John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Bonior] for his kind words, and tell him how much I cherish his friendship and how much I love him, and how grateful I am to him for having done this. It has been a singular honor, a somewhat uncomfortable moment, but nothing has been said tonight that I feel there is a strong need for me to deny. I want to thank all of my colleagues who have stayed up so late to participate in this event and tell them how much I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Knollenberg] the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. Gordon] the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Levin] the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Goodling] with whose dad I served, and who was a great friend of mine in times past and with whom we wrote great legislation; my good friend, Mr. Barcia, the gentlemen from Michigan, [Mr. Chrysler] Mr. Smith, and Mr. Ehlers, who has provided some remarkable leadership in the area of the environment, and for which I am grateful, and my partner and friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Weldon] who worked with me on the Migratory Bird Commission. We have done great work in a small area which is so little known that it is able to be uniquely effective, and we are very proud. Also my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Stupak]. I am grateful to you and to Speaker Gingrich, the gentleman from Georgia. I want to express my appreciation to him for his friendship and for his being here tonight. It means a great deal to me. I am honored that you have mentioned my wife, Deborah, who is very dear to me and who is an extremely important part of this family and of whatever success I have had. Her wisdom and goodness and loyalty have been a shining light and a source of enormous strength to me. I am singularly blessed in having had a wonderful family, a great mother who lent strength and dignity to the family, and a dad who left a great tradition, of which I am very proud, and wonderful children. We come from, as does my good friend, Mr. Bonior a family of Polish immigrants, and that tradition is something of which I am enormously proud. I have served and represented a great district, the Sixteenth District. It is called the Down Rivers, and the people who live there are great people who work hard, raise great families, take pride in their communities, and are great Americans. They were the arsenal of democracy in time of war. They are people who are proud of and work hard on behalf of their communities. I owe an enormous debt to a great staff, which has served me and this body, the committees and the people of the Sixteenth District for many years with great dedication and decency, and I have had the privilege of serving, as mentioned, on the wonderful Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is a great institution and was made so under the leadership of Sam Rayburn, who I admired. I had the benefit of his wisdom and guidance and teaching, as I did of some other great speakers, like John McCormack, to whom I hope God will be very, very kind, and I know he will, and our great friend, Tip O'Neill, who was a wonderful and unique man. I would just like to say that it has been a singular honor to serve here for 40 years. This is a great institution, a great body. Great human beings are here, wonderful people. Great friendships are generated across the aisles. In spite of the sometimes terrifying partisanship that exists in this institution, really strong and wonderful friendships exist here. They are the thing of which service in this place is really made to be meaningful, good, and it is something which contributes to the goodness and the strength of the country. I am proud that I have been here. I seriously doubt if I will be able to ever express my full gratitude to my colleagues for the things they have said about me tonight. I note that I will not be denying them, and that, I will enjoy them always. I will say it may, perhaps, have gone a bit to my head, and perhaps some of my colleagues and I think the lovely Deborah will have to inform me that I perhaps should not take the events of the evening too seriously. I want to also mention the fact that she was sitting up there with her very special friend, Mary Anne Gingrich, who is a wonderful and a fine woman. I want to just conclude by saying that it is always a privilege to serve as part of this institution. It is a great body, it is a wonderful place. It is the people's House, and in good times and bad, in differences and in friendship, we serve the public interest, and remarkably well. We may all take pride in that. We may all take pride in the fact that we have had the privilege of serving in perhaps the greatest and most democratic institution in the entirety of not only the free world but the rest of the world. I thank my colleagues for what they have said about me. I am grateful to each of you, both for what you have said, and your friendship. Thank you very much.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the objection just raised to the unanimous- consent request from the gentleman from Utah says everything. This document is nothing more or less than a political document. It says something that everybody can vote for, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing about what it is we are here to do. Basically, it simply says we think we ought to balance the budget in 7 years. But it says absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever about getting the government back to work. We have nine cabinet departments and the EPA which are now shut because the Republican Members walked out of the discussions with the President and the Democrats. That is why the Government is shut down. This will cost about $160 million to $600 million a day. We do not know exactly what the precise numbers are but that is what it is. The hard fact is the Republicans have said this, speaking through their principal spokesman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]. We will cooperate with the President to reach an agreement but we will not compromise. How does one cooperate without compromising? The answer is it cannot be done. And the answer is this resolution does not do anything to resolve the problem of a country which is incapable of having its government function on its behalf because of the behavior of the Republican Members of this body who have, first of all, walked out of the compromise; second of all, objected to a meaningful improvement in what it is that this House would do with regard to the resolution before us; and, last of all, they are going to keep the Government shut down. I do not know how long it is that they are going to do it but, again, Mr. Gingrich has some interesting things to say. He says, 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. Well, the Republicans want to shut this place down. They want to shut the Government down. They want to eliminate Government services and they want to pass a tawdry resolution like this which accomplishes nothing. I would urge that the Members consider perhaps the changes made by the gentleman or that we consider the fact that this legislation is significantly lacking in that it does not say we are going to try to see to it that Medicare is protected, that Medicaid is protected, that education is protected, that the poor and the unfortunate are not going to be cast into deep and dark hardship just before Christmas. I would observe to my colleagues that just before the holidays is a time my Republican colleagues usually choose to shut down the Government. Why they are so stricken with the holiday spirit and why they seek to do so at such time is beyond my ken, but I would again observe to my colleagues that the burden for governing this country and the burden for seeing to it that the Government runs is on the Republicans Members who have shut the Government down, who are denying the people the access to their Government agencies and denying them the working of programs which we all recognize are needed for the good of the country. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to recognize the fault is over there. The fault is on those who are shutting this Government down and presenting us, instead, with this nonsensical piece of whimsy which accomplishes nothing in the public interest and does nothing to get the country going again.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on December 6, 1995, the House passed the conference report on H.R. 1058, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. I am disappointed that the House approved this legislation. Many experts predict that it will only marginally deter frivolous lawsuits while causing significant harm to investors with meritorious claims. By this time next week, President Clinton will have had to veto the bill or sign it. At this point, I would like to submit for the Record two articles that point out the serious flaws in this bill and why it should be vetoed. [From the Bond Buyer, Dec. 5, 1995] California Counties Ask Clinton To Veto Securities Bill (By Joe Bel Bruno) Los Angeles.--The California State Association of Counties on Friday elected a new president--San Mateo County supervisor Mike Nevin--whose first action was sending a letter to President Clinton opposing the Securities Litigation Reform Act. CSAC, a nonprofit corporation that promotes the interests of California's 58 counties before the state legislature and Congress, contends the reform act will severely hinder local governments' ability to recover losses related to securities fraud. ``We need to have the ability to recover losses in the case of securities fraud,'' Nevin said yesterday. ``We just wanted to let the President know that this bill, if he signs it, would make things tough on local governments and the taxpayers. It would be sending the wrong message.'' The letter to Clinton was signed by 106 county and other local government officials. In addition to CSAC, signers of the letter include the California Association of County Treasurer/Tax Collectors, the city and county of San Francisco and the counties of Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Riverside, Alameda, Kern, and Fresno. The letter was also signed by administrators of several county retirement systems. A House-Senate conference committee has cleared the way for final congressional action on the bill. The Senate and House are slated to vote on it on Dec. 5 and Dec. 6. As currently worded, the bill would limit the type of securities-related lawsuit that could be filed, as well as the dollar amount of damages requested. Steve Szalay, executive director of CSAC, said the legislation would have a dramatic impact on local governments. The legislation was a much-discussed topic at the association's 101st annual meeting in San Jose last week, he said. ``Local governments are victims of securities fraud; they need access to the courts to recover their losses,'' he said in a press statement. ``Orange County, on behalf of 187 independent California governments, is suing to recover about $1.5 billion on the grounds that the investments made on its behalf were unsuitable and violated the California constitution and statutes.'' ``This bill makes it very difficult for local governments and taxpayers to recover their losses in securities fraud cases, and it will give wrongdoers a green light to commit more fraud,'' Szalay said. The letter was drafted and signed by the association's new board on Friday. Also elected to the association's board was Yolo County supervisor Helen Thomson, first vice president; and El Dorado County supervisor John Upton, second vice president. Nevin represents urban counties, while Thomson and Upton represent suburban and rural counties, respectively. One of the association's goals is educating the public about the value and need for county programs and services. Founded in 1895, CSAC is headquartered in Sacramento and has a research office in the District of Columbia.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bill being considered today includes numerous amendments to the Fastener Quality Act. The Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted a multiyear, indepth investigation of counterfeit and substandard fasteners that ultimately led to the enactment of the Fastener Quality Act on November 16, 1990. Unfortunately, the regulations implementing the law have not yet been issued by the National Institute on Standards and Technology [NIST] and are now more than 4 years overdue. During the last Congress, as part of the National Competitiveness Act, amendments to the Fastener Quality Act were passed by the House. The amendments adopted related to heat mill certification and minor nonconformance. In its bill, the Senate included the same amendments, plus an additional amendment that would have permitted commingling at all levels of the industry--from manufacturing through distribution. I, as well as the administration, opposed this amendment because it would seriously undermine safety and accountability under the law. Because efforts to pass the underlying bill were unsuccessful, the fastener amendments were not enacted into law and NIST has made no effort to issue the long overdue implementing regulations. The bill before us includes amendments on heat mill certification, minor nonconformance, commingling, as well as other amendments. The commingling amendment appears to be more limited in scope than the previous Senate provision and allows purchasers to request lot traceability. There are additional amendments to the Fastener Quality Act that also appear in the bill. To my knowledge, no hearings have been held on these amendments by any congressional committee nor has any adequate explanation or justification been advanced for these provisions, other than that certain fastener industry interests support them. I note that Chairman Bliley recently wrote Chairman Walker, making it clear that the Commerce Committee has not waived its jurisdictional concerns about the legislation and requesting that members of the Commerce Committee be named as equal conferees on fastener provisions in any ensuing House-Senate conference. I wish to express my support for Chairman Bliley's request and trust that we will be able to have an opportunity to participate fully in any conference on these issues of great importance to public safety.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the bill before us. This bill would temporarily place the management of national parks and wildlife refuges under State control, and it raise several concerns. First, as author of the underlying legislation for the National Wildlife Refuge System, I have long opposed any giveaways in Federal authority to the States. These lands belong to the people of the United States--not any one State, and they must be managed according to the purposes established through Federal legislation. Second, as a long-time hunter, I, too, wish to see the refuges remain open. There is a simple way to achieve this, and one which the majority has twice failed to do by bringing an appropriations bill to this floor which is so extreme that it cannot pass. The Interior appropriations bill is over 2 months late. Third, there are unresolved questions about the liability and other matters when the Federal Government hands over the keys of these treasures to the States. The majority is right! It is irresponsible to close down our national parks and the refuge system. It is a shame that we are facing a second Government shutdown later this week because the majority is unable to pass a reasonable funding bill for parks and refuges. Now I must say that I have the most respect for the chairman of the Resources Committee, with whom I have worked diligently to assemble a bill which will make improvements in our Refuge System. H.R. 2677 is bad legislation which goes against those things which Chairman Young and I are trying to achieve with legislative reforms to improve our refuges, and does so to try to carve out exemptions for hunters. As a hunter, I want refuges open. As a legislator, I want good legislation for our refuge system. H.R. 2677 might be good politics, but it is terrible policy. I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule on a bad bill. It should be rejected. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], for making this time available. The bill has not been changed. The Wall Street Journal says it. What does it say? It says that the House Republican leadership determined to overcome an embarrassing loss last week and will try again to pass a compromise $80.6 spending bill, but without restoring additional funds for veterans medical care. It goes on to say that new construction funds will be cut back by the GOP. But this is where the leadership hopes to get votes, by adding language that raises the hopes of additional medical clinics in the home district of three lawmakers, who it goes on to name. I think that is wonderful. But what we really need is a bill which is fair and decent and which takes care of the veterans. I would point out to my colleagues that there is not a new nickel in this bill for veterans care. The same abuses with regard to the environment are there, the same improper legislation in an appropriations bill is there. Remember, the bill last week was overwhelmingly rejected by this body, and the reason was that it did not provide adequate care to American veterans. Better than 1 million veterans will not be getting care and better than 40 facilities will close which are now providing health care to veterans because of this bill and budget. Also better than 5,000 people who are providing health care to American veterans will lose their job at VA under this bill. The quality of care for American veterans will continue to erode to satisfy my Republican colleagues' desire to balance the budget at the expense of the poor, the unfortunate, and the veterans.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as Yogi Berra said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' On December 7, the day on which the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we are bringing up a bill of special concern and interest to our veterans. This is exactly the same bill that was rejected by the House recently, because it slashed veterans health care some $400 million below the administration's request, and some $213 million below the choke-hold level that the House had passed. The same bill is back before us. Let us reject it again, because it is no better bill today than it was last week when we rejected it. I remember my vote last time, and I know my colleague do. We voted for veterans, for their families, for their children. We told the majority that while we favored a balanced budget, we do not favor a budget that balances on the back of our veterans. We said that with their slashing of Medicare, their trashing of Medicaid, and their bashing of every other item in the social safety net, adequate health services for our Nation's veterans becomes even more vital. We said then this bill is unacceptable. It is still unacceptable. It has not changed. It will cut funds for construction of two hospitals, including one needed to replace a hospital damaged in the L.A. earthquake of 1991. It will lead to firing of health care workers. It will lead to denial of health care for veterans. It includes the same punitive constructions on the budget of the Administrator and the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department. A vote against this bill will simply inform the Committee on Appropriations conferees, who have disregarded the instruction of this House, that they cannot so lightly do it, and that when the House informs them they are to take care of the veterans, they should do so. A vote against the bill that arbitrarily cuts 22 percent from EPA's general budget is also a good vote. It makes a total additional 25 percent cut in environmental enforcement. These cuts, totaling over $1.6 billion, come on top of nearly $1.3 billion in last year's rescission bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this outrageous behavior by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a scandalous piece of legislation. It was conceived in the most scandalous and outrageous abuse of the legislative and conference process that I have ever seen in this institution. It sanctifies the most outrageous kind of fraud and misbehavior imaginable. It is a bill that would be beloved by Mike Milken, Ivan Boesky, and Charles Keating. And, by the great scoundrels of the past like Sam Insul and the greatest of all, Mr. Ponzi. It will permit the skinning of widows and orphans. It will permit raids on pension funds, on the funds at colleges, universities, and churches, and on the moneys held and managed by local governments and States for their pensions and other citizens. It undoes over 60 years of law that has enabled investors to take action to protect themselves against the worst kinds of misbehavior. How does it do this, Dingell, you may ask. Well, I am going to tell you. The safe-harbor provision provides civil immunity in private enforcement actions for any ``untrue--forward-looking--statement of material fact''--written or oral--so long as that predictive statement is ``accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements.'' Furthermore, the provision expressly eliminates the duty of corporate insiders to update their predictions if subsequent events make them false. In a word, this conference report therefore immunizes deliberate fraud. And, in a very sad day indeed, on November 15, 1995, the SEC-- reportedly under threats to have its budget cut--wrote a letter to the Senate saying not that SEC endorsed the provision, but only indicating withdrawal of opposition this provision, representing the first time in that agency's history, that I am aware of, that it has supported a national policy that immunizes deliberate fraud from civil liability. The conference report places highly burdensome pleading requirements on plaintiffs in securities cases, and deletes a key amendment proposed by Senator Specter and adopted by the Senate, which clarified that the heightened pleading standard could be satisfied by evidence of a defendant's motive and opportunity to commit securities fraud. The conference report also contains an automatic discovery stay. The bill's elevated pleading standard for scienter--i.e., the plaintiff must ``state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind''-- will require average investors without discovery to know and state facts in pleadings that are only knowable after discovery. The conference report does not restore aiding and abetting liability in private suits nor does it provide a reasonable extension of the statute of limitations. The conference report imposes a one-sided loser pays rule on plaintiffs which would require plaintiffs to pay the entire legal fees and expenses of corporate defendants, while a defendant who files spurious motions and pleadings would have to pay only reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. The conference report establishes an unconscionable discretionary bond requirement to cover the payment of fees and expenses, with no limitations on the amount of the bond. Asking a person who may have already lost their life savings to put up as collateral their house or money set aside for the college education of their children in a meritorious case is just plain wrong. This is a blue print for fraud: company executives can issue false predictive statements, promising investors anything they want, as along as they dress them up with cautionary statements. Investors can sue in the case of egregious, deliberate fraud, but they would have to meet the new pleading standards for intent, and the bill does not let them engage in discovery to get the facts. Moreover, if the fraudsters can hide the facts for 36 months, they are home free. And you may get stuck with the company's entire legal bill. Ooops! I almost forgot to tell you about the holy water that we sprinkled on accountants, lawyers, and investment bankers. The bill's failure to restore aiding and abetting liability, coupled with the bill's proportionate liability provision, means that the company can go bankrupt and the executives can hide their ill gotten gains in an offshore bank account and investors are out of luck. Accountants, lawyers, and investment bankers can look the other way, and engage in reckless behavior that assists the fraud, and not have to pay. In the Keating case, for example, of some $240 million that was ultimately recovered by some 23,000 innocent investors, about 70 percent, or $168 million, was recovered against unscrupulous accountants, lawyers and brokers who were accessories to the fraud. Now, these rascals would be immunized under the law as a result of our failure to take this opportunity to restore aiding and abetting liability. These investors, totally devoid of any culpability, absolutely innocent, many of them elderly retirees, if this were the law at the time they brought their action, would have recovered some $16 million as opposed to the $240 million that they actually lost and recovered. This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It has been vigorously and strongly opposed by the well-respected Money magazine in four consecutive issues and by local and national newspaper editorials across the country. It is also opposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Firefighters, State Attorneys General, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the Consumer Federation of America, and the National Council of Individual Investors. I am including representative samples of their commentaries at the conclusion of my remarks for the Record. In closing, I say shame on the Congress for considering it. I say, greater shame upon us if we pass it and shame on anybody who has anything to do with it. If this abomination passes the Congress, I strongly urge President Clinton to veto this bill and send it back with instructions for us to craft balanced, bipartisan legislation that ends frivolous lawsuits without sanctifying fraud and undermining the legal rights of wronged investors. I include for the Record the following material. [From the Miami Herald, Nov. 14, 1995] Liars' Bill of Rights? While most of the country is paying attention to the feud over the federal budget, a sinister piece of legislation is making its way through Congress unnoticed. This bill lets companies report false information to investors. That's right, it essentially licenses fraud. It has passed both houses in slightly different forms. A compromise bill will be written soon. If it passes, President Clinton ought to slay it in its tracks. This bill is a story of good intentions. Some companies have been plagued by frivolous lawsuits from investors who aren't happy with the company's performance. The [[Page H 14042]] investor allege, in essence, that the company had forecast good results and then didn't deliver. That, say the plaintiffs, constitutes fraud. Well, often it doesn't. Investing has risks, including market downturns. When investors sue over mere bad luck, they cost companies money, clog courts, and drain profits from other investors. Trouble is, by trying to stop this abuse, Congress mistook a simple answer for the right answer. Its solution, in plain terms, was to declare virtually all promises by all companies to be safe from legal challenge. Under this ``remedy,'' company executives now can promise investors anything they like, with not so much as a nod to reality. They can't legally lie about the past, but if their claims are ``forward-looking,'' they can promise you the moon to get you to invest, and no one can sue them later for being misleading. Well, almost no one. The bill would allow legal action in the case of egregious, deliberate fraud, but you'd have to prove that it was intentional. And you'd have just three years to discover the fraud and furnish your proof. It's rare enough to prove outright intent under the best circumstances, but under this bill, if executives can stiff- arm you for just 36 months (not a big challenge), they'd be home free. And then--in another hair-raising provision of the bill--you'd be stuck for the company's entire legal bill. Facing such a risk, no small investor, no matter how badly cheated, would ever dare sue. This bill evidently struck many members of Congress as a simple answer to a nagging problem. It's nothing of the kind. The problem is real enough, but its solution isn't simple. And it certainly doesn't reside in a law authorizing phony statements to investors. President Clinton should veto this blunder. Then, when the fight over the budget is over, Congress can take time to think up a more rational solution to the problem.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a simple comment to make about this legislation and about the way in which it was conceived. It was conceived in sin. I have this to say to my colleagues who have done it. Shame. Shame on them. This is a raid on the small investor. It is an attack upon the public confidence in our securities system. I hear from my Republican colleagues comments about white collar crime and about criminals and violent crime. Let me tell Members what the Fraternal Order of Police had to say about this bill, in a letter which was sent by their national president. ``I urge you,'' this is the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police: I urge you to reject a bill which would make it less risky for white collar criminals to steal from police pension funds while the police are risking their lives against violent criminals. The International Association of Firefighters had a similar thing to say. Money magazine had these things to say about it, speaking on behalf of small investors: Congress aims at lawyers and ends up shooting small investors in the back. Let us stop this Congress from helping crooks cheat investors like you. Your 1,000 letters of protest may stop this Congress from jeopardizing investors. Now only Clinton can stop Congress from hurting small investors like you. Four successive editorials in Money magazine. The attorneys general of 11 States had this to say in a joint letter: We cannot countenance such a weakening of critical enforcement against white collar fraud. The bill goes so far beyond what is necessary, it would likely result in a dramatic increase in securities fraud. The U.S. Conference of Mayors says: Over 1,000 letters from State and local officials from all regions of the country have been sent to Washington, representing an extraordinary bipartisan national consensus that H.R. 1058 would imperil the ability of public officials to protect billions of dollars of taxpayer monies in short- term investments and pension funds. Here is what the Association of the Bar of the City of New York had to say: The safe harbor could immunize artfully packaged and intentional misstatements and omissions of known facts. Protecting knowingly false statements is not consistent with the purposes of the Federal securities laws and encourages exactly the kind of conduct those laws were designed to eliminate. Our Republican colleagues did this in a dark back room, unattended by anyone who was opposed to their viewpoint, except a coterie of faithful lobbyists who participated in the process. Our Republican colleagues brought us a conference report on which no voice of dissent was heard in the discussions. The bill was presented to the conference just shortly before the conference convened. What is in this bill? Virtual repealer of much of the protection of American investors, an open attack on the public confidence that we have in the securities market, and, in the safe harbor provisions, an active protection for fraud. It permits the law firm, for example, of Sly, Sneak and, Crook to put forward wonderful words of caveat like ``you really should not believe this particular footnote because it is not true, but.'' We are going to see more investor fraud and more loss of confidence in the securities industry than we have seen for years. People tell us that the securities industry functions on the basis of money. It does not. It functions on the basis of public confidence. And if the public confidence is there, billions of dollars are made by everybody and we have, in consequence of this, the most liquid, open, and fair system of raising capital in the history of mankind. It is a miracle of the age. People come from all over the world as investors, as sellers of securities to participate in this market. This legislation will go light years toward jeopardizing the public confidence in that market. I urge Members to reject this rule.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank my dear friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] for the outstanding job he has done on this legislation. With foresight that would impress Nostradamus, the legendary counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, Ferdinand Pecora, wrote a book in the 1930's to remind the public ``what Wall Street was like before Uncle Sam stationed a policeman at its corner, lest, in time to come, some attempt be made to abolish the post.'' Percora went on to describe ``a widespread repudiation of old- fashioned standards of honesty and fair dealing in the creation and sale of securities.'' William O. Douglas, who went on to serve as the second SEC Chairman and later as a Supreme Court Justice, was more blunt: ``Big business behaved like bandits raiding a frontier.'' Because the bill we are about to vote on goes far beyond what is needed to provide a reasonable remedy to the problem of frivolous lawsuits, we could be inadvertently opening the door to an era that will remind some of a time we said would never be repeated. There is no question that when President Roosevelt signed the statutes we are so profoundly altering here today, he was convinced he was closing the door on the problems that had so painfully been revealed by the 1929 crash. FDR said that ``the merchandise of securities is really traffic in the economic and social welfare of our people. Such traffic demands the utmost good faith and fair dealing on the part of those engaged in it. If the country is to flourish, capital must be invested in enterprise. But those who seek to draw upon other people's money must by wholly candid regarding the facts on which the investor's judgment is based.'' I wonder how many of the Members who will be voting here in just a few minutes know about any of this. The Speaker reminds us all to pay attention to the lessons of history, but in the midst of the longest uninterrupted bull market of the century, it may be easy to wash away memories of the catastrophic economic and market conditions that gave rise to our securities laws. But that's a grave mistake. Because then you would be disregarding the fact that between 1929 and 1932, the value of all stocks listed on the NYSE shrank by 83 percent, and that half of all the stock sold to investors from 1920 to 1933 turned out to be totally worthless. The bill before us simply goes too far. There is an expression that says that a fanatic is someone who, when he has lost sight of his objective redoubles his efforts. This legislation suffers from that quality. I am no rival for Nostradamus, but I worry that this bill is one we may come to regret deeply within the next 3 to 5 years. We have passed well-intended but disastrous legislation in the past. The names Garn, St Germain, Smoot and Hawley may remind you. This bill is going to do for the securities industry and for the investors what the names Garn and St Germain did for the depositors and for the stockholders and for the savings and loan industry. It is also going to have a factor akin to Smoot-Hawley in the field of trade. I urge my colleagues, do not let your name be associated with this mistake. Listen to reason and demonstrate that this bill can and should be improved, and you can do that only in one way, and that is by voting no. Remember the great scandals of recent history, all of which would have received an immunity bath for a large part of the participants, particularly those who were aided and abetted by this particular legislation: Orange County, Boesky, Milken, Dennis Levine, Keating, Prudential Securities, and the Common Fund. I would also urge Members to take a look just at the safe harbor provision. Never before in my memory has a legislation body given immunity bath not only to people who participated in wrongdoing but, worse than that, to people who knowingly, actively, willingly, and enthusiastically permitted, participated in the generation of fraudulent documents and in the active participation of fraudulent misbehavior in the securities market. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report. The bill is a bad one. It should be defeated.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to yield for the purposes of inquiring of my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished whip on the majority side, are we going to bring up the securities reform legislation?

Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DINGELL. Would it come up Monday or Tuesday of next week?

Mr. DINGELL. Next week, not tomorrow or Thursday, Friday?

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous bill. I rise in strong opposition to the conference report on H.R. 2099. I urge my colleagues to reject it. I hope all Americans know what is in this bill, because it reveals the real essence of the Republican vision for this country. In a budget where sacrifices had to be made to protect tax breaks for the wealthy and Republican pet projects, something had to give. Here is what gave. One group that is being forced to give is our Nation's veterans, their widows, and their children. This bill reduces funds for VA construction and improvement projects by 62 percent. It cuts $400 million from the Administration's requests for veterans' health care. What does this mean? By the year 2000, cuts mandated by this Republican budget plan will require 41 veterans' hospitals to close their doors. More than 1 million veterans will be denied health care. The Republican plan will force the elimination of about 60,000 health care positions and the cancellation of 40 construction projects for the VA. More shockingly--and one of the really spiteful things that I have seen done by the Republicans in this Congress, and that is an extraordinary event--because Secretary Jesse Brown dares to speak his mind about this bill and Republican budget priorities, the majority has added to the conference report provisions aimed at stripping huge sums and personnel out of his office. As a matter of fact, they totally eliminated his travel budget. The question then is how will he travel about the country to look at VA facilities, VA projects, and to talk to the veterans? So much for free speech and so much for the veterans in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to also cut 20 percent off of EPA's budget. It is going to see to it that cleanup of Superfund sites and the dirty waters of this Nation will be set back enormously. So much for the environment. This is also the worst attack on housing since the Hoover administration. Housing programs face $4 billion in reductions. These cuts are on top of more than $6 billion cut in last summer's rescission bill. Wrongheaded provisions are also included to undercut enforcement of fair housing and antiredlining requirements. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 2519, the Philanthropy Protection Act of 1995, and I rise in support of the bill. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Fields, for his strong leadership in introducing this bill and shepherding it through the hearing and markup process so promptly. I also commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, for bringing this legislation to the House floor today. I want to thank both gentlemen for the bipartisan and cooperative manner in which this bill has been handled by you and your able staff. Time is of the essence. As spelled out in our committee's report (104-333) on this bill, abusive litigation currently pending in Texas poses a grave threat to numerous charitable organizations who have been appropriately operating in compliance with the terms and conditions of no-action letters granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. H.R. 2519 is part of a twofold legislative effort that includes H.R. 2525, the Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995, which has been reported to the House by the Judiciary Committee. This combined legislation will eliminate the bases for antitrust and securities law claims against charitable organizations who make legitimate use of joint annuity rates. With respect to matters under the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, H.R. 2519 would codify current SEC practice under the Federal securities laws and confirm Congress' intent--that the Federal securities laws apply to investments in securities, not to gift giving. Members should note that this bill does not affect the reach or scope of the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws and that those laws would continue to prohibit ``Ponzi'' schemes and any other frauds perpetrated under the guise of charitable activity. In other words, H.R. 2519 will not cut back in any way the authority or ability of the SEC to prosecute to the fullest extent activity such as that widely reported earlier this year in connection with the Foundation For New Era Philanthropy. Finally, the Federal Trade Commission Act is not intended to serve as a back door through which plaintiffs may seek to revoke charitable donations by disguising antitrust allegations as consumer protection claims. In closing, I believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between protecting investors and consumers and facilitating the ability of philanthropic entities to manage their donations.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a vision of America, too, and one which, I think, is far better justified than anything I have heard coming from the other side of the aisle. That is a place where there is compassion, where when people are down, there is a hand out to help them up, not a handout but a handup. That is what is really important. I rise in strong opposition to this misguided bill. It does more damage to more programs than I can discuss in the time available. I will talk about Medicaid. Let us recognize the simple truth, this bill destroys the Medicaid Program. That is a program that provides health care coverage for 36 million Americans, including 4 million elderly, 6 million disabled, 18 million children, and 8 million mothers. Now, under the Gingrich and the Republican majority plan, we are no longer concerned with trying to protect health care coverage. Instead, we are taking health care coverage away from millions of Americans. Under the mantra of States rights, Republicans are shredding the safety net. The Republican bill arbitrarily cuts $160 billion from Medicaid. The Republicans argue this is not a cut, but $160 billion equals almost 2 years of total Federal spending under this program. You cannot tell me that that is not a cut, when you reduce the program by 2 years' worth of Federal expenditures. Further, the bill abdicates the Federal Government's total responsibility in Medicaid. It destroys the guarantee of health care for the elderly and for the needy, and it invites abuse by the States. In fact, it takes away all guarantees of coverage under current law. Families could be forced to sell their family home or the family farm to pay for a loved one's nursing home care. Families could face costs of as much as $40,000 a year for nursing home care for their parents. Families caring for seniors with Alzheimer's or strokes would have no guarantees, nor would the disabled, the children, or the pregnant women. That is cruel, and it is unnecessary. Last but not least, this program takes away the current law guaranteeing that Medicare premiums of low-income seniors will be paid so they can see a doctor. The bill walks away from responsible Government to help people in favor of lining the pockets of the wealthiest Americans with tax cuts. This is wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on this important measure to continue the Nation's efforts to update and expand its infrastructure of national highways. I would like to draw the House's attention to one provision that makes changes to the inspection and maintenance requirements in title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Effective inspection and maintenance of motor vehicles is a cornerstone of this Nation's efforts to reduce air pollution. It should remain so since it happens to be one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions. Having said that, I have long had concerns about the lack of flexibility exhibited by EPA in implementing the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance mandate. It should be remembered that the overly-prescriptive approach that EPA originally embarked upon was developed and implemented by the Bush administration. Administrator Browner has since attempted to create more flexibility for States. EPA has dropped the Bush administration's opposition to alternatives to centralized inspection and maintenance programs and will approve alternative approaches. It has also indicated in recent policy statements that there will be no automatic discount for States that bring in these alternatives. While these are the proper positions, there remains some skepticism that the rank and file at EPA have truly open minds about letting alternative programs submitted by States receive the proper amount of credit. Because of that, this bill includes legislative language which essentially writes into law the flexibility that EPA has already indicated it will give States. This new provision includes an opportunity for States to secure interim approval of alternative programs with EPA required to grant the State the full amount of the proposed credit during the interim period. This submission must be supported by efforts in the State to implement the program including developing regulations and securing legislative authorities. As noted, EPA must approve the full amount of the credits claimed, where the credits reflect good faith estimates. By this, we are not asking EPA to consider the State's motives but rather asking EPA to ensure that the State's estimates are based on some basic technical assessment that includes appropriate technical and empirical data wherever possible. However, EPA should not mandate any presumptive discount and should review and consider any alternative programs on their individual merits. With these additions, I am confident that the inspection and maintenance provisions of the Clean Air Act can provide economical emissions reductions vital to move the country toward the national goal of clean air.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Could the gentleman tell us what the plans are for Wednesday and Thursday for next week? Could the distinguished gentleman from Texas tell us what the plans of the leadership are for Wednesday and Thursday of next week?

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

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, like other Americans, I am greatly enjoying the comments of my Republican colleagues. It is remarkable how now, about 45 days after October 1, when the new fiscal year is to commence, my Republican colleagues have only gotten one of the appropriation bills signed. They have not passed the reconciliation bill or the budget. They have not passed the debt ceiling legislation. They spend their time castigating and criticizing the President of the United States because of their own inability to carry out their comments about how they were going to run the country and balance the budget and do all the other things. Only 1 of 13 appropriation bills has been signed. The rest are somewhere strewn around here. There has been one veto, and the reason that was is it was the Congress' own appropriation bill which my Republican colleagues sent down there and President Clinton said, ``No, we are not going to sign that right now. You are not going to get your problems solved before we address the rest of the problems of the country.'' So my comments to my Republican colleagues are, ``Dear friends, you are in charge of this place. We have heard what you are going to do. Do it. Stop whining. Stop complaining. Get down to the business of governing, and if you cannot govern, admit it.'' Now, what is in this budget about which my Republican colleagues talk so much? First of all, it savages the poor. Second of all, it punishes almost every class in our society which does not have the means and the capability of addressing their problems. It lifts away the helping hand from those who have greatest needs. From Women, Infants, and Children's programs right through Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' benefits, there are savage and unneeded cuts. There are expenditures for unneeded weaponry which the Defense Department says are needed, aircraft, submarines, and ships which the Defense Department says are unneeded are expended for in most lavish fashions by my Republican colleagues' budget. Let us look at this budget. This budget cuts Women, Infants, and Children's programs, nutrition and other health care programs for mothers during the period that they are carrying children and during the time that they are lactating and nursing their children. It cuts the health care program for the newborn and for the unborn. It cuts student loans. It cuts school lunches. It cuts assistance to young people as they start out trying to go through college to borrow money to pay for their education. It eliminates veterans' benefits in a way that is absolutely unjust. It will cause the closure of 41 veterans hospitals. One million American veterans will not receive health care because of this Republican budget, and in addition to that 50,000, health care personnel from the VA will be laid off. It must be somewhat painful to my Republican colleagues to hear this, because they have not been changing the budget but they have been castigating the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. It appears at least they are beginning to understand, and the people are beginning to understand. It cuts Medicare so that we can give a tax cut to the richest, and the people are beginning to be aware of this. My advice to my Republican colleagues is stop complaining, stop whining, get down to the serious business of governing, pass the legislation that you should have had on the President's desk by October 1, and then let us see what happens. There have been complaints about the veto that the President just did. Well, there is good reason for that. The Republicans sought to intrude into how the President manages the fiscal affairs of the United States. So he vetoed that proposal. The time has to be recognized as being here, that it is time that my Republican colleagues quite complaining, pass the legislation that they should have passed by October 1, and do the business of the country. A lot of people say, well, the President will not talk. Well, the Republican leadership in this body early in the spring pointed out what they were going to do. They were going to jam this whole business down the President's throat by passing a piece of legislation which they said would compel him to swallow the Republican programs on the basis of either a take-it-or-leave-it or shut-the-government-down basis. That is why the situation is here. Now, why do we have this situation? Because when Mr. Reagan came in, we had a budget deficit of $700 billion. When Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush left, we had a budget deficit of $4.9 trillion. They blew it up on the basis of irresponsible government during that period of time. Now they are trying to blame the Democrats.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct. I have long supported product liability reform legislation. However, I was compelled to vote against the so-called common sense product liability and legal reform bill passed by the House early this year because it had little to do with either product liability reform or common sense. Due in great part to extreme amendments added during floor debate, the bill passed by the House became a Christmas [[Page H 11984]] tree for special interest groups that makes radical changes to the Nation's legal system that go far beyond fair and balanced product liability reform. For example, the bill creates numerous and varying standards for preemption of State laws that would create confusion rather than uniformity. It abolishes joint liability for noneconomic damages in all civil cases--not just product liability actions--and limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases to only $250,000. These provisions fail to recognize that pain and suffering, disfigurement, loss of limb, sight, or reproductive capacity are very real harms and that they have the effect of treating low-income workers, retirees, women, children, and disabled persons less favorably than corporate executives and others who have large economic losses. And floor amendments to the bill deleted important provisions that would ensure that foreign corporations who sell defective products here will not be treated more favorably than our own companies. The motion to instruct is one that all Members should support. It simply says the conferees should not agree to provisions in either bill that tend to limit recovery for damages by seniors, women, and children compared to others who suffer substantially similar injuries. In recent days, we have fought legislation our Republican colleagues have rammed through the House that will disproportionately hurt seniors, women, and children, while wealthier persons are enriched even more. The most glaring example of this treachery is the Speaker's plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion while giving tax breaks of $245 billion to the rich. It seems the other side will stop at nothing in their attempts to carry out their extreme agenda that will have the effect of hurting the most vulnerable of Americans. Treating seniors, women, and children the same as other persons is truly a commonsense proposal. I urge my colleagues to support this simple and straightforward motion.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct the conferees. As all of you who have served with me know, I was a strong critic of EPA long before it became fashionable. And even though I believe that poor judgment and overzealous regulation continue there--such as with the so-called combustion strategy--I cannot support the majority's efforts to make major changes in this Nation's environmental laws through legislative riders. As all of you are aware, I have also long fought any attempts to have the Appropriation Committee engage in legislative actions. And today we are presented with a measure that contains a plethora of half-baked legislative amendments to the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and our other environmental statutes. Nearly every one of these riders is poorly drafted and will lead to consequences well beyond the intentions of the proponents. Why is this so? For the simple reason that in their haste to circumvent committee debate, to hide the interests that are behind the riders, to avoid the glare of the public spotlight, to shield these riders from the normal pulls and pushes of the legislative process, the proponents have created bad legislation. By comparison, during consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, my committee heard testimony and solicited views from all sides--from the Bush administration and EPA, from Governors and mayors, from industry and unions, from environmental groups and ordinary citizens, and from Republicans and Democrats. Every word of that measure was exhaustively debated at subcommittee, at full committee, and on the floor of the House. As a result, I am proud to say that the measure had strong bipartisan support throughout every step of its journey through the House of Representatives, and, indeed, through the Senate and conference committee as well. Similar public debate and bipartisan participation marked passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other environmental statutes. But these riders have not undergone this kind of scrutiny. There has been no authorizing committee consideration of the environmental roll backs and special interest contentions. There has been no fair and full debate on the best way to implement any changes the majority may wish to make. One additional point, Mr. Speaker. This motion to instruct will not cure what ails this bill. Even if we pass this motion, this bill still slashes EPA's budget by one-third and cripples enforcement of the Nation's environmental laws through a targeted 50-percent cut in EPA's enforcement budget. Even if we pass this motion, this bill will still stand as the worst assault on this Nation's duty to house its people since the new deal. Even if we pass this motion, this bill will still shrink health services for this Nation's veterans. Indeed, according to Veterans Secretary Jesse Brown, the cuts mandated by the Republican budget plan will require 41 veterans hospitals to close their doors and will mean that more than 1 million veterans will be denied health care. The Republican plan will also force the elimination of roughly 60,000 health care positions and the cancellation of 40 construction projects. Even if we pass this motion, my conscience will not allow me to vote for this bill. However, the motion is a strong first step toward rehabilitation and I urge a ``yes'' vote.