to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] the ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] for the fine work and the product which they have produced.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill would replace the existing rules and procedures governing financial transactions with terrorism listed governments with an absolute ban on such transactions unless they fit in one of the 10 express exemptions provided by the bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for his diligent efforts on behalf of this measure. I want to associate myself with the intent of his legislation. While I join with him and the rest of the committee in reporting the bill favorably, I do have a concern which I raised during the committee's consideration of the bill as to what effect the bill might have on the embargoes currently in place against 5 of the 7 countries on the terrorism list. Specifically, I was concerned about whether the bill leaves the executive branch sufficient flexibility to address individual cases as they may arise since it is impossible to fully anticipate all the myriad circumstances which might require private citizens or the government itself to engage in financial transactions in the midst of an embargo. I have since received a letter from the Department of State which indicates that. The effect on these embargoes would be significant, including in ways that cannot be fully foreseen or assessed at this time. The letter which I would ask to have included in the Record goes on to say that: If H.R. 748 were adopted, the administration may no longer be able, under the embargo authorities otherwise available to it, to authorize transactions with terrorist-list governments, other than those specifically exempted by H.R. 748. An example might be the repatriation of MIA remains from North Korea.'' The department's letter offers many other such examples, including the payment of taxes and other fees to protect property interests in terrorist listed countries, payments on claims negotiated before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, transactions made in connection with the dismantlement of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and transactions associated with humanitarian activities that may not fall within the express exemptions in the bill. I frankly do not know whether these particular horrors would come to pass if the bill becomes law or not. I am not in a position to know, but I think it should matter to us that those who are in a position to know have raised questions of this magnitude. One thing that I do know is that the gentleman from Florida is a thoughtful and reasonable colleague and that he has attempted to work with the administration to resolve these concerns, and I hope and trust and am confident that he will continue to do so. U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, June 20, 1997. Hon. William D. Delahunt, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Delahunt: Thank you for your question, raised at the House Judiciary Committee meeting of June 18, whether H.R. 748 would have an effect on the embargoes currently in place against five of the seven terrorism-list countries under the authorities that include the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq. (``IEEPA''), the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1 et seq. (``TWEA''), and section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act (22 U.S.C. 287c) (``UNPA''). The five countries are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya. The effect on those embargoes would be significant, including in ways that cannot be fully foreseen or assessed at this time. The Department of the Treasury regulations (31 C.F.R. Sec. 596.503), currently in force under the authority of 18 U.S.C. 2332d, incorporate by reference the exemptions and licensing policies applicable under each individual embargo, so as to preserve the legislative mandates and executive branch policies that apply under each program. H.R. 748 would remove this regulatory authority and thus would appear to have the effect of overriding any statutory or regulatory provisions that may conflict. If H.R. 748 were adopted, the Administration may no longer be able, under the embargo authorities otherwise available to it, to authorize transactions with terrorist-list governments, other than those specifically exempted by H.R. 748. An example might be the repatriation of MIA remains from North Korea. A further related concern is whether H.R. 748 is meant to take precedence over more specific laws such as the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6001 et seq. (``the CDA or Torricelli Act) which authorizes various forms of support for the Cuban people ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' or the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act of 1996, 22 U.S.C. 6021 et seq. (``the Libertad Act'' or ``the Helms-Burton Act'') which codifies the pre-existing Cuban embargo, including licensing authorities. Your question highlights the difficulty that the Judiciary Committee and the Administration would face in trying to develop a specific and comprehensive list of exemptions that would be necessary if a complete ban on financial transactions with terrorism-list governments were adopted. While the exemptions that have been added to H.R. 748 are helpful, they are by no means adequate. Enclosed is a list of examples that we have developed within the Department of State to identify some of the more obvious and troublesome consequences if H.R. 748, as amended, were enacted into law. (Other Departments and agencies may have additional concerns for their programs.) We do not know the full range of transactions which U.S. citizens or residents may be required to engage in with the individual terrorism-list governments, nor can we anticipate all the activities, whether governmental or private, that may require some form of financial transaction with a terrorism- list government in the future. No enumeration of specific exemptions would be adequate to meet all the unforeseen circumstances that inevitably arise in the administration of a sanctions regime. Unless the Administration is entrusted with the discretion to address specific circumstances, as in current law, any list of exemptions would necessarily be inadequate to protect the interests of the United States. We appreciate your consideration of these views. Sincerely, Barbara Larkin, Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I do not, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his reassurances. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, for some of us the conservation of a threatened species such as striped bass is more than a legislative priority. Last weekend I took part in the annual striped bass tournament on Martha's Vineyard, in my congressional district. I was led by some exceptionally talented surf casters to Lobsterville Beach, where we fished for stripers until midnight. As for results, let us just say I did not win the tournament. In fact, let us just say I did not land a single fish. My partners concluded that this must be part of my own personal plan to help save striped bass. We can achieve this important objective, however, without doing it one fish at a time. I rise today in support of legislation which will help ensure the continued health of striped bass stocks from Maine to South Carolina, and hopefully will increase my own chances for the next tournament on Martha's Vineyard, or anywhere, for that matter. When my predecessor, Gerry Studds, first introduced the Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984, the species had been battered by pollution and overfishing. Harvests had plummeted so far, so fast, by over 10 million pounds over the preceding 10 years, that there was legitimate fear that the future of the species was clearly in danger. If the problem was clear, the solution was not. The striped bass are highly migratory and move primarily along the 3-mile coastal zone which is under the combined jurisdictions of 12 States and the District of Columbia. Balancing the needs of the fish, the fishermen, and regulators, Congressman Studds and his colleagues created a unique and, as it turned out, highly effective scheme to bolster State management efforts to restore the stock. By all measures, the results of this cooperation among the States and between the State and Federal Government has been astonishingly successful. Today the fish are found in record numbers up and down the coast, and all the people involved are still talking courteously to each other. The Federal-State partnership embodied in the Striped Bass Act has restored the species to its former considerable glory as one of the most important sport and commercial fisheries on the east coast. We have demonstrated to fishermen and fisheries managers alike that conservation, if properly conceived and sensibly executed, can work. H.R. 1658 will ensure that we stay the course that has nursed this fishery back to health and that, given enough time, encouragement and good bait, even Members of Congress might one day experience the thrill of hooking one of these spectacular fish.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, who was unavoidably detained during consideration of H.R. 748.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Florida and my friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] in supporting this measure which would increase penalties for telemarketing fraud, particularly when such fraudulent schemes victimize older Americans. While I ordinarily feel that Congress should allow the U.S. Sentencing Commission to determine when sentences and what sentences are appropriate, I am very glad that the bill takes steps to address what has become a serious and growing problem. What family has not had the unpleasant experience of sitting down to a quiet dinner at home, only to have the telephone ring with some obnoxious telemarketer on the other end? Only this morning I received from a constituent of mine on Martha's Vineyard a letter who spoke of being plagued by telemarketing. Every third call is someone trying to sell something unsolicited. For most of us, this sort of occurrence is a recurring nuisance. We may not want to hear the sales pitch but we usually know when to hang up. Unfortunately, when the caller is a sophisticated scam artist, things are rarely so clear. We have all heard from constituents who were tricked into contributing to nonexisting charities, or conned into throwing away their hard-earned money on phony real estate schemes. The situation is especially serious for older Americans, who are the favorite targets of these criminals. Older people are especially vulnerable because many of them are lonely, homebound, and infirm. For them, that unwanted telephone call can mean the loss of everything they have managed to save over a lifetime. Predators who take advantage of other peoples' weaknesses should be held to account. I urge support for H.R. 1847, and again extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I simply would associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], and I would urge that the House support this revision. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution declares that protection of children should be our highest national priority. I certainly do not intend to take issue with that sentiment as the father of two wonderful daughters. I frankly cannot imagine any Member of this House taking issue with it. However, I do recognize that it is important from time to time for the Congress to reaffirm even such self-evident truths. I commend the author of the bill, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] for doing so. How the States choose to protect our children is, of course, another matter. This resolution does not actually require the States to do anything. For that reason, it was reported favorably by our committee without dissent. But it does urge States to take various steps which the authors of the bill favor, including the adoption of laws that require the registration of convicted sex offenders, and severely punish those who commit offenses against children. Most of the States already do those things. But again I recognize that it is sometimes useful for the Congress to encourage the States to do what they are already doing. Given so much harmonious agreement, it seems out of place to strike a discordant note, but there is something that does trouble me about this resolution. What troubles me is the implicit assumption that the people responsible for local law enforcement have more to learn from the Congress than we have to learn from them. I know from my own experience in law enforcement that this is simply not the case. If communities around the country choose to adopt these kinds of measures, it will not be because Congress thinks they should. It will be because they have determined that these measures are the best way to protect their children for whom they are responsible. If they do not do so, it will not be because they care less about their children than we do; it will be because they have chosen other means which they think would be more effective within their communities. Finally, Mr. Speaker, once we have affirmed our concern for the well- being of America's children, I hope we will remember the many other things that threaten them. Things like malnutrition, lack of education, inadequate health care. Unlike local law enforcement, these are things that we can do something about. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be very brief. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] for introducing this bill. It is straightforward, it is a sensible exception to that broad prohibition which he alluded to on the advertising of electronic surveillance technology. As he indicated, current law prohibits manufacturers from advertising such devices even to legitimate law enforcement agencies. This bill would simply allow such advertising as long as the recipient of the advertising is duly authorized to use these particular devices. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about many things. Human rights. Global security. Free--and fair--trade. But most importantly, it's about American credibility. Yesterday, a bill was on the calendar to prohibit financial transactions with terrorist nations like Iran, Libya, and Syria. It would have passed without debate. How ironic. China has provided Iran with advanced missile and chemical weapons technology. Sent missile-related components to Syria. And sold Libya materials to produce nuclear weapons. I suggest we have a credibility problem. And what of human rights? Last year Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act to tighten the screws on the Castro government. Why? Because we decry the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Castro regime. Some of our staunchest allies threatened economic reprisals if this law were implemented. But that didn't stop us. Yet when it comes to China, we ignore our own State Department report that the human rights situation actually got worse in 1996. I suggest we have a credibility problem. Then, of course, there's trade. We rant and rave about the unfair trade practices of the Japanese. Yet, to quote from Sunday's Los Angeles Times, ``China has developed a labyrinth of tariff and non- tariff barriers against United States goods and services that would make the Japanese blush.'' That's why the Wall Street Journal reported this week that our trade deficit with China will soon surpass our deficit with Japan. Our trade relationship with China means a net loss of thousands of American jobs, and a projected deficit of fifty billion dollars this year. And we complain about the Japanese. I suggest we have a credibility problem. In fact, I submit that this vote is fundamentally about American credibility. Whether our policies will be consistent with our principles: On human rights. Global security. Free and fair trade. If, in fact, these are our principles, then we cannot demand compliance from the rest of the world and set a different standard for China. Vote yes on the resolution.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, this vote is about American credibility. Yesterday a bill was on the calendar which would have prohibited financial transactions with terrorist countries. It would have passed without debate. Yet China has sold chemical weapons to Iran and missile components to Syria, and what of human rights? Last year Congress enacted the Helms-Burton Act because of human rights abuses in Cuba. Yet when it comes to China we ignore our own State Department report that the human rights situation actually worsened in 1996. Then of course there is trade. We criticize the unfair trade practices of the Japanese, yet according to the last Sunday's L.A. Times, China has developed barriers to United States goods and services that would make the Japanese blush. This vote is fundamentally about American credibility. We cannot demand respect for our values from the rest of the world and set a different standard for China. Please vote yes on the resolution.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, far from the salt air and sea breeze, to pay tribute to the rich heritage in southeastern Massachusetts--and across the Nation--of Americans of Portuguese ancestry, whose courageous forebears set sail over uncharted waters to explore and settle in the Americas. Their resolve to set new roots here ensured our Nation would be enriched by the profound and diverse influence of Portuguese enterprise and culture--from our commercial fishing and whaling industries, to the work of John Dos Passos and John Philip Sousa. The melting pot which is our Nation consists of many strong and enduring flavors. From the 1500's, when Portuguese navigators mapped the New World; to colonial days, when Portuguese Jews in Newport worshipped with President Washington; to the wave of immigration here from the Azores, Madeira, and the Cap Verde Islands; to an exhibit of maps and photos honoring this remarkable history which now adorns the Halls of Congress--there is a great deal to learn from the principles of family, faith, and self-reliance that has sustained a very proud people. It is thus a particular pleasure to note, with much personal anticipation, the first Annual Portuguese Festival to be held later this month in Provincetown, MA, where you can always get the best kale soup on this side of the Atlantic. This long weekend of reflection and recreation is scheduled to coincide with another wonderful milestone: The 50th anniversary of the celebration of the blessing of the fleet in Provincetown. As Portuguese sailors first reached North America, who could have imagined the determination and productivity of their descendants? From the familiar faces at the donut counter at Adams drug store, or the enticing aroma of the linguica roll tray at the Portuguese bakery; the immediacy of the response when the firehouse sirens ring, or an SOS crackling over the ship-to-shore; the zeal for the sea and for local history embodied by the Heritage Museum model of the Rose Dorothea; even the sometimes life-threatening adventure called Provincetown Town Meeting--from all these, and much more, the tangible tradition of extended family in this extraordinary community makes the blessing and the festival very special celebrations for all of us.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of House Resolution 1019 offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], and I support that and I commend his efforts. I would also like to speak, Mr. Speaker, to House bill 1420. Mr. Speaker, when President Theodore Roosevelt established the first wildlife refuge in Florida 94 years ago, he could have hardly imagined a national system of 500 refuges covering 93 million acres. Today we have an opportunity to make a genuine contribution to this remarkable legacy of wildlife conservation and management. It is in that spirit that I do support enthusiastically House Resolution 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The chairman and ranking member have worked together to craft a bill for consideration by the full House that fulfills the conservation objective and ensures the future biological integrity of our refuge. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to offer my support of this legislation because of the important role in building that legacy played by my predecessor in this Chamber, former Congressman Gerry Studds. As chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Studds fought tenaciously for species large and small, beautiful and not so beautiful, endangered and common alike. Legacies are not historical relics. Like the species that inhabit our refuge, they survive only if they prosper and evolve. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us explicitly encourages the Fish and Wildlife Service to pursue partnerships with local communities, States, private and nonprofit 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 can think of no better way to honor the work of Mr. Studds and others who have advanced these objectives than to fulfill the Federal commitment by completing acquisition of the final 325-acre tract of the Mashpee Refuge, and to enact H.R. 420 into law. Mr. Speaker, 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 viable, and I urge my colleagues to join me in helping the House to pass it.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to be very clear that the statements that were made by the preceding speaker relative to juvenile murders, murderers, not currently being treated as adults by the State juvenile courts and by the State courts in this Nation is absolutely incorrect. I would suggest that the gentleman take a review and get his facts straight.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, what I find interesting is that the gentleman from Florida has this unfounded belief and confidence that if the juvenile is incarcerated in the adult system, that when he leaves the adult system he will come back into the community and be a positive, contributing member of his neighborhood, his community, and his State. The reality is that that has simply been proven time and time and time again to be false. If we are going to have an opportunity to chart and influence a different course for the juvenile offender, our only hope is a strengthened juvenile justice system. That is what we should be about. There are portions of the bill which I think everybody on this side could support because it goes to fund programs, and this is my reading, within the juvenile justice system that could improve it. But why these mandates that would deny States access to the funding? What the gentleman is trying to do in this particular area is to nationalize what has historically been reserved to the States, and that is the juvenile justice system. What I find interesting is that there are some areas that he appears to understand that the States can do some positive initiatives and that can genuinely be a laboratory, if you will, for experiments that may or may not work. But he has not provided any evidence whatsoever other than just simply standing up and saying, ``We're going to send a message.'' These young men, they are not going to read the Congressional Record tomorrow. They are not going to examine the statute. They are not going to be deterred. They think and act and respond differently. They are not going to be deterred.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think that every Member of Congress, before he or she casts a vote, has an obligation to the people that he or she represents to check, as the gentleman from North Carolina did, with the Attorney General of their respective States, because it is my belief that the gentleman is correct. There are probably maybe one or two or maybe three States that could even file an application to secure funding from that $1.5 billion pot. This just does not make any sense. And those mandates, and they are mandates, are an attempt by a segment of this House to impose national standards in terms of juvenile justice, and they have, as has been stated and restated, no experience. I wanted to pose the question to my friend and colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary, the former U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, whether he ever tried a juvenile case as a United States attorney. I daresay that his answer would have been no, because there is no Federal system. They do not know what they are talking about, and yet it is fascinating, because I was reading the Orlando Sentinel of May 9, 1996, just about a year ago, and there was a statement there by the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, the primary sponsor of this bill, and he was referring to more than $500 million for law enforcement block grants. He stated, and these are his words, ``Local communities can now tailor programs to meet their particular needs instead of using Federal crime fighting dollars,'' and this is a quote, ``for Washington-knows-best prevention initiatives. This recognizes that what works in Spokane may not work in Orlando and it encourages local innovation to fight crime.'' So what the gentleman from Florida would suggest is that when it comes to prevention, we will not have mandates, I guess, but when it comes to intervention and to prosecution and to treatment, we better have mandates because we in Washington know best. I daresay that one of the few States, it appears, and he does not even know, the State of Florida probably complies with these mandates. I wonder if we examined the statistics for juvenile violence in Florida, where it has been tested, whether it works. I am willing to challenge the gentleman from Florida to review the statistics on juvenile violence in Florida with the statistics on juvenile violence in Massachusetts. Under the gentleman's bill, and I know what we have done there, and I know it worked and I know we are heading in the right direction, but under the McCollum proposal, we do not have access to expand our efforts and we will not qualify for that $1.5 billion. That just does not make sense.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is so important to understand, and I have heard the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime say again and again and again that we are sending a message. I think that he fails to understand that those violent juveniles that he wishes to take off the street, and I agree with him, are not going to be deterred. There is no such thing as deterrence when we are talking about that hard core juvenile. Incapacitation, yes, but if we are going to lock them up, let us not lock them up in an adult prison where they are going to receive the very best training in terms of violent crime. They are going to receive a Ph.D. in violent crime if we send them to adult institutions. I promise you that. That is my experience as a prosecutor in the Metropolitan Boston area for over 20 years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I was stunned this afternoon to hear the primary sponsor of this bill could not even confirm that his own State of Florida could comply with the mandates of his proposal which would, coming from Washington, again tell the States that do have the experience how to handle violent juvenile crime. It just absolutely stunned me to hear that. I respect the gentleman. I know that he is a man of deep convictions. But I would think that this Congress, this body would not want to vote on such a significant piece of legislation until every Member knew exactly whether his or her State would be in compliance with the mandates that the bill puts forth. And to hear the primary sponsor acknowledge that he did not know himself whether the State of Florida would qualify I found incomprehensible.