Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is very important because during the course of the general debate, mention was made that this proposal could lead to new taxation, taxation on the Internet; and I think that the colloquy that has occurred here has clarified that. In fact, it was the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) who during the 105th session of Congress was the key sponsor that led to the enactment of the moratorium on taxation on the Internet; but that did not, that did not extinguish the right of States to tax on the Internet according to their preexisting taxation scheme. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to applaud the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from California. I concur that this is an amendment that is needed and it addresses a problem. I support the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. As my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) indicated, this bill is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It does nothing more than to confer upon a State the right to go to Federal court to stop someone from outside the State from violating its liquor laws. It is nothing more, it is nothing less. It in no way changes substantive law at the State or Federal level. The bill is necessary not only to prevent illegal shipments to minors, but to enable States to police licensing standards, track sales, and collect taxes on those sales. Last year, illegal alcohol shipments cost States some $600 million in lost revenues. State taxes on alcohol are an important source of support for State programs, and protecting that funding stream is a legitimate State objective. Some who are opposed to this legislation argue that it would impede the development of electronic commerce by taxing the Internet, or chilling direct sales of wine and spirits over the Internet. Well, whatever the merits of chilled wine are, Mr. Chairman, there is no merit whatsoever to these arguments. As my friend, the gentleman from Florida, pointed out, lawful sales of alcohol over the Internet are thriving. Such online enterprises as wineshopper.com, sendwine.com, and virtualvineyard.com, generated hundreds of millions of dollars in lawful online sales last year alone. Just last month, Geerlings & Wade of Massachusetts, which has endorsed this bill and is the Nation's largest direct marketer of wines, announced another new website called winebins.com, which will sell thousands of labels in the 27 States in which the company is operating, is licensed to operate. No doubt it will continue to add new labels. Let us be clear, the bill would impose no new taxes on any of these electronic transactions, nor would it make them illegal. The State laws we seek to defend were put into place to regulate alcohol sales after the failure of Prohibition. In effect, they were the instrument by which an illegal enterprise, bootlegging, was turned into a lawful and regulated activity. Some will argue that now these laws are an anachronism. Well, maybe they are correct. Maybe there is a better way for States to protect minors, track sales, ensure quality control, and to raise taxes. But that is an argument better addressed by State legislatures, which have the power to rewrite those laws. Until they do so, they have a right to expect that the laws on the books will be enforced. That is really what the legislation is all about. If we permit States to pass laws but deny them a remedy when those laws are broken, we encourage disrespect for the law. It is really that simple. That is why attorneys general from across the country support this legislation. I include for the Record, Mr. Chairman, letters of support from the chief law enforcement officers of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming, and my own Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The letters referred to are as follows: Commonwealth of Virginia, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, July 29, 1999. Hon. Lee Terry, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Terry: As the chief law enforcement officers of our respective states, we are pleased that on July 20 the Judiciary Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor H.R. 2031, the 21st Amendment Enforcement Act, and understand that the House is expected to vote on this important legislation soon. We are very concerned by media reports that opponents of this common sense, law and order legislation are raising superfluous issues and misrepresenting the facts in an effort to defeat it, and would like to underscore the following points: This is not anti-Internet legislation. There is no language or intent in the bill that could even be remotely construed to impede lawful Internet commerce in wine or any other consumer product. This bill does not even mention online sales. H.R. 2031 merely seeks to stop illegal alcohol distribution, regardless of how the order was placed--by computer, toll-free number, or by mail. We strongly support online commerce for all legal products and want to encourage its growth to improve consumer choice and convenience. This goal is actually harmed, however, by those who distribute their products illegally. H.R. 2031 would not impose a burden on any manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer of alcohol beverages that is operating lawfully. In fact, it would still be possible to purchase alcohol over the Internet and have it shipped to a licensed distributor, where it could then be obtained. This is a states' rights issue. The 21st Amendment recognizes the right of each state to structure its laws accordingly, and as law enforcement officials we have an obligation to stand in strong opposition to businesses that ignore them. We are not asking for any new federal laws regarding the transportation or distribution of alcohol; we are merely asking for the power to enforce our own state laws already on the books. None of us has a vested interest in the alcohol beverage industry beyond making sure that our alcohol-related laws are obeyed and that we have adequate enforcement authority. H.R. 2031 will give us access to federal courts, thereby simplifying the legal process for prosecuting those who are distributing in our states illegally. Sincerely, Mark L. Earley, Attorney General of Virginia. Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General of Alaska. Mark Pryor, Attorney General of Arkansas. Ken Salazar, Attorney General of Colorado. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General of Georgia. Jim Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois. Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana, Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa. Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas. Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General of Michigan. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana. Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada. Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General of New Hampshire. Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina. Heidi Heikamp, Attorney General of North Dakota. Hardy Myers, Attorney General of Oregon. Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General of West Virginia. Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General of Wyoming.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Georgia. The amendment seeks to nullify the results of a popular local initiative by congressional fiat. So much for ``federalism'' and ``states' rights.'' So much for ``local self-determination.'' And so much for common sense. But then, whenever marijuana is involved, some of our colleagues seem to take leave of their senses altogether. When the citizens of California and Arizona voted in 1996 to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, this House responded with a resolution declaring that ``marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should not be legalized for medicinal use.'' Yet we all know that many narcotics--such as morphine and even cocaine--which are highly dangerous when used without proper medical supervision, are nonetheless approved for a range of medical uses. We do not deny narcotics to cancer patients because it could ``send a signal'' to others who might wish to use these drugs recreationally. Yet that is what this amendment would say with regard to marijuana. With all due respect, I do not believe that anyone who had watched an AIDS or cancer patient suffer uncontrollable nausea for hours at a time could make such an argument. Proponents of the amendment are quick to point out that the scientific community is divided over the medical benefits of marijuana. They are less quick to acknowledge that both the benefits and the dangers of a large number of medical substances are subject to scientific dispute. I submit that it is not the job of the Congress to resolve such disputes. We could argue all day about the science. But that is not our role. It is not our role to prohibit scientists from continuing to develop sound data regarding the safety and efficacy of marijuana--as they do with any other experimental treatment. And it is both foolish and inhumane for us to prevent licensed physicians and their patients from studying the growing literature, weighing the benefits and the risks, and deciding whether the use of such drugs is medically appropriate--especially when more conventional therapies have been found ineffective. If we are determined to override these local decisions, and to replace sound medical judgment with our own, let's at least not be hypocritical. Let's take morphine and cocaine off the market as well. Let's explain to the patients who depend on these drugs to control their pain that they will simply have to suffer so that we can send the ``right signal'' about drug abuse. I'm sure they'll understand.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, other speakers have indicated that the underlying bill already bars the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia, but the gentleman is not satisfied with that restriction. He wants to prohibit the people of the District from using their own money for this purpose, money obtained through local taxation that is widely supported by citizens of the District, programs that have proven to be effective, according to the National Institutes for Health, the Centers For Disease Control and practically every respected public health agency in America, programs, by the way, that are saving millions of taxpayers' dollars in health care costs. The overwhelming evidence is that they prevent HIV infection, that they do not encourage or increase drug abuse, that they actually help reduce drug abuse by encouraging injection drug users to enter treatment. It is bad enough for legislators to overrule local decision makers in matters of this kind, but it is the worst kind of irresponsibility for us to substitute our own uninformed opinions for the sound judgment of the public health community to say in effect we have already made up our minds, do not confuse us with the facts. Let us save some lives and vote no on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Kansas. The bill before us already bars the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. But the gentleman is not satisfied with this restriction. He wants to prohibit the people of the District from using their own money for this purpose--money obtained through local taxation for programs that are widely supported by the local citizenry. This is unfair to DC residents, who find themselves subject to the whims of representatives whom they did not elect. But it is also a terrible precedent for the country as a whole. Because despite the squeamishness of some Members of Congress at the mere sight of a needle, the truth is that these programs work. They prevent HIV infection. They do not encourage or increase drug abuse. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that they actually help reduce drug abuse by encouraging injection drug abusers to enter treatment. As a former prosecutor and a member of the Judiciary Committee, I take very seriously the epidemic of drug addiction in our society. But we cannot make responsible public policy based on fear and ignorance. It is bad enough for legislators to overrule local decision makers in matters of this kind. But it is the worst kind of irresponsibility for us to substitute our own uninformed opinions for the sound judgment of the public health community. To say, in effect, ``our minds are made up. Don't confuse us with facts.'' I have seen what needle exchange programs have accomplished in Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, and I know that they have saved lives. If this amendment becomes law, more people in Washington, DC will become infected with the AIDS virus. More people will die of it. And their blood will be on our hands, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, it is a sad fact that not all parents are fit parents, and I know firsthand that child abuse and neglect occurs in all kinds of families. But let us be clear: usually it is among the so-called traditional two-parent families rather than families of less conventional description. As a district attorney, my office prosecuted these parents and put some of them in jail. I also know firsthand, as a trustee of an adoption resource center, that difficult-to-adopt children are placed in adoptive homes with good parents and families that come in all shapes and sizes. Some of the most loving, responsible, and nurturing families I know would fail the litmus test of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). And that would truly be a tragedy for the 3,300 children now languishing in the District's foster care system. Most of these children in need of adoption are neglected or abused by their biological parents. Many of them are children with special needs, children whose chances of adoption and a chance at life are doubtful even without the restriction that the Largent amendment would impose. So with so many kids out there who need decent homes, this is not the time for Congress to start setting criteria for those who would be permitted to adopt. The only test we should apply is the one the law already uses to determine whether a child belongs in a particular family and that is in the best interest of the child; and that should be left to the courts and the professionals, as the ranking Member indicated. This amendment will produce cruel consequences, unintended I am sure, but cruel nonetheless, cruel because it will deny some child a family and opportunities that most of us in this body were fortunate to have and, because by the luck of the draw, we were born to parents who nurtured and loved us. Defeat this amendment and give some kid a family. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma. Some who oppose this amendment will emphasize its unwarranted intrusion into family matters best left to the people of the District of the Columbia. I share that concern, Mr. Chairman. But today I wish to speak as an adoptive parent, who is concerned first and foremost with the well- being of abandoned and neglected children. Mr. Chairman, it is a sad fact that not all parents are fit parents. Child abuse and neglect occurs in all kinds of families. Among the ``birth families'' no less than adoptive families. Among so-called ``traditional two-parent families'' no less than families of less conventional description. But good parents and families come in all shapes and sizes, too. Some of the most loving, nurturing and supportive families I know would fail Mr. Largent's litmus test. And that would be a tremendous loss for the 3,300 children languishing in the D.C. foster-care system--many of them neglected or abused by their biological parents, many of them children with special needs. With so many kids out there who need decent homes, this is not the time for Congress to start setting criteria for who will be permitted to adopt. The only test we should apply is the one the law already uses to determine whether a child belongs in a particular family situation or not. That test is whether the placement is in the ``best interests'' of the child. That evaluation requires the careful weighing of a multitude of factors by those with the requisite expertise. We should ask whether the parents have the means to feed and clothe the child and see to its education. We should ask whether they maintain a home that will offer the child a harmonious, stable and nurturing environment. We should ask whether they have the skills and the commitment it takes to be a good parent. When we find a family that offers all this to a child in need, what kind of society would reject that family because the parents are ``not related by blood or marriage? '' What kind of society would say it is better for the child to be in an institution or on the street? I believe we should embrace that family, Mr. Chairman, and be thankful that a lost child has been given a second chance in life. I ask my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from California's amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, in 1976 Congress passed legislation mandating the State Department to produce reports on human rights practices in countries around the world. To the credit of the State Department, these reports have become the most accepted and widely used resource for highlighting human rights abuses and have become invaluable to the work of any individual or any organization serious about protecting human rights. Additionally, they have become a critical component in fashioning our own bilateral relationships with foreign governments. They also help us to determine how we should exercise our influence in multilateral organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. However, the reports are not presently required to provide information on crimes against humanity, war crimes, or evidence of acts that may constitute genocide in a manner that most clearly profiles these most serious, I would submit, of human rights abuses. This amendment would address that omission and would mandate inclusion of such information in a separate section of the annual country reports. I would submit that evidence of acts of genocide should be particularly noted, as I would submit that genocide represents the ultimate violation of human rights. In fact, many of us in this Chamber were convinced to support the administration's policy in Kosovo based upon our concern that Milosevic's targeting of Albanians for ethnic cleansing would lead to another Holocaust. I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, in 1976 Congress passed legislation mandating the State Department to produce reports on human rights practices in countries around the world. To the State Department's credit, these reports have become the most accepted and widely-used resource for highlighting human rights abuses and have become invaluable to the work of any individual or organization serious about protecting human rights. Additionally, they have become a critical component in fashioning our own bilateral relationships with foreign governments. They also help us to determine how we should use our influence in multilateral organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank. However, the reports are not presently required to provide information on crimes against humanity, war crimes, or evidence of acts that may constitute genocide in a manner that most clearly profiles these most serious of human rights abuses. This amendment would address that omission and would mandate inclusion of such information in a separate section in the annual country reports. Evidence of acts of genocide should be especially noted, as I would submit that genocide represents the ultimate violation of human rights. Many of us in this chamber were convinced to support the Administration's policy in Kosovo based upon our concern that Milosevic's targeting of Albanians for ethnic cleansing would lead to another genocide. Unfortunately, in 1994 there were some in the State Department who debated whether what was happening in Rwanda constituted ``genocide''--even as 800,000 people were slaughtered because of their ethnic origin. This House passed a Concurrent Resolution on June 15, condemning the genocidal acts and crimes against humanity committed by the Government of Sudan. And yet this year's country report on Sudan does not call those crimes what they are. If it is a war crime, call it a war crime. If it is genocide, call it genocide. Adoption of this amendment would focus the attention of the State Department on the issues of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in a timely manner and make that information available in a clear and unequivocal form to the family of nations. It should strengthen the genocide early warning initiative the Administration announced last year. It could save thousands--if not millions--of lives throughout the world by directing world attention to these atrocities, hopefully provoking early diplomatic intervention. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amnesty International USA, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, July 15, 1999. Hon. William Delahunt, 1317 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Delahunt: I understand that you have offered an amendment that would ask the Department of State to include information on the commission of war crimes and genocide, where applicable, in its annual volume of Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. We welcome your initiative and feel that it can only serve to support the Administration's announcement last December 10th of the creation of a genocide early warning initiative. The Department of State's annual report has become an important and very comprehensive treatment of human rights conditions which already includes reports of individual killings. However, a single murder may also amount to a war crime or represent part of a pattern of genocide which should be noted when applicable as well. Your proposal that the Department look for and report patterns of behavior amounting to genocide and war crimes is a useful one which we are confident the drafters of the annual report sections will support. Your interest in this issue and your continued strong support for human rights are deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Stephen Rickard, Legislative Director.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think this is important because we continue to hear about the issue of the burden of proof being a preponderance of the evidence. Well, that is true in most civil litigation. But this is not purely civil litigation, and I think it is important that my colleagues and the American public understand that. In asset forfeiture cases it has been clearly described by the United States Supreme Court as quasi-criminal in nature. This is a decision that was promulgated by the United States Supreme Court. And I daresay to equate the customary civil litigation that is transacted daily in our Federal courts with the kind of proceeding that we are discussing here today on the floor of the House, asset forfeiture, is absolutely incorrect. It is inaccurate. It is quasi-criminal in nature. To suggest that a standard of proof of clear and convincing is a burden that cannot be met by prosecutors, I daresay, is not an argument that holds water. Because in the vast majority of these cases the seizure of the asset is done in conjunction with a criminal investigation, and hopefully, hopefully, that investigation will produce an indictment which will meet an even higher standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So I have to conclude that clear and convincing is an acceptable burden of proof in these cases.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of Hyde-Conyers bill and in opposition to the substitute proffered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). Mr. Chairman, a few days from now the sun will finally set on the Independent Counsel Act that has come to embody for many Americans all the evils of prosecutorial excess. But the problems illustrated by the Independent Counsel Act are not unique to special prosecutors, nor are they confined to cases involving Presidents and high civil officials. The potential for abuse and excess is inherent in a system of justice which delegates such enormous power and discretion to every prosecutor. Now, most prosecutors exercise these awesome responsibilities with decency and restraint. But, unfortunately, there are a few who do not, and they bring the entire system of justice into disrepute, and they encourage, by their actions, public cynicism and, unfortunately, erode respect for the rule of law. Now, the Hyde-Conyers bill recognizes that asset forfeiture is an extraordinarily powerful tool in the hands of a prosecutor, a tool that is so potent, and under current law so easy to apply, that it is also highly prone to abuse. And, in fact, there is a growing litany of cases documenting that abuse occurs. This bill recognizes that the time has come to impose reasonable, and let me underscore reasonable, restraints on this power so as to maintain public confidence in the fundamental fairness and integrity of our criminal justice system that is so essential in a democracy. And let us be clear. This bill would not hamper the ability of law enforcement to go after the bad folks, the drug kingpins and racketeers who are the proper targets of forfeiture laws. What it would do is to prevent law enforcement officials from abusing these laws to the detriment of ordinary innocent citizens. It would ensure that when prosecutors wrongfully seize, wrongfully seize the property of owners who are innocent of any crime, the owners have the ability to recover their property and make themselves whole. And make no mistake, we are not talking about a few marginal cases. Some 80 percent of the people whose property is seized are never even charged with a crime. Think of that, Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of those whose property is seized are never even charged with a crime. Now, let me put forth some examples; like the traveler whose property was seized at the Detroit airport because he was carrying a large amount of cash and simply happened to fit a profile of a drug courier. No arrest, no conviction; or the 33 tenants in a New York apartment building who were evicted by the government because the building had previously been home to a drug ring, which none of the tenants were connected with and had no knowledge of, yet they were evicted; or the hotel owner in Houston whose hotel was seized by Federal agents after patrons were accused of drug trafficking; or how about the 72-year-old woman in Washington, D.C., right here in the Nation's Capital, whose home and personal effects were seized by the FBI because her nephew, her nephew, who was staying in the house overnight, was suspected of selling drugs from the porch. Suspected of selling drugs from her porch. A 72-year-old woman. The irony is that all of these people would have been entitled to some due process if they had been charged with a crime. If they had been charged criminally, they would have had a shot. But under the civil forfeiture laws, the government can seize the property of innocent owners without even triggering basic minimal due process requirements. That is not, I daresay, what most of us think about when we think of the American system of justice. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has likened this situation to, and I am quoting now, ``a roulette wheel employed to raise revenue from innocent but hapless owners whose property is unforeseeably misused,'' rather than a tool for ensuring that justice is done. In 1997, the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit confessed itself to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes. We cannot allow, I submit, such a situation to continue, Mr. Chairman, and I urge my colleagues to support Hyde-Conyers and defeat the substitute.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I do stand here in strong support for the United States Coast Guard and to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their leadership in crafting this bill under such tight budget constraints. I also applaud them for increasing the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction, and improvements account to help replace its aging vessels and aircraft and to thank them for including readiness funding in the supplemental bill passed earlier this year. However, the administration's requested level for operating expenses represents the absolute minimum required for the Coast Guard to perform the fundamental duties it has been assigned by the Congress. Let us not forget that these services often are matters of life and death. The men and women of the Coast Guard have put their lives on the line every day for 200 years to save thousands of recreational and commercial mariners. Over 45,000 people in the last decade alone have been saved by the Coast Guard. Moreover, the General Accounting Office has documented that during the 1990s, the Coast Guard has been assigned vastly increased responsibilities while its workforce has been shrunk by nearly 10 percent and has operated within a budget that has risen by only 1 percent in actual dollars. The Coast Guard's new assignments go considerably beyond basic vessel safety and search-and-rescue, including marine environmental protection, fisheries management, overseas military port security, international maritime training, and, of course, drug interdiction. In the wake of these increased mandates, at the same time as a decrease is planned in search-and-rescue spending, the Coast Guard needs adequate funding to meet its new tasks and perform its traditional but critical basic services to protect people, the environment, and the United States economic interests. Again, I thank the appropriators for their hard work in meeting the challenges of assembling this spending bill and look forward to continuing to work with the committee to increase funding to at least the administration's requested level.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this dangerous and irresponsible bill. A bill that would weaken the Brady Law and put lethal weapons into the hands of criminals. During the past five 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. But if we pass this bill, we will be handing them a loaded weapon and inviting them to pull the trigger. That's because the bill denies the FBI the three days it needs to complete its background check on the very people most likely to have a criminal history. Like the convicted rapist who traveled from Virginia to North Carolina last month--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 six months and were stopped--because a three-day background check revealed their criminal history before the sale could go through. But if this bill had been the law of the land six months ago, the FBI estimates that 9,000 of these people would have been walking the streets with a license to kill. If this bill passes in its present form, those 9,000 will try again. And this time, they'll get away with it. I ask my colleagues to think about that before they vote. Think about the lives that will be destroyed because one of those 9,000 criminals got hold of a weapon and pulled the trigger. Think about what we will say to the families of the victims who are killed if we vote tonight to weaken the Brady Law. Or we can step back from the precipice, Mr. Speaker, as the Senate did a few short weeks ago. Tonight the provisions passed by the Senate will be offered as an amendment by Congresswoman McCarthy--who knows more about what handguns have cost the families of America than anyone in this chamber. The McCarthy amendment would preserve the Brady Instant Check System and extend it to the gun shows where criminals go to buy their weapons. It is time for us to stand with her. It is time for us to stand up to the NRA.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, no one is accusing anyone of anything. Let me suggest that this is a bill of unintended consequences, but it is a dangerous and irresponsible measure because it would weaken the Brady law and it will put lethal weapons into the hands of criminals. That is because the bill denies the FBI the 3 business days it needs to complete its background check on those very people that are most likely to have a criminal history, like the convicted rapist who traveled from Virginia to North Carolina just last month 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. Now, these are just a few of the thousands of criminals who have tried to purchase handguns in the last 6 months and were stopped because a 3-day, business day, background check revealed their criminal history before the sale could go through. If this bill had been the law of the land 6 months ago, the FBI, and that is not a liberal organization, Mr. Chairman, estimates that 9,000 of these people would have been walking the streets with a license to kill. So please, Mr. Chairman, think of that before this vote.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I find it interesting that during the course of this debate we are talking about enforcement, and yet earlier, when I asked the chair of the subcommittee whether he had authorized $8 million to fund the additional or designated assistance, the answer was ``No, we will do it someplace else.'' I just want to close by saying just imagine if we are reluctant to do that what the cost would be to prosecute 10 percent of 400,000 cases. This is absurd. These cases are prosecuted, as the gentlewoman has indicated, at the State level. Crime is down. Homicides are down. Why? Because of the Brady bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so, not to defend ``Rambo,'' or ``The Terminator,'' but to defend the Constitution. Because this amendment is both unwise and unconstitutional. There is much in the amendment that I could support, Mr. Chairman. It provides for a study by the National Institutes of Health of the effects of video games and music on child development and youth violence. It encourages the entertainment industry to develop voluntary guidelines to minimize the extent to which minors are exposed to sexual and violent materials. These are sensible provisions, which were passed by the Senate earlier this month and are included in the Democratic substitute which Mr. Conyers will offer later today. But the Hyde amendment goes further. Much further. It would make it a crime to ``sell, send, loan or exhibit'' to minors any materials containing ``explicit sexual material or explicit violent material.'' Most of us--especially those of us who are parents--are naturally disturbed when unsuitable material finds its way into the hands of young people. And many genuinely believe--rightly or wrongly--that there is a connection between access to such material and the juvenile violence in our nation. There may or may not be a connection. But before we pass a law codifying this theory we ought to have some facts. The amendment directs the National Institutes of Health to study the issue. But it doesn't wait to find out the results. And since the subject was never considered by the Judiciary Committee, there is No Evidence on the record that criminalizing music sales or video rentals would have any impact whatsoever on the level of youth violence in this country. But there is Plenty of evidence that the amendment would harm the precious freedoms we enjoy. Parents can and should decide what their children watch and listen to. But it is not for the government to decide this for them. Others have pointed out that the gentleman's amendment could prohibit sales to minors of such edifying but disturbing films as Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, or Schindler's List. All of these films contain violent content--some of it Extremely violent. This is clearly material that may be appropriate for some young people and inappropriate for others. But the amendment would prohibit sales of these films to All minors, unless, and I quote, ``the average person, applying contemporary community standards,'' would find that the material has ``serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.'' The gentleman from Illinois claims that films such as these would NOT be prohibited by his amendment, He says, and again I quote, ``taken as whole, [they] are not designed to pander to the morbid interest of minors, are not patently offensive, and have literary and artistic value. We are talking about harmful material only.'' End of quote. Now I have great respect for the gentleman, and I do not question his sincerity. I only wish it were that simple. A few years ago, a Member of this House launched an attack on one of the most celebrated films of our time, Schindler's List. He criticized it for its realistic depictions of violence and nudity in a concentration camp, and castigated the network which broadcast it for putting it on the air where children might see it. That Member was roundly criticized for failing to recognize the moral and political context of those scenes. But if a member of Congress can be wrong about a film, how are we to suppose that a video salesman or theater owner will make that judgment? For make no mistake about it--that is what the amendment would require. It would demand that the checkout clerk at Blockbuster or the ticket vender at the local Cineplex make a determination--on pain of imprisonment--as to whether a reasonable person would find that the degree of violence contained in the film is offset by the literary, artistic, or political value that a minor would derive from seeing it. And I think we all know that a reasonable person would have to be crazy to take a risk of guessing wrong. As a parent, I do not believe this is an appropriate or workable means of regulating access to minors. If I think it is important for my daughter to understand what happened on Omaha Beach, I don't want a clerk at the video store to decide whether she can see Saving Private Ryan. If I think it is important for my daughter to understand what happened to Africans brought to this country in chains, I don't want a ticket vendor to decide whether she's allowed to see Amistad. If I think it is important for my daughter to understand what happened in Dachau or Auschwitz, I don't want the government of the United States to decide whether she's ready to see Schindler's List. I know that the gentleman is well-intentioned, Mr. Chairman. But this amendment is a disaster, and it should be defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would point out to the gentleman that since 1993 there have been innumerable burdens deposited on United States Attorneys' offices. If we are going to be really serious about the issue of guns and violence in a realistic approach in terms of the appropriate role for the Federal Government, I dare say a price tag of $8 million to save lives, to reduce violence in our streets, is something that ought to occur. We have got to pay for it. We cannot do it on the cheap, I say to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think today is really a sad day. It is a sad day for this institution, and it is a sad day for America. In 1 year firearms killed not a single child in Japan, 19 in Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada and 5,285 in the United States. We had an opportunity to do something about that. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) had introduced an amendment, an amendment which would have initiated and authorized the funding and the resources for the development of technology which would have created and designed a firearm which could not have been discharged by anyone other than the owner, by anyone other than the owner. Now out of that more than 5,000 children that are killed every year in this Nation by firearms, 1,800 of them, 1800 children, our children, are killed either accidentally or by self-inflicted wounds, and we, the majority in this Congress, the Committee on Rules, could not find it, did not have the political will to make that amendment in order, and yet we see amendment after amendment, such as mandatory sentences which have again and again proved ineffective in terms of deterring crime and reducing violence in the United States, but we could not find it in this institution to save 1,800 children a year who die as a result of self-inflicted wounds because of accidental shootings. We could not do it. Mr. Chairman, it says something about the priorities of this institution.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to focus on the acknowledgment by the Chair of the subcommittee that these particular provisions apply only to Native Americans who reside on reservations for all intents and purposes. I think it is very, very important that the American people do not be misled into thinking that these measures will have any impact on the rest of the United States. I submit that there will not be an iota's worth of difference in terms of the violence in the streets if this amendment should pass. They should not be misled. I am just surprised. I was unaware of the fact that there is a substantial problem of juvenile crime on Native American reservations. I would be willing to hear from the Chair of the subcommittee if there had ever been a hearing on a Native American reservation. Has there been any consultation with State's attorneys that deal with Native American reservations? This is about imposing the most severe sanctions on Native Americans, mandatory sentences, the death penalties, remedies that have been proven over and over again do not work. Let us follow the example of the States and maybe, maybe, we will have some good results. For example, because of the leadership by the States, not by the Federal Government, not by Washington, this is what has occurred. The juvenile homicide rate has dropped by more than 50 percent since 1993. And for those of my colleagues that are not aware of that, that was the date that President Clinton was inaugurated and began the initiative on crime to work with the States. The States have the answer. Another interesting statistic: Juvenile arrest rate for all violence is down 37 percent in the past 5 years. And lastly, the percentage of violent crimes attributable to juveniles is at its lowest point since 1975. Let us follow the lead of the States. Defeat this amendment.