Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Island Elderly Housing, an organization that has done an outstanding job of serving the people of Martha's Vineyard. Island Elderly Housing (IEH) was formed in 1976 by local residents of the Island who were active in healthcare, housing, serving elders and the ministry to provide decent, safe and affordable housing for low and moderate income elderly and handicapped persons. Under the able leadership of Carol Lashnits, the agency has created twelve developments totaling 165 units, using both donated land and buildings and financing from the USDA and HUD. IEH has grown to become a leader in the advocacy and provision of residential and related services for Island elderly and handicapped residents. Since 1981 when IEH received its first construction loan of $1.9 million from the Farmers Home Administration's Section 515 program, the agency has received more than $26 million in federal and state grants and loans, and private grants and donations. As the nonprofit developer and manager for all of the units, IEH is responsible for the fiscal management for all of the development funds as well as the ongoing operating budgets. Careful management of its funds and its fiscal responsibility has resulted in ongoing receipt of grants and contributions to IEH and its programs from foundations, local religious organizations, and area citizens. In 2007, Carol Lashnits left her position as Executive Director for IEH and was replaced by Ann Wallace. Under Wallace, with the help of the larger community and a staff of fifteen, supportive services to aging residents have improved and increased and now include transportation, health, education, advocacy, community building, recreation, exercise, yoga, a meals program, spiritual opportunities, gardening and intergenerational activities. At the present time the IEH's Board and Executive Director are analyzing the present and future needs of elders on the Island as it plans for its own future activities. It is my hope that its next 30 years will be as productive as its first 30 years have been.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today so that my colleagues in the House of Representatives can join me in recognizing Mr. Michael Mone and his son, Mr. Michael Mone Jr.--two Massachusetts lawyers who ceaselessly fight for human rights and justice among detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I stand before you today to read to you a speech presented by Mr. Mone Sr. at this past September's American College of Trial Lawyers meeting. This discourse, written from Mr. Mone's perspective, recounts the compelling experience of his son, who selflessly represented a wrongfully accused and detained Uzbek man. The speech is as follows: I want to thank the College for honoring those Fellows who represented Guantanamo detainees, and in particular, I want to thank Mike Cooper, who encouraged the Access to Justice Committee to become involved in securing detainee representation. I attended the spring meeting in Palm Springs when the subject was first discussed, and I came away from that meeting determined to take on a detainee's case. I want to thank the College for its encouragement and the moral support that it provided to those Fellows as they undertook to uphold the core values of the American College of Trial Lawyers--the right to counsel, a fair and independent trial to challenge their detention, and the Rule of Law. I want to make it clear that I stand here in a representative capacity in that I am speaking for the Fellows who are here on the stage with me, for all of those Fellows who can't be here today who undertook representation of detainees, and to hopefully represent lawyers all over the country, in large firms and small firms, Republicans and Democrats, who answered the call to provide representation in this very unpopular cause. I also am here in a representative capacity because much of the real work of our client's case was done by my son, Michael, who is also my law partner, so in these remarks, when I say that we did something, in all probability, it means that Michael did something. Too often the ``detainees'' are treated as a group like ``illegal immigrants'' as if they are all alike, but they are not. They were many different individuals who, under different circumstances, were confined at Guantanamo. Some, like our client, were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, and others were undoubtedly waging war against the United States. But all were entitled to the benefit of our Constitutional protections. Each detainee has a different story, but we represented one man, Oybek Jabbarov, and I want to tell you Oybek's story. In 2001, Oybek Jabbarov was in his early 20s; he was a refugee from Uzbekistan, living in Afghanistan along with his expectant wife and his one-year old son. After being discharged from compulsory service in Uzbek army in 1998, Oybek could not find a job and like so many of his countrymen, he left Uzbekistan to try and find work elsewhere. Eventually, he ended up in northern Afghanistan. He was living amongst other ethnic Uzbeks, supporting himself and his family by selling chickens when the U.S. invaded to bring down the Taliban Government and to capture the leaders of Al-Qaeda, following the unspeakable September 11th attack on this country. You must understand that under the Taliban, Afghanistan, in essence, had no government, no borders, no checkpoints, and no one was even asked for a passport, and thus, it became a refuge for people from all over central Asia, such as Oybek. As we now know, Afghanistan is a tribal society and the only protection afforded to most persons in Afghanistan is the protection of their family and tribe, without which one is extremely vulnerable. When Oybek made the mistake of accepting a ride from Northern Alliance soldiers, the U.S. was offering a bounty for ``foreign fighters,'' who were supporting the Taliban in the war against the U.S. and its coalition allies. Brochures in the native languages of Afghanistan were widely distributed by the U.S. offering bounties for ``terrorists'' who were turned over to the U.S. authorities. One of these leaflets said ``get wealth and power beyond your dreams; rid Afghanistan of murdering terrorists, you can receive millions of dollars by helping to catch Al-Oaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, and your tribe for the rest of your life.'' The Northern alliance soldiers, who offered Oybek a ride, thus, had a powerful incentive to consider him a ``foreign fighter'' to collect the bounty and for that reason Oybek was turned over to the U.S. forces at the Bagram Air Force Base in December 2001. He was held in U.S. custody at the Bagram Air Force Base, and then at a facility in Kandahar, until he was transferred to Guantanamo in the spring of 2002, despite assurances from U.S. civilian interrogators in Afghanistan that ``we're trying to find Arabs; don't worry, we'll try to get you out.'' During his time in the US custody, Oybek, like many of the others, underwent ``enhanced interrogation.'' I am not here to debate the definition of torture, but if it was being done to you, you would know it was torture. Following transfer to Guantanamo, Oybek was held for more than seven years where a substantial part of his time, as with most of the others, was in virtual solitary confinement. In 2006, we were assigned to Oybek's case by the Center for Constitutional Rights that served as a clearing house to match counsel and detainees and Michael and I started our representation of Oybek Jabbarov. It took some time because of various U.S. court cases and congressional action restricting the Writ of Habeas Corpus for us to obtain the classified documents which purportedly laid out the basis for Oybek's capture and continued detention. Before we ever had a chance to meet with Oybek, having reviewed that material, it was apparent to us that the case against Oybek was thin or nonexistent and Michael was armed with that information when he was finally allowed to visit Oybek in August of 2007. When I first discussed with Michael the idea of taking on a Guantanamo detainee, he said ``so everyone else is going to get a goat farmer, but what happens if we end up with a real terrorist?'' Before he visited Guantanamo, based upon the information we had, it was unlikely Oybek was a terrorist, and so when Michael returned from Guantanamo, the first thing he told me was ``he's more Borat than he is Khalid Sheikh Mohamed.'' During the first eight trips to Cuba, he first met Oybek, who had been at Guantanamo for almost five years. Oybek presented as a gentle young man, with no apparent bitterness towards the U.S. Government that was detaining him, but was desperate for freedom. Unlike many other detainees, Oybek learned to speak English from listening to the guards and he was able to communicate with us directly without the necessity of a translator. His English, which I joked he spoke with a slight southern accent, greatly enhanced our ability to eventually relocate him. In 2007, shortly before Michael's first meeting with Oybek, the Bush Administration cleared him for transfer, which in our view meant that they had determined that he did not constitute a threat to the U.S., a fact that we always knew to be true. Following the Administration's determination that he could be transferred, we were confronted with the major problem in our representation of Oybek because he could not go back to Uzbekistan where he, in all likelihood, would have been imprisoned or killed. Uzbekistan is on our State Department's list of countries with grave human rights issues. The U.S. authorities fully agreed that he could not be returned to his native country, but had no other options. Even a successful Habeas Corpus hearing, which was years away, would not have accomplished his release from Guantanamo. As Michael said, we don't have a legal problem; we have a political and diplomatic problem obtaining his release to a third country, and we won't get much help from our Government. We had to convince a third country that, notwithstanding the U.S. having taken the position that the people at Guantanamo were ``the worst of the worst,'' that they should offer asylum in circumstances where the U.S. was unwilling to do so. Because we knew that we would get little help from our government, Michael flew to Europe and met with human rights groups in Germany, Denmark, and Ireland in order to identify a country where we had some hope that Oybek would be accepted. Following his meetings in Dublin with Amnesty International, and representatives of Human Rights Watch, we focused on Ireland. Why Ireland? We had four reasons. First, he spoke English, and we knew that would give him a tremendous head-start in terms of rebuilding his life. Secondly, Ireland remains, in part, an agriculture country, which was Oybek's background. We also knew that Ireland had a long tradition of the recognition of human rights, and lastly, we thought the Irish government might be open to accepting a detainee for resettlement as a way to improve relations with the United States. In the spring of 2008, Michael and I went to Guantanamo and talked with Oybek about Ireland and about our hope that we could secure his release there. He wanted to go to a free, democratic country and Ireland certainly qualified, but he did not even know where Ireland was and I wound up drawing a free-hand map attempting to locate Ireland in Western Europe. On our return from Guantanamo, Michael made additional visits to Ireland, and single handedly started a human rights campaign on behalf of Oybek. He talked to ministers in the Irish Government, who expressed interest in helping us, but had great concerns of political ramifications of taking a Guantanamo detainee. He had members of the Dail, Ireland's parliament, raise questions to the Government in debate and made Oybek's case a prominent public issue. Past President Ralph Lancaster kindly put me in contact with his friend Former Senator George Mitchell, who the Irish revere because of his work on bringing peace to Northern Ireland. Senator Mitchell hand delivered a letter to the Irish Foreign Minister that Michael had written asking the Irish government to consider accepting Oybek for resettlement. One of our honorary Fellows, the Former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, also spoke up in favor of Ireland's accepting Oybek. Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, and Congressman Bill Delahunt directly contacted the Irish government on Oybek's behalf. Many people from Boston visit Ireland and Michael had established such a presence there, that people returning to Boston called and told me that they had heard Michael on Irish radio discussing Ireland's role in helping to close Guantanamo. By the end of 2008, with the change of administration in Washington, we had made a lot of progress, but then came the spring of our despair as the Obama Administration came into office and Congress prohibited any Guantanamo detainee from being brought to the U.S., which made it much more difficult to convince a third country to grant asylum to men to whom the U.S. would not accept. In the spring of 2009, with no progress, despair set in at Guantanamo and many of the detainees, including Oybek, began a hunger strike, which caused me great concern that a hunger strike would affect Ireland's interest in Oybek. My son, however pointed out that if anyone understood the despair of confinement leading to a hunger strike, it was the Irish. By late summer of 2009, it was clear that the Irish had not given up on Oybek and were prepared to grant asylum, not only to Oybek, but to one of the other four Uzbeks because they were committed to taking two detainees, not just one. Oybek and the other Uzbek, who we referred to as the ``Uzbek to be named later,'' were eventually put on a U.S. military airplane at Guantanamo and flown into Dublin where they arrived over a year ago. When the plane with Oybek and Shakhrukh, the other Uzbek, landed in Ireland, they were shackled--hand and foot. When the representative of the Irish government got on the U.S. military plane and was told by the officer in charge that the guards were ready to escort Oybek and Shakhrukh off the plane, the Irishman said: ``These men are not going anywhere until you remove the shackles and handcuffs. When they step off this plane onto Irish soil, they will do so as free men.'' There was one last item left undone. During the course of our representation, Michael had tried, without success, to locate Oybek's wife and children. But without legal travel documents and afraid to return to Uzbekistan, they had lived as refugees in Central Asia since Oybek's disappearance. One day, Oybek's family was listening to the Uzbek service on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and heard Michael being interviewed about his efforts to get Oybek resettled in Ireland. Eventually, Michael was put in touch with people in Pakistan and Oybek's wife and two children were located in a refugee camp in Pakistan. Michael then worked with the Irish Government to bring his wife and his two children, one of whom he had never seen, to Ireland. This work is not over. Detainees remain at Guantanamo despite the fact that in nearly 70 percent of the cases that have been heard by Federal Judges, the writ of habeas corpus has been granted. We will continue to fight for human justice. Michael and I have filed an Appearance in another detainee's case and look forward to his eventual release. Why did lawyers, including the Fellows of the College, undertake the representation of these men in a very unpopular cause? They did it because it is part of their DNA. It is the reason many of them went to law school. Who among you has not imagined yourself as Atticus Finch standing in that hot Alabama courtroom defending an innocent man? Every state in this country has a long tradition of lawyers providing pro bono representation in unpopular causes. When Michael and I each passed the bar, we signed a book that has the name of every lawyer who has ever practiced in Massachusetts. That roll contains the names of the lawyers who represented Sacco & Vanzetti. It has the name of Benjamin Curtis, a Massachusetts lawyer and member of the Supreme Court of the United States, who dissented in the Dred Scott case and then resigned as a matter of principle. Curtis returned to Washington in 1868 to represent the very unpopular President, Andrew Johnson, in the impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate. We all know the story of John Adams, who defended the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, but his son, John Quincy Adams, who, after he had been President, represented the African slaves on the Spanish slave ship, the La Amistad, is also on that roll of attorneys. This is not just a Massachusetts tradition; it is the fabric of what it means to be an American lawyer. All of you have or will have an opportunity at some point in your career to undertake an unpopular representation. I would urge all of you to seize that opportunity because you will never forget it. John Adams said that of all the things he did, which included not only the presidency, but being the driving force behind the Declaration of Independence, that the representation of the British soldiers was the best service that he had ever done for his country. Each of us standing here today would tell you that this is the best thing that we have ever done. Thank you and God bless the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I recently returned from the Franklin Center for Global Policy Exchange's 26th TransAtlantic Conference in Ankara and Istanbul, Turkey. Joining me for this bipartisan conference were House colleagues Jean Schmidt, Frank Lucas, James Sensenbrenner, and Jim Moran. This conference brought together Turkish and European Union government officials, members of the diplomatic community, scholars, and private sector leaders, to find ways to enhance understanding of the global challenges currently facing the U.S. and Turkey. We discussed how vital the bilateral relationship has been to both countries and how the alliance has served our national interest for over 60 years. The key to our relationship is strengthening collaboration toward shared goals. Only with a renewed sense of trust and understanding will this partnership continue to thrive in the 21st century. In honor of the deep friendship between the U.S. and Turkey, I come to the House Floor today to congratulate the Turkish people and their government on the 87th anniversary of the founding of their nation by Mustafa Kemal on October 29, 2010. Mustafa Kemal, who was later given the name Ataturk, meaning ``father of the Turks,'' rejected the crumbling structures and outdated modes of empire and embraced instead a platform of reform and modernization, a legacy that continues in Turkey to this day. I am pleased to take this opportunity to highlight some of the incredible accomplishments of one of the world's most dynamic nations. Over the past 87 years, Turkey has joined the G20, NATO and the United Nations, becoming a leader on many diplomatic issues in the Middle East, Europe and around the world. She has led humanitarian missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and taken the lead in the United Nations relating to Somali pirates and North Korea. Turkey has followed President Ataturk's vision by partnering with the West, and also by building relationships with its neighbors to help stabilize the region. I speak for the American people in extending our wishes for the continued strength and success of the Republic of Turkey.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the voice vote passage of H. Res. 1631, on September, 28, 2010, ``Calling for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from and in Turkish- occupied areas of northern Cyprus as well as for general respect for religious freedom,'' may be detrimental to efforts at reunification of Cyprus. While the Cyprus dispute is between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, it has commanded the attention of other countries for decades. In that time, negotiations over Cyprus have involved not only the Cypriot communities, but also Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. The impasse over Cyprus has had a number of implications, including the continuing stalemate on Turkey's accession to the European Union. While sponsors of H. Res. 1631 spoke about religious tolerance, this legislation is clearly intended to target Turkey and Turkish Cypriots directly. No mention was made about the destruction of Turkish--Muslim cultural sites in the Republic of Cyprus, or the fact that both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities have been working to tackle this problem together since 2008, under a Technical Committee established jointly by the leaders of the two communities. Turkey, a friend of the United States and a NATO ally, has been supportive of the current discussions within the global community and between the two Cypriot leaders. The continuation of these efforts should be encouraged. Passage of H. Res. 1631 at this time, could provoke a highly negative reaction and completely sidetrack the ongoing reunification process. Instead of a one-sided resolution, this House should commend and endorse the steps taken by both parties to resolve their longstanding dispute and settle their differences together.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the voice vote passage of H. Res. 1631, on September 28, 2010, ``Calling for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from and in Turkish- occupied areas of northern Cyprus as well as for general respect for religious freedom,'' may be detrimental to efforts at reunification of Cyprus. While the Cyprus dispute is between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, it has commanded the attention of other countries for decades. In that time, negotiations over Cyprus have involved not only the Cypriot communities, but also Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. The impasse over Cyprus has had a number of implications, including the continuing stalemate on Turkey's accession to the European Union. While sponsors of H. Res. 1631 spoke about religious tolerance, this legislation is clearly intended to target Turkey and Turkish Cypriots directly. No mention was made about the destruction of Turkish-Muslim cultural sites in the Republic of Cyprus, or the fact that both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities have been working to tackle this problem together since 2008, under a Technical Committee established jointly by the leaders of the two communities. Turkey, a friend of the United States and a NATO ally, has been supportive of the current discussions within the global community and between the two Cypriot leaders. The continuation of these efforts should be encouraged. Passage of H. Res. 1631 at this time could provoke a highly negative reaction and completely sidetrack the ongoing reunification process. Instead of a one-sided resolution, this House should commend and endorse the steps taken by both parties to resolve their longstanding dispute and settle their differences together.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the voice vote passage of H. Res. 1631, on September, 28, 2010, ``Calling for the protection of religious sites and artifacts from and in Turkish- occupied areas of northern Cyprus as well as for general respect for religious freedom,'' may be detrimental to efforts at reunification of Cyprus. While the Cyprus dispute is between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, it has commanded the attention of other countries for decades. In that time, negotiations over Cyprus have involved not only the Cypriot communities, but also Turkey, Greece, the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union. The impasse over Cyprus has had a number of implications, including the continuing stalemate on Turkey's accession to the European Union. While sponsors of H. Res. 1631, spoke about religious tolerance, this legislation is clearly intended to target Turkey and Turkish Cypriots directly. No mention was made about the destruction of Turkish-Muslim cultural sites in the Republic of Cyprus, or the fact that both Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities have been working to tackle this problem together since 2008, under a Technical Committee established jointly by the leaders of the two communities. Turkey, a friend of the United States and a NATO ally, has been supportive of the current discussions within the global community and between the two Cypriot leaders. The continuation of these efforts should be encouraged. Passage of H. Res. 1631 at this time, could provoke a highly negative reaction and completely sidetrack the ongoing reunification process. Instead of a one-sided resolution, this House should commend and endorse the steps taken by both parties to resolve their longstanding dispute and settle their differences together.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the publication of ``Old Mother West Wind,'' the hallmark nature book penned by author and naturalist Thornton W. Burgess. The first of over 150 nature books and 15,000 stories, Burgess' ``Old Mother Wind'' introduced children to a wide variety of local animals, their habits, and habitats. These engaging stories of the natural world have helped generations of children gain a greater understanding of the timeless importance of conservation of our natural resources and a love of wildlife. A native of Sandwich, Massachusetts, Thornton Burgess (1875-1965) went on to achieve national and international recognition for these children's stories and his monumental leadership and initiatives in preserving our Nation's natural heritage. For 100 years, generations of children throughout the world have grown up with Old Mother West Wind. Her Merry Little Breezes skipping across the meadows, Peter Rabbit and his animal friends--including Jimmy Skunk, Grandfather Frog, Johnny Chuck, Sammy Jay, Reddy Fox, Hooty Owl, and many others--continue today to both regale and teach us about our natural surroundings. These characters have become friends to children and adults alike. Their antics, questions of ``why'' and ``how,'' and their love for one another, demonstrate and teach the value of our natural heritage. They stimulate and fascinate children's interests in the natural world, all the while constantly reminding parents and adults of the importance of preserving and conserving our natural heritage for future generations. Thornton W. Burgess' work is continued today through the non-profit Thornton W. Burgess Society, headquartered in his native town of Sandwich. As we celebrate the centennial anniversary of ``Old Mother West Wind,'' I salute the Thornton W. Burgess Society for its preservation of the writings, teachings, and memorabilia of a pioneer environmentalist; its mission of inspiring reverence of wildlife and concern for the natural environment; for its operation of the Thornton W. Burgess Museum, Green Briar Nature Center and Shirley G. Cross Wildflower Garden, and the many programs and exhibits it provides in conjunction with their operation; and its 34 years of promoting the study of the natural sciences and environmental education in the schools of Cape Cod and throughout southeastern Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the centennial of the dedication of the Pilgrim Monument in Provincetown, Massachusetts. One hundred years ago, on the fifth of August, 1910, United States President William H. Taft and Eben Draper, then-Governor of Massachusetts, joined scores of visitors as they congregated around the base of the 252-foot tower in celebration of the newly constructed memorial honoring the 102 brave passengers of the Mayflower and its historic journey. It was there on the tip of Cape Cod in 1620, among harsh gusts of a November wind, that forty-one men drafted the first democratic covenant of the New World--the Mayflower Compact. It was their dreams of self- governance that instilled in us the strongest of our political and ethical morals; and it was their perseverance that would soon bring them to establish Plymouth Plantation. Today, one hundred years later, the steady climb up a winding staircase will lead you to a panoramic vista with strained glimpses of a Boston sky-line far in the distance. Although the immediate view beneath High Pole Hill has been much altered in the century since, the fog rolling across Cape Cod bay, the tranquil waters momentarily broken by the distant breach of a humpback whale, and the sting of the salt breeze, are reminiscent of our Pilgrims' experiences of this wonderful new land. Elevated on High Pole Hill, this granite tower is emblematic of much more than the sacrifices of the Mayflower passengers and the values they brought to the new land. The Monument is a memorial to the story of each American--for we are a unique country of immigrants, carrying with us our own passion for freedom, self determination and justice. Since the first inception in 1892, the dramatic significance of the Cape Cod Pilgrim Memorial Association and the Monument they were dedicated to build was well-understood. President Theodore Roosevelt insisted on participating in the ceremonies associated with the laying the cornerstone of the Monument's foundation in an elaborate Masonic ceremony. The President sailed into Provincetown Harbor on his presidential yacht--named the Mayflower--and spoke of the significance of the First Landing to all Americans. And now, nearly four hundred years after their cross-seas journey led them to the shores of Provincetown, we gather once again in celebration of the passengers of the Mayflower and the Monument constructed one century ago in their honor.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, let me extend a note of gratitude to the ranking member from Texas for his kind and generous words. I also want to indicate that I am wearing a tie that has ``Cape Cod'' emblazoned on this tie that was given to me by Mr. Smith on behalf of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. At the time, I didn't know whether it was a sign of respect or affection. Later, I learned it was because I continually wear Cape Cod ties, that they were concerned that I had no tie without a stain on it. So Lamar, thank you. Thank you for those kind words. It's been truly an honor to serve with you and the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee these past 14 years. We've done, I think, extraordinary work. We've done it together. We've had our disagreements, but those disagreements oftentimes yielded a consensus that worked for the benefit of the American people. This bill, I guess some would consider it rare for a concept that is supported not only by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, but also the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to come to this floor on the suspension calendar. That truly is extraordinary. But all of those organizations, I would suggest, share the same goal, and that is how do we deal with crime in America in a way that makes us safer, but saves us money, while still protecting fundamental American liberties and values? The bill's been described by my good friend from Virginia and by Mr. Smith in terms of what it does. It will result in a commission that will do a comprehensive and holistic review of our criminal justice system at all levels, Federal, state, and local, and make findings and recommendations to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence in our country. It's important to note, too, that the commission will be tasked with improving the cost-effectiveness of the criminal justice system, so that tax dollars are not wasted on inefficient, ineffective programs. There are excellent programs that are working currently. And I believe that they are responsible to a large degree for the reduction that we have observed in violence in America. I think this Congress shares some of that credit. But we don't have to reinvent the wheel. We simply have to identify what works, what makes sense, and pursue it. Because let's not forget, it's the State and local governments that bear most of the burden. That's where the action is. It's no secret that the States find themselves in profound fiscal straits. On the cover of the June 28 edition of Time magazine, a State license plate was depicted with the word ``Bankrupt'' emblazoned on it. Now, the issues of safety, crime, and justice know no political party or geographic boundary, as evidenced by the bipartisan support that this bill has engendered. And let me pause again and thank Mr. Rooney and Mr. Issa, along with again, let me emphasize, the great leadership of my chairman, Bobby Scott, on this matter. Along with Congresswoman Fudge, who I am sure if she is not in the Chamber, will be running over to speak. Again, we want to reduce crime. And everywhere we're concerned that the law enforcement agencies in this country and other groups have the resources to keep our streets safe. But they also insist that the system not needlessly waste taxpayer dollars. As Chairman Scott indicated, the United States currently incarcerates 2.3 million individuals. It's the highest incarceration rate in the world. More than 90 percent of the incarcerated adults in this country are incarcerated in the State and local systems, filling their prisons. And the Pew Center predicts that by 2011, continued State and local prison growth will cost taxpayers an additional $75 billion. That's simply unsustainable. This bill will help us battle those rising, escalating figures, and hopefully continue the decline that we observe in terms of crimes of violence in this country. It will allow us to take that comprehensive national review. This is not an audit of individual State systems. It's a review. There are no mandates. And the commission will issue concrete recommendations. Again, as the chairman of the subcommittee alluded to, it's been more than four decades since a comprehensive review of criminal justice was conducted. It was 1965 when President Johnson established the Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, the so- called Kerner Commission. The commission examined criminal justice systems in great detail, and ultimately reported over 200 recommendations to control crime and improve justice in this country. The time to take this on is now. I predict it will lead to a safer America and a smarter, more effective criminal justice system.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, it was some 13 years ago that a friend of mine at home approached me and described to me the characteristics and symptoms of a disorder he called fragile x. He demonstrated a familiarity with fragile x that was extraordinary, but he was talking about his son. I was embarrassed because I had no idea what he was talking about, but I was certainly not alone. I, like many Americans, had never heard of fragile x, but his passion and our friendship motivated me to work with my colleagues to address this issue which is of such concern to so many in this country. And it is this lack of awareness that is at the heart of the problem. Most people who exhibit the characteristics of fragile x are not tested due to a simple lack of understanding, and this applies to both the medical community and to the general population. For that reason, I joined with two champions, Mr. Harper of Mississippi and Mr. Hare, my friend and colleague on this side of the aisle, to reestablish the Fragile X Caucus. The goal has simply been to raise public awareness of this rather obscure disease, this disorder. So today we speak on the resolution to commemorate--or re- commemorate--Fragile X Awareness Day, which is tomorrow, July 22, and to continue in an effort to raise awareness. Fragile x is the most common known genetic cause of autism. It affects one in 4,000 males and one in 6,000 females of all races and ethnic groups. Over 100,000 Americans have fragile x syndrome; another 1 million Americans have or are at risk for developing an associated disorder. But through public awareness, we have the power to reduce the frequency of fragile x. Through early testing, research and education, we can make a difference. In fact, a simple blood test can now detect fragile x. And now, as a result of the Fragile X Breakthrough Act, which I co-sponsored along with my then-colleague, Wes Watkins of Oklahoma, many scientists have conducted critical fragile x research projects rapidly accelerating new breakthroughs to help us understand its causes. Still, there remains much to be done. In 2002, as my colleagues and I were debating a resolution to recognize National Fragile X Research Day, I promised Wes Watkins that I would continue to support this cause which he had championed during his career in this body. So now as I retire at the end of this term and move on with the next phase of my life, I rise today and ask my colleagues to continue to support this work. It is my hope that, one day, we will see a time when all families suffering from the effects of fragile X will be helped so that they, too, will have the chance to move on and to enjoy the next phases of their lives. On behalf of the thousands of Americans who have fragile X and the millions who are at risk--and their families--I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I, again, want to acknowledge Mr. Harper and Mr. Hare for their outstanding work.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the many Members in the House of Representatives who--like myself--have benefited from this honorable man's brilliance and dedication, I wish to commend Dr. Louis Fisher, Ph.D., for his forty years of exemplary service to the United States Congress as a member of the professional staff of the Library of Congress, both with the Congressional Research Service and the Law Library. We, and the many colleagues who served before us, have each been the beneficiaries of the years Lou Fisher has devoted to assisting the Congress in understanding the U.S. Constitution and acting to preserve the responsibilities and prerogatives of the Legislative Branch while respecting those of the Executive and Judicial Branches. He has made a unique, profound and lasting contribution to the vitality of the Congress and the Republic. Highlights of his career include his assistance in authoring the new constitutions of Russia, the Ukraine, Bulgaria, Albania, and Hungary following the fall of the Soviet Union; his dedicated service as Research Director for the House Iran-Contra Committee; and his extensive testimonies on war powers, state secrets, executive spending discretion, presidential reorganization authority, Congress and the Constitution, the legislative veto, the item veto, executive privilege, executive lobbying, covert spending, the pocket veto, recess appointments, the budget process, the balanced budget amendment, biennial budgeting, and presidential impoundment powers. He is renowned as a prolific author of books, textbooks, articles and papers on Congress, the Constitution, Presidential power, and other topics, all too numerous to list, and was the 2006 recipient of the Neustadt Book Award for Military Tribunals and Presidential Power. With gratitude for his contributions to the Congress and the Nation, we extend our deep respect and heartfelt esteem to Dr. Fisher and offer our affectionate wishes for his health and happiness in retirement.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize P. Michael Saint of Franklin, Tennessee--the Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of The Saint Consulting Group. In 1983, following a long and dedicated career working in government and media, Mr. Saint founded The Saint Consulting Group. It started in a one-bedroom condominium in Hingham, Massachusetts--which is in my district--and has since blossomed into a successful international firm with offices across the United States and Europe. From its humble beginnings, his pioneering company has grown to be a recognized international leader in the field of ``land use politics.'' From conferences and speeches at distinguished institutions around the world, Mr. Saint has generously shared his unique perspective and extensive professional experiences with colleagues, peers, and younger generations of philanthropists. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Association of Management Consulting Firms and is a trustee on the board of The Foundation for Excellence in Consulting and Management, and also contributes locally serving on the advisory board of the Civic Bank and Trust in Nashville and the executive board of the Nashville District Council of the Urban Land Institute. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Nashville Opera and on the Board of Trustees of the George Street Playhouse in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His active support for the Vanderbilt Children's Hospital and the Heritage Foundation of Williamson County, Tennessee, as well as innumerable other associations and charitable endeavors, has sparked hope in the hearts of children and families across the country. In 2009, Mr. Saint added the title of 'author' to his impressive resume as he co-authored the groundbreaking book on land use politics, ``Nimby Wars--The Politics of Land Use''. To the people who work for and with Mr. Saint, and to the people who know him best, it is not just his entrepreneurial spirit, or his charitable work that makes him an enduring leader. It is the genuine care and compassion that he exhibits for others that will always be his legacy. Whether it was offering domestic partner benefits long before it was fashionable or a legal requirement, or fully funding family health insurance costs for all his employees, or promoting continuing education for his employees by fully funding Master of Business Arts degrees--Mike Saint has created a dynamic and innovative company, one that puts people first. It is my honor to recognize P. Michael Saint for his innovation, his philanthropic endeavors and, most importantly, for his exemplary leadership.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor the retirement of a distinguished member of the Brewster Fire Department, Chief Roy Jones. For 37 years, Roy has selflessly served the people of Brewster and Cape Cod as a member of the Fire Department, and spent an impressive 29 years as Fire Chief. The heroism and bravado of fire-fighters inspire many children to dream of one day donning their own bright yellow fire-suit and grasping a fire hose in their hands as they storm a building engulfed by flames. Like countless children before him, Roy, too, was enraptured by the blaring sirens and towering ladders introduced to him at his first firehouse visit. By the age of 18, he served as a volunteer firefighter in the towns of Harwich and Eastham on Cape Cod. Nothing could tear him from his passion--he even lived and worked in a firehouse during his college years in Maryland. With his youth interrupted by the war in Vietnam, Roy took his fire- fighting expertise--and the invaluable life skills attributed to the diligence that only a life-long firefighter possesses--to the U.S. Air Force. Following his laudable service, which brought him far from the dunes of Cape Cod to the exotic South Pacific, he returned home to Massachusetts, where he founded the first rescue squad in the town of Brewster. From volunteer to captain to chief, Roy Jones lived his childhood dream each day, leaving behind an impressive resume and hundreds of lives and memories saved. Now, Roy had folded his 'bunker gear' for the final time, laying to rest not only years of firefighting experience, but of tremendous and admirable leadership. As he acclimates himself to a new life of retirement and--if he allows himself to slow down--a life of unprecedented leisure, I applaud his dedication to public safety and the people of Brewster. On behalf of a very grateful constituency, thank you on a job well done.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would just echo the eloquent sentiments expressed by my friend from Texas. I have no further requests for time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Kucinich.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the Speaker of the House, the gentlelady from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the dean of the House, Chairman John Dingell. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to another original sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).