John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of the author of the amendment what is the purpose or what is this reduction about?

Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. CONYERS. So, it is from 25 percent to 10 percent of what?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that what the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary is doing, is extremely important, because rather than trying to determine penalties and negative means of controlling dangerous weapons, we are going to the root of the problem. Many of these young people get guns from sources that are not entirely clear to us, and this gun control initiative is going to surely be helpful. I want to congratulate the gentleman on this, because the Senate has already moved and they are waiting for us. So I am happy to add the support of the Democrats on the committee for this important measure.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair inform us of the schedule at the present moment for the balance of the evening as to whether there will be further votes?

Mr. CONYERS. Could leadership give us a clue?

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the subcommittee chair. It is our hope on this side that we will roll all the votes for the balance of the evening, if it pleases the leadership.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I was privileged to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Charles Rangel), and we went to Haiti quite recently. We met with Pierre Denize, the national police chief of Haiti. Remember, Haiti does not have an army now because we have agreed and they have agreed to get rid of them. We met with Bob Manuel, the Secretary of State for Public Security in Haiti. We got what I considered an excellent report about that. Our troops are not in jeopardy. How many troops are we talking about, I ask my esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations? Two hundred seventy; 270 troops. Psychologically, they are performing an immensely important task of working and development. They are not there for security. I found them not to be in jeopardy. They are working with Department of Justice and Department of Defense people in the Isatat training program, in the U.N. SITPOL agreement. Things are moving. If we try to legislate them out of Haiti before the administration, the Department of Defense, and the State Department, which have all agreed that they should go, the question is the timing and whether the House of Representatives should now become the executive branch of Government. Please, I beg my colleagues not to intrude this amendment, which is potentially dangerous, into the subject matter of Haiti. Haiti has problems. It is coming along very well. I am glad that I was invited by my esteemed colleagues from New York and Florida to witness and talk in depth with them about this subject. Those troops are important there. They are not in jeopardy. And let us not pull them out prematurely.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I make a unanimous consent request that S. 254, dealing with juvenile justice and gun violence, be brought up for immediate consideration?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I understand that S. 254, the Juvenile Justice and Gun Violence bill is at the desk. How would a Member seek to get its immediate consideration?

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, introduced by Mr. Rush, which addresses a pressing need for nurses at low income, inter-city hospitals. When similar legislation was proposed last Congress, I expressed my concerns that it did not include adequate safeguards to protect American workers. Fortunately, the legislation was amended to specify that the relief was only temporary and to allow us to move firmly in the direction of developing a more permanent solution to this problem that will utilize nurses from the American work force instead of continuing to rely on foreign labor. I supported the revised bill which passed the committee and the House last year, before we ran out of time in the Senate. The legislation being considered today is nearly identical to the legislation the House approved last Congress. It would allow up to 500 fully qualified foreign nurses to enter the United States each year to work for three-year periods at hospitals that have not been able to hire enough nurses from the American work force. Since we are facing a temporary shortage of workers, the legislation sunsets in four years. The bill also provides for a determination to be made on whether the hospitals are taking reasonable steps to recruit and retain nurses from the American work force. In addition, the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services would be required to conduct a study to establish ways for these hospitals to meet their staffing needs with nurses from the American work force instead of continuing to rely on foreign labor. Finally, the legislation also includes a provision creating an abbreviated certification process for foreign nurses who meet specified qualification standards. This change is needed to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate steps in the certification process for ensuring the qualifications of these nurses to work in the United States.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, crimes and abuses against senors have become an increasing problem in America. From physical assault to health care fraud and telemarketing scams, which cost Americans approximately $40 billion per year, our seniors are being abused physically and financially. Such abuses take place intentionally, but also in the form of neglect. For example, seniors in nursing homes often fail to receive the care and medications they need--an alarming occurrence considering that some experts estimate that over 40 percent of seniors will need some form of nursing care. This is why I, along with Representatives Udall and Hoeffel, am introducing the Seniors Safety Act of 1999. This bill represents a comprehensive solution to the problems I've just described. It takes a two-pronged approach--prevention and punishment--to crimes against seniors, including health care fraud, injury, telemarketing scams, nursing home neglect. In addressing prevention, the bill directs the Attorney General to conduct a study of what crimes are committed, what the risk factors are, and what strategies can prevent future occurrences. From that information, we can create real solutions to this ever-increasing problem. The bill also directs the Sentencing Commission to determine whether enhanced punishments would deter such crimes from recurring. We are facing a crisis in this country--a crisis of abuse and neglect of America's seniors. With this legislation, we can work in a bipartisan manner with our colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure that they are not taken advantage of anymore.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey amendment. General Augusto Pinochet rose to power in a bloody coup d'etat in 1973 that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. This ushered in seventeen years of military dictatorship accompanied by the death of thousands of activists, journalists and ordinary citizens. According to the Church Committee Report of December 1975, ``The CIA attempted, directly, to foment a military coup in Chile.'' Before Allende was inaugurated, it passed weapons to coup plotters. When that failed, it undertook a massive effort to undermine the government. Senator Church found that ``Eight million dollars was spent in the three years between the 1970 election and the military coup in 1973. Money was furnished to media organizations, to opposition political parties and, in limited amounts, to private sector organizations.'' Much of this is history in the sense that the repression in Chile has stopped, and that country has made a remarkable transition to democracy over the last decade. However, many are still forced to live with the pain of General Pinochet's legacy and there is still far too much information still being withheld from the public record about the American role in Chile during those dark years. The arrest of Pinochet in England last year was a tremendous step forward for international law, reconciliation and human rights. Much of the power to keep justice moving forward lies in the hands of the CIA, the Department of Justice and other agencies of the U.S. government who have been asked by the Spanish Judge prosecuting Pinochet, Garcia Castellon, to provide information about Pinochet's reign of terror. Even before the arrest of Pinochet, the Department of Justice assured Congressman George Miller and I that they were cooperating fully with Judge Castellon's inquiry. I am inserting into the Record an article from the New York Times of June 27, 1997 which makes this point clear. I am neither satisfied with the Department of Justice's response thus far nor with the CIA's outright refusal to cooperate with the inquiry. This is simply inconsistent with the American commitment to the promotion of human rights. This is especially remarkable since along with the Chileans and Europeans who were murdered by Pinochet's hand were several Americans. Ronni Moffit, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, and the former Chilean ambassador, Orlando Letelier were killed in one of the worst domestic terrorism incidents ever in Washington, DC. The attack was carried out by DINA, the Chilean intelligence agency whose director has stated that Pinochet personally ordered the bombing. Even Elliot Abrams, Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs, has suggested in the conservative journal Commentary that if Pinochet is responsible for the Letelier-Moffit bombing he should be extradited to the United States for trial. Section 304, Paragraph (a)(3) of the Hinchey Amendment and will help shed much needed light on who is responsible for this and other brutal murders. The American people will never know the truth unless their government expresses greater enthusiasm for prosecuting the Pinochet case both in London and in Washington. The Hinchey Amendment is a critical step in that direction and I urge my colleagues to support it. [From the New York Times, June 27, 1999] U.S. Will Give Spanish Judge Documents for Pinochet Inquiry Madrid, June 26.--The United States has agreed to provide Government documents to a Spanish judge investigating terrorism and human-rights violations in Chile during the right-wing dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990. It is the first investigation of crimes against humanity in the death or disappearance of people during the Pinochet era. The judge, who functions as a prosecutor under Spanish law, is seeking evidence of genocide against Spanish citizens and descendants of Spaniards. But the case is even broader, and could delve into abuses against at least 3,000 people of various nationalities, including Charles Horman, an American whose disappearance in Chile was depicted in the film ``Missing,'' said Juan E. Garces, a Madrid lawyer representing relatives of the victims. The Madrid judge, Manuel Garcia Castellon, began the criminal investigation last year, and in February requested all pertinent documents from United States Government agencies. Washington will cooperate ``to the extent permitted by law,'' said a letter signed by Assistant Attorney General Andrew Fois on May 23. The letter, addressed to Representative John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, was also sent to the national security adviser, Sandy Berger, the State Department and ranking members of the House International Relations Committee. Spain stands a good chance of getting useful American documents about General Pinochet's Government because the request came under a 1990 legal assistance treaty that allows a wider sweep in searching for information, said Richard J. Wilson, a law professor at American University in Washington. The Judge has not yet charged anyone, but might seek the extradition to Spain of General Pinochet, who is still commander of the Chilean Army, Mr. Garces said. Mr. Garces was an assistant to President Salvador Allende Gossens of Chile, a Socialist, who died in September 1973 when General Pinochet led a coup that overthrew the elected Marxist Government. In a separate action, another Madrid judge is investigating human rights abuses against 320 Spaniards under military rule in Argentina from 1976 to 1983. The judge, Baltasar Garzon, has also requested United States Government documents for his inquiry. The Chilean Government last month termed Spain's investigation a ``political trial'' of Chile's transition to democracy that began with elections in 1990. On Wednesday, it said the American cooperation with the Spanish judge was ``positive'' but ``would not lead anywhere.'' The Madrid court and the American Embassy said today that they had not received official confirmation of Washington's agreement to provide documents.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez), and I say to the majority leader that if we do not get the substitute, there will be that gloomy prediction. (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I insert the following correspondence for printing in the Record: April 19, 1999. Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations are writing to alert you to serious problems in proposed Year 2000 (Y2K) legislation that could result in far-reaching environmental consequences. the Y2K liability bill sponsored by Representative Tom Davis (H.R. 775) threatens to remove important incentives for companies to fix potentially devastating Y2K computer processing problems before they occur. The bill also would undermine the ability to individuals and communities injured by Y2K environmental accidents to seek full redress in the courts. We ask you to vote against this bill and any similar legislation which would remove incentives and shield companies that have failed to fix their Y2K problems from legal accountability for any environmental damage. Y2K processing problems in mainframe computers and embedded chip systems have the potential to harm the environment and affect public health. Although the full extent of environmental problems that may result from Y2K failures is not known, the Environmental Protection Agency has said that ``[d]evastating effects could occur through such problems as accidental contamination of drinking water, the release of harmful pollutants into the air, and the inappropriate distribution of chemicals and toxins into the community.'' A recent report from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board stressed special concern that the Y2K readiness efforts of small to medium-sized chemical facilities are ``less than appropriate.'' We join the House of Representatives in encouraging companies whose computer failures could harm the environment to act now to make their systems Y2K compliant, but we believe the proposed bill would have the opposite effect. Rational businesses facing potential liability for environmental harm will attempt to limit their liability by implementing measures to avoid causing such harm. We believe the threat of extensive liability has already done much to induce companies to become Y2K compliant. By passing bills like H.R. 775, Congress would send the opposite message. The proposed legislation would provide the greatest rewards for inaction to those companies that have done the least to resolve Y2K issues. Passage of this bill may make environmental accidents from Y2K failures more likely, not less. The bill defines a ``Y2K claim'' as any case in which a plaintiff asserts a claim for damages directly or indirectly caused by an actual or potential Y2K failure, or a defendant asserts an actual or potential Y2K failure as a defense in a civil suit. Although the bill exempts claims for physical injury to individuals, this sweeping definition would impede civil actions to recover compensation for damage to personal property and to bring citizens enforcement actions against companies that violate federal or state environmental laws by releasing pollutants into the air or water. The definition of Y2K action in the bill is so sweeping it appears that any time defendants in a civil action wish to avail themselves of the liability limitations in the bills (for example, for environmental violations or community contamination), the defendants need only assert that a computer date processing error was the cause, and procedural hurdles for plaintiffs, new legal excuses for defendants and liability limitations could automatically apply. We urge you to oppose this bill and any others that would shield defendants from full accountability for environmental harm caused by their Y2K failures, interfere with enforcement of state and federal environmental laws and make it more difficult for individuals and communities to seek full and fair redress from Y2K-related environmental releases. Sincerely, Stephan Kline, Alliance for Justice. Daniel J. Barry, Americans for the Environment. Mark Shaffer, Defenders of Wildlife. Courtney Cuff, Friends of the Earth. Jeff Wise, National Environmental Trust. Greg Wetstone, Natural Resources Defense Council. David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists. Allison LaPlante,

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the manager of this bill, for his courtesy in allowing me to speak at this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge that the words of the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), be considered. The problem, essentially, is that the committee-passed version of this bill goes way beyond the stated needs of the high-technology community and is probably being used as a precedent for more broad- ranging tort reform. The problems are these: The bill eliminates the possibility of damage recovery whenever a defendant exercises ``reasonable efforts'' to fix a computer defect, even if his efforts are unsuccessful. Secondly, the limits and caps on punitive damages are unnecessary and unrequired. We put caps on officers' and directors' liabilities. We federalize class actions. We eliminate joint and several liability and then further mandate a loser-pay mechanism. I want to suggest to my colleagues that the wave of 80 lawsuits already filed is not a flood of litigation that we need to be unduly concerned about. I also want to say that I have regretted that the amendment of my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) was not put in order. It cut off any claims against Y2K compliance from 1995 forward, because the damage has been known for many, many years. The potential damage. I think this has been overmagnified. I want to praise the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rick Boucher) for the work they have done in helping carve out a reasonable substitute that will escape administration veto. Now, inadvertently, the bill eliminates incentives to remediate Y2K problems and the bill now sweeps in millions, potentially, of consumers into the Y2K litigation relief package. So, please, let us all be as reasonable as possible. We are proud to support the high-tech community in their problems, and we want to work them out, but let us not overdo it. Support the substitute and let us hope, then, we will get a bill that will pass administration muster. Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and I compliment the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) that is managing the bill on our side. As presently written, ``The Y2K Readiness and Responsibility Act,'' which I prefer to call the ``Y2K Industry Overreaching Act,'' is nothing more than another poorly crafted product liability reform effort, disguised as legislation to address the Y2K problem. Much of the bill is left over from the discredited ``Contract with America,'' which has already been rejected by Congress and the American people. I am not averse to legislation that specifically and narrowly addresses the problems faced by the high tech community. However, the bill reported by the committee goes well beyond reasonable reform. In fact, Assistant Attorney General Eleanor D. Acheson has testified that ``. . . this bill would be by far the most sweeping litigation reform ever enacted. This bill would harm technology users, and is bad for consumers and small businesses. Worst of all, instead of creating positive incentives to fix problems, it creates new reasons to avoid remediation. First, the legislation would harm technology users because by providing across the board caps and limitations on liability, H.R. 775 will make it more difficult for businesses suffering computer failures to obtain compensation. Kaiser Permanente has written that the legislation ``unfairly prejudices (or completely bars) the ability of the health care community to recover costs associated with any potential personal injury or wrongful death award from the entity primarily at fault for the defect that caused the injury.'' Those businesses who have had the foresight to cure their own Y2K problems will also be negatively impacted, since the bill will allow their competitors to obtain the same legal benefits without incurring remediation costs. The legislation is also bad for consumers and small businesses. Even though the Y2K problem has been overwhelmingly described as a business to business issue, H.R. 775 sweeps in tens of millions of individual consumers with little opportunity to protect themselves by contract. Further, the ``loser pays'' provision is totally inconsistent with the notion of equal justice and will also work to the significant disadvantage of individuals and small businesses. This is because in order to bring their case to trial, an individual or small business must risk reimbursing a large corporation for its legal fees. Under this provision, if a harmed party guesses wrong by a mere $1, even if he or she wins the case, they could be liable to pay the wrongdoers legal fees. The legislation also eliminates incentives to remediate Y2K problems. The ``reasonable efforts'' defense is so broad it would even cover intentional wrongdoing or fraud, so long as the misconduct was eventually papered over by any sort of post-hoc reasonable effort. Even if a defendant takes minimal steps to remedy a Y2K problem, it will serve as a complete defense against a tort action, thereby undercutting incentives to prepare for and prevent Y2K errors. In addition, the bill's punitive damage restrictions provide the greatest amount of liability protection to the worse offenders and those who have done the least to solve their Y2K problems, while the limitations on directors and officers liability will protect irresponsible and reckless behavior. Given the evidence we have so far, it is impossible to justify such a complete reworking of our state civil justice system to accommodate a single industry. I would remind the Members that a recent New York Times article noted that ``so far the cases offer little support for the dire predictions that courts will be choked by litigation over Y2K.'' Even high tech executives have questioned the magnitude of the problem, with Jim Clark, the co-founder of Netscape Communications and Silicon Graphics stating, ``I consider [Y2K] a complete ruse promulgated by consulting companies to drum up business . . . the problem is way overblown [and is] a good example of press piling on.'' However, I do believe it is possible to achieve a reasonable middle ground on this issue. Democrats have a long track record of working with the high tech community in order to maintain American leadership in information technology and preserve and foster American jobs. We have been out front in supporting copyright reform, patent reform, encryption reform and state tax reform, to name but a few recent initiatives. Just last Congress we strongly supported the Readiness Disclosure Act, which protected high tech companies from Y2K disclosure liability. We are ready, willing and able to work with the interested parties on the Y2K problem as well--but only if all sides are willing to be more realistic and practical in their goals. A substitute Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Boucher, and I plan to offer today will be a good faith effort to achieve this goal. But I cannot support the bill as it is presently written, and I must urge a No vote.