Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join with the gentleman from New York in offering this amendment in the nature of a substitute. Specifically, the substitute would eliminate those portions of the bill that confer upon large developers, and let us be candid, that is what we are really talking about here, large developers, the right to go directly to Federal Court to resolve purely local land disputes that have always, always, been handled at the State and local level. Land use is, as the gentleman from Iowa said, quintessentially a local issue, a local matter; and it has been under local and State control since the beginning of the Republic. I think I heard a quote from one of the previous speakers that quoted a particular conservative Federal judge saying Federal courts are not boards of zoning appeals. Let us not denigrate them. The bill before us would allow developers to bypass local zoning boards, local health departments, and local courts in their efforts to win at all cost. It would do so by sweeping aside long-established judicial and constitutional principles that require Federal courts to give State and local authorities the opportunity to decide such local matters for themselves. The question was raised, why is this so controversial, because it enforces a right? It is controversial because it sweeps away two fundamental principles of our American jurisprudence: the abstention doctrine and the issue of rightness. That is why it is controversial. Because it absolutely impacts everything that we have embraced to this point in time since the beginning of the Republic as far as our jurisprudence is concerned. The bill would inevitably result in lower environmental health and safety standards as local authorities seek to avoid exposure to costly lawsuits. By federalizing literally thousands of these cases, the bill would encourage developers to sue rather than negotiate with local officials and neighboring landowners. The resulting litigation would impose huge costs on local governments that, candidly, they cannot afford. Let us remember, Mr. Chairman, that 97 percent of the cities and towns in America have populations under 10,000; 52 percent have populations under 1,000. Virtually without exception these small communities are forced to hire outside expensive legal counsel each time they are sued, imposing large and unanticipated costs on municipal budgets. Even then these communities are no match for corporate giants and large developers. If the bill is allowed to go through without this amendment, we will be giving enormous leverage to developers and denying ordinary citizens and their elected representatives effective access to the courts. That is what this underlying bill would do. And that is why it is opposed by a variety of groups that have already been enumerated: the National League of cities, they are concerned about the local State/ Federal relationship and that is why they oppose it; the National Association of Towns and Townships; the National Association of Counties; the National Conference of State Legislatures; the U.S. Conference of Mayors, all of whom are concerned about the core principle at stake here, which is the principle of federalism; the Conference of State Chief Justices; the Judicial Conference representing the Federal judiciary, because they are aware of fact that they cannot handle an increased backlog that this proposal, this underlying bill, would clearly generate. The AFL-CIO is opposed to this bill because, in committee, the majority would have denied an exemption to the bill which would have allowed cases involving public health and public safety being exempted; and that is the reason that organized labor is opposed to this bill. Apart from its effects on local communities, the bill, as I indicated, would overwhelm Federal courts that are already staggering under the burden of their existing caseloads. Now, one might suppose that such a proposal as this was generated by those who favor a larger role in the Federal Government, but that is not the case. The authors of the bill are the very individuals whom The Washington Post referred to yesterday morning as ``self-proclaimed champions of State power.'' One might suppose that this proposal was generated by those who advocate a larger role for the Federal judiciary. But again, that is not the case. The proponents and authors of the bill are the very individuals who regularly come to the well of this House and rail against judicial activism by unelected Federal judges. Only last Congress, they were on the floor attempting to pass a measure that was called the Judicial Reform Act, which would have prohibited Federal judges from ordering a State or local government to obey environmental protection, civil rights, or other laws if doing so would cost them any money. The gentleman from New York will remember that measure because it was an amendment which we offered together that brought about its much deserved defeat. What that bill attempted to do was to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction or violations of Federal law that were indisputably within their proper sphere of authority. What this bill attempts to do is to transfer to those very courts jurisdiction over violations of State and local laws that have never been within the scope of their authority. Well, so much for federalism. So much for local control. So, Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are concerned about unfunded mandates because it would impose additional costs upon local governments, vote for this substitute. If they are concerned about limited government and local control, vote for the substitute. If my colleagues are concerned about judicial intervention by unelected judges, vote for the substitute. So, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute and oppose this reckless and irresponsible bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci). (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, throughout American history, our men and women in uniform have constantly risen to the challenge of our national defense, putting life and limb at risk for our security. This Nation, and the liberty for which it stands throughout the world, owes our veterans a deep and ongoing debt of gratitude. Some would say that this debt is repaid in Memorial Day observances. But we all know what veterans, from the Revolution to the Kosovo campaign, appreciate most is respect. Respect for their commitment. Their sacrifice. Their medical needs. Respect for what they went through, so that we would not have to suffer. Respect for the families of friends who never made it home. Tonight I take the floor of the United States House of Representatives to share with you the story of one soldier who has never received the respect I believe he is owed. His picture is to my right in his uniform holding a child. His name is Jim Cadigan, from the community of Hingham in the district in Massachusetts which I represent. Once in a great while an individual serves this country with special distinction. When ordinary people demonstrate such extraordinary valor, official recognition not only honors the heroism, but also uplifts the entire Nation, whose freedom is safeguarded by such courage. Unfortunately, official recognition of this soldier's bravery has been less than forthcoming. On a German battlefield in 1945, Lieutenant James Cadigan acted instinctively and against almost inconceivable odds to protect his platoon and apprehend dozens of armed enemy troops. For his selflessness, he earned the lifelong admiration of his comrades. But the Army that Jim served with such fierce loyalty has dismissed repeated recommendations, to express the degree of respect his bravery deserved. Over the 3 years I have been privileged to serve in this chamber, I have labored to ensure a fair shake for Mr. Cadigan's candidacy to receive a Congressional Medal of Honor. Regrettably, Jim had more success on that German battlefield than in the corridors of the Pentagon. Thus, to honor the 55th anniversary of his heroism, I rise tonight as one grateful Member of Congress to salute Lieutenant Cadigan publicly for all he did for us. To do so, I need only describe his remarkable acts of heroism. As you will see, the facts more than speak for themselves. On February 26, 1945, Second Lieutenant James Cadigan, a Member of Company C, the 20th Armored Infantry Battalion, 10th Armored Division, led a platoon advancing on the German town of Zerf. Upon hearing that a second platoon had been ambushed and was pinned down by enemy fire, Lieutenant Cadigan, without concern for his own safety, charged fortified enemy positions perched on high ground and single-handedly wiped out two German machine gun nests. Dozens of witnesses have testified that Lieutenant Cadigan killed or wounded 50 Germans, then took another 85 prisoner. The trapped U.S. platoon was able to escape and reorganize, saving scores of American lives. Most of these men made it back to the United States after the war. Without Jim Cadigan's heroism, it is likely that none of those men, or their children, grandchildren or great grandchildren, would be alive today. One of Jim's comrades, Thomas Tomae of Irvington, New Jersey, reported, ``Like the other men, I know that we never would have gotten out of there alive if Lieutenant Cadigan hadn't knocked out the 2 Nazi machine guns that were closing in on us.'' From another comrade, John Milanak of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: ``All of us were sure we would be killed that day. It was just like a miracle. I thanked God many times, but never more than that day. I say thank God for Lieutenant Cadigan. He saved so many lives.'' When the smoke of the battle of Zerf cleared, Lieutenant Cadigan's commanding officer, Captain Melvin Mason, immediately began preparations to recommend him for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Before Captain Mason could submit the referral, however, he was seriously wounded in action himself and spent over a year convalescing in the hospital. Jim Cadigan's battalion commander was killed in action shortly thereafter. With both of Lieutenant Cadigan's superiors out of action, and in the swirl of post-war homecomings, the Medal of Honor recommendation was not filed in a timely fashion under the statutory requirements then in effect. In fact, it was not until 1950 that Captain Mason inquired whether the commendation had been awarded. When told that Jim Cadigan had not been recognized for his heroism, Mason and other comrades-in-arms began the arduous task of assembling eyewitness affidavits and other documentation from around the United States establishing his claim to the Medal of Honor. This resolve resulted in Jim's being awarded the Silver Star in 1977, pending resolution of Captain Mason's Medal of Honor recommendation. The Silver Star is indeed a great honor, but not what those who know of Jim's deeds feel his heroism earned. Why did Captain Mason devote himself to this task? Just listen to his account of that day in Zerf some 55 years ago. Again, I am quoting. Through these acts of bravery, two platoons were saved from being wiped out. His actions made it possible for us to get our wounded evacuated, reorganize and continue our attack. His inspiring leadership and amazing acts of courage revived the spirit and energy of all of the men and contributed most significantly to the capture of Zerf. These acts were most extraordinary, since Lieutenant Cadigan repeatedly exposed himself to deadly enemy fire, and again and again risked his life to save the rest of his comrades from what seemed to be certain death and defeat by the enemy. It would not normally be expected that any one man should carry a machine gun by himself through deadly enemy fire and single-handedly knock out two enemy machine guns. Lieutenant Cadigan's quick reactions had changed his comrades' lives, but they carried far less weight within the Pentagon. Having awarded him the Silver Star, the Army washed its hands of his case. Why? Because the Medal of Honor paperwork had not been turned in on time. There was no chance for a review of the merits of his case because, as far as the Army was concerned, proper procedure had not been followed. Imagine how many American lives would have been lost on that day in 1945 if Jim Cadigan had followed ``proper procedure.'' As word spread about the way the Army was treating Jim, veterans from across the country proceeded to rally to his cause. At his division's annual Labor Day reunion, the question is always the same: Has Jim received his Medal of Honor yet? Many of you here this the chamber have heard from his supporters, his admirers. Some of you have joined with my predecessors and with me in introducing and cosponsoring specific legislation on his behalf. But the Army successfully argued against each of these bills, ostensibly because of the missed paperwork deadline. As you know, Congress went to the lengths of amending Federal statutes governing cases like Jim's. Section 526 of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act explicitly provided for Pentagon review on the merits of potential Medal of Honor awards upon the personal petition of a Member of Congress. Where I am from, Jim's story is well known. To say ``Jim Cadigan'' is the same as saying ``hero.'' It has also become legendary how the military has treated him. When I was sworn in as his Congressman in 1997, Jim Cadigan became one of my top personal priorities. I studied how the Army had handled my predecessor, Congressman Gary Studds', Section 526 review, and found an inexcusably inaccurate interpretation of its obligations under the statute. In calling for reexamination of the evidence, I wrote to then Secretary Togo West that the Pentagon was required to ``review the case afresh, not merely post-date an old rejection letter.'' It seemed to me that this was the time for proper procedure. Accordingly, I resubmitted a personal request for reconsideration of his case on its merits in accordance with Section 526 and backed it up with new legislation. At the risk of raising Jim's blood pressure, let me recount what the review which followed by the Senior Army Deliberations Board was, what happened. Well, the offices conducting this review never interviewed lieutenant Cadigan or any of the surviving eye-witnesses. They never requested a single document. They made a habit of ignoring inquiries from Members of Congress, and they took nearly 2 years, literally, to complete the review. The result consisted in its entirety of a handwritten checkmark in a preprinted box which indicated that the petitioner did not meet the standard for the award of the medal of honor: as an expression of basic human compassion, I implored Army officials to speak directly to Mr. Cadigan or at least to review the results of this torturous process. Even a simple expression of common courtesy took on cosmic proportions within the Pentagon. By the second year, when it became rather clear how this review of the merits would end, I requested in advance a copy of the complete record on which any final decision was based. The package I ultimately received fit in a very small envelope. Notwithstanding the affidavits about the Battle of Zerf, it appeared that Army officials either did not read the materials or concluded that Jim and so many others were not to be believed. Since a checkmark does not really answer these questions, I again sought a clarification of the rationale for the Pentagon's decision. I was told that the Army saw Jimmy's heroic acts as nothing more than what ``we expect a platoon leader in combat to take'' and that ``the evidence presented did not meet the standard for an award of the Medal of Honor.'' That sounded to me like a lot less like a rationale than like a rationalization. It came as no surprise that I disagreed with the Army's decision, but I was most deeply disappointed that the decorations board record contained no analysis, no discussion, and no justification for the decision. It was, thus, impossible to determine how this decision was reached. I understood from the beginning that this was an uphill battle. This is one brave soldier for whom adversity has never been an obstacle. While he expects no charity, however, he also abides no disrespect. Nor do the many comrades who have stood shoulder to shoulder with Jim Cadigan through the years, like Len Morris, an Army infantryman who landed on Omaha Beach and whose unit was fighting on February 26, 1945 in Luxembourg, only 10 miles from the Battle of Zerf. And John Donlon, another son of Quincy in the D-Day invasion who wrote me, and again I am quoting: Lieutenant Cadigan's gallant leadership for his men is an act of valor and the nobility of spirit and should be boldly and eloquently commemorated. We must glorify the values and ideals of a great Nation whose people came together in one of its finest hours and who offered up their lives to defeat the ruthless aggression of the forces of tyranny. Mr. Speaker, over the past 55 years, international alliances have come and gone; the Cold War has boiled over and cooled down. Americans in uniform have served their country in many strange and far-away places. American society itself has been dramatically transformed and retransformed. Throughout the tumult and turmoil of the last 55 years, certain universal values, however, have remained strong: commitment, courage, sacrifice, loyalty. But these are nothing more than lofty words chiseled in some granite memorial until they are brought to life by inspired acts like those of Lieutenant Jim Cadigan. Jim Cadigan personified those values on that German battlefield 55 years ago; and he still does today, stirring the hearts of nearly all who hear his story. None of this is lost on the members of Jimmy's family whose hearts ache every time they review this ordeal. Recently, his daughter, Mary, said to me, and again I am quoting, ``It is shameful that a great soldier and leader is ignored all those years.'' Well, I agree with Mary. So if the United States Army cannot see fit to adequately honor a true American hero like James Cadigan, then I will do so as a Member of Congress. Jim, we recall all those you saved 55 years ago as well as those who never made it home; and we thank you for the sacrifices you and your generation made so that we can enjoy the freedom we take for granted today. Jim, we thank you for saving so many American lives on that battlefield in 1945, enabling those young men to return to our soil and raise their own families, and for risking your life and your family's future for our sake. Jim, thank you for proving that such qualities as commitment, courage, sacrifice, and loyalty still count for so much. And Jim, although the Army has denied you the Medal of Honor you deserve, in my eyes and in the eyes of those who really know what happens on the battlefield, you have already earned your Nation's highest honor and gratitude. You do not need a piece of medal pinned to your chest to prove that. Jim Cadigan, in the name of the American people and the men whose lives you saved, I salute you as a true American hero.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1304.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today, we take an important step forward in addressing a Social Security inequity that is an injustice to working seniors. Under the Social Security Earnings Limit, beneficiaries aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 a year--but for every $3 earned over this amount $1 of benefits is lost. The cap has always been one of the most unpopular parts of the Social Security program--and for good reason. It penalizes older people for working--and deprives the nation of the talent of working seniors. It's time to get rid of it, once and for all. The earnings cap is a relic of the Great Depression, when concern over massive joblessness led to a perception that retirees should be discouraged from rejoining the workforce. Today, people are living longer and working longer--and are as entitled as the rest of us to fair wages for their labor. At a time when unemployment is at a 30-year low and we face acute labor shortages, this Depression-era work disincentive for seniors no longer makes sense. Older Americans possess enormous talent and experience. It boggles the mind why we'd want to maintain disincentives for them to work. The earnings test not only erodes seniors' standards of living, but also costs the nation valuable skills in the workforce, as well as tax revenue generated by this income. Retirees who receive income from other sources such as pensions or capital gains do not have any benefits reduced. Why should income from pensions or investments be treated more favorably than earned income? I received a letter last summer from a retiree from my home town-- Quincy, Massachusetts. He wrote: ``I would like to retire with dignity and only want what I deserve. I feel that with your support of this bill, it would enable me to live without worries of finances and diminish the concerns of my family.'' That is what this legislation is all about--simply giving seniors what they deserve. While this is a step in the right direction, seniors deserve more-- and we could and should be doing more--much more. During Committee deliberations on this legislation last night, an amendment was offered to restore some of the benefits that are reduced due to the Government Pension Offset. This provision would have made widow's benefits more fair, and helped reduce the high rates of poverty that especially face elderly women. Unfortunately, the Chairman passed on this opportunity--even though the Social Security Administration stated that the costs of adding this provision would be negligible. Mr. Speaker, removing the earnings limit is progress--but is this all that we are going to do for seniors this year? Are we going to address other inequities in the Social Security system--like the government pension offset, windfall reductions, duel entitlement provisions--or even the long-term solvency of the program? Will we finally reauthorize the Older American Act? Will we enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit? Our senior citizens deserve more--much more. Passing this bill is the very least we can do. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation--and invite you to join me in efforts to ensure retirement security for all older Americans.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again. We have a bill before us now that would sweep aside generations of State laws that protect consumers so that corporations can evade their responsibilities for wrongs that they commit. Forget about States' rights. Federalism as a core Democratic principle is withering away in this institution, and this proposal is an example of that. Earlier today, the Committee on the Judiciary was to consider a proposal which would shift to the Federal courts local zoning issues. And those that speak and preach States' rights and de-evolution I suggest should revisit their words. Let me join with others who have stressed that we are not talking about small businesses here. I mean, if we read the bill, that simply is inaccurate. It is absurd in fact. There are no revenue caps in this legislation. The bill would permit large, prosperous businesses making enormous profits to escape liability so long as they maintain a small employee base. A corporation could have millions of dollars of revenue, tens of millions of dollars in revenue, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and they could evade their responsibility under the parameters of this bill. But, of course, while the bill does not put caps on revenues of profits, it does cap punitive damages, punitive damages that would apply to conduct that is so egregious it would border on the criminal. Now, the proponents of the bill claim that a cap is necessary to prevent juries, juries made up of American citizens, people in the community, from awarding appropriate punitive damages. Of course, there is no evidence that there is a problem. In fact, it was the previous speaker who spoke in support of the bill that, last year, in the entire United States, there were 14 cases where juries awarded punitive damages. But the proponents would suggest there is a problem. There is no evidence and there is no data to that effect. The real problem is that this negates the entire purpose of punitive damages. And the purpose of punitive damages is to deter misconduct, wanton and willful and egregious misconduct. The rationale for punitive damages is to induce companies to spend the money to safeguard workers and protect consumers rather than take the risk of being hit with substantial damages down the road. This bill will fail to deter misconduct. It will fail and will allow for injuries that were fully foreseeable and preventable from happening. This bill is nothing more than a warrant for corporate recklessness. And, of course, the bill overreaches in this and many other ways. It eviscerates the traditional product liability law in this country. It exempts all product sellers, renters, and lessors regardless of their size. Again, no, it is not about small business. This bill should be defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Town of Weymouth, in the Tenth District of Massachusetts, which convened our nation's first Town Meeting 375 years ago--and which is about to convene its last Town Meeting tonight. Originally called ``Wessagusset,'' Weymouth was settled in 1622, making it the second-oldest town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. After less than a year facing New England's harsh conditions, Weymouth's Captain Robert Gorges soon abandoned the settlement, leaving those pioneers who remained to reorganize. Out of the desire for self- government under extraordinary conditions, the Town's citizenry called for a ``Meeting of the Inhabitants'' for the purpose of constituting a government. That first Town Meeting was held in the spring of 1624 on Hunt's Hill. Capable citizens were chosen to fill newly-established offices, and voting rights were defined. As the meetings continued, all matters of public interest were considered and acted upon according to the direct will of the inhabitants. The meetings were in effect a legislative body, while those who had been appointed as ``townsmen'' served as the executive branch. Meetings were called whenever any important question required action--and that was frequently. Freedom of speech, maintenance of personal rights and adherence to the high purpose that in due time became incorporated in the Constitution of the United States have since animated Weymouth's Town Meetings. In the spring of 1624, the Town Meeting was a new venture in government, and a new experience for its participants. Over the years since, the Town Meeting has developed into a pillar of local democracy for which the nation owes a great deal of thanks. And now, as the Town embarks on an historic new path, we wish much success in advance to its first Mayor, to members of its new Town Council, and to the scores of local residents whose vigorous discourse has made Weymouth a model of participatory democracy--over the last 375 years, and into the next millennium.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, at our hearings on the Committee on the Judiciary, we were told that legislation was needed to ensure the validity of electronic agreements entered into by private parties until the States are able to adopt the uniform electronic transactions act. In other words, it was needed to fill the gap until the States could act. That made sense. But then the bill was hijacked. Instead of filling the gap, it preempted the field; it prohibits the States from enacting the uniform law, as California has just recently already done, in a way that preserves consumer protections. It even prohibit the States from reenacting those protections to the extent that we supersede them. Now, how do people who only yesterday were waving the banner of States' rights and espousing federalism defend a bill that sets aside the will of the States in such a cavalier fashion? Well, we hear the term ``uniformity.'' Yet, if uniformity were all they were after, they would have been satisfied to let the bill sunset as the uniform act is adopted by each of the States over the coming months. And they did not. It is not in the bill. What the proponents of the bill really want is to arrest the process, to prevent the States from preserving consumer protection laws, which they want to do away with. It is that simple. It is one thing to try to ensure the validity of electronic signatures. I support that effort, and I am sure if that was the import of the legislation it would pass unanimously in this body. But it is another attempt to use this legislation as an end run around State consumer protection legislation. That is what this bill is all about. I urge adoption of the substitute and defeat of the bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill and in support of the Dingell-Conyers-LaFalce-Gephardt substitute. What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is a case of legislative hijacking. A bill intended to enhance the ease and security of electronic transactions has been commandeered. By a financial services industry that sees an opportunity to sweep aside a generation of state laws. Laws that enshrine such familiar and fundamental concepts as proper notice. Full disclosure. Informed consent. Truth in lending. Fair credit practices. These laws have helped ensure that the ordinary citizen will not be taken advantage of by powerful commercial interests who have all the leverage. Who hold all the cards. And in so doing, these laws have helped maintain a thriving economy that depends on consumer confidence. That is supposedly what this bill is about. Consumer confidence in electronic transactions. Yet ironically, by undermining state protections, this bill will erode consumer confidence. Not enhance it. If this bill becomes law, consumers will have fewer rights. And they will be less certain what rights they retain. Hardly a recipe for consumer confidence. At our hearings, we were told that federal legislation was needed to ensure the validity of electronic agreements entered into by private parties until the states are able to adopt, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. In other words, it was needed to fill the gap until the states could act. But then the bill was hijacked. Instead of filling the gap, it preempts the field. It prohibits the states from enacting the uniform law--as California has recently done--in a way that preserves consumer protections. It even prohibits the states from RE-enacting those protections to the extent we supersede them. How do people who only yesterday were waving the banner of ``states rights'' defend a bill that sets aside the will of the states in so cavalier a fashion? They do so in the name of ``uniformity.'' yet it uniformity were all they were after, they would have been satisfied to let this bill sunset as the Uniform Act is adopted by each of the states over the coming months. What the proponents of the bill really want is to arrest that process. To prevent the states from preserving consumer protection laws which they want to do away with. It is one thing to try to ensure the viability of electronic signatures, and I support that effort. But it is another to use this legislation as an ``end run'' around state consumer protection laws. Apart from the policy considerations, it raises serious constitutional questions. Given the recent holdings of the Supreme Court regarding the limits of congressional power, I have serious doubts that we have the authority to preclude the states from re- enacting laws in an area of commercial activity that lies so squarely within their traditional sphere of competence. We should do all we can to embrace and encourage the development of electronic commerce. But if that brave new digital world is to provide hospitable to human habitation, we must take with us the great advances in the law that have made this world habitable. I am ready and willing to support a bill that does this, Mr. Chairman, but the current proposal falls too far short of the mark. That is why it is opposed by the Administration, and by every major consumer organization in the country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and support the substitute.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me echo the words expressed by the gentlewoman from Colorado. This is not about blame. This is not about blaming the Senate or blaming the White House. This is really about justice for the American people. I do not think there is any debate that justice delayed is justice denied. And that is happening now. That is happening every day in our court system now. Now, this amendment provides that the bill would take effect only once the judicial conference of the United States has certified in writing that fewer than 3 percent of the Federal judgeships remain unfulfilled. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the depleted ranks of the Federal branch are restored to their full strength before the courts are asked to take on a new massive workload that this bill would generate. There should be no doubt that 1875 will have a dramatic impact on the workload of the Federal courts, because its very purpose is to transfer to the Federal system a large proportion of the class-action cases that are currently handled at the State level. The Federal courts, if the underlying bill should pass, will be swamped at a moment when they are already overwhelmed by mounting caseloads. Since 1990, the number of civil cases filed in Federal court have increased by 22 percent, criminal cases by 25 percent, and appeals by more than 30 percent. In response to this judicial crisis, the Judicial Conference has asked Congress to authorize an additional 69 judgeships, yet not one new judgeship has been authorized or created since 1990, for almost 10 years. And of the 843 judgeships that currently exist, 65, more than 8 percent, are currently vacant. Many have remained unfulfilled for more than a year and a half. Last year, the Chief Justice himself took the unprecedented step of publicly chastising the Senate for its failure to act on pending nominations and warned of the consequences if Congress continues to enact legislation, exactly like the bill that is before us now, that expands the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. His concerns have been echoed by the Justice Department, the American Bar Association, and the Judicial Conference. Let us listen to those who have to deal with the problem every day. Every day. Just yesterday, a nonpartisan organization known as Citizens for Independent Courts issued a report which found that the average time it takes to nominate and confirm a Federal judge has increased dramatically over the past 20 years. And at the same time, here we are considering a bill that would impose a major new burden on the Judiciary without regard to its impact on that branch of Government, and without giving our courts the resources they need to do the job. I daresay, Mr. Chairman, if there was an impact statement that was mandated to be filed with this legislation, it would never be here on the floor of the House. It would not happen. I believe and suggest and submit that this is irresponsible on those grounds alone. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. I think the motion to instruct is important to correct a deeply flawed bill, a bill that, in fact, left this House and weakened the Brady statute; therefore, has put lethal weapons, if it should be enacted, into the hands of criminals. Let me explain why. During the past 5 years, the Brady instant-check system has prevented illegal gun purchases by more than 400,000 fugitives, convicted felons, drug addicts and others who cannot lawfully possess a firearm. If we pass this bill, we will be handing them a loaded weapon and inviting them to pull the trigger. That is because the House-passed bill denies the FBI the 3 days it needs to complete its background check on the very people most likely to have a criminal history, like a convicted rapist who traveled from Virginia to North Carolina several months ago for the purpose of buying a gun; or the man convicted of armed robbery and burglary in Georgia who drove to Missouri last March for the purpose of buying a gun; or the murderer in Texas; or the arsonist in New Jersey who went all the way to Mississippi last April for the purpose of buying a gun. These are just a few of the thousands of criminals who tried to purchase handguns in the last 6 months and were stopped because a 3-day background check revealed their criminal history before the sale could be consummated. If the House bill had been the law of the land 6 months ago, 9,000 of these people would have been walking the streets with a license to commit crime. I ask my colleagues to think about that before they vote. Think about the lives that could very well be destroyed because one of those 9,000 criminals got a hold of a weapon and pulled the trigger. Think about what we would have to say to the families of the victims if we allow the House bill, which weakens the Brady bill, to become law.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with Chairman Gilman and over 30 of our colleagues in introducing the Intercountry Adoption Act of 1999. This bipartisan legislation will implement the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the ``Hague Convention''), which the President transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent on June 11, 1999. Prompt U.S. ratification and implementation of the Hague Convention is of enormous importance to many thousands of needy children throughout the world and the American families who adopt them. The Convention establishes a legal framework for protecting these children and families by ensuring that agencies and individuals involved in the intercountry adoption process meet standards of competence, financial soundness, and ethical behavior. It creates a structure to strengthen international cooperation in adoption cases, and to ease the burdens of what can be an expensive, time-consuming and stressful process. As the adoptive parent of a child born overseas, I know what the Convention will mean to countless families like mine. The Intercountry Adoption Act provides a blueprint that will enable the United States to carry out its obligations under the Convention, ensuring reciprocal recognition of adoptions by the United States and other Convention countries, eliminating much current paperwork connected with the legalization of documents, and creating legally enforceable safeguards for adoptive children and their families. The bill designates the Department of State as the ``central authority'' for the United States, with responsibility for liaison with the central authorities of other Convention countries and the coordination of Convention activities by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The bill also assigns certain key functions to various domestic agencies, to be carried out in consultation with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given responsibility for overseeing the accreditation and approval of organizations and individuals providing adoption services in the United States in connection with Convention adoptions. To the Attorney General are given various duties related to immigration, record keeping and privacy requirements. This legislation is the culmination of many months of hard work, and is the result of extensive consultation with many parties, including the administration and the U.S. adoption community. We have taken a ``minimalist'' approach to our task, deferring, wherever possible, to the state laws by which we have always regulated adoption in this country, and resisting attempts to use the bill as a vehicle for carrying out changes to domestic adoption practices at the federal level that are not required to bring our laws into compliance with the Convention. Our goal throughout this process has been to put adoptive children first, through the prompt ratification and implementation of the Convention. We have done our utmost to steer clear of extraneous issues that might delay or derail that objective The International Relations Committee and the Committee on Ways and Means will shortly begin consideration of this legislation, and it is my sincere hope that the bill will move forward expeditiously in the same spirit of cooperation that has enabled us to reach this milestone.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). Our preceding speaker referred to or used the metaphor about cooking the books. Well, if somebody is cooking the books, we should get new cooks, not go and blow up the kitchen. Last year, Legal Services Corporation provided support to 258 local agencies in every county and Congressional District in America. That support is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people with no other means of access to the legal system. Who are these people that rely on Legal Services? Over two-thirds are women, and most are mothers with children. They are women, women seeking protection against abusive spouses, who oftentimes have their personal safety at risk along with the personal safety of their children. They are children living in poverty and neglect. They are elderly people threatened by eviction or victimized by consumer fraud. They are veterans denied benefits, and small farmers facing eviction. Everywhere in rural America this is occurring. These are the people who will be hurt if this amendment is not adopted today. If Legal Services is forced to absorb the huge cuts made in committee, nearly a third of the 890 neighborhood Legal Services offices will have to close. This will leave one lawyer to serve every 23,600 poor Americans. Over 250,000 people in need of legal services will have to be turned away. Nevertheless, we have already heard from some critics that we should cut the funding for the program. Why? Because some local grant recipients overstated the number of cases they handled back in 1997, chiefly by reporting telephone referrals to be cases. Never mind the fact that the agency itself uncovered the problem, brought it to congressional attention and moved speedily to correct it. Never mind the fact that despite the cries of fraud and abuse, neither LSC nor its affiliates derived any financial gain from the erroneous reports, because case numbers have no bearing on the program's funding levels. Allocations are based on eligible population living in each service area, not on the number of cases handled or referred. This has been pointed out repeatedly. However, the allegations continue. There is a real irony here. Those who criticize LSC for counting referrals as cases fail to appreciate that referrals are what an agency does for the thousands of needy people when it is unable to provide services. And even without the proposed cuts, referrals must be made in many thousands of cases because current funding meets only 20 percent of the need. So if my colleagues want to eliminate referrals, I can tell them how to do it. Give the Legal Services Corporation the resources it needs to do the job more fully. Instead of doing this, the committee voted to make further cuts that will devastate the program. Our amendment does not fully restore funding to last year's level because we could not find sufficient offsets in the bill. Moreover, some of the offsets we are using come at the expense of other legitimate and worthwhile programs. I am troubled by this, as is the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad). I hope that after we pass the amendment, and I hope we will, that we can work with the White House and our Senate colleagues to fully restore the funding for Legal Services and restore some of those offsets as well. Meanwhile, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It is a critically important vote, and it is the right thing to do.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the point has been made again and again that this particular proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with impeding the growth of E-commerce in terms of the sales of wine or any spirits or alcohols. What it has to do is with respect to State laws. The fact and the reality is that we should be here to respect and provide an opportunity to States that find themselves with limited capacity and ability to enforce their own laws. Now, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) spoke to the issue of guns. Now, I know I have a disagreement with my friends from Georgia and Florida. But let me say, when it comes to that particular issue, I want the laws in Massachusetts relative to guns respected and honored anywhere in this Nation. I do not want the shipment of firearms into Massachusetts from Georgia, Florida or California. I want to ensure that my Attorney General has the right to go to court and have the firearm laws of Massachusetts respected, initially. Another item here, Mr. Chairman. This is from the New York Times. ``Officials Struggle to Regulate On-Line Sale of Prescription Drugs.'' I am just going to quote: The Food and Drug Administration announced steps today to curb the illegitimate sale of prescription drugs over the Internet. Now doctors are prescribing pills on-line to patients they have never met in States where they are not authorized to work. Pharmacies are shipping pills across State lines without the requisite license.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to concur with my friend from Florida. I too want my middle class Democrats to have availability on the Internet to purchase the wines out in Sausalito, California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let us make no mistake, the online bootleggers who evade State alcohol control laws are hopefully not the future of electronic commerce. They are a throwback to a bygone era. Let us embrace E commerce and do all we can to encourage it, but let us do it in a manner that respects the rule of law. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

Mr. DELAHUNT. And if the gentleman yield, nothing that this bill proposes in any way impacts that moratorium.