Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has referenced several times that, if the States do not comply with the mandates that this bill provides, the mandates that many of us disagree with based on very sound public policy, because as indicated, we are hurt time and time and time again that these initiatives, these mandates simply do not work. But what happens to that $1.5 billion? For those States that make the decision that they want to chart their own course? I would ask the gentleman if he knows what happens to that $1.5 billion? Is it then spread among the very few States that do comply?

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from Indiana if he is ready and prepared to go back and tell his Governor, to tell his State legislature that we have the answers here in Washington and they cannot be resolved by the State of Indiana and by the communities in Indiana? Is that what the gentleman is suggesting to me?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for very similar reasons that were just articulated so eloquently by the gentleman from North Carolina. This rule denies the House the opportunity to vote on an amendment that I had intended to offer, that I had tried to offer which would have ensured that every State, every city, every town, and every county would be eligible to access the $1.5 billion authorized in this bill. It is important to understand that the bill before us, as others have articulated, imposes conditions on State and local governments--mandates, if you will--before they even have a chance to file an application to access that $1.5 billion. In fact, to qualify just to access the $1.5 billion, approximately 40 States would be forced to legislate massive changes in how they deal with juvenile offenders. They would be compelled to enact laws that have not been proven to be effective and, in my opinion, will actually increase crime by sending kids to graduate schools for crime, and it does not make any sense. We should know that only 12 States can even file an application under the terms of this bill, and it is unclear whether even all of them would qualify. Once again we have Washington telling the States and local governments what to do. Washington has the answers. Well, Washington does not have the answers. The State and local governments do. As my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Moakley, stated in his opening remarks, the city of Boston has not had a single juvenile murder since July 1995, almost 2 years. They instituted a plan, a local plan, that combined prevention, intervention, prosecution, and treatment. They knew what they were doing. They did not need Washington to tell them what to do. Yet under this bill Boston would not qualify for funding despite those remarkable results. That does not make sense to me, but Washington knows best. If those from California, those from Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Texas, or Illinois, just to name a few, want to access some of these Federal dollars to try the Boston approach, they cannot do so because their laws do not meet the conditions in this bill. But again, Washington knows best. The reality is that Washington cannot know best because there is no Federal experience in this area, no Federal juvenile justice system, no courts, no judges, no detention centers, no probation departments. In fact, as the primary sponsor indicated, there are fewer than 200 juveniles currently serving Federal sentences, compared with the 300,000 juvenile offenders locked up in State juvenile facilities. Given those facts, we have no business imposing national standards on the States and localities that are working to solve the problem of juvenile justice. Let us help them, not tell them what to do.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall No. 108. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member and I and other Democratic members of the subcommittee oppose this amendment. It forbids a technology- based business to grow its operations if the benefits are from a prior use defense. It would also freeze the level of activity benefiting from a prior use defense when a business was sold. This would especially harm small firms selling their businesses. The amendment limits the protection for prior uses to use that is no greater in quantity, volume or scope than the use that occurred before a somewhat unclear point in time. The limitation applies both to any expansion in quantity, volume or scope by another company to which the prior user may wish to transfer its business. The practical effect of this limitation would be to discourage any growth or improvement in businesses that title III is intended to protect. The limitation also would discourage any transfer of a line of business to another firm that might be more efficient and competitive.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee and a cosponsor of House Resolution 400, I rise in support of the manager's amendment, and I want to commend our subcommittee chair, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], for the fine work and for the patient and thoughtful way he has tried to reconcile all interests to perfect this legislation. The critics have claimed that publication would enable foreign competitors to appropriate American ideas. The truth is that competitors who appropriate an invention after publication are liable for damages to the applicant, just as they would be once a patent is granted. The real issue is reciprocity. The vast majority of American inventors seek patent protection not only at home but in foreign countries as well. To do so, they must publish their application in foreign countries 18 months after filing. But since America is the only industrialized Nation that does not have such a requirement, foreign companies seeking U.S. patent protection have no obligation to publish in the United States. In other words Americans have to publish abroad while foreigners do not have to publish here. This puts U.S. inventors at a serious disadvantage which the bill would correct. This bill is about protecting American inventors, American businesses and American workers, and I urge passage of House Resolution 400. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee and a cosponsor of H.R. 400, I rise in support of the manager's amendment and in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute which will be offered by the gentleman from California. I want to commend our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Coble, for the patient and thoughtful way in which he has worked with all interested parties to refine and perfect this legislation over the past 3 years. I also wish to thank the ranking member, Mr. Frank, and the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Conyers, for their efforts on behalf of this legislation. As a new member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, I can sympathize with those of my colleagues who may feel intimidated by this complex and arcane subject. Unfortunately, that feeling has been compounded by a well-orchestrated campaign waged by opponents of this legislation to convince independent inventors and small businesses that this bill would benefit large international corporations at their expense. I am proud to have many independent scientists, inventors, and startup companies in my district, and was appalled at what I was hearing from some of them about this bill. If what they were saying was true, this was David against Goliath, and I was not about to side with the Philistine. Frankly, I was ready to get out my slingshot too, until I learned the facts. And the facts told a different story. I listened carefully to the testimony and studied the language of the bill, and found that this legislation had been totally mischaracterized by its opponents. The truth is that this bill benefits not only the major corporations and universities in my region who enthusiastically support it. It benefits every inventor and developer of advanced technology, whether large or small--from software developers and biotechnology companies on the South Shore to marine biologists at Woods Hole. H.R. 400 creates a level playing field between U.S. patent applicants and their international competitors. It modernizes the patent office and reduces administrative delays. It protects inventors even before a patent is granted through publication of patent applications, and creates a ``prior user'' defense against claims of infringement for those who have independently developed and used inventions that are subsequently patented. These reforms will help ensure that the U.S. patent system keeps pace with the demands of the 21st century. But what will all this mean for the independent inventor? Critics of the bill have claimed that requiring patent applicants to publish their application 18 months after filing would enable others to rob them of their work. The truth is that by publishing the application, the inventor gains a form of provisional protection not available under current law. Today, an inventor has no protection against a third party who exploits the inventor's idea while the application is pending. The phrase ``patent pending'' announces to the world that an application has been filed but affords no legal protection. By publishing the application, the inventor stakes a claim that entitles him or her to compensation for infringement from any third party that makes use of the idea between the date of publication and the date the patent issues. Perhaps even more important for a small business or an independent inventor is the fact that other applicants must publish, too. Under current law, an applicant has no way of knowing whether another has filed first until one of them receives a patent. By then, the losing party may have invested everything it has in an idea that belongs to someone else. Under H.R. 400, an applicant will know if a patent has already been applied for. The critics have claimed that publication would enable foreign competitors to appropriate American ideas. The truth is that competitors who appropriate an invention after publication are liable for damages to the applicant, just as they would be once a patent is granted. The real issue is reciprocity: The vast majority of American inventors seek patent protection not only at home but in foreign countries as well. To do so, they must publish their application in the foreign country 18 months after filing. But since America is the only industrialized nation that does not have such a requirement, foreign companies seeking U.S. patent protection have no obligation to publish in the United States. In other words, Americans have to publish abroad, while foreigners do not have to publish here. This puts U.S. inventors at a serious disadvantage which the bill would correct. But what about inventors who have no intention of applying for a patent overseas? The critics have claimed that they have no recourse. The truth is that the bill will allow inventors applying for a patent exclusively in the United States to delay publication until 3 months after the Patent and Trademark Office has taken a second action with respect to the application. Since, in most cases, the second Office action is the issuance of the patent itself, this provision effectively exempts independent inventors and small businesses from the publication requirements. On the other hand, if the second Office action is a determination that a patent is unlikely to be issued, the applicant may withdraw the application and seek protection under the trade secret and unfair competition laws. The other major claim made by critics of the bill is that the proposed term of 20 years from the date the application is filed would give inventors less protection than the current term of 17 years from the date the patent is granted. The truth is that those who apply in good faith and do not attempt to delay their applications are guaranteed a minimum of 17 years under the bill. Most applicants will receive more than 17 years of protection, since most applications are processed within less than 2 years. A diligent applicant who is forced to wait more than 3 years would be granted an extra day of patent protection for each day of delay. I do not mean to suggest that all of the concerns that have been raised about this legislation are illegitimate. What I do believe is that the legitimate concerns raised by the gentleman from California and other critics of the legislation as originally drafted have been addressed. H.R. 400 includes numerous amendments that effectively respond to these and many other concerns raised over the 3 years that this legislation has been on the drawing board. Those are the facts. It is unfortunate that the truth has been obscured by misinformation and demagoguery. But the loudest voices are not always right, and the constant repetition of a falsehood does not make it true. H.R. 400 is good for inventors, both large and small. It is good for our Nation as a whole. I urge my colleagues to reject the Rohrabacher amendment and pass the bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we take up H.R. 400, the 21st Century Patent System Improvement Act, a bill supported by the entire Committee on the Judiciary and the vast majority of American inventors and developers of advanced technology. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], our subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking member, for the diligent and fair-minded way in which they have worked with all interested parties to perfect this legislation over the past 3 years. As a new member of the subcommittee, I can sympathize with those of my colleagues who feel somewhat overwhelmed by this complex, arcane subject. Unfortunately, much of the information circulated over the past few weeks has been misinformation which has not made it any easier to get to the truth. I cosponsored this bill because of the benefits it offers to every U.S. inventor and our Nation as a whole. Passage of this bill is absolutely essential if we are to maintain our leadership in technology and successfully compete in the global economy.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. The Framers of the Constitution were very practical people, and most held profound beliefs about democracy, but their goal was above all to design a system of government that would work. They recognized that certain key questions such as treaty ratification, conviction and impeachment trials or expulsion of a Member of Congress demand more than the customary majority. But with respect to the normal operation of government, they provided in all cases for a simple majority vote. They made no exception for taxation. Pause and reflect for a moment: They made no exception even for declarations of war. Mr. Speaker, what they rightly feared was that a supermajority requirement would give minorities a veto over the political process. As Madison wrote in The Federalist papers, ``It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority. An interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the common wheel, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.'' Madison could have been describing the very amendment before us today. It would give a veto over revenue bills to a minority of Members of either House. It would enable Members of Congress representing one- third of the population or Senators chosen by one-tenth of the population to block revenue measures supported by the vast majority of Americans. It would give these minorities enormous leverage in an emergency to extract concessions in exchange for their support. The proposed amendment pays lip service to this concern by allowing the two-thirds requirement to be waived in the event of war, yet it would probably be easier to obtain a two-thirds vote to raise taxes during wartime than in my other perilous circumstances. The bill makes no provision at all for hurricanes, floods, terrorist attacks or other localized disasters, let alone a severe economic crisis or a breakdown in the financial system itself. Furthermore, it would make it virtually impossible to eliminate corporate subsidies and other loopholes in the tax system. Corporate welfare would be difficult to reform. The proponents of this amendment seem willing to accept these consequences, for they rejected a series of amendments in committee which would have addressed at least some of these concerns. They also seem determined to repeat past mistakes. I was not a Member of this House when the current majority took control in 1995, but I know the House adopted a rule at that time requiring a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. Unfortunately, having created this rule, the majority found it impossible to govern in accordance with it, and it was repeatedly waived or ignored. Today the majority invites us to graft this failed rule with two- thirds vote onto the Constitution of the United States where it cannot be waived and it cannot be ignored, and this is an invitation that we should and must decline.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a constituent of mine who has worked tirelessly to serve her community. Sheila Monteiro's work at the Community Action Committee of Cape Cod and the islands has assisted many elderly and low-income families throughout the years. My predecessor, Congressman Gerry Studds, has the honor of representing the 10th District, working hand in hand with committed people like Sheila Monterio to make life better for her fellow residents of southeastern Massachusetts. At the request of Mr. Studds, I would like to submit a statement he made last fall on behalf of Ms. Monteiro, recognizing her work in such to these worthy endeavors. Over the past 24 years, I have had the honor of serving the people of Cape Cod and islands in the U.S. Congress, and throughout that period you have committed yourself to the efforts of the Community Action Committee. Much of our efforts over these years has been inspired by the work you have done, day in and day out, under some of the most challenging of circumstances. And while you have done a great deal to make my visits to Community Action productive and enjoyable, I want you to know just how much I appreciate all you have done to dramatically help improve the lives of so many others. Simply put: You have made enormous contributions to improve the quality of life on Cape Cod and the islands. So tonight, it is a pleasure for me to join with all your many friends in extending to you my deepest thanks and congratulations for you all your kindness and friendship. Finally, I want you to know that when I arrive home to stay in the near future, my first request of Congressman Delahunt will be to ask that he place this letter into the Congressional Record.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, this legislation infringes on the constitutional right of a woman to elect a medical procedure which may, in the judgment of her physician, be the best means of preserving her life and her health. This bill is not about procedure, it is about women's lives. At the Committee on the Judiciary markup I read into the record a portion of the testimony of Maureen Britell, a constituent of mine from Sandwich, MA. She is also a woman of remarkable courage who came forward to tell her story because of her concern that the procedure performed on her would be illegal if this bill becomes law. She describes herself as a textbook case of why this legislation is dangerous. Mrs. Britell discovered in the sixth month of her pregnancy that her unborn daughter had a fatal anomaly in which the fetal brain fails to develop. Her doctors advised her to induce labor and end the pregnancy immediately for the sake of her health. As a devout Catholic, she was extremely reluctant to do this, but ultimately decided, with the support of her family and her priest, to have the abortion. During the delivery, the fetus became lodged in the birth canal. The doctors had to cut the umbilical cord, ending the baby's life in order to complete the delivery and avoid serious health consequences to Mrs. Britell. In her testimony she said, ``Although the delivery did not proceed as expected, the doctors acted in a medically appropriate way and I recovered well. At the hospital we were able to hold our baby and say our goodbyes. Our parish priest performed a small Catholic funeral for the family and a few close friends. Our baby was buried at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. My husband and I are still mourning the loss of our daughter.'' One might have hoped that, confronted with a story such as this, the authors of this legislation would think again; that they would try to modify their bill. Unfortunately, nearly all amendments offered in committee were rejected and the bill we are considering excludes even the few that were agreed to. As we heard, my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], offered an amendment to confine the constitutionally mandated health exception to situations in which the abortion is necessary to avert serious adverse physical health consequences to the mother. The proponents defeated that amendment and they have refused to allow a similar amendment to come to the floor today. Supporters of this bill have expressed a concern that a health exception could mean anything and would allow a woman to have abortions for frivolous reasons.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. From the extraordinary dispatch with which this measure has been rushed, one might suppose it to be an uncontroversial piece of consensus legislation. We marked it up in the Committee on the Judiciary without so much as a hearing, and now it is being considered under suspension of the rules. Not only that, but this morning I was informed that the text that the House would be considering is a Senate version of that which never came before our committee at all. What is the reason for such haste? And the proponents are quite honest about their intentions. They want the bill to become law in time to apply to a pending case, the Oklahoma City bombing case, because they wish to overturn a pretrial ruling made by the trial justice. The ruling that should be noted, and my friend from Virginia alluded to that, was affirmed by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now I do not necessarily dispute the merits of the bill as to future cases, but we have not had a sufficient time nor opportunity to properly evaluate this proposal's merits. However, I oppose the bill because I believe its efforts to influence a case now before the court strikes at the integrity of the judicial process and threatens the separation of powers doctrine on which our constitutional system is in fact based. Congress should not be changing the rules in the middle of a trial; yet this is the second time that Congress has sought to create a special rule to govern this particular case. Now I share the deep sympathy of every Member of this Chamber for the victims of the Oklahoma tragedy and their family. But we have a system in this country that, however imperfect, is still the best means yet devised for reaching a just result. We can all cite judicial decisions of which we personally disapprove, but there is nothing that qualifies us sitting in this House to substitute our judgment for that of the presiding judge. It is one thing for us to change the rules prospectively, but to interject ourselves into an ongoing trial is a dangerous and possibly unconstitutional assault on the judicial process itself. Perhaps it is not surprising that we should be considering such a measure, given recent comments that we should consider impeaching judges who render unpopular decisions. Such talk should be deeply troubling to everyone who values the rule of law and this bill should be no less so. The irony is that our intervention may ultimately do far more harm than benefit. Judges are there to see that the trial is fair and impartial. This is just as important to those seeking a conviction as to those who seek an acquittal. As a former district attorney, I know it does no good to secure a guilty verdict that is vulnerable to reversal on appeal. Defense attorneys have already announced their intention to challenge congressional action in this case. Whether or not their challenge succeeds, why would we go out of our way to increase the Government's burden and put a possible guilty verdict at risk? While I am sure that this legislation is genuinely well intentioned, the proponents may ultimately do a disservice to the very victims to whom they purport to give voice. It would be truly unfortunate were our actions to create the possibility of a retrial, further compounding the terrible trauma suffered by both the victims and their families. So let us think again, Mr. Speaker, before we take a step we may come to regret.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, in the 6 weeks I have served in the Congress I have been called upon to cast fewer than 20 substantive votes. Over half of those votes were on various proposals to amend the Constitution to limit congressional terms of office. Two votes concerned the question of whether to allow the President to spend international development funds on the family planning programs for which they were previously appropriated. One was to establish a post office in memory of a late colleague and one was to issue a reprimand to the Speaker of the House. Mr. Speaker, I did not campaign on any of these issues. The issues that my constituents sent me here to address have yet to be considered at all. The Congress has yet to debate a single piece of legislation on health care, the economy, Social Security, the plight of our cities and towns, the state of the environment, the defense of our Nation or the many crises we face on the international scene. Now, instead of addressing any of these matters, we are being asked to consider a truly urgent and pivotal public concern: Whether, in our opinion, a judge should or should not be permitted to display the Ten Commandments in a courtroom in the State of Alabama. With all due respect to Alabama, our vote today will have no effect on anyone, in Alabama or anywhere else. It merely expresses our undying devotion to the Decalogue and our conviction that everyone should believe as we do. On one level, Mr. Speaker, I am relieved that we are voting to enshrine the Ten Commandments rather than, let us say, the ten articles of the contract for America. It is surely better that we do nothing than that we do harm. It is also a relief that the Republican leadership has resisted the temptation to offer an amendment to the Commandments. Presumably they recognized that a ``Thou shalt not submit a budget that is not balanced'' would require more than a two-thirds majority of the House. On the other hand, I do not know that the Code of Hammurabi is any less entitled to be honored in our courtrooms as a fount of legal and ethical teachings, let alone the Analects of Confucius or the sacred texts of Buddhism or the Golden Rule. Nor do I believe that more than 25 centuries after the covenant at Sinai the Ten Commandments needs the Congress of the United States to rise to its defense. The very idea that our approval or disapproval could enhance the majesty of those tablets does more to trivialize religion than any court decision could. I also fear it says more about our arrogance and conceit than some of my colleagues would like to admit. To paraphrase Thomas More, if the earth is round, can an act of Congress make it flat? And if it is flat, will our pronouncement make it round? Finally, would it not be better, Mr. Speaker, for all of us to try to follow the Ten Commandments, rather than issuing empty endorsements of them? I am as fond of apple pie as the next person, but I intend to vote ``no WDD'' on this silly resolution. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. And then I hope this Congress will get to work.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my colleagues in this special order celebrating Black History Month. It is truly a magnificent history as has been recounted by previous speakers and a history that is truly a history of heroism. I thought I would take this opportunity to say a few words about a remarkable chapter in that history, which is being retrieved and returned to us by a dedicated band of preservationists in Massachusetts. That chapter concerns the African Meeting House of Nantucket, once a church, a meeting hall and a school for children prevented from attending public school because of their race. The one room meeting house was built in the 1820's and is one of the oldest standing structures of its kind in the United States. It embodies a rich history. When the meeting house was built, Nantucket was the center of the whaling industry in which blacks played an integral part. Among the whaling ships that set sail from the island was the Industry with the black captain named Absalom Boston and an all-black crew. Absalom Boston later became one of the four trustees of the African Baptist Church which was to become known as the African Meeting House. Absalom Boston's grandfather was a slave named Prince Boston who took a whaling voyage in 1770. At the end of the voyage, Prince Boston's white master demanded that he turn over his earnings. With the help of a white shipmate, Prince Boston went to court and won his earnings and his freedom, becoming the first slave set free by an jury verdict in this Nation. That year Nantucket freed its slaves, 13 years before the rest of Massachusetts followed suit. In 1845, the daughter of one of the founders of the meeting house went to court to demand admission to the public high school. In the next year Nantucket became one of the first districts in the country to desegregate its schools. With its strong Quaker tradition, the island became a stronghold of abolitionist sentiment. It was there that Frederick Douglass delivered his first public address before a mixed race audience. Once the public schools had been integrated, the meeting house ceased to operate as a school but continued to function as a vital institution in this community island. In 1910, the meeting house was sold to the owner of a trucking business and eventually it fell into disrepair. Now, thanks to the efforts of the Friends of the African Meeting House and the Museum of Afro-American History, this extraordinary landmark is due to be opened to the public in 1998. I can think of no more fitting commemoration of Black History Month, and I commend all of those who have brought this project to fruition. Mr. Speaker, much of this fascinating history is recounted in a superb article by Don Costanzo that appeared in the Nantucket Beacon on January 29, 1997. I include the entire article for insertion in the Record. [From the Nantucket Beacon, Jan. 29, 1997] Resurrecting the Heart and Soul of New Guinea (By Don Costanzo) Pending a thumbs-up from their local school board, about 460 children in Florida will be saving their pennies to help restore the African Meeting House on Nantucket. Last fall Len Kizner, an elementary school teacher at the Bay Vista Elementary School in St. Petersburg, Fla., saw a segment on ``This Old House'' about the meeting house. Last week, he read an article in the New York Times about it. Today, Kizner has become so inspired by the project he is about to ask a Florida county school board for permission to raise money within the school to give to the Nantucket landmark. ``What better way to celebrate black history month (February) than to tie it into the first schoolhouse for free black people on your island,'' said Kizner. ``It's a great project. We're teaching children, celebrating black culture, and preserving a piece of it too. ``It supports black history heritage, and by doing that supports American heritage.'' Kizner expects to build a scale model of the meeting house, and incorporate the project into geography and social studies classes to help the children better understand where their money is going. But what is happening at Bay Vista is only part of the impact this restoration project is having nationally. On Martha's Vineyard, a Black Heritage trail has been developed in direct reaction to Nantucket's initiative. And, Helen Seager, Convener of the African Meeting House, has further inspired the people of Portland, Maine to generate more ideas on how they could save the Abyssinian Baptist Church, considered one of the oldest black churches in the country behind one on Beacon Hill in Boston, and Nantucket's. ``They have said over and over again,'' said Seager, ``that the Nantucket experience was setting an example for them and inspiring them to go on.'' But, there would be no `Nantucket experience' today had it not been for the tribulations and accomplishments of men and women from another time. a sense of place Although Nantucket was 13 years ahead of the Commonwealth in freeing its slaves in 1770, and more than 100 years ahead of the nation in desegregating its schools in 1845, scars from the fight for freedom and equality here are explicit. Just before 1770, Prince Boston, a slave belonging to William Swain, took a whaling voyage with William Rotch, a highly successful entrepreneur. When Boston returned from his working journey with Rotch in 1770, Swain insisted that the black man turn over all his earnings--since, of course, he owned the slave. But Rotch was well-respected on the island by this time, and decided to defend Boston in court. They won the case and Boston was the first slave set free by a jury's verdict. It is believed that blacks on Nantucket shed the chains of slavery for good following this court decision. Fifty years later a laborer and mariner named Absalom Boston, Prince Boston's grandson, was establishing his place in history too. Boston captained an all-black crew aboard the whaling vessel Industry; he ran an inn and opened a store in an area on the island known as New Guinea, where he worked hard for the betterment of Nantucket's black community. By 1821 the nearly 300 blacks who lived on Nantucket had formed a common bond in New Guinea (the name indicated the African roots of its residents, and was used to specify particular section of many cities and towns). New Guinea--thought originally to be bordered by Williams Land, Prospect, Silver, and Orange streets--consisted of a cluster of houses and gardens, as well as its own stores, an inn, and eventually a school, cemetery, and two churches. One church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church was established in 1835 in a building (which no longer exists) on West York Lane. Little is known about the activities of this church and the participation of blacks there. But just a few yards down the street stood another building, which today is a historic testament to the struggle and triumphs of Nantucket's black inhabitants. One event that defined black/white dissension on the island was the Anti-Slavery Convention at the Nantucket Atheneum in 1842. In a speech, Stephen Foster called Town Meeting voters who had supported segregation in schools ``pimps to satan.'' Foster hurled fierce words at members of many of the island's churches, charging they were guilty of adultery, theft, kidnapping, and the murder of slaves. He called the clergy and church membership a ``brotherhood of thieves.'' The pro-slavery faction, incensed at Foster's accusations, shot back with rotten eggs and stones--a riot ensued. While police did almost nothing to calm the fighting, many blacks sought refuge and prayer in a place born as the African Baptist Church, but known then as the African School. It was at that time that the building we know of today as the African Meeting House further distinguished its place in black history on Nantucket. trucks instead of pews Absalom Boston was one of four trustees of the African Baptist Church built in the heart of New Guinea on the corner of York and Pleasant Streets. That said a lot for the church, for Boston was, perhaps, the most respected and wealthiest black man who ever lived on Nantucket. Though construction on the building likely began in 1824, the land upon which it eventually stood was not purchased until two years later, Jeffrey Summons, a black man who worked as a carpenter on the island, purchased the land in 1826 for $10.50. The building was used as a school, church, meeting house, for anti-slavery lectures, and even used as a makeshift medical clinic where vaccinations for small pox were given in 1834. When the Nantucket Public Schools integrated in 1846, the building was no longer needed as the island's only educational center for black children. Yet, it was still used for everything else up until about 1910--about the same time Nantucket was reeling from economic disaster. Suffering financially, Edgar Wilkes, who had taken over the church in 1888 from the Rev. James Crawford, was forced to sell the building to a trucking business owner named Henry Chase for just $250. Chase needed a place to put his trucks, so he remodeled the former black schoolhouse to accommodate his rigs. Then in 1933 Florence Higginbotham, who was already living in the house next door on York Street, bought the building and two adjacent outhouses from Chase for $3,000. ``Rumor was that she bought it because she didn't want anybody else between her and the corner,'' said her son, Wilhelm, in a phone interview last week from his home in Oakland, Calif. Over the next several years the once proud symbol of black life on Nantucket continued to fall into grim decay, used for nothing more than a storage space for bicycles and construction equipment. Wilhelm, an Afro-Indian, inherited the property when his mother died in 1972. But Wilhelm didn't really have much interest in the property, or Nantucket for that matter. The winters were too harsh and the work was too erratic (he did work at Glidden's Island Seafood market for a time), and 24 years after he arrived, Wilhelm left Nantucket in 1948. He worked as a postal clerk and managed the island property from his home in Oakland. While Mrs. Higginbotham used the building as a source of income, actively marketing it as rental property, Wilhelm owned it ``free and clear'' and didn't care much about renting it out at all, said Seager. So it sat there, virtually empty up until about 20 years ago when then Nantucket Bike Shop owner Morgan Levine, who was using the building as a bicycle repair shop, became fascinated with the old relic. It was Levine who raised the money for a historical study of the building, and after nearly five decades of degeneration, the wheels of transformation had begun for the old Baptist Church because of a man who just wanted a place to fix bicycles. revival It's been called the African School, York Street School, African Church, York Street Colored Baptist Church, Colored Baptist Church, and Pleasant Street Baptist Church. Today, we know it as the African Meeting House on Nantucket. In 1981 Byron Rushing, then president of the Museum of Afro American History (MAAH) and now a State Representative, wrote a historical summary of the building. By 1986 a historical and architectural study was performed. Three years later MAAH purchased the building to preserve and restore it, and to help provide education about the history of blacks on Nantucket. The building's earlier neglect may also have been its saving grace. A full 70 percent of the building was original material when the museum purchased it in 1989. ``You have to remember that neglect is a wonderful preservation strategy,'' mused Seager. Since last fall, the meeting house has slowly begun to rise again as an icon to the history of blacks on Nantucket. Artifacts have been found, and the architect and builders are finding out what of the structure that now stands can and cannot be used in the restoration. ``We're able to save and use quite a bit of what remained,'' said John James, architect for the project, who added that the building is being restored according to how it looked in 1880. The wall facing York Street and the east wall are both going to have to be entirely new, said James. The south wall was cut out and a rolling door installed in 1922 to accommodate truck storage. The east wall, bearing the brunt of harsh weather, collapsed and was rebuilt with simple two-by-four construction in the mid 1970s. Those two walls, said James, are being rebuilt in keeping with framing techniques of the original building, post and beam--not two-by-four. The west and north sides of the building were in much better condition and can be preserved. And though the windows could not be saved, they are, said project foreman Mike DeNofrio, being virtually duplicated. White cedar shingle will, of course, be the exterior's finishing touch. The Friends and Committee of the African Meeting House are hoping to raise $600,000 to complete restoration of the building (exterior is expected to be finished by April, but funds are still being sought for interior restoration) so that future plans for the meeting house can be realized. Earlier this month, a group of people involved in the project, community members, and others met to define what the interior of the building should look like and discuss future goals. ``They wanted the integrity and respect for the place to remain intact,'' said Sylvia Watts McKinney, executive director of the Museum of Afro American History in Boston. McKinney said replicas of the pews will be placed in the building, matching them with markings on the original floor and walls. Boards on the walls and floors had outlines of the pews, so James knew the length and width of the aisles based on those markings. ``They are absolutely clear,'' said James. In explaining how the markings were made, the architect said to imagine painting a wall a light color, then putting an object, like a pew, up against the wall and painting around it a darker color. When the object is removed, the outline of where it was would be quite clear. When the building was used as truck storage earlier this century, a reinforcing floor was built on top of the original floor. Yet, oil and gas dripped down through the newer floor and saturated much of the original floor. The stench could force use of new floorboards in place of many of the original ones. ``We just don't know how much of the original flooring we could use,'' said James, who added that pews would still be placed in their original positions even if the original floor cannot be preserved. Also, a round wooden canopy is on the ceiling where a chandelier had once hung. The original chandelier, donated to the church by a group of whites in 1837, has yet to be found. A raised platform will also be built at the north end of the building, and a stove, originally used for heating, will be installed for ``ambiance of space,'' said McKinney. Much of the original ceiling has rotted and will need to be replaced. ``Our primary goal has been and will continue to be that this building is restored,'' said McKinney. A history within Upon complete restoration of the building the African Meeting House will be more than an educational center for black history on the island. McKinney explained that the nation's oldest meeting house on Beacon Hill is used for such things as press conferences and weddings, and envisions the same on Nantucket. Also planned is an audio system playing gospel and spiritual music, reenacted sermons on abolition, and more contemporary themes like Martin Luther King's speech. In the 1940s and 50s the building was used, said Seager, for ``an occasional record hop'' with jazz and blues music. McKinney said the restored landmark should be ``perceived as a living history where anyone who visits can get a sense of what it was like. ``We don't want people to just point and say `that's where it used to be.' We want people to feel that they're a part of it.'' And Kelly Hanley Goode, a member of the steering committee, added that the original church was not just the center of black life in New Guinea, but on Nantucket and the country as well. ``We want to be the impetus and motivation for more research, to draw black history within Nantucket's history where it becomes a part of it--not a separate part,'' said Goode. Seager believes deeply in the project, not just for Nantucket, but also for other communities inspired by what is being accomplished here. She said the African Meeting House restoration project has now caught the attention of a church in Savannah, Ga. The priest there is a Nantucket native. ``The story of the people is preserved,'' said Seager, ``when the building is preserved.''

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my colleagues in this special order celebrating Black History Month. It is truly a magnificent history--an heroic history if you will. I thought I would take this opportunity to say a few words about a remarkable chapter in that history which is being retrieved and returned to us by a dedicated band of preservationists in Massachusetts. That chapter concerns the African Meeting House of Nantucket--once a church, a meeting hall and a school for children prevented from attending public school because of their race. The one-room meeting house was built in the 1820's, and is one of the oldest standing structures of its kind in the United States. It embodies a rich history. When the meeting house was built, Nantucket was a center of a whaling industry in which blacks played an integral part. Among the whaling ships that set sail from the island was the Industry, with a black captain named Absalom Boston and an all-black crew. Absalom Boston later became one of the four trustees of the African Baptist Church which was to become known as the African Meeting House. Absalom Boston's grandfather was a slave name Prince Boston, who took a whaling voyage in 1770. At the end of the voyage, Prince Boston's white master demanded that he turn over his earnings. With the help of a white shipmate, Prince Boston went to court and won his earnings and his freedom, became the first slave set free by a jury verdict. That year, Nantucket freed its slaves, 13 years before the rest of Massachusetts followed suit. In 1845, the daughter of one of the founders of the meeting house went to court to demand admission to the public high school, and the next year Nantucket became one of the first districts in the country to desegrate its schools. With its strong Quaker tradition, the island became a stronghold of abolitionist sentiment. It was there that Frederick Douglass delivered his first public address before a mixed- race audience. Once the public schools had been integrated, the meeting house ceased to operate as a school, but continued to function as a vital institution in the community. In 1910 the meeting house was sold to the owner of a trucking business and eventually it fell into disrepair. Now, thanks to the efforts of the Friends of the African Meeting House and the Museum of Afro American History, this extraordinary landmark is due to open to the public in 1998. I can think of no more fitting commemoration of Black History Month, and I commend all of those who have brought this project to fruition. I yield back my time.