John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

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

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor and congratulate a good friend as she marks the end of her journey with Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan. Twenty-seven years ago, Susan Skerker embarked upon a career in the auto industry that would lead her down many paths and face-to-face with many challenges, not least of which was helping to steer Ford through an ever-changing global market place. Susan has distinguished herself as a leader in the auto industry and as such has led one of Ford's major corporate headquarters staffs. She has served as the Director of the Worldwide Government Affairs Public Policy office and worked closely with those of us in Michigan who know why Detroit is called Motor City. On behalf of my colleagues in the Michigan Congressional delegation, I am pleased to recognize Susan and acknowledge that her efforts on behalf of the company and the industry are thought of most highly. Susan has been a true friend, one I could trust to give me good advice about everything from air bags to global warming. Her knowledge and insight have been invaluable to me in representing the 16th Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, as Susan's family and friends gather to celebrate her many accomplishments and the closing of this chapter of her life, I wanted to share with my colleagues just how much Susan's service and friendship have meant to me. One leg of Susan's journey has come to an end, but around the bend a new one awaits. I wish Susan every happiness and continued success in all she does.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for giving the American people a raise. I share the belief of millions of Americans who strongly believe anyone who works hard should be rewarded by receiving wages that not only allow them to subsist and survive, but to feed, clothe, house and support their families. Working Americans should not have to live in poverty or turn to federal assistance to subsist. The simple idea that hard work should be rewarded is a fundamental American value. I would note a recent ABC news poll shows 83 percent of Americans support a higher minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage must keep pace with the changing value of the dollar. The value of today's minimum wage is 21 percent less than it was in 1979. At a minimum, it is time to raise the minimum wage by $1.00 over two years. In my opinion, it should be raised higher still. Raising the minimum wage to $6.15 over two years simply restores the value of the minimum wage to 1982's level. Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker earns $10,700 per year $3,200 below the poverty level. Forty percent of minimum wage workers are sole breadwinners for their families. The Traficant-Martinez amendment would directly benefit nearly 10 million workers nationwide, 400,000 in Michigan alone. The Republican leadership has worked hard to prevent a real minimum wage increase, tying the minimum wage to a fiscally irresponsible tax cut the President has promised to veto. In place of a helpful wage package, they also have offered a watered down minimum wage increase that provides little immediate assistance to workers and, for some ludicrous reason, allows states to opt out. These deceptive attempts to dupe the American public only shortchange those Americans at the bottom of the pay scale and help corporate businesses and special interest groups. Mr. Speaker, let's not play politics with hard working Americans' salaries. Let's give workers a real raise.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000. This legislation is very poorly drafted and unclear in its terms and application. It does not simply apply to reform of the product liability laws, which I support. Instead, H.R. 2366 exempts what it defines as small businesses from a broad and unspecified range of civil liability. There are provisions of this legislation which I have supported, such as the product seller protections in title II. However, I am extremely concerned that no one seems to have a clear and full understanding of all the circumstances in which this bill would limit the rights victims have to be compensated for the fraud and deception they suffer. The proponents of this legislation are asking for our support without identifying all the existing rights victims have that the bill may preempt. The sponsors have offered amendments they claim fix a lot of the bill's problems, but I am not at all sure they are right, and furthermore I am very sure we have not yet identified all the problems this legislation creates. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff say H.R. 2366 would still limit punitive damages that a victim of a securities ``boiler room'' scam could recover in a case he or she brings in State court. The SEC openly admits that it is not capable of taking on total responsibility for making sure the securities market is free of fraud and deception. Instead, the SEC says that private plaintiffs are a vital supplement to the Commission's enforcement program. Suing for fraud is the only way a securities ``boiler room'' victim can recoup his or her losses, other than commissions paid. With more and more Americans investing in securities every day, do the sponsors of this legislation really want to arbitrarily limit punitive damage awards that senior citizens and others may receive from State courts in cases of fraud perpetrated by securities ``boiler rooms''? That's definitely not the kind of litigation reform I support, and I seriously doubt if it's what many of my colleagues want, either. The threat of substantial and meaningful liability is a very important tool needed to keep securities fraud at a minimum. If that liability is reduced by this bill to a point that unscrupulous securities dealers are willing to absorb their reduced liability as a cost of doing business, investors, particularly the least sophisticated investors, will be victimized, and they will suffer. I cannot vote for a bill that so clearly increases, rather than reduces, the chance that innocent investors will be the victims of fraud and deception in the securities market. I would hope that my colleagues would also find that to be a totally unacceptable and dangerous outcome. Nor can I vote for a bill that is so ambiguous and potentially sweeping in its scope. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2366. It is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation that does not deserve your support.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear friend for his kindness to me for yielding this time. I do not need much. I would like to hear more from my distinguished friend from Arkansas. We have here a chance simply to support what has been done by the House in two prior votes and to do so with regard to a matter which was decided in a thoroughly bipartisan fashion with leadership from Members not necessarily in the leadership of both sides but on both sides of the aisle. I would observe that we have a chance here to instruct the conferees again. There is strong need for this because I would note to my colleagues that the leadership on the other side of the aisle has given no comfort whatsoever to those of us who favor this legislation. They have included no strong friends on either the Senate band of conferees or the conferees from the House side on the Republican side of the conference. How much better it would have been had we moved more speedily. How much better would it have been had we considered these matters in a fashion more consistent with the vote which was cast earlier by the House by including Members from the other side of the aisle who were in support of this. If the leadership wants to really demonstrate a measure of bipartisanship, they can show it. They can instruct the parties to the conference to move speedily. They also can construct a pattern of conference members who will give comfort to Members on this side. I, for example, would be much more comfortable if I were to see the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) or the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) or other Members on the Republican side who worked so hard in such a careful and thoughtful bipartisan fashion and see to it that the conferees in fact fairly represented the will of the House. Clearly, events to this time show no comfort to any of us who believe in this piece of legislation. The conferees are rigged against us, over-long delay in appointing those conferees and exclusion of the two principal leaders on the Republican side. Until that kind of action is taken by the leadership on the Republican side, there will not be much comfort on this side of the aisle, and there will be strong reason in the minds of almost every Member who has supported this legislation to see to it that this resolution and other matters which can be done to move the process forward towards the House-passed bill are taken. It is possible to say any number of things to the contrary, but nothing which is either factual or which will bear weight in the minds either of the average Member of this body or the ordinary citizens of the country.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution. It is one upon which the House has, in substance, voted not once, but twice before. It is a good resolution. It simply says two things: One, that the conference should commence its business quickly; and two, that the conference should keep in mind and support the House-adopted position with regard to Patients' Bill of Rights. I am rather distressed to hear the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), my old friend, talk about this as being political. It is not. It is simply orderly business of the House provided for in the rules. It is a resolution which is going to expedite the process. There is no politics here. The House has spoken on this matter not once, but twice. The people want it. The country needs it. The House should vote affirmatively on this so that we can proceed in an orderly and speedy fashion towards the adoption of a piece of legislation that the people have said is not only needed, necessary, but badly wanted and very, very useful to the people in the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge a favorable vote on the resolution, I commend my good friend for his resolution and I urge my colleagues to vote affirmatively and to do so amicably and in the goodwill that is deserved.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, once again a more curious process has produced an omnivorous end-of-session spending bill. It is fair--and accurate--to say that most Members of this body would fail a pop quiz on the contents of this legislation, given that it only became available for review late this morning, replete with handwritten additions, deletions and elisions. Almost in spite of itself, this Congress has written legislation that does some good. For instance, one of the many extraneous provisions included in this package is the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Consumers will greatly benefit from this bill. They will finally be legally entitled to receive their local broadcast stations when they subscribe to satellite television service. No longer will consumers be required to fool with rabbit ears, or erect a huge antenna on their rooftop, to receive their local network television stations. The satellite dish many consumers buy this holiday season finally will be able to provide them with a one-stop source for all their television programming. The bill also will allow satellite companies to compete more effectively with cable systems, and provide a real-market check on the rates they charge their consumers. If cable rates continue to climb, as they have done for the past several years, consumers will be able to fight back: they will have a real choice for their video programming service. I am also pleased that this legislation rectifies some of the consequences of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act for Medicare beneficiaries and providers. Nonetheless, the fact remains that we are voting on a matter of great importance to the 38 million Americans covered by Medicare, yet most members have had only hours to examine all of the provisions in this bill. Doubtless, there are secret little provisions in this bill that help special interests and are known only to Republicans. Our Republican friends have also made a great fuss about the need to protect the Social Security surplus, but the bill they are offering is not paid for. Preliminary estimates show that the Medicare provisions of this bill cost almost $16 billion. Unpaid for, the bill will shorten the life of the Medicare Trust Fund and increase premiums to seniors. Apparently, fiscal responsibility only suits the Republican Party when it is convenient. I am also concerned that in some areas, we may not have done enough. In the area of quality, this bill moves backward rather than forward. The bill further removes Medicare managed care plans from oversight and some quality requirements. They have even exempted some plans from the requirements entirely. Who knows what other nefarious provisions lurk within the dark corners of this bill? The compromise on Community Health Centers is a good beginning, but a permanent solution is needed. I applaud the willingness of the Republican leadership to work with us to find a middle ground on assistance for these providers who serve a large number of America's uninsured and lower-income families. For women with breast or cervical cancer, however, this bill is inadequate. We had the opportunity to include a bill by my colleague Ms. Eshoo that would have provided great assistance in treating breast and cervical cancer, but this evidently was not a priority for the Republican leadership. The Republican leadership is at least consistent in its coddling of managed care companies. While the conferees on the Patients' Bill of Rights have yet to hold their first meeting, this legislation gives nearly $5 billion to managed care plans, despite considerable evidence from the General Accounting Office that these plans are already overpaid. At the same time, this bill omits what is perhaps the most important relief that Congress could offer to Medicare beneficiaries: relief from the high cost of prescription drugs. Seniors should not be forced to choose between food and needed medicines. Mr. Speaker, my modest experience as a legislator teaches me that even the best legislation inevitably contains flaws and compromises. But the entire process by which the Republican leadership produced this massive package and brought it to the floor today is a travesty, and I hope to never again see it repeated. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the BBA contains a study by GAO of the Community Health Centers payments under which the conferees intend that the GAO should look at all State programs including those with 1115 waivers.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his kindness to me. We take one step forward and one back. The bipartisan agreement on organ allocations was reached during negotiations between Labor, HHS and on that appropriations bill. The revised regulation would not become final until 42 days after enactment, sufficient time to enable the comments on the revisions and, if necessary, to make further modifications. Now we are witnessing an end run by opponents to this proposal with regard to organ allocation policy. The legislation before us contains a moratorium of 90 days on any allocation regulation. This delay has a huge cost. The regulation calls for broader organ sharing. This is consistent with the conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences, which studied the allocation system. HHS has stated that approximately 300 lives per year could be saved through broader sharing. The math is simple. There is a difference between a 42-day delay and a delay of almost 90 days. Two more points to be made. First, blocking HHS oversight amounts to privatization of Medicare and Medicaid expenditures attributable to organ transplants. If my colleagues want to privatize Medicare, let them do it in the open and proper fashion. Second, blocking HHS oversight continues the proliferation of State organ allocation statutes, at least 12 by last count. That is directly in conflict with the current allocation criteria and with good sense. The same Members who decry political or bureaucratic involvement in organ allocation policy when they have HHS in mind are stunningly silent when politicians and bureaucrats involved in this are State officials. A lack of leadership on the issue is creating immense fragmentation of organ allocation policies, just the opposite direction of where IOM said the allocation policies should go. In like fashion, the Work Incentives Act of 1999 is a large step in the correct fashion. It will ensure that the disabled no longer have to choose between health care and their jobs. The bill also includes a demonstration project to provide health coverage to people who have serious conditions but are not fully disabled, these people who have multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy. This would enable them to remain as working members of society. Thanks to hard work and dedication on the part of the administration and the disability community, additional funding has been secured for a very important project here. During the past few weeks, controversy has swirled around proposed offsets in the bill. Parties from both sides have agreed to remove some of the most contentious payfors. However, I have heard objections from many of my constituents about two offsets that remain, a provision to change the way that students loans are financed and a tax on payments to attorneys who represent Social Security claimants. Although I am going to vote for this bill, I have substantial concerns for these offsets. And, very truthfully, the things that are done here are wrong. The Work Incentives Act has overcome many obstacles in its legislative history. The bill is on the floor today because it is based on good policy and because it will make a difference of lives of people with disabilities. For that reason, I support it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3261. First, I want to commend Chairman Bliley for removing a particularly controversial provision that was included in the satellite privatization bill he authored last year. The so-called ``fresh look'' provision would have resulted in privately negotiated contracts being abrogated arbitrarily by order of the U.S. Government. The removal of this provision is a good first step toward enacting sensible satellite privatization legislation this Congress. Although I support passage today so we can move the process forward to Conference with the Senate, I still have serious concerns with a number of provisions contained in the Bliley bill. The privatization criteria mandated are so rigorous they cannot possibly be achieved, let alone in the limited time frame set forth. The penalties for non- compliance are so severe that they will, at best, significantly disrupt the provision of Intelsat's services to many users in this country. At worst, these penalties will cause the ultimate expulsion of Intelsat from the U.S. market. Either result would be detrimental to the interests of U.S. consumers, and is diametrically opposed to the stated purposes of this bill--that is, to create more competition for satellite services, not less. There is no disagreement between me and Chairman Bliley that Intelsat should be privatized as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, the U.S. cannot, by legislative fiat, simply impose its will on 143 foreign countries who are signatories to the Intelsat treaty. I believe the Bliley bill, as currently constructed, would actually undermine American diplomatic efforts currently underway to secure an Intelsat privatization. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that through negotiations with the Senate, which already has unanimously approved a more reasonable bill to achieve privatization of Intelsat, we ultimately will enact a truly pro-competitive, pro-consumer solution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation being offered today by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. I want to commend him and the Chairman of the full Committee [Mr. Young] for their diligence in working with the other body to assure that Congress acts on this vital legislation before the end of the session. H.R. 2454, the ``Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act,'' quite simply is trying to head off an unmitigated conservation disaster for white geese, including greater and lesser snow geese and Ross' geese. During the past three decades, these mid-continent snow geese species populations have literally exploded, from an estimated 800,000 in 1969 to more than five million today. This dramatic increase has resulted in the devastation of nearly 50,000 acres of snow geese habitat around Canada's Hudson Bay. This tundra habitat, most of which comprises a coastal salt marsh, is vital for nesting. As the snow geese proliferate and consume this habitat, other populations of birds are also placed at risk by this loss of habitat. A special report issued in January, 1998 by Ducks Unlimited provides a good example of the depth and the breadth of the problem. In studies conducted in Churchill, Manitoba, there were 2,000 nesting pairs in 1968. In 1997, that number grew to more than 40,000 pairs. The result is a cruel fate for the birds, particularly the thousands of orphaned, malnourished and eventually dead goslings who cannot survive on barren tundra. Together with expected population increases is another vexing problem: recovery of habitat, destroyed by overfeeding at this far- north latitude, is expected to take at least 15 years; it will take even longer if some of the acreage continues to be foraged by geese during the recovery period. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for a few years in partnership with the Canadian Wildlife Service, several state departments of Fish and Game, Ducks Unlimited, the Audubon Society and other non-governmental entities to try to address the problem. In February of this year, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued two final rules to authorize the use of additional hunting methods to reduce the population of snow geese so that a reasonable population can survive on a viable habitat. The goal was to reduce the number of mid-continent light geese in the first year by 975,000 using additional hunting methods carefully studied and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is clear that human decision making has contributed mightily to the light geese problem through increased agricultural production, sanctuary designation, and reduction in harvest rates. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us takes an affirmative and humane step to help assure the long-term survival of mid-continent light geese and the conservation of the habitat upon which they and other species depend. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and I pledge my support toward making sure the President signs it.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to express considerable affection and respect for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), my good friend and the chairman of the committee. But I want to observe that he is in error on a number of important points. First of all, we did have 2 weeks of negotiation and we were making good progress. Second of all, the gentleman from Virginia terminated the discussions and brought the bill to the floor without completing the negotiations. I would observe we were making good progress. I would observe we could have made further good progress and we could have a bill which could pass unanimously. Regrettably, we do not because there are important consumer protections which are missing from this bill. The haste is charged up to partisanship. Well, that might perhaps tell more about the author of that statement than it does about anybody else. In point in fact, our concern here is protecting consumers and I will address that question as I go forward in my statement. Mr. Chairman, I also would observe something else and that is that there is no magic to completing this legislation now, nor is there magic in completing it within 14 days. Completing legislation well in a fashion which serves the interests of all parties, those who would engage in electronic commerce and those who would be consumers and customers of those who engage in electronic commerce, is in the best traditions of this institution. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would observe something else. The future of the American economy depends upon our making this new form of conducting business a success, one which can be accepted by all and which can be regarded as being fair indeed to all. Unfortunately, the bill before us contains major flaws that harm consumers, and I regret that the gentleman from Virginia did not give us more time in which to complete those matters. Regrettably, I therefore must oppose the bill in its current form. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) did work closely with the minority to correct some of the deficiencies. I regret, however, that gaps remain, some of which are indeed serious. It is interesting to note that many of the companies recommending and representing the high-tech community do not oppose the consumer protections which we think should be included. Regrettably, a small but nevertheless important minority of business interests continues to oppose consumer protections in any form. Those are not, regrettably, people in the electronic commerce business. Those are simply people in the financial interests of this country which want to have it all their way, and I can sympathize with my friend from Virginia in dealing with such an obdurate lot. An amendment today which will be offered will seek to improve the legislation, and I commend the authors of the legislation, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), and others. Unfortunately, the amendment would improve certain aspects of the bill but, unfortunately, it still falls short. The Bliley bill, even with the Inslee amendment, would harm consumers in several ways. First, it would not require any notice, conspicuous or otherwise, that consumers are entitled to receive certain records in writing under existing law. Before choosing to receive these documents electronically, I believe consumers should be given specific notice as to what existing rights they are giving up. Regrettably, the Bliley bill leaves consumers in the dark on this matter. Secondly, the opt-in provision as currently structured in the bill before us would allow all sorts of dissimilar records to be bundled together giving, at best, confusion to the consumers and would require them to essentially take an all-or-nothing approach in which records they agree to receive electronically. Clearly, there are records and records, and clearly they should and can be easily treated differently by the consumers and the purchasers. In effect, an on-line merchant could require consumers to take it or leave it, thereby defeating the will of the parties, and especially the consumers, to receive some records electronically, but not others that they would prefer to receive in a traditional form. Finally, the bill would allow merchants to vitiate contracts entirely if consumers do not agree to opt in to receiving records electronically. That is not an option. In the law it is called a ``contract of adhesion'' and in a word it is a contract which is not equal and in which the parties are not equal parties to a contract. Clearly, if we are seeking to improve the attitude of consumers and to earn their trust, this is not the way that the matter should be handled. The administration shares these concerns and strongly supports the substitute which I will offer today with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). The administration has additional concerns, as do I, concerning the effect of this bill in on-line transactions. For these reasons I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 1714 and urge my colleagues to support the substitute which has been made in order by the Committee on Rules. The substitute would take an important first step, fully recognizing the validity of electronic signatures in contract law. That is good. The legislation will give Congress the additional time to explore the effect on consumers of the new electronic contract laws to the myriad of important records and documents that accompany these agreements. It also would avoid stomping on the actions of legislatures in having created and in addressing contract problems, as they have traditionally done under the historic laws of the United States, wherein the matters of ordinary commerce are dealt with by the several States and dealt with well, indeed, under things like the Uniform Commercial Code. Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for supplanting the knowledge, reason, and expertise and the traditions which have vested in the legislatures the ability to address these questions by adding a whole new array of changes which may or may not be in the consumers' interest and may not be in the interest of business in the United States and which clearly are opposed by consumer groups and by the administration. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to control as he sees fit.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is a very simple one. It is not about whether the contract may be signed electronically. Everyone here is in agreement that that is a good thing. It is about the notices which follow after that, notices of waste on a real estate contract, notice of failure to comply with requirements for insurance, failures of the electronic media to deliver. An interesting thing to note would be that this proposal is going to come just in time, if it is signed into law, for the year 2K bug to bite. The question that has to be asked is what happens if the Internet provider is down and the individual does not get the notice. What happens if on that particular day there is a virus that contaminates the operation of the recipient or the sender, so the recipient never gets it. Look at the wide array of notices which are extremely important and which are protected in a wide array of State laws, notices of nonpayment of taxes, notices which would vitiate a mortgage, entitle the mortgagor to cancel or to foreclose. Those are things which would hurt the mortgagee. I would ask my colleagues to understand that what we are trying to do here is not to stop electronic commerce or the signing of contracts electronically but, rather, to assure that a wider array of judgments are available to the purchaser and that he may then insist that he get, for very good reason, certain kinds of notices which he might view as being important. The mortgagor or the seller or the vendor under the contract has every right to ask that individual if he will then change the contract to waive those rights. But we are trying to protect historic rights that have always belonged to purchasers under written contracts under the law of the several States. I would give Members just one last quote. Under Statement of Administration Policy, the administration makes this statement, and Members should be aware that they are probably looking at a veto here: ``The administration believes that en bloc amendments fall short of eliminating serious defects in H.R. 1714. The Secretaries of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, and the Treasury will recommend the President veto H.R. 1714 with the en bloc amendments. For the reasons explained below and in the enclosed Statement of Administration Policy, the administration would support adoption of the Gephardt-Dingell- LaFalce-Conyers substitute.'' Let us try to pass something which will make progress, something which will protect consumers, something which will move forward electronic commerce but not something which affords enormous operation to hurt innocent purchasers around this country.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to try and make clear what is at stake here. There is no objection, I think, on the floor on the part of anyone, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan, myself, or anybody else, to whether or not the contract is signed electronically. The question relates to notice of later events under that contract which can severely impact the purchaser, such as things which would trigger foreclosure of a mortgage on a house or an automobile, failure to keep up insurance, failure to prevent waste, failure to make payments. It could happen for many reasons, such as year 2K. It could happen because of the situation which might occur, a hard drive might crash, or there might be any one of a number of other events, including a failure of the Internet provider or something of that sort, or the matter would just get lost in cyberspace. There is nothing in anything that we are talking about here that would preclude an individual from giving up some right and waiving his right to that notice. But as an attorney of longstanding and as one who has dealt with foreclosures and the hardship that those kinds of events trigger, I think it is important to see to it that some who might not be as smart as some of the Internet whizzes and the computer whizzes and jocks that we have has the capability of protecting himself, because we are talking about things such as the purchase of stock, mortgages on homes, automobile purchases, major purchases of equipment, and things of that kind which could incur enormous obligations on the part of the purchaser. I propose to support the amendment. It improves the bill. It does not improve the bill by addressing the fundamental, basic question of whether the consumer gets the necessary notices that are required by a long history of State law to apprise him that he is in danger under the contract of losing money or rights.

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

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am not talking about notices of foreclosure, I am talking about notices that would trigger foreclosure, notice that the insurance has not been paid, that damage was being committed on the property, that a public nuisance is being committed on the property, or even a notice that the individual has failed to make a payment, which will trigger foreclosure. Those are the kinds of notices that I am talking about, and they can severely, adversely impact the party.

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