John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] for his leadership in this matter. This is a splendid motion to instruct, and I would urge all my colleagues to support it. This is not something which has come full blown on us and it is a matter of surprise. We have all seen this before. This exact language passed the House 258 to 166. The comment is made that perhaps this might inhibit the passage of product liability legislation. Nothing is further from the truth. What does the proposal do? The proposal treats U.S. corporations, U.S. manufacturers, and U.S. workers the same way that sneaky, dishonest, fly-by-night foreigners are treated. Having said that, what it says is as follows: That Federal courts have jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers, who knew or who reasonably should have known that their product would enter the stream of commerce in the United States. Second, the amendment states that the service or process may be served wherever the foreign manufacturer is located, has an agent, or transacts business. For the benefit of my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, that is standard, boilerplate language that you have seen 100 times. As a matter of fact, you cannot open a law book with regard to service without seeing this kind of language. Finally, the motion says that the failure of foreign corporations to comply with court ordered discovery orders will be deemed an admission of fact to which the order relates. In other words, if they do not cooperate, the court will draw the necessary and proper conclusions from their refusal to cooperate. Now, what is at stake here? What is at stake here is a very simple thing, the protection of American consumers, the opportunity of American people to litigate questions with regard to product liability. That is important. But something else is at stake here, too: Fair treatment of American workers. Americans who work for American corporations in the United States, competing with foreigners, can know that they are going to get the same protection with regard to product liability that foreigners get. Foreign corporations are going to know that they cannot now any longer come into this country and market shoddy, cheap, dangerous, unsafe products, and then retreat to their home country, secure in the knowledge that the hurt they have done to American citizens, that the unfair competitive advantage which they have seized on behalf of themselves, will redound to their benefit, to the hurt of American corporations, to the hurt of American workers, and to the hurt of American consumers. I would urge my colleagues to vote for this on the grounds of basic fairness. I would urge my colleagues to vote for it on the basis of common sense. I would urge 258 of my colleagues who voted for this before to vote for it again on the grounds they have already shown good sense and voted for it once. I would point out that every single Democrat, save one, voted for this. I would point out that some 70 Republicans among my colleagues voted for it. The American people are going to say when you go home, Why was it that you did not vote for the protection of American industry and the fair treatment of American industry? Why was it you did not vote for the protection of the American consumer? And why was it that you did not vote for equal treatment of American industry with foreigners? That is all this is about, fairness; foreigners and Americans are treated the same way in the marketplace. If you vote against this motion to instruct, you are voting for preference for foreigners. I have a few words for my friends on the Republican side which I think they will find useful and interesting. You have observed of late you have a new star shining on the horizon of American political life, his name is Pat Buchanan, and he is talking about the failure of other Republicans to look to the well-being of American workers and American goods. He is talking about shutting our borders and putting huge tariffs. We do not need to do that today. All my Republican colleagues need to do is carry out the mandate that they heard up in New Hampshire or in Arizona or in other places and to genuflect at the altar of Mr. Buchanan is simply to vote here for fairness for Americans, for fairness for American industry, for fairness for American consumers, and to treat foreigners like we treat American corporations, no better. If you vote against this, you are voting for a preference for special treatment for foreign manufacturers. You are voting to hurt American workers, American industry. I urge my colleagues to vote as the House did once before. Let us not be afraid. Let us vote for an instruction. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear one thing: There is no Member of this body that has greater affection or respect for the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary or for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], my good friend. They are great men, great Americans, and dear friends of mine. I express to them my great respect. They are regrettably, however, very much wrong on their interpretation of this legislation. All this does is treat foreign manufacturers, foreign corporations, foreign workers, the same way we treat U.S. corporations, U.S. manufacturers, and U.S. workers. That is all. That is all this does. This is a simple, long-arm statute in the motion to instruct, something which my colleagues have seen time after time. And anytime my distinguished friend, the chairman of the committee, cracks a law book to look at a service statute, he will find this kind of language relative to American corporations. That is all we want to do, is to apply it to American corporations and to foreigners. I can understand there is a certain reluctance on the other side of the aisle on this matter. This town is full of lobbyists working for foreign corporations. Their single most important purpose today is to get this language out. Why? Because it confers an enormous economic advantage on foreign corporations, to know that they can hide abroad after they have manufactured shoddy or dangerous goods or provided services which have hurt Americans. The Americans can go and sue an American corporation. But without this language as provided in the language of the motion to instruct, the foreign corporation is not reachable. The issue here is a very simple one: Fairness to American corporations, fairness to American workers, fairness to the American economy, and not letting a bunch of sneaking foreigners get out from under their legitimate responsibility to American consumers; and not permitting a bunch of sneaky foreigners to get an economic advantage over Americans, American workers, American manufacturers, American industry, and the American Congress. The motion is one which screams for the support of this body. It says, if you are fair, if you want to be fair, if you are interested in this country, its workers and its people, you will vote for this motion to recommit and tell the foreign lobbyists this Congress works for the American people, not for a bunch of foreigners.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that most provisions of H.R. 2196 have been discussed and negotiated in a bipartisan fashion by Members of both bodies. Far too little effort during this Congress has been expended toward meaningful bipartisan legislative action and, for that significant accomplishment, I applaud the sponsors of this measure. However, I am compelled to state for the record, as I have in the past, my concerns about portions of this bill that amend the Fastener Quality Act. As noted most recently in my December 12, 1995 statement, some of the fastener amendments included in this legislation appear to be designed to appease foreign manufacturers of fasteners (and some distributors who sell such foreign fasteners) rather than to protect the safety of American industry and consumers. No hearings have been held on the need for some of the fastener provisions in this bill nor has any credible justification been advanced for their inclusion in this legislation. For example, the only reason cited for amending the Fastener Quality Act's traceability provisions (which Chairman Walker favorably cited in his statement supporting the original legislation) is the supposedly excessive cost that would be imposed on businesses. A few distributors and foreign manufacturers--that is, those who profit from making and selling counterfeit and substandard fasteners--have produced wildly exaggerated figures to back up their claim that the original act's limited commingling prohibition will be the death knell for the fastener industry. While foreign manufacturers and some fastener distributors have spent millions of dollars lobbying for these and other legislative changes to the Fastener Quality Act, other American companies simply rolled up their sleeves and went to work to ensure that adequate traceability procedures exist, including compliance with the original act's commingling provisions. These companies have told us something completely different than what the foreign manufacturers and their distributor chums have said. They tell us that the limited commingling requirements are necessary to provide better traceability of fasteners. And they also tell us the costs of putting these requirements into practice are minimal. Obviously, someone is wrong. There is much huffing and puffing these days about the need to promote quality in all aspects of American business and government. Yet, some of the fastener amendments in this bill do just the opposite. It is a fact that the best American manufacturing and distribution companies have for many years maintained sophisticated lot control and traceability procedures for a wide array of products, including pharmaceuticals, hardware, food, and soft drinks. Yet, due to heavy lobbying by foreign fastener manufacturers and their sellers, amendments in this bill weaken quality standards and make it easier for counterfeit and substandard fasteners to make their way into American commerce and into American products. During the multiyear investigation by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on fasteners, it was demonstrated that the most serious problems with counterfeit and substandard fasteners originated beyond our borders. The motive for making and selling such fasteners is obvious--to cut production costs and increase profits. In weakening the law today, we help makers and sellers of bad fasteners and, in the process, hurt those companies that produce quality products. At least, enactment of these amendments should lead to promulgation of the long overdue implementing regulations by the National Institute on Standards and Technology. Despite its failure to do so during this Congress and in prior years, I would hope that NIST keep us fully apprised of its efforts to implement and enforce the Fastener Quality Act and that it act aggressively to finalize all implementing regulations as quickly as possible.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on a historic bill. This telecommunications bill is historic because it finally will bring to an end the era of telephone and cable television monopolies. The bill is historic because it will trigger technological innovation as we have never seen before--stimulating economic growth and job creation by small and large businesses alike. But just as striking as these developments undoubtedly will be, the bill is historic for another important reason. It demonstrates that Congress can work together in a bipartisan way to produce a bill that serves the interests of all Americans. I congratulate my friends, Chairmen Bliley and Fields, Representative Markey and others, for their unrelenting pursuit of bipartisan agreement on this bill. This is the way Congress is supposed to work, and I think we can all learn from this example. Chairman Bliley approached this task in a very productive way, soliciting advice and offering compromise at many points along the way. He managed the process extremely well, as evidenced by the widespread support that he has mustered--not only in the conference and in the House--but in every part of an industry that usually can agree on little else. Chairman Bliley and others working on this conference committee should be congratulated and given our thanks for the remarkable product before us today--a product that was in the making for several Congresses before this one, and that will finally make its way to the President's desk and beyond. This telecommunications bill certainly will change the way Americans get their information and entertainment. No longer will consumers have just one company to choose from for the provision of local telephone or cable television service. Companies will be able to offer any or all of these services, giving consumers for the first time the ability to buy packages of telecommunications services that provide them with the best value at the lowest price. This bill also will enable parents to make intelligent choices about what television programming is appropriate for their children. It requires that new television sets be equipped with a computer chip designed to automatically detect the rating that has been assigned to any television show. And it encourages television broadcasters to develop a voluntary rating system that will provide parents with the means to discern whether programming coming into their home is age- appropriate for their children. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few special words about the concerns of our local elected officials, and most especially our mayors. This conference agreement strengthens the ability of local governments to collect fees for the use of public rights-of-way. For example, the definition of the term ``cable service'' has been expanded to include game channels and other interactive services. This will result in additional revenues flowing to the cities in the form of franchise fees. In addition, the legislation also lifts the FCC's current ban on the imposition of franchise fees for telephone companies' open video systems. That too will increase revenues to the cities. At the same time, State and local governments retain their existing authority to impose fees on telecommunications providers, including cable companies that offer telecommunications services. Finally, and perhaps most important, section 303 does not preclude a local government from lawfully managing public rights-of-way with respect to a cable company's telecommunications services. In short, Mr. Speaker, we have listened closely to our local officials, who have done a good job of helping us understand their concerns, and have crafted a bill that not only retains their current authorities but, in many instances, strengthens them. We appreciate the support for the bill we have received from the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties. Is this a perfect bill? No. No bill as large and complex as this one, addressing so many difficult issues, is ever perfect. But it is an excellent piece of legislative work. it will open telecommunications markets in a fair and balanced manner--it provides American businesses with a level playing field on which to compete, and it removes those aspects of government regulation that are antiquated while ensuring that every American continues to receive affordable service. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to pay tribute to the incredible efforts of our staff, who put in countless hours, often working into the wee hours of the morning, to bring this bill to fruition. Our special thanks go to the minority staff of the Commerce Committee, especially David Leach, who has worked on the legislation for several Congresses and guided our successful efforts in the House in the last Congress, and Andy Levin, who joined our staff as a new counsel at the start of the conference and truly received a baptism under fire. I want to thank Colin Crowell and David Meulton from the staff of subcommittee ranking member Ed Markey for their hard work, as well as the staff of the Judiciary Committee. From the Commerce Committee, Mike Regan and Cathy Reid did outstanding work in coordinating these efforts. And as always, the legislative counsel, Steve Cope, and his colleague on the PUHCA issue, Pope Barrow, did their usual extraordinary job. We appreciate all the staffs' hard work. Once again, I congratulate my colleagues on this achievement, and I urge all Members to join me in approving this conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a very regrettable red herring. We have now a system of analog broadcasting for television. It is possible to develop a system of digital broadcasting in which we get a superior signal, both as to sound and as to picture. We are trying to move ourselves from this analog system to the superior digital system and to achieve the benefits which will flow from that kind of use. To do so, we have seen that the Federal Communications Commission has made available a block of spectrum which will be made available to each of the broadcasters so that they can use it for going from analog to the new digital system, and they will continue to use the analog system which they now have during the time that the changeover takes place. There are literally hundreds of millions of television sets in this country that have to be changed from the analog to digital. At the conclusion of the entire process, one of these existing sets of signals will be returned to the Federal Government. They will be unimpaired because the spectrum is a system of availability of receiving signals.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time, because I would like the attention of my good friend from California. He speaks with great enthusiasm on the subject of reforms. I would remind the gentleman that last year or, rather, the year before last under the old rules, this body got from our Committee on Energy and Commerce, in agreement with the Committee on Judiciary, a bill which did substantially the same thing that this bill does right here. I would remind him that the matter was handled expeditiously and splendidly; that the delay occurred not here but in the Senate. If the gentleman wishes, I will be delighted to inform him as to why the delay occurred and why that bill never passed the Senate. But I do not think the gentleman has any reason to discuss the failure of the old rules or the success of the new rules on the basis of this. We gave this House a bill which does substantially the same thing. It was almost identical in language, in intent, and in substance to that which we have before us at this particular time, and I hope my good friend, for whom I have enormous respect and affection, will now be absolved of his very unfortunate error on this. Since I have mentioned him I will be delighted to yield to him.

Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, again with great affection for the gentleman, it would serve him and this body well if he were to seek more suitable subjects for making a claim that reform has accomplished anything of merit. I would conclude by making the observation that this is a good bill. I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and the members of the committee. Last year, I would remind my dear friend from California, we got 423 votes. I hope we will do as well today. Four hundred twenty-three is a large number of votes.

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe I can save the body a little time. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report. I believe the gentleman's claim for the 20 minutes is entirely correct. I would urge the Chair to grant the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 20 minutes, 20 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and 20 minutes to myself.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the spectrum will come back to the Government at the conclusion, either the digital or the analog, and the citizens will during that time have a chance to change over to the new kind of television sets. The broadcasters will be able to convert to the new kind of broadcasting system. The country will achieve the enormous benefit of this set of events, and the public will receive the opportunity to make the changeover in an orderly fashion in a way which benefits everybody. The taxpayers will gain. There is no giveaway of anything. At the conclusion of this time, the broadcasters will have the same amount of spectrum they have now and an orderly changeover to a superior system of broadcasting will have taken place during this period.

Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the House will be adjourning shortly until February 6. Mark Twain would have greeted that news with great joy and said that during that period of time the Republic was safe. The fact of the matter is the Republic is going to be in greater danger during that period. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, found, the one thing that was important for him to do as the Secretary of the Treasury was to assure the credit of the United States. This was something which had not existed prior to that time. In consequence, the currency, the full faith and credit of the United States, and, indeed, the economic promises and commitments of this country, meant very little. Alexander Hamilton set in place a tradition and a history and a culture which during those years since his tenure have been manifested by two things: First, that the United States paid its debts when due; and, second, that the United States' credit was regarded as the best in the world. Today as we sit here, credit rating agencies are reviewing the credit of the United States to see whether in fact the credit of the United States should continue to be AAA or whether in fact it should be reduced to some lower number. During the time that we have been discussing the budget, we have been talking to our Republican colleagues about that matter, they have been stressing that there were two purposes that they were going to carry out to assure that the President agreed to their stand with regard to a balanced budget. The first was to bring a Government shutdown. That has happened not once, but twice. The American taxpayers, American business, American industry, American citizens, have undergone substantial hardship. Our foreign trade has been impaired. The programs upon which business, industry, ordinary citizens are dependent, have all been hurt. Checks by the Government to its contractors have been delayed and withheld. Losses of employment amongst Government contractors have occurred. Federal employees have been laid off. Federal employees have been paid for not working. That need not have been done. Indeed, with wise fiscal management, no party in control of a legislative branch of government would permit a situation of that kind to obtain. We have seen the consequences of that: new trucking unable to be certified, businesses unable to send delegations abroad to promote sale of U.S. commodities and goods and services, Americans incapable of bringing in foreigners to see things like the automobile show; our monuments to the success of that unfortunate policy. We are now looking at February 29. What will happen on February 29? On February 29, the United States will go into default on its obligations. At that time, the credit of the United States will be reduced in the eyes of all on that sole event. It need not happen. Never before in my memory in this body, or indeed in the history of the United States since Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of Treasury, has that sort of event occurred. We are going to adjourn here shortly then until February 29. We will probably do so without having addressed the question of the debt ceiling. Let us look a little bit at what happens to this country if a default occurs. My Republican colleagues are feeling very, very macho about this matter, because they are now able to say they have a tool which they can use which will force the President to do their bidding. Well, the President has not been forced to do their bidding by the shutdown of the Government. Indeed, the only persons who have been hurt have been the United States and the people of the United States. The President has done his best to see to it that the country is run during those periods of time. But we have wasted billions in paying salaries to people who did not work. We are now paying people who are not able to work effectively because their agencies are not fully funded, even though we are paying them. But let us look ahead to see what will occur.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, interest rates will rise. Prices of U.S. Government obligations will fall. Interest rates will rise on municipal bonds, State securities, and private debt, corporate and individual. Prices of bonds will drop. The securities markets, both stocks and bonds, will fall. The credit rating of the United States will be impaired. Employment will rise. Home mortgages will be thrown into disarray. Homeowners will find the value of their real estate declining. Pension funds will be impaired by reason of the loss of the value of their equity and the loss of earnings. Perhaps high unemployment in this country and around the world will occur because of a significant breakdown in the world money markets and the world currency markets. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the Republican side, if they are going to play with fire, to burn only themselves, but be careful of what they do.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. My good friend from Michigan is a wonderful Member, and I am very fond of him. But his memory is short; it tends to be a little on the convenient side. The gentleman has forgotten where this big debt came from. When Jimmy Carter left office and Ronald Reagan came in, the national debt of the United States was $700 billion. With Reagan's first budget, the so-called Gramm-Latta budget, Democrats over here warned that the practical consequences of that was going to be that it was going to enormously increase the debt because it immensely increased military expenditures, cut expenses in other programs slightly, and gave a massive tax cut to the well-to-do. Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, the national debt by the time that Mr. Reagan left office went from $700 billion to $4.5 trillion. It multiplied somewhere between 5 and 7 times. My Republican colleagues, in talking about debt, deficits, and fiscal irresponsibility, forget the fact that it was their budget. They also forget the fact that the Democrats during that period of time who controlled the House cut, cut the Reagan budgets by $49 billion, and they reapportioned the money so we spent less on defense and we spent more on environment, on health, on senior citizens, on education, and on things that are really important to the long life of this country. I want to tell my good friend something else. He is complaining about the entitlement programs. The Republicans on this side of the aisle came up with a great idea, that cost-of-living should be included in Social Security. Up until that time, the Congress always raised Social Security payments and adjusted the income and the outgo so that the two figures would be roughly in balance, and so that the fund would remain safe and secure and solvent. There was a congressionally managed program, which we managed very carefully. My Republican colleagues did not like voting on that, and they figured that the best way they could get out of casting that vote was to then tie it to the cost-of-living, so that is how Social Security began to get out of balance, because my Republican colleagues came up with a splendid idea that Social Security should become essentially a pay-as-you-go, rather than a trust fund program. That is why we have that program to address today. That is why the budget is in such a mess.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, under the rather fitting title of providing for the consideration of most-favored-nation treatment for Bulgaria, we are about to pass legislation to do something, not much, but a little, about the problems of the shutdown of the Government that has been brought about by my Republican colleagues over here. What we are doing, however, is doing it under a closed rule. The Republican Members have very carefully seen to it that the Committee on Rules again denies this House an opportunity to take care of the Government employees and to take care of the people who are paying taxes to provide for Government services which are authorized by this body and by the Senate. What we are seeing here is that a closed rule is going to deny us the means to really get the Government up and going. If I were to come in here on my own and walk down to the well and offer a piece of legislation like this which says that we are going to let some Federal employees work and get paid for doing nothing, and some get paid for doing a little bit or doing almost nothing, and to allow contractors not to do the job, and to continue a situation where, for example, in my district, the F-100 Ford truck cannot be certified by EPA, and that we are going to pay people for doing nothing, they would say, Dingell, you are out of your cotton-picking mind. This is nothing more or less than a replay of welfare. What we are doing is setting up a situation, quite shamefacedly and improperly under the title of ``Consideration of Most-Favored-Nation Treatment for Bulgaria,'' to have us move forward to set up people who are not going to produce and who are going to continue to cost us somewhere between $40 and $60 million a day for unproductive work, building an ongoing backlog of work that is not being done to address the real problems that people are having in this country. I say that this is an embarrassment, and I do not blame my Republican colleagues for misnaming it. Now, I intend to vote for the proposal. I intend to vote against this rule, because the rule is a disgrace, and I intend to vote to defeat the previous question, as it well should be, so that we can get a decent proposal before this body.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my Republican colleagues are embarrassed to speak on a resolution of this character, because what it is going to do is it is going to pay billions of dollars to people who ain't going to be able to do nothing to serve the public interest or carry out the functions of the Government. The issue here is very simple: This is a go-home-or-go-traveling resolution. People who on this side are going to vote for this are going to be able to go home and tell the people what a great job they did for the people, or be off to some warm and happy place where they can enjoy themselves fully. But make no mistake; the Government is not going to function when we pass this legislation. The Government is simply going to have a Speaker who is going to have authority to put everything over, while nothing happens in the Government. We are going to pay a lot of people, and we are going to pay a lot of people to do nothing. Toxic waste cleanup is not going forward; student loans are not going to be there for our young people; Housing and Urban Development programs, including home purchase loans, are not going to be available; Peace Corps is not going to be funded; Centers for Disease Control is not going to have the money to address the flu outbreak in the Midwest; and the food and shelter program of FEMA is not going to be funded. This is a phoney program. Vote against it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, in an extraordinary change of policy, my Republican colleagues have changed our policy with regard to payment of our Federal employees. For the last 3 weeks American workers who work for the Federal Government had been working without pay. For the next 3 weeks under the resolutions that we have adopted today, Americans who work for the Federal Government will be paid without working. Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary change, and neither of the two sets of circumstances are desirable from the standpoint of any kind of common sense. My suggestion to my Republican colleagues is let us get together. Let us work the issues out. Let us have some honest discussion. Let us not play games. Let us do the business of the country. That is what we are here for. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my Republican colleagues, they are the majority, it is their duty to rule and to govern. It is their duty to run the place. To complain constantly about the President refusing to submit budgets ill becomes them, ill befits this institution, and does little except to bring all of us into a state of disrepute and degradation. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to function as a majority responsibly should.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is now 3 months and a few days since the fiscal year closed and since the Congress had a responsibility to enact a new national budget and to adopt some 13 appropriations bills. None of that has been done. My Republican colleagues are anxious to tell us how the President can get the country back to work. Well, it is very simple. We can get the Government going again by the simple expediency of continuing the negotiations and by seeing to it that a continuing resolution in the proper form has been passed. Our Republican colleagues have told us what they are going to do. The Speaker himself said this: I do not care what the price is, I do not care if we have no executive offices and no bonds for 30 days. Not this time. He said he would shut the Government down and he has done so. Federal employees, citizens, everyone else is hurting because of this consequence. My advice is, let us not slink out of town like a bunch of skulkers; let us pass a continuing resolution and get about the business of the country.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Yes, Mr. Speaker. The resolution says questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. That quotes from the rules. Mr. Speaker, as you stand there, I would call to your attention that one of the most important functions of this institution is to manage, to expend, under the power of the purse. We have the duty of collect taxes, we have the duty to expend moneys by authorization and by appropriations. None of that has until this time been properly carried out. Certainly the questions of the integrity of this body and the integrity of the proceedings, the dignity of this body, are severely impaired by our failure to provide for the proper running of the Government of the United States. That is a failure of this institution. That is a failure because we have not been able to address the questions of the budget in a proper fashion. I would call to the attention of the Chair our failure to carry out our duty, our failure to carry out our responsibilities of appropriating funds, of authorizing expenditures, or of implementing the budget as required by the Budget Act, clearly affect the privileges, the prerogatives, the dignity, and the integrity of this institution. Certainly the respect in which the public holds this body has fallen to something approaching one of the lowest points that I have ever seen in my career. Clearly, without taking the action here of bringing this matter to a vote and, clearly, without having taken the steps necessary to permit this body to commence addressing the single largest problem that confronts this country today, and that is the orderly running of its Government, the funding of its public affairs, and retaining the respect of its people, we are not carrying out our duties. It is very plain to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the privileges of the House is entwined with this so intimately that the questions of the privileges of the House and the functioning of this body cannot be separated one from another. I urge a proper ruling on this matter.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, somewhat reluctantly, in opposition to the welfare reform conference report. I do so because my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have left no real choice for those Members who want to make smart and reasonable reforms. Earlier this year, I supported an alternative bill with work requirements, time limits for receiving assistance, and more flexibility for States to make their welfare programs work better. The bill before us fails any reasonable sense of balance. It singles out the harshest cuts for children, such as denying AFDC cash assistance to 4 million children. This is not right. Neither is it right to out 6 million children from the health care benefits of Medicaid. As we work to reform welfare, it is important to remember that we do not provide welfare assistance purely for altruistic reasons. We provide financial assistance to those in need because it is in the best interest of our society to do so. Helping Americans who are experiencing severe financial difficulties get back on their feet, at its most practical level, lowers our crime rate and increases our Nation's ability to compete by strengthening the quality of our work force. At its loftiest level, it increases the quality of many people's lives. Our goal is to return people to work--enabling them to support their families, and provide for those children, elderly, and disabled who are unable to provide for themselves. For the most part, this requires funding of the basic necessities--health care, child care, and job training. The bill fails to provide to States adequate funding for any of these three. The bill repeals the current guarantee of Medicaid coverage for AFDC families, thus leaving over 4 million mothers without health care. It also mandates that 50 percent of welfare recipients participate in work programs, yet offers no funding for these programs. This places a $26 billion unfunded mandate on States to operate job training programs, and to care for the children of those enrolled. In our rush to try to get home for the holidays, I find it sad that our friends on the majority side of the aisle have chosen to mark the spirit of the season by pushing through an excessive level of cuts disproportionately aimed at the most helpless among us. I am told the President will veto this legislation. That is the right choice. Perhaps then we can mark the new year by working in a bipartisan manner to enact smart and reasonable welfare reform.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, a bad bill, conceived with bad process, badly handled, leading to serious abuses in the marketplace, putting innocent and helpful investors at mercy of scoundrels and rogues, has been vetoed by the President. The President said that he is prepared to sign a good bill, that he is prepared to work with the Congress to end the litigation abuses while at the same time protecting the legitimate rights of ordinary investors. He says that in his message. I urge my colleagues to listen to the President of the United States and to read the veto message, to see why it is this iniquitous piece of legislation was vetoed. It is a poor piece of legislation. It favors rascals and rogues over the innocent and the honest. It creates a situation where a law-abiding citizen cannot get decent redress in the courts. It raises questions as to the integrity of the American process for offering securities, and it will raise questions about the integrity of our markets. It will ultimately hurt the process of developing capital in this country because it will threaten the thing which is absolutely essential to the workings of the capital markets of the United States, and that is public confidence. A lot of people think that the public securities offerings and the industry in this country run on money. That is not true. The market runs on public confidence, and if it produces the public confidence it has been doing since the 1934 act was passed, the market produces a lot of money for everybody involved. What is wrong with this bill? First, the process was unfair, and no careful attention was given to responsible amendments or to intelligent discussion of the abuses that were going to be unleashed upon the investing public. But beyond that, the President points out why he has vetoed it. The pleading requirements require not a genius but a psychiatrist, and the discovery process is closed until such time as it is impossible to deal with the claims that an honest claimant would make who had been improperly treated and had been hurt by improper behavior of scoundrels in the securities industry. Second, it has a most curious safe harbor provision, a safe harbor provision which permits active fraud, active fraud, deceit, deceit and serious misbehavior. I would urge my colleagues to not permit a safe harbor provision which allows such scandalous behavior to be inflicted upon the trusting and the innocent investor by slippery managers of corporations interested in maximizing stock prices or their particular earnings. Last of all, it treats the plaintiffs in suits of this kind in a way which makes the loser pay, a situation which will deny honest citizens who might not prevail in a lawsuit an opportunity to expect fair treatment from the courts of their country. I would urge my colleagues to support the President. The veto is a good one. If the veto is sustained, we can come back and write a decent bill. We can write a bill which addresses the real problems which exist with regard to litigation abuses, and at the same time we can protect American investors and protect the confidence of the American people in their securities industry and their securities markets. That is the step which would be in the best interests of not only the country, the securities market, the securities industry, public confidence in the securities that are offered in this country, but also something which is best and fairest to those who do not have the means to protect themselves against malefactors of great wealth. I urge my colleagues to vote to sustain the veto. I urge my colleagues on the committee who have the ability to do these things to then work with us to achieve a decent bill which protects the interests of all.

Mr. DINGELL

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the tactics of my Republican colleagues. Rather than trying to score political points, we should be working to balance the budget and to restore Government services to our constituents. The current shutdown is costing the American people more than $100 million a day. It is also creating problems such as delaying benefits for our veterans and seniors. We must protect future generations from being saddled with debt. However, the balanced budget we enact must meet several fundamental principles which have been stated by the President many times. It must protect Medicare, Medicaid, education, veterans medical care and benefits, nutrition programs for children and the elderly, and the environment. My Republican colleagues agreed to these same principles last month. Yet, they refuse to talk. And, they are unwilling to negotiate any significant changes to their extreme budget proposal which targets our most vulnerable citizens to give the rich a generous tax cut. They would rather see the Government close and risk default. The President's budget, which this bill represents in name only, does not take that mean-spirited, reckless approach. It protects health care for the elderly and the disabled persons of this Nation. It also makes sure that our children receive a decent meal and a quality education in a safe environment. The Republicans claim that the President's budget will not reach balance in 7 years. However, it may. The fact of the matter is we don't know. Seven years is a long time, and there is no way to predict with certainty what our economic growth will be over that period. Furthermore, history teaches us that every time Republicans put their stamp on a budget deal, the deficit has ballooned. The 1990 Budget deal that President Bush signed was supposed to bring the budget to balance. It ultimately led to the highest annual deficits on record--well above $300 billion. The first Reagan budget also was supposed to balance the budget. It too failed miserably. In 1981, when President Reagan took office, the national debt stood at $1 trillion. After 12 years of Republican administrations pushing their failed economic policies, the debt skyrocketed to more than $4 trillion. My Republican colleagues are fond of claiming that the escalation of the national debt is the fault of the Democrats. I would remind them that Congress cut every budget request that Presidents Reagan and Bush submitted except one. The record of President Clinton on deficit reduction is quite different. Rather than merely talking about deficit reduction, President Clinton set out on day one to address a problem he did not create but inherited from his predecessors. He did so in a fair and responsible manner, and with great success. President Clinton's 1993 budget cut the deficit by $700 billion. During his Presidency, the deficit has fallen 3 years in a row--that has not happened since President Harry S. Truman was in office. It now stands at the lowest level in 12 years. We can and must build upon this progress. We should not, however, shut down the Government, break off negotiations, and bring up proposals that are invented to represent the President's budget. Sadly, this is just what the Republicans have done. Why? Because the President is unwilling to accept their extreme budget plan, or should I say their tax cut. When it comes time to vote, I will stand with the President who has shown the American people he knows how to reduce the deficit. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I call upon the leadership to put aside this political charade and begin the work of the people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a political exercise. It does not have anything to do with dealing with the budget or the balancing of the budget. The proposal has never been read, it has never been exposed to the light of day. My Republican colleagues know as much about the Russian budget as they know about what is in this legislation. The bill is not going to be read, this bill is not going to be heard in any committee, there is no opportunity to amend. There is not even a motion to recommit made available under this rule. Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry charade. Only a scoundrel would say or a fool would say that this is a fair process, and only a fool would believe that this is a fair process. This is a mechanism simply to get my Republican colleagues off the hook because they have closed down the Federal Government.