Michael Bilirakis

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank my colleague for his wisdom, for his wise words, and for that history which we all need to hear over and over again. At this point I recognize the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman who, yes, indeed, in every March of every year comes to the well of this House. Also, I might add, in July of every year she comes to sort of commemorate, if we can call it that, the tragedy of the invasion of Cyprus some 20 years ago. Thank you for all your great work. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as I have each March for the last dozen years here in the Hall of American democracy, to honor the spirit of freedom that lies at the heart of our political system. It is the idea of democratic government, brought forth by the ancient Greeks and which today sweeps the modern world. It is, indeed, fitting that we celebrate this magnificent concept of democratic government this week because this Saturday, March 25, is the date that people of Greek heritage and the Greek Orthodox faith--as well as freedom-loving individuals everywhere--celebrate the symbolic Rebirth of Democracy: Greek Independence Day. March 25, 1995, will be the 174th anniversary of the beginning of Greece's struggle for independence from more than 400 years of foreign domination. It was on this historic day that the Greek people began a series of uprisings against their Turkish oppressors, uprisings that soon turned into a revolution attracting wide international support. The Greeks' long and arduous struggle against the Ottoman Empire is a perfect example of the ability of mankind to overcome all obstacles if the will to persevere is strong enough and the goal--in this case, the dream of freedom--is bright enough. The United States of America is surely the truest expression of this dream today. It remains an imperfect dream, yes, but it is still the shining example which oppressed people throughout the world have looked to for generations and from which they have gained strength in their struggles to overcome their oppressors. This dream of democracy--born so long ago in Greece--and its greatest tangible expression in our great Democratic republic, Mr. Speaker, forms the common bond between our two nations. Furthermore, it is a bond that has stretched throughout history, from ancient times to the present day. The history of the Greek war for independence also is filled with heroes and heroism, remarkable events by many peoples in a common cause. It is partly the story of the Klephts, who descended upon the invaders from their mountain strongholds. It is also the story of the Hydriots, seafarers who broke the Ottoman naval blockade; and it is the story of the Philhellenes, who took these tales of courage to Europe where their significance was not overlooked. These stories woven together formed the fabric of a free and independent Greece, of democracy returned to the cradle where it was born, and defended by the defiant cries of the Greek patriots: ``Eleftheria I Thanatos''--Liberty or Death. As probably a typical illustration of courage in that fight is a story told in the newspaper ``The Greek American'' by writer Eva Catafygiotu Topping tells us of the fight by the Greeks of the island of Psara in the Aegean Sea. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] for her statement.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who also joins us year after year after year, a wonderful fellow Hellene, friend of human rights all over the world. We thank you, Ben, for your wonderful friendship you have shown over the years. Mr. Speaker, earlier I alluded to this article in the newspaper called the Greek American. It is an article entitled ``Liberty or Death: Psara, July 1824,'' by Eva Topping. I will read from that article as follows: Liberty or Death: Psara, July 1824 (By Eva Catafygiotu Topping) To find tiny Psara on the island-studded map of the Aegean Sea is not easy. Sixteen square miles of barren rock and mountainous terrain. It lies twelve miles off the northwest coast of Chios. Homer mentions it once in the Odyssey. Then, as if buried under the blue Aegean waters, Psara disappeared for centuries from recorded history, Suddenly, however, in the eighteenth century the island came to life, a prosperous naval and commercial center. And during the Greek Revolution in the next century, Psara made history. On July 4, 1824, it achieved immortality when its brave people chose death rather than surrender to the Turks. In the long and rich history of the Greeks' unending struggle for liberty there exists no more stirring example of heroic idealism. Sea, Dionysios Solomos, a young twenty-six year old poet, responded immediately to the story of Psara with a haunting epigram of six verses. Ston Psaron ten olomavri rahi perpatontas e Doxa monahi, meleta ta lambra palikaria, kai stin komi stephani phorei yinomeno ap ta liga hortaria pou eihan meni stin eremi yi. On Psara's all-blackened ridge, Glory walking alone mediates on noble heroes. And on her hair She wears a crown made of the few blades of grass that had been left on the desolate earth. Needless to say, no translation (including mine) adequately conveys the extraordinary pathos and beauty of Solomos' masterpiece. His is the perfect tribute to the Psariots' glorious passion for freedom. One hundred and seventy-one years later, the story of Psara that inspired Solomos still deserves to be told. In 1824, the Greek War of Independence, begun on 22 March 1821, was in its fourth year. The people of Psara had been among the first to join the Revolution. Moreover, Psariots had also been among the first to join the secret revolutionary Society of Friends (Philiki Hetairia) founded in Odessa (1814). On Easter Sunday, April 23, 1821, at a solemn meeting of the entire population, the people of Psara declared themselves free and independent. (On that same day in Constantinople, the Turks hanged the Patriarch and began a reign of terror against the Greek population in the empire.) On Psara, the people raised a flag of their own design. Their flag was made of white cloth bordered with red. The name of the island appears at the top in red letters. Standing on a crescent in reverse, a large red cross dominates the flag. The cross is flanked on one side by a sword, on the other by a serpent killed by a bird. Straight across the flag are inscribed in bold, red capital letters the words Eleftheria e Thanatos (Liberty or Death). The red color, the symbols, the words, all expressed the Psariots' determination to win their freedom. Their choice lay between two absolutes. No compromise was possible. If Psariots could not be free, they would die. In July 1824, the proud flag of Psara proved tragically prophetic. From the beginning of the struggle for Greek independence, the brave sailors and captains of the tiny Aegean island had dedicated their lives and ships to the sacred cause, freedom from Ottoman rule. No sooner had the Psariots declared their independence than their little ships sailed out to fight. Cruising up and down the sea from the Dardanelles to Rhodes, they terrorized the Turkish population all along the Asia Minor coast. They destroyed or captured Turkish ships, thus paralyzing Turkish attempts to supply their forces in Greece. Although Psara was the smallest of the four ``naval islands,'' her sailors participated con- spiciously in every naval campaign against the Turks from 1821-1824. Sometimes they fought alone. The failure of the Turks to crush the Greek ``rebellion'' after three years was in large measure due to the exploits of the sailors and ships from Psara, Hydra, Spetses, and Kasos. True children of the Aegean (it was said that Psariots went to sea at age six), their sailors were the most daring, their captains the most skillful, and their little ships the lightest and fastest. Always outnumbered and outgunned, again and again they proved themselves Greek Davids against the Turkish Goliath. Psara distinguished itself not only by the patriotism and the indefatigable activity of its seamen, but also by the illustrious deeds of one of its sons, Konstantinos Kanaris. A virtuoso of the dreaded fire-ship, this intrepid Psariot captain avenged the brutal massacre of Chios (1822) by setting fire and destroying the flagship of the Turkish fleet lying at anchor offshore the devastated island. This and similar exploits brought Kanaris international fame. Across the Atlantic, Herman Melville described in Moby Dick how ``the pith and sulphur-freighted brigs'' of ``bold'' Kanaris ``issuing from their midnight harbors . . . bore down upon the Turkish frigates, and folded them in conflagrations.'' The spectacular victories of the Greek fleets, especially those of the Psariots and their fireships, quickened hopes of independence. At the same time, they convinced the Sultan that unless he crushed these islanders, he would never command the seas and thus never invade Greece where the population was determined to defend its liberty. He decided therefore to paralyze the Greeks by destroying Psara and Kasos, their two most exposed naval stations. Especially angry at the Psariots, he asked for a map in order to locate their home base. Having located tiny Psara, he vowed to wipe it off the map, out of existence. To this end, he ordered a great fleet to be assembled at Constantinople. Its sailors and soldiers were promised twelve times the prizes and booty received at the holocaust of Chios two years earlier. Kasos was destroyed first. In early June a large fleet from Egypt manned by 3000 Albanians attacked the island. 500 Kasiot seamen fell in the fighting. 2000 women and children were captured, destined for the slave markets of Alexandria. Plunder and looting were allowed for twenty-four hours. The destruction of Kasos previewed the fate that awaited Psara. In mid-June, at a meeting in the historic church of St. Nicholas, patron saint of sailors, it was decided to fight to the death on the island for the island. To ratify the decision, a solemn liturgy was then celebrated, at which the people of Psara vowed again that they would die rather than surrender. The formidable fleet from Constantinople arrived on July 1. The armada consisted of 180 ships of different types. Aboard were 14,000 soldiers, including a number of the feared Janissaries, trained and ready to land and fight on the island. On July 2 Greeks and Turks exchanged some indecisive fire, encouraging the Psariot defenders that they could hold their positions. The battle for Psara began the next morning. During the night Turkish troops had landed on the unprotected north and now threatened the town in the southwest corner of the island. French officers left vivid accounts of ``le spectacle'' they witnessed from two ships nearby. Despite desperate Psariot resistance to the Turkish advance, they were overpowered. Nevertheless, they inflicted heavy casualties on the enemy and died fighting. Not a single Psariot laid down his weapon. At the sight of the Turks on the hills above the town, panic seized the population. While the fleet shelled the town, women with their children jumped to death on the rocks or in the sea. Men, women and children rushed to the shore, hoping to escape in overcrowded boats. Many of these capsized, covering the sea with corpses. Fierce fighting took place in the town. The streets ran with blood. The French officers described the day as one of carnage. The heroic but futile resistance of the Psariots ended on July 4. The last stand was made at Palaiokastro, an old fort above the town, where several hundred soldiers, women and children had taken refuge. Having taken down the proud Psariot flag that flew over the fort, 2000 Turks stormed it. The moment they entered the fort, Antonios Vratsanos lit the fuse to a magazine of gunpowder, blowing up all the Psariots along with their enemy. The valiant Psariots, defenders of their liberty, were faithful to their flag. They chose to die rather than to live as slaves. A French officer who heard and saw the explosion compared it to a volcanic eruption of Vesuvius. By the end of July 4, 1824, Psara was no more. Part of its population had been brutally massacred. Another part had been taken captive, cargo for the slave markets of Smyrna. And a part had managed to escape, including Kanaris. No one remained on the island except, so it was said, for one monk. The fine houses and twenty churches of the town were looted. Finally, the town was set on fire. Although surviving seamen from Psara never stopped sailing against the Turks, a Psariot fleet no longer existed to frustrate the Sultan's plans. The refugees from Psara were settled on Monemvasia and on Euboea where they founded the village of New Psara. Psara itself remained under Turkish control until 1912. Notwithstanding the passage of 171 years since July 4, 1824. Glory still walks on the hallowed rocks and mountains of tiny Psara. And with her let us meditate and honor the heroic islanders for whom liberty was more precious than life. At this point I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] who I know has a long five or so hour drive to Pittsburgh to his home. He could have left better than an hour ago after the last vote, but decided to stay to be a part of this special order.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for staying to join in this special order. It is great to have gotten to know him. We have seen over the years that democracy--which places the hands of the common man on the wheel of destiny--brings with it dangers as well. Freedom often brings with it old antagonisms, nationalist disputes that must be reconciled--and the old truism that warfare is only an extension of diplomacy is no better demonstrated than in the Balkans. The former Yugoslavia--cobbled together out of many competing ethnic factions and for years held together by the force of communism--has fragmented, often explosively. Fighting continues over Bosnian independence and in Yugoslavia's southern region an old dispute threatens the cradle of democracy, Greece itself. In 1945, the Greek Government protested when Yugoslavia's Communist dictator, Tito, usurped the name ``Macedonia'' for a province carved out of southern Yugoslavia to diminish the power of Serbia. This served only to inflame competing interests in a region stretching well beyond the borders of Yugoslavia and unstable since the days of Alexander the Great. While this province now understandably seeks its sovereignty, the concept of Macedonia must in no way be restricted within the borders of this tiny land. To recognize this province as an independent nation under the name ``Macedonia'' would, I fear, unleash antagonisms already bubbling at the boiling point. European leaders--among them the former Greek President Constantine Karamanlis, himself a Macedonian--have been voicing concerns to the European community over the Republic's request for recognition as an independent state. As recounted in the New York Times, constitutional language regarding a future ``union'' of the wider lands of ancient Macedonia--which reach into Bulgaria, Albania, and Greece--spark resentments and suspicion. Promises to protect the cultural, economic, and social rights of Macedonians in surrounding countries are equally ominous. More blatant still are maps that have been circulated in the region and bearing the seal of the Macedonian National Liberation Army; maps that depict the envisioned nation of Macedonia with borders reaching into eastern Albania, southwestern Bulgaria, and a full quarter of mainland Greece. In short, Mr. Speaker, there is much more at stake here than a name. Rushing in with official recognition could add another Bosnia-type conflict to a region already suffering from widespread violence. As Greek and other European officials recognize, freedom is indeed a magnificent thing, a precious gift, but unless existing differences are peacefully reconciled now, very dark days could lie ahead. Regrettably, however, the administration on February 8, 1994, went ahead unilaterally with recognition of Skopje under the provisional name of the ``former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.'' Many of us here in Congress were dismayed by this decision. On February 9, 1994, I assembled a delegation letter to President Clinton. The letter expressed our extreme disappointment and disagreement with the administration's decision to recognize the ``former Yogoslav Republic of Macedonia'' under that name. The letter also stated to the President that ``this issue is a bipartisan one that has strong support in the Congress'' and that ``we fear that this formal recognition sends precisely the wrong message'' to Skopje and Greece ``at precisely the wrong time. The prospect of peace in the region will not be enhanced by your action; indeed, it may very well be compromised.'' In times such as these, we must reflect on democracy as a goal worth the effort in ensuring its peaceful attainment. Indeed, we must reflect seriously on the democratic principles offered by ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks forged the very notion of democracy, placing the ultimate power to govern in the hands of the people themselves. The dream of self-rule was made reality as our Founding Fathers drew heavily on the political and philosophical experience of ancient Greece in forming our Government. For that contribution alone we owe a great debt to the Greeks. In the American colonial period, during the formative years of what would be our great Republic, no feature was more prominent than the extent to which Greek and Roman sources were cited by the framers of the Constitution. The very basis of our Constitution derives from Aristotle and was put into practice in ancient Rome, in 18th-century England and in the early State constitutions, before it was given its national embodiment by the Convention of 1787. The overriding appreciation was for Aristotle's sense of balance, since the Delegates viewed the tyrant and the mob as equally dangerous. Indeed, both James Madison and John Adams emphasized what Aristotle had written in ``The Politics,'' that ``the more perfect the admixture of the political elements, the more lasting will be the state.'' Through the recognition of the idea of a separation of powers, a system of checks and balances was instituted in American Government. Thus, as another of the ancient Greeks, Polybius, foresaw and wrote, ``when one part, having grown out of proportion to the others, aims at supremacy and tends to become too dominant * * * none of the three is absolute * * *.'' Our Founding Fathers were eager to relate the American experiment to the efforts of the ancient Greeks to establish a balance of powers. Such a relationship, it was hoped by the framers, would permit America to escape the disintegration of Government that had proven inevitably fatal to other political systems throughout history. It is the example of the ancient Greeks that we celebrate each March 25, that and the return of democracy to spirit of democracy and of this day lives on in the defense of the principles for which so many of the free world's citizens have given their lives. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate together with Greece in order to reaffirm the democratic heritage that our two nations share so closely. These principles are not uniquely Greek or American, but they are our promise to the world--and they form a legacy that we cherish and have a responsibility to protect and defend. Moving now to another current event of consequence. The Greek- Orthodox faith faces yet another potentially explosive situation. Recently, there have been successive terrorist attempts to desecrate and destroy the premise of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Fanar area of Istanbul [Constantinople], in Turkey. On the night of March 30, 1994, three bombs were discovered in the building where the Patriarch--the first among equals in the Orthodox Church and the spiritual center for more than 250,000,000 Orthodox Christians worldwide--lives. Fortunately, the bombs were discovered before any harm was done to the Patriarchate. However, since that time, the Patriarchate has received no further protection from Turkish officials. Turkish officials have also been lackadaisical in investigating who the perpetrators are that planted those explosives. Therefore, I plan to introduce legislation that would express the Sense of the Congress that the United States should use its influence with the Turkish Government as a permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council to suggest that the Turkish Government ensure the proper protection for the Patriarchate and all Orthodox faithful residing in Turkey. Furthermore, my bill asks the Turkish Government to do everything possible to find and punish the perpetrators of any proactive and terrorist act against the Patriarchate. I would ask all of my colleagues who believe in the first amendment's freedom of religion, to sign on to this very important bill of particular interest to the more than five million orthodox faithful that reside in the United States. ``Democracy,'' in the words of the American clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick, ``is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people.'' It calls upon each and every one of us to rise above ourselves, to understand that freedom requires sacrifices both large and small and to recognize that the common man is capable or magnificently uncommon actions. The people of Greece in the early years of the last century were certainly common, ordinary people who rose to extraordinary, uncommon actions. They are to be saluted and thanked again and again. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Young-Stump- Solomon amendment to H.R. 1158. Since coming to Congress, I have repeatedly supported efforts to cut Federal spending and I will continue to do so. But as a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I was extremely disappointed that the Committee on Appropriations rescinded $206 million from the Department of Veterans Affairs' fiscal year 1995 budget. Over the years, increases in Federal spending on veterans programs have not kept pace with increases for other programs. Consequently, the needs of our veterans exceed the VA's available resources. These rescissions will only magnify the problems currently confronting the VA health care system. The proposed rescission eliminates construction funds for six VA outpatient clinics--two of which are in my home State of Florida. Florida already lacks the resources needed to adequately care for its veterans population. As a result, I frequently--too frequently--hear from veterans who are not able to receive treatment at VA medical facilities. In addition, every year, thousands of veterans travel south to spend the winter in Florida. These ``snowbirds'' place an extra burden on an already overtaxed system. The elimination of the Tampa/Orlando and Gainesville ambulatory care centers means that once again Florida's veterans will be forced to forgo badly needed treatment. How can I tell the veterans of my district--brave men and women who just by serving put their lives on the line in service to their country--that they are not entitled to adequate health care? In addition to the devastating effect these cuts will have on Florida, I am also concerned because of the long-term impact they will have on the overall VA health care system. Like the private sector, the VA is shifting from more expensive inpatient care towards ambulatory care in outpatient facilities. In fiscal year 1994, the VA had 26.3 million outpatient visits. This shift to outpatient care would provide better health care to a larger number of veterans for the maximum return on funding dollars. Unfortunately, the six construction projects eliminated in the rescission bill are ambulatory care centers which are intended to improve medical care access to areas where more than 1.2 million veterans reside. These are exactly the types of projects the Veterans' Affairs Committee has urged the VA to build. The cuts also undermine priority committee legislative initiatives for VA eligibility reform. We must give greater priority to ambulatory care projects to improve service to veterans on a more cost-effective basis. H.R. 1158 also cuts $50 million in unobligated funds from medical equipment funding. The VA health care system already has an $800 million backlog of essential medical equipment purchases due to chronic underfunding. In fact, VA medical facilities are diverting their medical equipment funding to pay for current operations--sacrificing the future to pay for the present. Additional cuts are unjustified. The Stump-Solomon amendment offsets the restoration of the VA funding by cutting back a lower priority program--Americorps. Why should we reduce funding for Americorps? The purpose of that program is to promote national and community service. Americorps participants are not volunteers but federally funded employees. Full-time Americorps volunteers will receive a $7,400 annual stipend, plus $9,450 toward payment of higher education debts over 2 years. Over one-quarter of the 20,000 Americorps personnel in the field today work directly for Federal or State bureaucracies. Another 2,934 volunteers are assigned to State government agencies and State-funded agencies. There are already at least 23 existing volunteer programs throughout six Federal agencies at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion. Currently $575 million is appropriated for Americorps and the program plans to spend another $8 billion over a 5-year period. During a time in our Nation's history when Congress is even contemplating cuts in veterans programs, Americorps is a costly and unnecessary expense. The women and men who answered the call to duty deserve more than empty gestures and rhetoric about their service. Their life threatening sacrifices must be rewarded at a level beyond whatever else this Congress determines to be valuable. Whatever else, our veterans should come first. We cannot forget those who sacrificed for our Nation's security. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stump-Solomon amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, in spite of the controversy and disagreements on the rule, the bill itself is a good one, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, simply put, it is imperative that we bring some uniformity to tort law in respect to product liability. If we hope to compete in an equal marketplace, if we hope to protect our Nation's citizens without hamstringing our industries and our quality of life, we must meet this challenge squarely today. We come armed with study after study documenting the adverse impact of widely varying State tort laws on competitiveness, innovation, and even safety: it's not working, it's broke and it's long past time to fix it. Under our current system, we are, in effect, exporting American ideas. With outrageous liability awards hanging over their heads like the sword of Damocles, U.S. manufacturers often dare not bring much- needed, much-requested products to market. Mr. Speaker, our foreign competitors eagerly fill that gap. They have not burdened themselves with the crushing product liability costs borne by U.S. manufacturers--and, in the end, consumers. Nowhere--not west of us on the Pacific rim nor east of us in the European Economic Community--are liability standards so onerous as they are in the United States. Not least of all, we need this legislation's single, predictable set of rules to protect consumers--and we should emphasize that. None of us wants to write the common man out of the law, leaving him no redress in the courts. That's not the object of this bill. What we want to do is restore some balance between liability and accountability. Rather than voiding the commonsense accountability of an injured party, this bill places the responsibility for accident prevention back where it belongs. Indeed, injured parties will have to bear some of that burden if they alter or misuse a product. Employers and employees alike will be encouraged to create a safer workplace. Also, by bringing some balance back to the system, we free consumers from having to pay for accidents by individuals who abuse illegal drugs or misuse alcohol. Predictability. Uniformity. Fairness. This legislation will bring a certainty to our tort laws that has been long missing. It will help to stop the erosion of our Nation's competitiveness and protect the consumer. We can promise nothing more and we should accept nothing less. Again, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, in the previous Congress I coauthored consensus health reform legislation with our former colleague, Dr. Roy Rowland of Georgia, health reform that sought to bring to the table issues upon which broad agreement existed in the Congress and among the public. It became one of the leading health reform proposals at that time, and it was the one truly bipartisan health bill considered by the 103d Congress. One of the consensus issues in our bill was medical malpractice reform. It was an issue upon which many Members of this body on both sides of the aisle agreed. In fact, it was a consensus item addressed in most of the health reform bills introduced in the previous Congress. I have no reason to believe that medical malpractice reform is any less of a priority in this Congress. All of these bills included a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, just as does this amendment. Did the 98 Members who signed onto our legislation, 36 of them Democrats, support this cap because they wished to deny an individual the full legal redress to which he or she was entitled? The answer, of course, is no. Opponents of this amendment today claim that we cannot quantify the pain and suffering of a victim of injury. I tell them this, I cannot agree with them more. I believe that our legal system should pay the complete costs of injury, including lifetime medical costs, rehabilitation, disfigurement, or other forms of actual damage, without limit. But the very fact that noneconomic pain and suffering damages cannot be quantified has led us into a swamp of astronomical awards that amount not to judgments but to windfalls. No other country in the world, Mr. Chairman, allows these kinds of windfall awards. Is that because they have any lack of feeling or sympathy for the victims of injury? Again, the answer is, of course not. The true reason for limiting these reducing medical liability costs. This, in turn, leads to reduced health care costs for everyone. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Cox-Geren-Ramstad-Christensen amendment today.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering an important piece of legislation, H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act. This bill reforms Federal securities law to stop the proliferation of strike lawsuits--suits filed by class-action attorneys on behalf of up to their expectations. Prior to the full Commerce Committee markup, I received numerous phone calls from constituents who were concerned that the Securities Litigation Reform Act would limit the ability of stockholders to sue if they are the victims of fraud. Normally, constituent communication is one of the most important sources of information that I rely upon to represent my district. However, in this particular case, I am not sure that the phone calls I received truly represent the views of my constituents. Whenever Congress debates a controversial issue, all of my congressional offices are inundated with phone calls from concerned constituents. However, my district offices did not receive one phone call on this bill. In fact, many of the calls my Washington office received were not even generated directly from individuals in my district. Rather, groups opposed to this legislation called my constituents and transferred their calls to Washington. These organizations instructed my constituents to say they were opposed to securities litigation reform. In many instances, my constituents were given very little information regarding this important legislation. I find this practice abhorrent and misleading, Under the circumstances, I find it hard to believe that my constituents were presented with all of the facts regarding this legislation. Over the last 5 years, the number of securities fraud suits has tripled. One of every eight companies traded on the New York Stock Exchange has been hit with a strike suit, and the most frequent targets of strike suits are small, fast-growing companies. In many instances, lawsuits are filed just hours after the news of a stock price decline with no evidence of wrongdoing. Opponents of H.R. 1058 argue that investors will be hurt by the reforms included in this legislation. However, current law hurts victims of real fraud in several key ways. First, individual shareholders who are part of the class action do not reap anywhere near the full amount of damages that are claimed in the suit. A study by the National Economic research Associates showed that the average investor recovers only seven cents for every dollar lost in the market, prior to the award of attorney's fees. Second, current law encourages lawyers to file as many suits as possible and to settle them quickly, regardless of their merit. The sheer cost of going to trial is enough to compel most companies to settle out of court, even if they have done nothing wrong. Approximately 90 percent of companies sued eventually decide to settle. In many cases, the plaintiffs would be better off going to trial but the cases are settled because a settlement guarantees a significant attorney's fee and eliminates any risk of failure to recoup funds already invested in the case. To correct these shortcomings, H.R. 1058 creates plaintiff steering committees that are appointed by the court to make sure that class action lawyers act in the best interests of their clients. This legislation will also make it easier for plaintiffs to understand a settlement agreement reached on their behalf. H.R. 1058 requires that class action plaintiffs receive a simple, easy-to- understand summary of the proposed settlement terms, including the full amount of attorney's fees and costs. The present system shortchanges victims of real fraud because even successful plaintiffs must pay their own attorney's fees out of their judgment, thus ensuring that victims of fraud do not recover all they are owed. In some cases, victims of fraud must pay as much as one-third of the compensation they receive to their own lawyers. H.R. 1058 allows prevailing parties to recover their attorney's fees from the losing side, ensuring that victims of fraud recover everything they are entitled to receive. Under H.R. 1058, the court may impose attorney's fees only when a party pursues a case that lacks substantial justification and imposing the fees on the loser would not be unjust. The court also has the discretion to require all or part of the winner's fees to be paid by the loser's attorney rather than the losing parties themselves. The bottom line is that strike lawsuits hurt investors by diminishing the value of their holdings. Investors lose when the stock price declines because of litigation, and they lose again when the company has to deplete its assets for defense fees and settlement costs. Moreover, strike suits harm the economy. Instead of spending money on research and development, hiring more employees or reducing the cost of their products, companies end up spending a great deal of money on strike suit insurance and legal fees. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1058. I believe this is an important piece of legislation which will benefit both companies and investors.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. In terms of the final agency action, yes.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on Commerce, the amendment is accepted. I too want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his wisdom and diligence, really. It takes some diligence sometimes because there is no question that we were not able to afford as much time to this legislation as we ordinarily would like. Without the gentleman's amendment, who knows what the future might bode in terms of the definition of what was meant by the intent of the legislators. So I commend the gentleman and thank him for his contribution.

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

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The other side has made an awful lot of arguments in support of the amendment, trying to defeat the judicial review provisions of the bill. One of the arguments that was [[Page H2327]] made was that it takes two bites from the apple. I would like to read maybe pertinent sentences, if you will, of section 401, Judicial Review. ``Compliance or noncompliance by a Federal agency with the requirements of this Act shall be reviewable pursuant to the statute granting the agency authority to act or, as applicable, that statute and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court with jurisdiction to review final agency action,'' underlined, ``final agency action under the statute granting the agency authority to act shall have jurisdiction to review, as the same time, the agency's compliance with the requirements of this Act. When a significant risk assessment document or risk characterization document subject to title I is part of the administrative record in a final agency action,'' and then it goes on. The point of the matter is that if we had underlined final agency action, maybe the point would have gotten across. There is not any attempt under this legislation to have more than one bite at the apple. It is the final agency action that is reviewable and only that. I would go further here. It was said by my very close friend, my colleague, we came into the Congress together, we are very close friends, disagree on this issue, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], he is my close friend, but anyhow basically he referred to the environmental revolution, I suppose, that has taken place over the last 20 years and how many of those good things would not have taken place were this type of language in effect at that point in time. He used the illustration of the lead gasoline ban. In truth, a recent article published by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis shows that risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, the same procedures, the same procedures required in our bill were central to the EPA's lead gasoline ban. I quote, EPA chose not to use the traditional methods of regulatory toxicology and instead employed modern methods of risk assessment in phasing out lead in gasoline. The point I think is that this is considered to be such a terrible, radical way to go. In all of our hearings, in all of our markups, throughout all of our days of markups, the other side who opposed this legislation basically got up and said, well, we agree with risk analysis, with risk assessment, with cost-benefit analysis. The gentleman from Maryland just made the same comment. Well, if there is an agreement, then what is wrong with this bill? I would suggest to Members that it is very possible that if we had this legislation in effect at that point in time, that quite a few, if not all of the environmental radical revolutions that took place over the years probably would have taken place in any case. A point that I guess was not made as yet is that the gentleman's amendment would remove the substantial evidence test. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, final agency action as we know is only overturned when it is arbitrary and capricious. Of course, that is, I think most everyone would agree, very deferential to the agency because of the very high burden for people to bear to prove that an agency is acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Of course. The legislation applies a substantial evidence test, which means that an agency must present substantial evidence that it complied with the act. I see nothing wrong with that. The bill substitutes a substantial evidence test for the arbitrary and capricious test so that the agencies must really demonstrate to a court that they are complying with the act's cost-benefit requirements. Mr. Chairman, for all of those reasons I oppose the amendment.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. H.R. 1022 is an important piece of legislation, and I know many Members have a strong interest in it. That is why the Commerce Committee and the Science Committee requested an open rule--to give Members the opportunity to offer amendments to this legislation on the Floor of the House. The rule before us was crafted to provide time for thorough discussion of these issues. Some of my colleagues argue that we are proceeding too swiftly. However, I believe that the regulatory horror stories which we have all heard suggest that Congress has waited far too long to establish accountability in Federal regulatory programs. Mr. Speaker, the issues addressed in this legislation are not new. My colleague and friend Mr. Moorhead of California introduced risk assessment legislation in the last Congress, legislation that now forms the basis for title I of H.R. 1022. A hearing was held on that bill in the Commerce Committee in 1993, and similar provisions were included in environmental legislation which was approved by the committee in the 103d Congress. The risk assessment bills passed by the Commerce and Science Committees have been available for nearly 3 weeks. As soon as the differences between the two bills were reconciled last week, the compromise language was made available to all Members. In large part, the compromise language merely reflects the provisions already approved and made public in the separate committee versions. I hope that we will be able to pass this bill sometime tomorrow with broad bipartisan support. We did pick up some support from our friends on the other side of the aisle during the Commerce Committee markup, and it is my impression that there are a number of others who would like to support the bill. Hopefully, the compromises we reached with the Science Committee will help to bring more of my democratic colleagues on board. We have moved quickly through the legislative process this year, but we have worked to ensure that the bill has been open to full review. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this open rule.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, in September, 1993, the Clinton administration issued its National Performance Review, which stated that private sector costs from Federal regulations were ``at least $430 billion per year--9 percent of our gross domestic product.'' Others put the total annual costs to the private sector and State and local governments at between $500 and $850 billion per year. To put this in perspective, this is more than the total amount of discretionary domestic spending by the Federal Government each year. As if this weren't enough, the U.S. EPA estimates that it will impose 93 regulations on society during the next year, each of which will cost between $25 and $100 million per year. The Department of Agriculture estimates that it will add 200 regulations annually with costs in that range. And the Food and Drug Administration says it will add another 25 regulations per year with costs between $25 and $100 million. That's an additional 318 regulations for just these three agencies over the next year, with an added cost to society every year of $8 to $32 billion. H.R. 1022 is sensible legislation that, among other things, will help us ensure that whatever amount society spends on regulation is justified by the amount of benefits from those regulations. We are committing a huge proportion of our economic resources to health, safety, and environmental regulation. That is the way it should be. It should be beyond debate that we need to make sure we are getting real benefits for all that we are investing. Cost-benefit analysis is only one part of H.R. 1022. The other major part is a series of requirements that will ensure that when an agency determines how much benefit society is receiving in the form of reduced health, safety, or environmental risks, it uses objective science and presents its findings in an unbiased, open manner. Lest we hear today, and we are hearing today, from opponents of the bill that these provisions are designed to weaken health and safety standards, let me assure you that this is not the case. We are not striving for some particular policy outcome. We are trying to make sure that when we make regulatory decisions based on risk assessments that we are basing our decisions on science and not on policy preferences. Unfortunately, that has not always been the practice in the past. I am going to go into some what I consider examples of regulatory overkill. The cost of EPA's hazardous waste listing for wood preserving chemicals is $5.7 trillion per theoretical life saved or cancer incidence avoided. The cost of EPA's municipal solid waste landfill standards is $19.1 billion per theoretical life saved or cancer incidence avoided. Clearly, I think everyone would agree with me, these costs are excessive, given the risk involved. The Safe Drinking Water Act currently limits arsenic levels in drinking water to no more than two to three parts per billion. However, a regular portion of shrimp typically served in a restaurant contains around 30 parts per billion We all remember the Alar scare of 1989. As a result of the Alar scare, the damage to the apple industry nationwide--from growers and processors to retailers--totaled hundreds of millions of dollars. Even growers who did not use Alar on their apples were devastated. However, scientific studies showed that Alar was not carcinogenic in either rats or mice. But UDMH--a breakdown product of Alar--when consumed in massive doses--equivalent to a human consuming 19,000 quarts of apple juice daily over a lifetime--did cause some blood vessel tumors in mice. In 1991, the OSHA regional office in Chicago issued a citation to a brickmaker for failing to supply a Material Safety Data Sheet [MSDS] with each pallet of bricks. OSHA reasoned that a brick could be poisonous, because when sawed, it can release a small amount of the mineral silica. The fact that this did not happen much at construction sites was of no consequence. Brickmakers, fearing lawsuits, began sending the form so that workers would know how to identify a brick--a ``hard ceramic body with no odor''--and giving its boiling point--``above 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit''. In 1994, after 3 years of litigation, OSHA finally Mr. Chairman, for those reasons we think that this legislation is so necessary. At the joint hearings on title III of H.R. 9, a number of witnesses highlighted examples of the need for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis: Ohio EPA Director Donald Schregardus testified that of the 52 synthetic organic chemical pesticides for which U.S. EPA requires testing, only 9 were used in the State of Ohio in quantities that might be detected. The State and local communities were forced to spend thousands of dollars and significant time proving to U.S. EPA that those pesticides were not a problem, instead of using resources to solve real drinking water concerns. Ms. Barbara Wheeler of the National School Boards Association emphasized that inaccurate risk assessment on asbestos has diverted billions of dollars from schools. The formulation of public policy on the asbestos issue was ahead of the scientific evidence to establish an accurate risk assessment; the result was that millions of scarce educational dollars were wasted. EPA's science ignored the variations in risk from different types of asbestos and focused on tests involving brown asbestos--the most hazardous type. However, the asbestos found in most schools was white asbestos, which is much less hazardous. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires warnings that crystalline silica--one of the most commonly occurring elements in rocks and sand--is a carcinogen. In California--a state famous as a beach-lover's paradise--bags of sand used to fill children's sandboxes are labeled with a warning that sand is known to cause cancer. The labeling of silica as a carcinogen was the result of a study on rats which were exposed to 100 times or more the amount of silica that workers in even the dustiest of conditions would be exposed to. However, similar studies on mice and hamsters failed to produce carcinogenic results. OSHA's Hazard Communication standard--a ``right to know'' regulation--requires employers to post Material Safety Data Sheets [MSDS] explaining chemicals used in the workplace. MSDS violations account for more citations than any other OSHA rule. Unfortunately, these sheets are often difficult to understand or border on the absurd. For example, the suggested remedy for exposure to charcoal dust is ``seek air,'' and for exposure to sawdust: ``flush with water.'' One construction company was cited by OSHA for failing to provide a Material Safety Data Sheet for Joy dishwashing liquid. During our hearings in February, Dr. John Graham from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis said that the most urgent need for health, safety, and environmental regulations is ``a statutory requirement that Federal agencies report realistic estimates of risk based on the best available science.'' Dr. Lester Lave of Carnegie Mellon University said ``Congress should instruct regulatory agencies to use the best scientific knowledge, not ``conservative'' decision rules. Agencies should explore all plausible alternative scientific theories and explain why they chose a particular theory.'' That is what we have done in this bill. Objective science presented in an open manner will help us and the agencies make better decisions, and it will also help the public understand what kind of risks it is facing. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a reasonable, common sense initiative that will help ensure that we provide appropriate protection for the public.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support efforts to streamline Government programs to make them more efficient and cost effective. However, as we implement these reforms, we must make sure our efforts are in the best interest of the individuals these programs are meant to serve. Cutting costs should not mean cutting corners. So, as we work diligently in the days ahead to trim the size of our Government and reduce Federal spending, I don't want to focus only on what is broken or at least expendable. I also want to look at what is working. When initiatives do work, we should take that knowledge and experience and apply it in other areas. One proven program which deserves our attention is the supplemental food program for women, infants and children--or WIC as it is better known. Many people may think of WIC as a welfare program but it is really a public health program. WIC is designed to influence a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors. It provides specific nutritious foods to at-risk, income-eligible pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, infants and children up to 5 years of age. WIC has a 20-year track record of providing effective, cost-efficient services to some of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Since 1974, WIC has grown from a program operated by a handful of local health departments, hospitals, and community organizations to one serving more than 6 million people through a network of approximately 9,000 clinics nationwide. In my home State of Florida, WIC serves all 67 counties and over 312,000 clients each month. WIC results in significant increases in the number of women receiving adequate prenatal care and enhances the improving their weight gain. For infants, WIC prenatal benefits reduce low and very low birth weights. WIC lowers infant mortality rate by 25 percent among participating Medicaid beneficiaries. For children, WIC participation leads to higher rates of immunization against childhood diseases. The immunization rate in Pasco County, FL, is almost 100 percent and this rate is attributed to the WIC Program. WIC also reduces anemia among children. WIC children are more ready to learn as compared to those children not in WIC. Four- and five-year-olds participating in WIC have better vocabularies and digit memory scores than children not participating in WIC. Numerous studies have shown that WIC is not only a successful prevention program, it is cost effective. WIC is a Government program that actually saves money. Every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC produces between $2 to $4 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers. In 1992, WIC benefits averted $853 million in health expenditures during the first year of life of infants. WIC should be a model for entrepreneurial government. In 1994, $1.1 billion in rebate revenue was generated from the manufacturers of infant formula, allowing 1.5 million more participants to be served. Local WIC agencies coordinate their services with other health and social service programs as needed. By coordinating these services, the WIC Program is able to reduce the number of bureaucracies a family must deal with. H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, currently includes the WIC Program in a nutrition block grant. I am concerned that if WIC is included in this block grant, the program will lose critical components that make it a success today. In closing, I would like to include as a part of this statement a letter I received from one of my constituents, Clara Lawhead, who is the director of the Pasco County, FL, WIC Program. A partial quote from that letter says: WIC is helping us to shape our future by helping to produce healthier children. WIC is not only vital to maintaining and improving our current health as a nation, but will be absolutely instrumental in creating a healthy population for the next century. I have seen what the WIC Program can do for children and their mothers. We must make sure our reform efforts do not erode the ability of a proven program like WIC to provide essential services to women and children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to very carefully review proposals that reform our Nation's nutrition programs as we craft final welfare reform legislation. The letter referred to follows: Odessa, FL, January 31, 1995. Congressman Michael Bilirakis, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Bilirakis: Recent legislative proposals threaten the survival of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC. WIC provides access to maternal, prenatal and pediatric health care services for a targeted high risk population. It is a prevention program designed to influence a lifetime of good nutrition and health behaviors. WIC provides quality nutrition education and services, breastfeeding promotion and education and food prescriptions to qualified participants. WIC is administered through area health agencies and coordinates services with other maternal and child health care. More than 70 evaluation studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of WIC and proven medical, health and nutrition successes for women, infants and children. WIC has proven its cost effectiveness in the past and will continue to present the public with cost savings in the future, unless this legislation, which would severely limit the WIC Program, is passed. Because of the WIC Program, for example, Medicaid costs were reduced on average from $12,000 to $15,000 per infant for very low birthweight prevented. In 1990, the federal government spent $296 million on prenatal WIC benefits, averting $853 million in health expenditures during the first year of life. Every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC produces $1.92 to $4.21 in Medicaid savings for new borns and their mother. These are incredible examples of the savings that the WIC Program brings to our country each year. Even more important to the American public than the cost savings are the incredible improvements to the health of our infants and children. Infant mortality during the first 28 days was reduced with WIC participation in four out of five states. The infant mortality rate has been reduced by 25% to 66% among Medicaid beneficiaries participating in WIC. WIC significantly improves breastfeeding rates, immunization rates of children and children's diets. WIC reduces the rates of anemia among children. Four and five year olds participating in WIC in early childhood have better vocabularies and digit memory scores than children not participating in WIC. WIC is helping us to shape our future, by helping to produce healthier children. WIC is not only vital to maintaining and improving our current health as a nation, but will be absolutely instrumental in creating a healthy population for the next century, unless this legislation is allowed to pass with WIC included. Congressman Bilirakis, it would be in the best interest of all Americans, both young and old, if the proposed legislation, called the ``Personal Responsibility Act'' and a ``Medicaid Swap'' were not allowed to be approved, with WIC included, by the United States Congress. Unlike most of the institutions mentioned in these pieces of legislation, the WIC program is not a welfare program, rather a supplemental nutrition program. The participants of WIC include middle class Americans, a part of society which can ill afford more benefits removed from their grasp. Americans across our great country hope that you and the other members of Congress will have the insight and knowledge to defeat the inclusion of WIC in the proposed legislation. Sincerely, your friend and ally, Clara H. Lawhead.

Mr. BILIRAKIS

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, we owe a great debt of gratitude to those ancient Greeks who forged the notion of democracy and thus gave us a blueprint for our own democratic heritage. We owe another debt of gratitude to a man who has been called the greatest Greek folk song composer and singer of the 20th century. It is that man, my good friend George Katsaros, for whom I rise today to pay tribute. Ironically, it was the promise of opportunity inherent in democracy that beckoned George to this country from the island of Amorgos in 1913 at the age of 25. Stepping off a steamship at New York Harbor with all his belongings in one hand and his guitar in the other, George Katsaros began a musical career that continues even today. Within hours of his arrival he was accompanying a Salvation Army street band and was invited to stay on. Now, more than 80 years later, his strong, nostalgic, mellow voice and unique style on the guitar have been heard in every corner of the world: in ballrooms, hotel clubs, coffeehouses, concert halls, steamships, private yachts--anywhere people gather to hear their memories and dreams and experiences put to music and sung from the heart. Katsaros became so popular that in 1919 RCA Victor signed him as a recording artist. Contracts with Columbia and Decca followed, Greece and other places where Greek music is played. His popularity grew because people related to his songs about life in unfamiliar surroundings and in difficult times; songs about the comfort of family and friends; songs about the joy of hopes fulfilled. Now, even in his twilight years, George Katsaros still composes and performs. At 106 years of age he is immaculately dressed, his back straight, his eyes bright with ideas yet to be expressed. Accolades, such as his 1990 State of Florida Folk Life Heritage Award, or his selection as grand marshall of the 1994 Tarpon Springs Christmas parade, don't lull him into inactivity; they inspire him to continue on. Steve Frangos, in his 1992 study of the international Greek entertainment industry, noted that Katsaros merits recognition on a national level ``for his singular contributions not only to the ongoing development of Greek music but as one of the finest proponents of traditional ethnic music ever to perform in America.'' I am proud to call him a fellow American and a friend.