Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation which I sponsored which would resolve two matters concerning the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. I wish to thank the gentlewoman from Washington for her management of this bill. First, as she indicated, the bill would extend the statutory term of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission for some 10 years. Since the seashore was created during the Kennedy administration, the commission has indeed provided invaluable guidance to the National Park Service and given residents of lower Cape Cod towns a voice in the management of the seashore. This extension is strongly supported by local, State and National Park Service officials. In addition, again as the gentlewoman indicated, the bill includes minor boundary adjustments to the national seashore consistent with requirements enacted last year. These adjustments resolve a decade-old dispute concerning the construction of a solid waste transfer station and is part of a settlement agreement among the Park Service, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the town of Provincetown. Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking and acknowledging the support and the assistance of the Chair of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) as well as the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and my friend, the ranking member of the subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial yet important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DELAHUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak to this particular resolution, I am here on another matter. But I think it is important for me to comment on the fact that I too attended, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my friend, the Interparliamentary Conference that occurred this past weekend in Morelia, Mexico, where this issue received considerable discussion among Members of Congress and our counterparts in the Mexican Parliament. I was very pleased to hear the statement by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, regarding the, should I say ``improvement'' in terms of the activity of the Mexican officials regarding drug trafficking. I sensed a sincere and genuine commitment to a cooperative joint effort to deal with the issues surrounding drug trafficking. So I think it was important that the gentleman from Florida included that in his remarks, and I wish to associate myself with them. Mr. Speaker, I would state that last year I voted against certification. But after my experience this weekend, I intend to join the chair of the Subcommittee on Crime in supporting certification, because I think what I gleaned from our discussions was very, very positive. At the same time, the issue of Operation Casablanca was raised. I wish to publicly state and commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chair of the Committee on International Relations, for a very forthright and clear and unequivocal statement regarding the position of Congress and the assembled Members of the United States delegation in our adamant opposition to any consideration of extradition of any U.S. agent involved in this particular undertaking. I wish to make that a matter of record and commend the gentleman from New York for his insistence that that is simply untenable in terms of the United States Congress. Again, I think it was clear to me as the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) just indicated, that there are many factual facts that are still unclear, that the question is still murky in terms of the notification. And it might be appropriate for us to communicate with the administration and with the appropriate counterparts in the Mexican Government to determine what constitutes adequate notification, because it is clear that notice was given at the very highest levels of the Mexican law enforcement apparatus. However, it would appear that that information did not receive any further dissemination, which I suggest and submit might very well be entirely appropriate, given the covert and sensitive nature of, in fact, what was occurring, particularly in light of the fact that in these kinds of operations there is a high risk of personal safety and potential loss of life to any U.S. agent or any informant that might be cooperating with law enforcement. I also think it is important to understand, too, that while we talk about Mexico, in fact 90 percent of the illegal activity that was discovered and investigated occurred within our own boundaries. So I just thought it was important for me to make those statements and to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) over the course of this weekend.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if you think ball-playing robots invading Congress sounds like a science fiction script, then think again, and set your alarm clock for early tomorrow morning, when you and I will kick off an unprecedented head-to-head national robotics competition on Capitol Hill. It will truly be an exciting time in the halls of Congress tomorrow. A dozen high school teams from across the country, including students from Plymouth North and Quincy and North Quincy High School, many of whom are in the gallery here tonight, will cheer on their robots' attempts to pivot around mechanical competitors scoring points by heaving large balls into 8-foot goals. Last summer, when I attended the Rumble at the Rock in America's hometown, Plymouth, Massachusetts, a regional robotics competition held at Plymouth Rock, I expected something between a chess club demonstration and a science fair. What I saw left me stunned and truly impressed. These competitions create an intense thirst for achievement that is usually reserved for the NCAA or NBA finals, proving again what sports promoters and parents have long known: We can create demand for excellence among the kids themselves. Tomorrow's Capitol Hill robotics invitational is designed to underscore the work of a unique foundation, called FIRST, which is headed by Andrew Allen, a former astronaut who served as commander of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The acronym FIRST stands for, and I am quoting, For Inspirational and Recognition of Science and Technology. Over 20,000 students on 200 teams participated in regional contests leading to FIRST's national finals earlier this year at the Epcot Center in Florida. Televised by ESPN, and with a crowd of more than 12,000 screaming from the sidelines, it had all the excitement of a national student athletic championship. Each team is issued an identical trunkful of raw materials and a $425 credit to purchase additional supplies, then has 6 weeks to collaboratively design and construct a robot capable of competing in a designated event. The participating students have built remote control robots capable of picking up and maneuvering 20-inch rubber balls around a small 6-sided playing field to score goals while competing against other robots. These projects combine technical sophistication, practical know-how and old-fashioned teamwork. A key to FIRST's success is breaking down the classroom door by partnering with corporate sponsors like Boston Edison and Gillette, and through mentoring from corporate R&D shops and academic engineering departments. As the Quincy and Plymouth students discussed earlier today with senior officials at the Department of Education, these projects are national educational models combining on-the-job training with competitive adrenaline. How else can you explain that morning during a New England storm this past winter when members of the Plymouth North robotics team trudged through the snow to attend school, even though classes were canceled? Or the many Sunday evenings when Mike Bastoni, its devoted robotics teacher, has to shoo students out of the computer lab at 10 o'clock at night? It is no accident that these kids emerge with a keen sense of their own potential and with the tools to succeed in a rapidly changing technologically advanced work force. The ultimate rewards, as the students in the House gallery can attest better than I, are lifelong skills and self-respect. I look forward to the competition tomorrow in the Rayburn foyer, and I promise all who come a real treat. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your effort and your assistance in cosponsoring this event.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for introducing this measure, and I am pleased to join with him in supporting it. As the gentleman has noted, this is actually the second time the House has considered this legislation. We passed it by voice vote last July. Since then, the other body has taken up the bill, amended it, and passed it in the form in which it appears before us today. If we approve this amended bill, it will go straight to the President for his signature. The purpose of this legislation, as articulated again by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), is to crack down on telemarketing fraud, one of the fastest growing white collar crimes in America. I would ask that we just pause and reflect for one moment on a single statistic that I suggest is most disturbing, and that is $40 billion. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has estimated that the amount of fraud that can be allocated to this single white collar economic crime exceeds $40 billion annually and is growing. I dare say that if we added all of the crimes committed by violence in this country ranging from shoplifting to armed robbery, in the aggregate, it would pale in comparison in terms of economic loss to that statistic of $40 billion a year. Even those of us who have not been victims of fraud have plenty of experience with telemarketing. What family in America has not sat down for an evening meal only to have the telephone ring and at the other end is a telemarketer selling us something. I am sure many Members like I receive a constant flow of letters complaining about being plagued by telemarketing. Furthermore, as a woman from Martha's Vineyard in my district laments, every third call is someone trying to sell something unsolicited. For most of us, this is merely a nuisance. We may not want to hear the sales pitch, but at least we usually know when to hang up. But when the caller is a sophisticated scam artist, things are rarely so clear. We have all heard from constituents who were tricked into contributing to nonexisting charities or conned into throwing away their hard-earned money on phony real estate scams. One recent Federal investigation uncovered a telemarketing scheme that bilked some 100,000 Americans out of $35 million. The victims were mostly older Americans who, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), indicated, are the favorite targets of these criminals. I would suggest, too, we hear much, and much of it is true, about the effort in Congress to federalize what is particularly State crimes. We hear the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court criticizing this body for the federalization of what have traditionally been State crimes. I agree with the Chief Justice. However, in this particular instance, there is a special place and a special role for the Federal Government. I think that the gentleman from Virginia hit it on the mark when he talked about, in Canada, there is a source of telemarketing fraud that is going on. These crimes particularly are pernicious in the sense that no single jurisdiction can deal with them effectively because these scholars, if you will, in economic crime know that it is beyond the resources that exist currently at the State and local level to deal with this issue, and they can set up their operation in multiple jurisdictions and deal at the national level. This is where the Federal Government ought to allocate its resources. I am pleased that they are doing this. As the gentleman said, seniors are especially vulnerable to telemarketing fraud because many of them are lonely, homebound, or infirm. For them, that unwanted telephone call can mean the loss of everything they have managed to save over a lifetime. I am particularly pleased with the penalty enhancements in terms of those victims that are senior citizens. Furthermore, the fact that H.R. 1847 would permit Federal prosecutors to seek forfeiture of the proceeds of telemarketing fraud and of property used by the criminals to carry out the fraud, I think is a particularly important provision. In these kinds of crime, forfeiture is an important tool that enables prosecutors to shut down a criminal enterprise. I am confident that, in this particular case, it absolutely has a deterrent effect. These people know what they are doing. The profit motive is so significant that they are willing to take the chance, because, historically, white collar crime and economic crime in this country have not received the kind of incarceration and sanctions that it so rightly deserves. I and others have been working with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to seek reform of some of the procedures used in Federal forfeiture cases, but I do not think there is any question, as I indicated, that forfeiture should be available in telemarketing fraud. Again, as my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, pointed out, H.R. 1847 will also increase the penalties for telemarketing fraud by utilizing the Sentencing Commission. In this respect, I submit the Senate has substantially improved the bill. Our original version would have increased the penalties by specific amounts set forth in the legislation. When the House considered the bill last July, I expressed reservations about that particular provision because I do not believe that Congress should usurp the role we assigned to the U.S. Sentencing Commission in prescribing appropriate sentencing ranges. The bill before us today directs the Sentencing Commission to amend the Sentencing Guidelines to provide for substantially increased penalties for persons convicted of telemarketing fraud. I believe this is a major improvement in the bill, and I strongly support this change. I anticipate that the Sentencing Commission will listen clearly to the message intended to be sent by this body. In sum, Mr. Speaker, criminals who prey on the vulnerabilities of others should be held to account. This legislation does just that. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his leadership on the issue and urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by congratulating and acknowledging the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime; the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), whose work in this area is well known nationally; of course, my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); and also a colleague of mine, a new Member, but clearly someone who understands that the issue of domestic violence and the necessity for training in terms of police officers, the courts, the probation service, and the community at large is essential if we are going to continue to deal with the issue of domestic violence in America. That is the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow). The ranking member made reference to the fact that, in my former life for more than two decades, I was a prosecutor. I am proud to say that back in 1978 I initiated the first domestic violence unit in the United States. It was not simply out of a concern for women, nor for their children. It was because of a recognition that this is not simply a woman's issue. It is far more. It talks and speaks to what we are about as a community and what we are about as a Nation. For far too long we have ignored the fact that women and their children were the victims of violence behind closed doors. But it did not stop there. When I initiated that effort back in the mid-1970s, it was because I happened to have within my jurisdiction, as district attorney in the greater Boston area, the maximum security prison in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It became very clear to me quickly that if we were ever going to do anything serious about crime, not just in Massachusetts but in this Nation, we had to address the issue of the violent family, because believe me, violence is a learned behavior. As a result of that responsibility, of investigating and prosecuting crimes within that institution, I became very familiar with the social history of the inmates that resided in that institution, all male. In excess of 95 percent of the men that were incarcerated in that institution were the legacy of the violent family. They were either the victims of violence or they were witnesses to it. They learned at home that violence was the norm and it was acceptable. But their conduct did not stop at the threshold of the house, it went into the community. They were not there, incarcerated for crimes of domestic violence, they were there for the whole range of crimes, from drug trafficking to armed robbery to housebreaks to rape against strangers. They had learned violence and carried it into our communities. Domestic violence is the breeding ground, if you will, for all categories of crime. So the most important crime initiative that we as a Congress can ever, ever institute is to deal with that issue, and that is being done today. That is being done on the floor of this House by these men and women who recognize that particular fact. I congratulate them, and I urge passage.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). (Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to address the scenario that the gentleman from Florida raised about the poor widow and her family. The manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), which I think was accepted and will receive support from both sides of the aisle, if a creditor forced someone into involuntary bankruptcy, the cap on the homestead exemption is automatically lifted. I think it is very important that Members know that. We are not going to have the kind of scenarios that were put forth by the gentleman who has sponsored this bill, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, what concerns me today about this debate and where we are headed is that we are truly crafting public policy without the benefit of any data. Very, very little hard information is available to us. I believe the American people should understand that while we may be well-intentioned, we really are legislating on hunches, on guesswork and hope. As my colleagues know, I have heard the figure now from the previous speaker about 1.4 million. That is unacceptable. The only information that we were able to secure during the course of the hearing about what H.R. 3150 would do in terms of reducing that number was from the bankruptcy judges. They testified, those that I inquired of, that it would reduce the amount of filings 13,000 possibly, 1 percent. That is the only information that we have, 1 percent, 13,000. We are passing a piece of legislation here today, if this underlying bill is enacted, that is based on nothing but anecdote. Stigma. There is no data to indicate that people are any different today than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago. People are not just walking away, they are being crushed by debt. In addition to that, their wages, for most Americans, have not gone up in any significant degree for 20 years. Twenty percent of us are doing very well, but the rest of America is not. That is the only information that we have. It is unfair. We talk about 44 billion. What will Mr. Gekas' bill do to reduce? How much money is going to be saved if the Gekas-Boucher-McCollum bill passes? I daresay not a single cent. It is not going to save a dime. It certainly will not benefit the consumer. We all know that. The moneys, if there are moneys that are saved, are going to go to the Wall Street investor, in the banks and the credit card industry. That is where it is going to go. It is going to introduce or enhance profitability. Mr. Chairman, I know these gentleman are sincere, I know that we all share the same goal, but this is not the right approach. We should have slowed the process down and secured some information and answers to questions that we do not know the answers to now.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by acknowledging the courtesy extended to me by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chair of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the Committee on the Judiciary. I appreciate that and acknowledge that. I was misinformed. I thought that it was listed on today's report that it was to be last, but I am glad that I am not last, I am glad that I am here, and I appreciate his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about credit cards. This is because, in many respects, the entire bill is about credit cards. Credit cards are the reason many people are in bankruptcy today, and credit cards are the reason we are here today. We all know there are some individuals who abuse the bankruptcy system. And those who let their financial affairs get out of control should take responsibility for the consequences of their action. But responsibility is a two-way street. I find it extraordinary that people who solicit relentlessly and indiscriminately, without hardly any limitations on their lending practices, should pontificate about the need for personal responsibility. Few of us are sympathetic to that argument when we hear it from the tobacco companies or when we hear it from the liquor industry or from gambling interests, so why should the credit card industry get away with this sort of hypocrisy? My amendment would require the credit card companies to assume their fair share of responsibility for the situation they have done so much to create. It would authorize the Judicial Conference of the United States to use a portion of the money paid to credit card companies and other unsecured creditors in Chapter 13 cases to pay for the additional costs of administering the new debt collection system the bill would create. That is, after all, what this bill is about. It could be said that it deputizes Federal bankruptcy judges as collection agents for Visa and MasterCard. I do not think and submit that it is not unreasonable for the public to ask how this new service will be paid for. It is not as though, in all likelihood, the public will actually see any of the proceeds. Despite the industry-funded advertising blitz and propaganda about the money that it will save every man, woman and child in America, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these companies will pass on any benefit to consumers in the form of lower interest rates. That is something that they have never done historically. As other interest rates have come down considerably, credit card interest rates have continued to either stagnate or climb. In fact, I just received a solicitation today in the mail, 23 percent interest. So given the fact that the public is unlikely to see any benefits of this legislation, it seems only fair for those who will benefit to foot the bill. Mr. Chairman, that bill is going to be substantial. While nobody really knows what the new collection system will cost, the CBO estimates a cost of $214 million over 5 years, and that not including the $40 million to $80 million to cover the salaries and expenses of the 25 or 30 additional bankruptcy judges who would be needed to meet the huge increase in workload that would result from the bill. We heard testimony that absolutely underscored the fact that this would require not just simply additional judges but support personnel and trustees. There were estimates that were provided to members of the committee during hearings that, in fact, the costs could very well be double what they are now. According to the CBO estimate, that would bring the total to between $254 million and $294 million over 5 years, over a quarter of a billion dollars. Those costs should not be borne by the American taxpayer. My amendment would ensure that they would not be borne by the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to suggest that the credit industry has been miserly regarding this legislation. Far from it. Visa and MasterCard have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to draft this bill. All my amendment says, having been so generous with their financial largess up until now, they should make one more payment, to reimburse the American people for increasing their bottom line.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to pick up on that theme of responsibility. We are going to hear, I am sure, much about responsibility today, personal responsibility. But I also wanted to pick up on an observation made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) in terms of congressional responsibility. There is no doubt that this particular proposal has rushed through the legislative process, unlike any proposal in my limited experience. I dare say, as I talk to colleagues throughout and listen to the statements that have been made, there have been fewer hearings on this. The rush to bring this proposal to the floor was such that it is interesting to read the committee report in terms of the cost estimate. I want to take the time to read it. This is the majority report. ``The estimate of the Congressional Budget Office was not available at the time of this report. The committee believes that the enactment of H.R. 3150 will not have a substantial budget effect for the fiscal year 1999 and subsequent years.'' Well, guess what? They were wrong. They were wrong to the tune of $300 million over the course of the next 5 years. That is 300 million taxpayer dollars. As the debate unfolded earlier on the issue surrounding the point of order, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), was correct when he said, in terms of the impact of these mandates under H.R. 3150 will cost the private sector over $1 billion, over $1 billion. The gentleman from Colorado indicates his concern about private mandates. The CBO estimates that the impact on the private sector will be in excess of $1 billion over 5 years. But we are in such a rush to secure passage of this legislation that the point is bring it to the floor, get it done, limit debate. This is not responsibility. This is not a responsible legislative process. We, too, have a collective responsibility. Let us call it congressional responsibility. I urge that the rule be defeated and the bill also be defeated.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, for the record, in response to the chairman of the subcommittee, that upon an inquiry by me to the chairman of the National Bankruptcy Commission, I asked him about necessary data. I said, and I am quoting, ``Every commission was frustrated by the absence of reliable data dealing with the bankruptcy process. Please communicate with the CBO, with the GAO, and get that data before you take action.'' I sent that letter, it was signed by other Members, and we are still waiting for that result. But here we are today, on the floor of the House without the evidence and the data that is necessary.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today about personal responsibility and that individuals must be held accountable. Now, no one disagrees with the principles of personal accountability and responsibility. The problem, however, with the rhetoric, is that there is no data, no evidence, no credible research. The gentleman from Delaware was absolutely correct. But there is no information to establish a link between the dramatic increase in personal bankruptcy and the change we are told that has taken place in people's attitudes about bankruptcy. There is an additional issue of accountability and responsibility here, but it is one of corporate responsibility. Because while no one really knows the cause of the increase in bankruptcy filings, I submit it is more likely that the increase is the result of irresponsible lending practices by the credit card industry. I agree with a noted consultant to the industry itself who stated, ``The principal factor in the increase of bankruptcies has been the dramatic lowering of loan standards over the past five years.'' A respected Wall Street analyst agreed with him and was quoted recently in the Congressional Quarterly. ``The bank and other credit card lending institutions brought this problem upon themselves. They shot themselves in the foot by using some of the weakest and most pitiful loan underwriting techniques that I have ever witnessed.'' Well, as others have said, we have all experienced the aggressive marketing tactics of the credit card industry. More than 3 billion solicitations were issued last year, 30 for every family in America. Let us talk about responsibility. Let us look at just one of these solicitations. It is in the form of a check. It was sent to my daughter. Let me highlight some of the comments on the check. ``This $2,875 check is real. Your signature on the back is all that it takes to turn your live check into cash.'' Another observation: ``Book a terrific spring break vacation.'' Another comment: ``Treat yourself, your family or friends.'' Another statement: ``Need more than $2,875? Just call us if you want to make even bigger plans for this spring.'' There is a p.s. too. ``This offer expires May 18, 1998. Have a question about this offer? Just call.'' ``Just call.'' ``For your protection, please destroy this check if you decide not to cash it.'' Is this corporate responsibility? Is this sound responsible lending? Well, my daughter is a full-time student who lives at home and has no regular income. It is so ironic to hear representatives of the credit card companies and others here pontificate about personal responsibility. You all know from your own personal responsibility that they are relentless in their pursuit of customers and profit, and that is good. But regardless of the target's age, lack of sophistication, vulnerability, and even bad credit history? Let me just read a story for you for a moment from the Wall Street Journal of March of this year. ``Rick and Christie Fetterhoff of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,'' and I think the Chair of the subcommittee is from Pennsylvania, I do not know if he knows this couple, but it has been reported, ``have been in Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection since November 1995. But within the last several months, they have received, among other pitches, $5,000 loan offer checks from Banc One Corporation and Capital One Corporation and the promise of $250,000 to $500,000 from New Century Mortgage Corporation if they would just sign up. ``I was going to try to send some in, admits Mrs. Fetterhoff, who has more than $160,000 in debt, but I said no, no. It is tempting.'' And the credit card industry preaches personal responsibility? Now, few in this chamber are sympathetic to that sort of hypocritical argument when it comes from the tobacco companies or the liquor industry or the gaming interests. Well, we should not let the credit card industry get away with it either. If this bill becomes law, the result will be the use of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to create a publicly funded collection agency to increase the profitability of credit card companies. So let us focus on responsibility ourselves and defeat this bill.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding me this time. I think it is important to note, because we have heard the refrain today about the President setting himself above the law. Well, there is nowhere that I have heard or read or observed where this President is suggesting that he is above the law. Mr. Speaker, to me and to I think most Americans, it is clear that the President feels he has a constitutional obligation to assert executive privilege where he feels it is necessary to secure the independence of the executive branch. Now, some may or may not like that particular assertion, but it has been and will be tested, by the third branch of government, our courts, our judiciary. I believe that the American people have great confidence in our constitutional democracy, whether they be lawyers or whether they be Joe Six-pack, because ultimately, the Constitution of the United States is a document above viable democracy. It is about the separation of powers, and it is a document that has worked well for this Nation since its birth back in the late 1700s. So the President is working within the confines of the Constitution, that great American document, that document that so many have fought for and died for and served in this Nation's military, including the Marine Corps. This is all about the United States Constitution and about constitutional democracy and about respect for each branch of government.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2652, the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. Collections of information--``databases''--have become an indispensable feature of today's information society. By organizing billions of bits of raw data into retrievable form, databases enable medical researchers, travel writers, legal professionals, historians, business managers and consumers to navigate the expanding universe of human knowledge to find the information they need. The creation and maintenance of an electronic database is a labor- intensive process that requires an enormous investment of time and resources. Yet thanks to digital technology, the end product can be copied and distributed by unscrupulous competitors with only a few clicks of a mouse. Under current law, there is little the creator of the database can do to prevent this. For many years, federal courts afforded copyright protection to compilations developed through significant investments of time and hard work--the ``sweat of the brow.'' But in a 1991 decision, Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the Supreme Court discarded the ``sweat of the brow'' doctrine, and announced that compilations would henceforth merit copyright protection only if the arrangement of the information displays a sufficient degree of originality--a standard which, by their nature, few databases are likely to meet. Without effective legal protection against piracy, companies will have little incentive to continue to invest their time and money in database development. Should they fail to do so, it is the public that will be the poorer for it. The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act will address this problem by prohibiting the misappropriation for commercial purposes of collections of information whose compilation has required the investment of substantial time and resources. At the same time, the bill is drafted so as not to inhibit free access to information for non-profit, educational, scientific or research purposes. Mr. Speaker, this is a balanced and sensible response to the problem of database piracy, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2202, the National Bone Marrow Registry Reauthorization Act of 1998. For over a decade, the National Bone Marrow Program has brought hope to the over 30,000 patients diagnosed each year with leukemia and more than 60 otherwise fatal blood disorders. From modest beginnings, the program now maintains a registry of millions of potential donors. H.R. 2202 will expand and improve the National Bone Marrow Registry, establishing new services to help patients locate donors, redoubling efforts to recruit donors within underserved populations, and encouraging continued advances in the science of marrow transplantation. For me, this bill has very personal meaning. It calls to mind a very special young woman and her family in Duxbury, Massachusetts, whom I have had the honor of knowing since I learned of their story in the local press. The young woman is Brittany Lambert, who suffers from a rare blood disorder called myelodysplasia, for which she received a bone marrow transplant from an unrelated donor found through the registry. When Brittany's first transplant failed, she needed a second one. Through it all, she has shown qualities of courage and tenacity that would make any parent proud. Brittany has been lucky in at least one respect: her parents, Jim and Linda Haehnel, and her sister, Brianne, have been with her every step of the way. In fact, when I met Jim Haehnel back in February of 1997, he was organizing a screening drive for Brittany at an Air National Guard base in my district. I was among the 300 people who registered as potential donors on that occasion, and I promised Jim that I would do everything I could to see that more people have the opportunity to join in this effort. The Haehnel family has shown tremendous fortitude in the face of repeated setbacks. They have continued to do everything they can to see that kids like Brittany get a second chance at life. It is because of the heroism and selflessness of people like Brittany and her family that this program exists. And it is because of them that I feel so strongly about this effort. I am proud to join with my colleague, Mr. Young, in cosponsoring this legislation, and I hope that all of my colleagues will give it their support.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I, too, rise in strong support of H.R. 1023, the Ricky Ray Hemophilia Relief Fund Act. Before I begin my statement, I want to acknowledge and commend the fine work of my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Porter Goss). He has truly provided outstanding leadership in this particular issue. Let me ask Members to imagine that they are the parent of three fine sons, each of whom has inherited the gene for hemophilia. Now imagine, if you can, that each of your sons acquires the AIDS virus through a contaminated blood transfusion. Two brothers die before age 40, and the third is very sick. Among them, they have 9 children, your grandchildren, all of whom will be left fatherless. At least one family in my district does not have to imagine what that would be like, Madam Speaker. They know, because this is precisely what is happening to them. Nor is their heartbreaking story, unfortunately, unique. I have received letters from people in Abingdon, Weymouth, Ducksbury, and other towns throughout Massachusetts who have lost family members and friends to hemophilia-associated AIDS. Every death from AIDS is a tragedy that touches many lives. Yet, who can fathom the sheer devastation that is visited on families such as these? The enormity of their experience becomes still more compelling when one learns that the government, our government, could have acted to prevent it. In 1980 when the first Americans began to fall ill from the mysterious ailment that would ultimately be called AIDS, the technology became available to pasteurize blood-clotting agents. Yet, for 7 years the government failed to require the blood products industry to make use of this technology, nor did the government require the industry to inform the public about the risks of contamination with HIV and other blood-borne pathogens. As a result, at least 8,000 people with hemophilia and other blood- clotting disorders contracted HIV/AIDS from transfusions of contaminated antihemophilic factor or AHF between 1980 and 1987. This means that as many as 50 percent of all individuals who suffer from blood-clotting disorders were exposed to HIV through their use of AHF. In 1995, an independent scientific review conducted by the Institute of Medicine concluded that this tragedy occurred because the government failed to take the steps that could have prevented it. Some might argue that we cannot afford to do anything about that, but I believe we have an obligation to acknowledge what happened and make restitution to the victims of this disaster and their families. This bill will not compensate them for the terrible harm that was done to them, nor will it begin to cover their medical costs. But it will mean a great deal to them to know that their country has not abandoned them. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill and urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting it today.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 1252, the Judicial Reform Act, but would like to say a few words about one provision of the bill that merits strong bipartisan support. I refer to Section 8 of the bill, which would allow Federal appellate judges, in their sole discretion, to permit televised transmission of court proceedings. It would also allow Federal district court judges to permit televised proceedings on a three-year experimental basis. Americans have always taken a strong interest in the workings of the justice system. Yet those who have had little direct exposure to the process derive their impressions largely from fictional courtroom dramas and sensational coverage of high-profile trials. It is little wonder that many lack a proper understanding of the process by which justice is meted out in our society, and hold in scant regard the judicial officers upon whom the integrity of that process depends. Cameras in the courtroom offer the public an alternative: an unfiltered, unedited, unvarnished glimpse of the judicial process as it really is. Like C-SPAN, which enables viewers to interpret legislative proceedings for themselves, free of intrusive commentary, televised trials allow viewers to make their own judgments regarding the fairness of the judge, the competence of counsel, the credibility of witnesses, and the quality of the evidence presented. Through first-hand observation, the average citizen can develop a greater respect for the requirements of due process, and a fuller appreciation of the importance of an independent judiciary in preserving the rule of law. The 48 states that permit broadcast coverage of court proceedings have also found that the presence of cameras has a salutary effect on the proceedings themselves, exposing the trial process to public scrutiny and encouraging fair play, professionalism and decorum. Even judges who were hesitant to authorize television coverage have generally found the experience to be a positive one. Concerns that the media would detract from the solemnity of the proceedings and would violate the sensibilities of the participants have generally proven to be unfounded. As a district attorney, I strongly supported the introduction of cameras into Massachusetts courtrooms, and chose to participate in the pilot program which Massachusetts undertook in the 1980s. In fact, I prosecuted the first case to go to trial under the program in 1980. The Massachusetts experiment was an enormous success, and led to the adoption of a court rule instructing judges to permit electronic coverage of public proceedings, subject to various limitations designed to ensure fairness to the parties and to safeguard the integrity of the proceedings. From 1991-93, the Judicial Conference of the United States conducted a pilot program in six U.S. district courts and two U.S. courts of appeals which yielded similar results. A 1994 evaluation by the Federal Judicial Center concluded that cameras should be permitted in all Federal civil proceedings. Naturally, there are some cases in which trial participants have an overriding need for anonymity, and in such cases the judge must have the discretion to bar cameras form the courtroom. Some 15 years after that first televised trial, I was the prosecutor in a highly publicized trial involving the murder of two women at a family planning clinic. In order to protect the victims' families and witnesses who were clinic patients and employees, I filed a motion asking the court to exercise its discretion to exclude cameras from the trial. The judge granted our motion based on the special circumstances of the case. The bill provides for such situations by giving Federal judges unfettered discretion to exclude cameras at any time and for any reason. Mr. Chairman, an educated and informed citizenry is essential to a healthy, functioning democracy. This measure will enhance public understanding of a central pillar of our democracy, and deserves our support. While I regret that it was attached to a highly controversial bill whose other provisions I could not support, I very much hope that it can be included elsewhere on our legislative agenda.