John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago a number of my colleagues and I introduced legislation aimed at improving the safety of the imported food consumed by Americans. The Congress failed to act. Regrettably, consumers continue to become sick, and in too many cases die, from eating contaminated food. These tragedies are avoidable. We have the means to arm FDA with sufficient authority and resources to protect our food supply. There are exciting advances in technology that may make tests for microbial and pesticide contamination easy to perform and affordable. The bill we are introducing today is virtually the same as the one we introduced last year. To its critics, including many of my colleagues in the majority, I say, let us see your proposals. Let's do the people's business and improve the safety of our food supply. I challenge the majority to at least hold a hearing on the subject of food safety. Let's hear from consumers, public health experts, and all others with an interest in this matter. I am confident that none will dare defend the status quo. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has reported that as many as 81 cases of foodborne illness occur each year. Perhaps as many as 9,100 of these cases result in death. Under our current food import program there is virtually no preventive testing. Food shows up on the dock. Less than one percent of fresh fruit and vegetable are tested. The tests take a week or more to yield results. In the meantime the food is long gone, by then consumed. Let me repeat that point. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) too often waits for consumers to get sick or die before it tries to determine whether the food supply contains pathogenic contaminants. The outrageous and wholly intolerable conclusion one must draw is that American consumers are being used as guinea pigs. There are special problems with imports. FDA lack authority and resources to ``trace back'' the source of food borne illness beyond the border. Furthermore, imported food inspected by FDA fails to meet certain government health standards nearly three times more often than domestically produced food. Any preventive detection FDA might attempt would be futile, because FDA lacks adequate tests to detect pathogens on imported food in a timely manner. Finally, FDA cannot even account for what happens to imported fruits and vegetables that are adulterated. The Imported Food Safety Act of 1999 is critically important from a public health standpoint. It is also consistent with the international trade obligations of the United States. The World Trade Organization's Agreement on the Applications of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures reaffirmed that health and safety considerations take priority over trade. Member countries may, for justifiable health and safety reasons, impose more stringent requirements on imported products such as food than they require of domestic goods. This legislation is consistent with this exception. Imports now account for approximately 38 percent of all the fruit and 12 percent of all the vegetables Americans consume each year. The volume of food imported into the U.S. has almost doubled over the last 5 years, yet the frequency of FDA inspections has declined sharply during the same period of time. FDA acknowledges that it is ``in danger of being overwhelmed by the volume of products reaching U.S. ports.'' Even if FDA could perform more inspections, FDA does not have the tests it needs to detect E. coli, salmonella, and other pathogens in imported fruits and vegetables. As recently as 1997, all of the microbiological samples that FDA collected and tested were in response to foodborne illness. None were for preventive detection. There has been little improvement since then. GAO has studied this situation and has concluded that the federal government cannot ensure that imported foods are safe. In response to this crisis, the President has said FDA needs increased resources, more authority, and improved research and technology. The Imported Food Safety Act of 1999 addresses each of these points. The legislation provides additional resources in the form of a modest user fee on imported foods, and a ``Manhattan Project'' to develop ``real time'' tests that yield results within 60 minutes to detect E. coli, salmonella, and other microbial and pesticide contaminants in food. Finally, the legislation gives FDA authority, comparable to that of the U.S. Department of Agriculture with respect to imported poultry and meat, to stop unsafe food at the border and to assure that its ultimate disposition is not America' dinner table. I would also note that the FY 2000 budget for the President's food safety initiative contains a modest funding increase over previous funding levels. Even under the most optimistic funding and allocation scenarios, the amount requested is inadequate to meet the resources needed to ensure that Americans have healthy food on their dinner table.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 780, the ``Passenger Entitlement and Competition Enhancement Act of 1999.'' This legislation has two purposes. First, it will give airline passengers the rights they deserve and have been calling for. Second, it will protect the American public from harmful, anti-competitive market concentration in the airline industry. With monopolized routes and unprecedented levels of market concentration, airline profits have soared at the expense of consumers' checkbooks, comfort, and convenience. The first title of my bill is all about passenger protections. Recently, due to complications involving bad weather and a severe lack of planning, thousands of passengers were stranded onboard aircraft at Detroit Metropolitan Airport for intolerable lengths of time. Many of these passengers were detained on the tarmac for seven, eight, or nine hours. They ran out of food and water, and the restroom facilities became unusable. Situations like this can pose major obstacles to emergency medical treatment and cause serious anxiety among the passengers and their families. This bill would require all airlines to have an emergency plan on record with the Department of Transportation to ensure that, in the event of an emergency, all boarded passengers would have access to all necessary services and conditions. Also, the plan should outline the means to deplane the passengers safely. Failure to have such a plan on file would result in the suspension of the carrier's license. Also, violations of the emergency plan would yield $10,000 fines. Additionally, aggrieved passengers should be entitled to compensation for unreasonable delays. My legislation would establish air carrier liability to each passenger on an aircraft for an excessive departure or arrival delay which the carrier could have avoided. If the departure or arrival delay is more than two, but less than three hours, the airline would be required to compensate each passenger in an amount equal to twice the value of the price paid for the passenger's ticket. If the delay is at least three hours in length, then each passenger is entitled to compensation equaling the number of hours (or portion thereof) multiplied by the price paid for their ticket. Also, air carriers would be required to give each passenger sufficient and accurate notice of information it has regarding any potential or actual significant delays in the departure or arrival of any flight segment. Wherever possible, such notice shall be given to the passengers before boarding an aircraft. Passenger complaints about their mishandled baggage continue to climb and they need to be addressed. Under this bill, air carrier liability would be doubled from the current $1,250 for lost or damaged baggage to $2,500 for provable damages that the passenger incurred because of the carrier's improper baggage handling. Many airlines engage in the business practice of overbooking flights to ensure that as many seats as possible are sold on their flights. Often, ticket holders do not show and carriers can maximize their revenue by having properly predicted how many seats it can overbook to fill in this gap. While this may be an intelligent practice for an airline, from time to time it can tremendously inconvenience a ticket holder when the airline guesses wrongly. Too many seats are sold, and the passengers are all there to fly to their destinations as promised. In this situation, some cannot fly and must be ``bumped.'' My legislation would simplify the current bumping regulations. Should a passenger be involuntarily denied boardin, the air carrier would not be absolved of its responsibility to carry the passenger to the passenger's final destination. Further, if the scheduled arrival time of the alternate transportation is not within two hours of the originally scheduled arrival time, then the airline must also provide affected passengers with a voucher or refund equal in value to the original price paid by the passenger for the original flight. Without this legislation, passengers rights are woefully lacking. Passengers also need to be advised of their rights, and good airlines should endorse this idea. Under the legislation, the Secretary of Transportation would be required to establish a statement that outlines the consumer rights of air passengers, including the rights contained in the bill. Each air carrier would be required to provide the statement to each passenger along with its existing onboard seat-back safety placard and ticketing materials. The statement would also be conspicuously posted at all ticket counters. The second title of my bill concerns competition in the airline industry. Competition can increase consumer choice, lower price, and improve customer satisfaction. Many will note that there is growing public interest and concern over the issue of predatory conduct by major air carriers. Such practices eliminate competition in the air travel industry and create formidable barriers for entrepreneurs to break into the market. As an example of some suspect conduct, one has only to look back to when Northwest Airlines cut its fare from Detroit to Boston to as low as $69 from an average of $259 when Spirit Airlines entered the market in 1996. Coincidentally, once Spirit was pushed out of the market, the average fare went up to $267, exceeding even the original level. More recently, Northwest ran an upstart, Pro Air, out of the Detroit-Milwaukee market and is engaged in some curious behavior in the Detroit to Baltimore market. To provide a level playing field, vigorous competition must be permitted to take root. Unfair exclusionary practices that eliminate that competition must be rooted out. When carriers respond to new competitors with severe price drops and capacity expansion in order to run the new carrier out of the market, it ill serves consumers in the long run. After a new entrant is grounded, the major carrier simply retrenches and raises fares higher still in its resumed control. Congress expressly gave the Department of Transportation authority to stop any ``unfair or deceptive practice or unfair method of competition.'' Further, Congress has directed the Secretary of Transportation by statute to consider ``preventing unfair, deceptive, predatory, or anticompetitive practices in air transportation'' as being in the ``public interest and consistent with public convenience and necessity.'' The Department of Transportation's action under this authority stands to be improved. The federal government should do its job to expeditiously help the public. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation should take real action to advance the pro-competition policy objectives of the Congress. That action includes ensuring that the Department of Transportation's guidelines, which it is currently developing to deal with predatory activity, are effective. And the Congress ought not seek to delay the implementation of a reasoned and appropriate rulemaking. As proposed, the guidelines would permit the Secretary to impose sanctions if a major carrier should respond to a new entrant into a market in an unfair or exclusionary manner. More tools are needed and this bill provides them. The bill would permit the Secretary to fine any air carrier deemed to be engaged in an unfair method of competition or unfair exclusionary practice. Such a tool should give a carrier pause for thought before implementing any activity that would unfairly respond to legitimate competition. The bill would increase the monetary penalty for such unfair methods of competition under the U.S. Code from the current $1,000 to $10,000 for each day the violation continues or, if applicable, for each flight involving the violation. Further obstacles to competition arise from the fact that at the four slot-controlled or high-density airports, the vast majority of the scheduled take off and landing slots are controlled by the major carriers at these key hub airports. The airports are: New York's Kennedy and LaGuardia airports; Chicago's O'Hare; and Washington's National airport. For meaningful competition to develop, new entrant carriers must have a real opportunity to provide service in those markets. Of the more than 3,100 domestic air carrier slots at these four airports, fewer than forty-five slots are held by all the new entrant air carriers combined. Moreover, foreign air carriers have more than twice as many slots as domestic new entrant air carriers combined. Most of these slots were grandfathered to the major carriers more than a decade ago. The slots are government property, and it is time that the federal government use them to benefit the taxpaying public rather than just a handful of airlines. In order to remedy this barrier to competition, the bill would give the Secretary the authority to create and, as a last resort, withdraw and auction slots at each slot-controlled airport for assignment to new entrant air carriers and other carriers with very limited access. The Secretary would be authorized to use pro-consumer criteria to withdraw slots from a carrier who is not using its slots in a competitive fashion. If there is a withdrawal of slots for an auction, the Secretary may not auction more than ten percent of existing slots for the first auction and five percent for each succeeding auction. Auctions may not take place earlier than two years from each preceding auction. Income from any auctions would finance improved airport infrastructure for the American public. Slot possession at the four key airports where such controls are in place is a major issue, but questions like long-term exclusive gate leases at other airports represent just as nearly insurmountable obstacles to meaningful competition in the airline industry. For that reason, it makes good sense that such arrangements be reviewed. The bill would direct the Secretary to issue a study on the ability of and proposals for new entrant air carriers and those with limited access at major hub airports to obtain gates and other facilities at airports on terms substantially equivalent to the terms provided to the major carriers already using airport facilities. The airfield must become a level playing field for competition. It is important that the American public have access to useful information about the market and who in the industry is providing the best consumer value. Various studies by the General Accounting Office and private organizations have shown that concentration in the domestic airline industry is at extraordinarily high levels and continues to grow. Where such concentration exists, fares have increased with a significant impact on residents and businesses in those communities. In order to evaluate consumer value and review potential implications of market concentration at hub airports, the bill would require the Secretary to prepare two quarterly reports for the public. One would rank the top and bottom ten domestic routes with regard to their average cost to the passenger, and the second would rank the large hub airports by market concentration and identify the market share of each airline operating at each of those airports. As has been said, sunlight is the best disinfectant; let's let it shine on the airline industry. At best, the promised benefits of deregulation have not been fully realized. The traveling public is still captive to monopolized routes and airports. Indeed, since 1978, the Nation has endured unregulated monopoly on many routes and airports. Indeed, since 1978, the Nation has endured unregulated monopoly on many routes. While I fully support the goals of competition, two decades of experience reveal consolidation, diminished choice, and higher prices in many markets. To the extent that deregulation has failed, the Congress should respond and correct its course. Full and fair competition is what consumers demand and deserve. When any carrier dominates a hub, it can lose its edge and the incentive to meet consumer needs. This ought not be the case. The Congress has the opportunity to act now to remedy the defects in the law that permit our constituents to be exposed to undue and intolerable grief. The American public has been held hostage by the poor service and excessive fares at the hands of the cartels in the air for too long. That is why I am pleased to introduce this bill to generate legitimate competition and secure appropriate protections for the country's airline passengers. To my friends in the airline industry, I want to observe that one airline executive recently told me that a good airline should be doing these things anyway. While the airlines may feel their best option is to fight and hope to block this bill in Congress, I believe it would be vastly preferable to start working to solve these problems on their own. As with any problem, the first step on the road to recovery is to stop denying and start accepting. Today, the major airlines are the guests of honor at my ``intervention.'' The ``Passenger Entitlement and Competition Enhancement Act'' is common sense legislation that responds to the call for fair play and substantial justice in the airline industry. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who are helping to advance the message of our constituents, which I began to carry last year, and ask that they join me at their earliest opportunity.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic motion to recommit, which will occur shortly, and to object to the unfair ratios that the Republican majority has established for standing committees. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. We held an election just 2 months ago, and the American people voted in nearly equal numbers for Democrats and Republicans. On the House floor, 51 percent of the Members are Republicans. But in the Committee on Commerce, they will control 54.7 percent of the seats. The difference is the largest that has ever occurred in our committee in the past 50 years. This is a very simple attempt to rig the results of the election against the people who they voted. And it is also an attempt to deny the American people who voted for a Democratic Congressman the same rights as those who voted for a Republican Congressman. It totally denigrates the concept of one man, one vote. This is not just simply a matter of numbers. It is a matter of fairness and equality and democracy. It is unfair to Members who serve here. But there is a greater unfairness, and that unfairness is that Members of this body who are Democrats achieve less weight to their vote than do Members who happen to be Republicans. What is important here is that this action denies the people the right to have issues of importance to them debated here in the House of Representatives in a fair and proper fashion, with proper weight being given to the vote of each voting American citizen. Let me give an example. In the past Congress, with bipartisan support, the Congress nearly passed the Patients' Bill of Rights to allow patients and their doctors to make medical decisions rather than bureaucrats in HMOs. I am convinced that with the result of the recent elections, we could be successful in passing that legislation this year. However, by stacking the Committee on Commerce with a greater number of Republicans than the numbers would actually be justified in the House, the bill is probably going to get buried in the committee and we are going to then be compelled to address the problem under the mechanism of a discharge petition in order to have the people's will, which was clearly expressed, carried out. The answer to the problems that we confront is simple. Establish committees that reflect the House as a whole. Force committees to work out their partisan differences before bringing them to the floor. Let the will of the American people, freely and clearly expressed in the last election, be felt and be heard here. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert an analysis and a table showing the majority and minority ratios of the Committee on Commerce over the past years. The analysis shows that the ratios established by the Republican majority of the Congress for the Committee on Commerce are the most disproportionate and unfair of any of the past Congresses. Does this sound like democracy? No. Does it sound like bipartisanship? No. Does it sound like comity and fair treatment? Clearly not. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I urge a vote on the motion to recommit. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, December 16, 1998.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, what the President did was wrong, and what we are doing today is equally wrong. The process before us is unfair. The rights of the minority to offer necessary amendments or proper motions to recommit are being disregarded by the majority. It is an exercise of abuse of power by the majority on the rights of the minority. We are taking here and creating a rule of law which does not exist. The rule of law says that we should exercise our proper conscience and do what is right. It says we should impeach the President if he has done that which is wrong, and which rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Clearly, this is not an impeachable offense, because impeachable offenses were defined to mean great and dangerous offenses by George Mason, not ordinary offenses. They were attempts to, and again in the words of one of the Framers, subvert the Constitution. They constituted acts which were a danger to the office, a danger to the society, a danger to the Nation, a danger to the people. Clearly that is not so. The President's behavior, as I said, is wrong; tawdry. The best thing that could be said, it is not a great event but it is a very small and small-minded set of events. This behavior should not initiate the impeachment processes. There are a lot of points that need to be made today. They have historical and constitutional importance. Impeachment is for matters that involve a threat to the Nation, the Constitution, and the office. Impeachment is a constitutional act of the House, referring to the Senate a finding of most serious misbehavior, as discussed above, which initiates a trial in the Senate, possibly resulting in removal from office of the person impeached. Impeachment is primarily a political process. It is not a judicial or a legislative act. Impeachment participates in the character of an indictment by the grand jury, but impeachment is different and imposes different responsibilities on Members of the House. Impeachment does not involve criminal consequences. It simply initiates a process to decide whether the officeholder shall continue in office or be removed. Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent criminal process, including indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment. While the President, under the Constitution, cannot be tried or indicted while in office, he may be subject and is subject to full process of the law upon leaving his office. Mr. Starr, if he finds the events require indictment or action in a criminal court, may clearly take that action. I urge my colleagues to permit us to vote on something which is important, and that is censure. That is what the people want. That is what we should be doing today. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment in the House, as . . . ``The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' The Framers of the Constitution, in the words of George Mason, one of the leaders of the Constitutional Convention, found impeachable offenses to mean ``great and dangerous offenses'' and ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' In other words, they meant no ordinary offenses, but they referred to acts attacking the security of the Nation, the primacy of the Constitution, or the basic functions and well being of the office involved. They felt the behavior should be so inconsistent with the responsibilities of the office that the people required removal of the office holder for their well being, the proper conduct of the office, and the welfare of the Nation. While the behavior which could trigger the impeachment process can be criminal, and although the actions may be criminal in character, it need not necessarily be so. There are a number of points to be made which have constitutional and historical importance: (1) Impeachment is for matters involving behavior which constitutes a threat to the office, the Constitution, and the Nation. (2) Impeachment is a Constitutional act of the House referring to the Senate a finding of most serious misbehavior, as discussed above, which initiates a trial in the Senate possibly resulting in removal from office of the person impeached. (3) Impeachment is primarily a political process, not a judicial or legislative act. (4) Impeachment participates in the character of an indictment by a grand jury. But impeachment is different and imposes different responsibility on members of the House. (5) Impeachment does not involve criminal consequences. It simply initiates a process to decide whether an office holder shall continue in office or be removed. (6) Impeachment is not a bar to subsequent criminal process, including indictment, trial, conviction, and punishment. While the President may not, under the Constitution, be indicted or subject to criminal process while holding office, he may be subject to the full process of criminal law for misbehavior immediately upon his leaving office. Parenthetically, Mr. Starr said in the Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings that there is no bar to such action in the case of the President, including the running of the sundry applicable statutes of limitations. (7) The Founding Fathers, and Framers of the Constitution, tried to make impeachment difficult. They especially feared constraints on the institutional power of the President or impairment of the office, or loss of balance between the branches of government. They especially feared efforts by one party controlling the legislative branch to remove the President of a different persuasion. The Framers of the Constitution were much concerned that the legislative branch not be empowered to easily upset an election where the people spoke and selected their President. Under these principles then, it becomes plain the question before us is whether the behavior of the President, although clearly wrong, rises to the level of an impeachable offense or offenses. I find that the offenses do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses. The actions of the President are wrong, arrogantly stupid, and possibly involve criminal misbehavior. The last question, criminal misbehavior, can and should be addressed in the appropriate time and fashion. My friend, Mr. Hyde, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has made it plain in statements on this matter that an impeachment effort not supported by the people will not succeed. I agree. We should not lightly set aside an election where the people freely chose their President. We owe it to the Founders, and to the future, to not impair the separation of powers, or the necessary and proper power, as well as the freedom, of the Presidency. We owe it to the people of the United States not to cavalierly set aside their choice of Presidents. Lastly, I remind all that the President was elected, not once but twice, and by significant majorities. Listen to the people. This is a political process. It was expected by the Framers of the Constitution that this same political process would function as such. Politics and political process requires involvement of the people and that we who hold this responsibility listen carefully and respectfully to their wishes. Listen to the people of America. They do not believe impeachment is a proper remedy for President Clinton's misbehavior. The people do not approve of Mr. Clinton's behavior, but they do not believe that the President's action rises to the level of impeachable offenses. They find no basis for us to take such action. My Republican colleagues disregard the Constitution. They fabricate a rule of law which neither exists here, nor imposes on this House the action they would require. Rather, the rule of law requires us to exercise one of our highest and most important Constitutional responsibilities, deciding on whether to impeach the President with the utmost attention to the Constitution as defined for us by the Founding Fathers. We are not acting here as a mere grand jury. We are exercising a Constitutional trust and duty of the highest order. We are deciding whether there is enough grave wrongdoing to meet the test of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This requires intelligence, attention, and discretion. We are now deciding whether to precipitate a Constitutional crisis. We are deciding whether to create a great public controversy where the people will be divided by a process they do not want to go forward. We must now decide whether to put at risk the powers of the Presidency, not the well being a Bill Clinton. All this is set against the wishes of the people who have spoken to us with clarity. To my colleagues, I say, listen to the people. Look at your responsibilities, exercise your wide and necessary discretion, carry out your duty in voting no. For the reasons above, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the impeachment of President Clinton. It is the right thing to do. To my Republican colleagues and their leadership, I add, give us a process that is fair, that enables us to act with dispatch on matters the people want us to address. The people want some action condemning the behavior of Bill Clinton. In a word they want censure of Bill Clinton for his serious misbehavior. A careful but improper rewriting of both the Constitution and of the rules of the House by my Republican colleagues denies the people their right to have the Congress respond to their will. Censure is a worthwhile and proper response by the House here to the situation and the will of the people. It is also possible under both the rules of the House and the Constitution. There are abundant precedents that Presidents have been censured before without any question of Constitutionality or anything else. President probably will be censured again. Censure is a fair, proper, and a legal exercise of the power of the House. It does what the people want. It vindicates both the law and the feelings of the people. That cannot be said of the impeachment of Bill Clinton proposed by the republicans under a gag rule. To the Republicans and their leadership, I say your behavior is unfair. It does you great discredit. It does not permit the House to choose among the most appropriate actions to be used here. My colleagues, do what is right--allow a vote on impeachment, but allow, also, a vote on censure. Given a proper choice, the House can act properly and carry out both our Constitutional responsibilities and our duty to the people.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not think I would object, but under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).

Mr. DINGELL. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I support the position of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear: I firmly believe that it is in the vital interests of American workers and American business that this Congress pass legislation this year implementing the OECD anti-bribery convention. I understand the proposal before us includes an extraneous matter involving satellites which represents a compromise with the Administration, Comsat, and at least one Senator. My concern is that this is all happening in the very last minutes of this Congress, and may jeopardize passage of this legislation. I have not heard any definitive commitment from the Leadership of the other body that it intends to consider this matter. Let me explain the legislative situation we face. There has never been any controversy over the provisions in this bill implementing the OECD anti-bribery convention. The only issue in controversy has been the extraneous satellite provisions. The Senate has now passed legislation ratifying and implementing the anti-bribery convention on two different occasions, and, both times they have passed it without the satellite provisions that my good friend Chairman Bliley has put in the House bill. The most certain way to ensure enactment of the anti-bribery legislation would be for my Republican Colleagues to concur with the Senate amendment and send that bill to the President. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that action on this matter can be completed, because if it's not, American workers and American firms that must compete in international markets where bribery is prevalent, will pay the price. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce and one of the conferees appointed on behalf of the House (September 16, 1998, Congressional Record at H7888), I rise to bring to the attention of the House a matter involving the conference report on S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, and to correct the record. The circumstances surrounding the publication--first of an incomplete conference report, and then of a conference report appending extraneous material--may be just another mix-up by the gang that couldn't shoot straight. On the other hand, worse. To wit, the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on S. 1260, both as printed by the Government Printing Office (GPO) in Report No. 105-803 and as it appeared in the Congressional Record for Friday, October 9, 1998 at H10270, was incomplete. The final page mysteriously disappeared. Curiously, this page contained important language regarding scienter, recklessness, and the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, language essential to the conference agreement. Even more mysterious, the official papers filed in the Senate on October 9th were complete and did contain the final page. In order to clarify this situation, a star print of the complete conference report has been ordered from GPO. Also, during House consideration on October 13th, Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley asked unanimous consent to include in the Record ``a complete copy of the conference report on S. 1260'' and made the following remarks: When the conference report was filed in the House, a page from the statement of managers was inadvertently omitted. That page was included in the copy filed in the Senate, reflecting the agreement of the managers. We are considering today the entire report and statement of managers as agreed to by conferees and inserted in the Record. Therefore, the complete joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference begins on page H10774 of the Congressional Record for October 13, 1998 and concludes on page H10775 where the names of the House and Senate Managers appear. The unidentified material that follows the names of the Managers, although erroneously printed in the same typeface as the conference report, an error that has been corrected by reprinting the material in the appropriate typeface and identifying its source in the October 15, 1998 Congressional Record at H11021-22, is not part of the conference report's joint explanatory statement and does not represent the views of the Managers. In point of fact, the phantom language directly contradicts the joint explanatory statement (the Statement of Managers). In any event, it is the conference report itself, in particular the Statement of Managers, and not the dissenting views expressed by one or more Members, that reflects the agreement of both Senate and House conferees as to the bill's intended operation and consequences. The language of the Statement of Managers could not have been more clear and direct as to the bill's ratification of uniform pleading and liability standards: It is the clear understanding of the Managers that Congress did not, in adopting the Reform Act, intend to alter the standards of liability under the Exchange Act . . . Additionally, it was the intent of Congress, as was expressly stated during the legislative debate on the Reform Act, and particularly during the debate on overriding the President's veto, that the Reform Act establish a heightened uniform Federal standard on pleading requirements based upon the pleading standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Statement of Managers on S. 1260 clarified confusion arising from the Statement of Managers on the 1995 Securities Litigation Reform Act. The 1995 Statement of Managers noted that the language of the pleading standard was ``based in part on the pleading standard of the Second Circuit.'' However, the 1995 Statement of Managers also contained some murky language which, as the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, has correctly noted was slipped into a footnote by a staffer at the last minute without our knowledge or concurrence (October 13, 1998 Congressional Record at H 10782), to the effect that the conferees ``chose not to include in the pleading standard certain language relating to motive, opportunity, and recklessness.'' Largely, as a result of this language, the President vetoed the 1995 Reform Act for fear that it might be construed to mean that Congress was adopting a pleading standard even higher than that of the Second Circuit. Congress overrode the President's veto. As is apparent from the post-veto debate in both the House and the Senate, Congress did so, not because Congress wanted a pleading standard higher than the Second Circuit's, but because the pleading standard adopted in the Reform Act was, in fact, the Second Circuit standard. Nevertheless, uncertainty and confusion quickly emerged in various District Court cases, to the delight of those who sought to undermine what the majority of Congress had concluded the pleading standard should be, but to the grave disadvantage of investors. Because of this uncertainty, the Administration and the SEC insisted that Congress restate the applicable liability and pleading standards of the 1995 Reform Act in the legislative history of this bill. That restatement was necessary to the legislative history of this bill because the liability and pleading standards from the 1995 Reform Act will apply to the class actions that are covered by S. 1260. The White House wrote to Senators D'Amato, Gramm, and Dodd on April 28, 1998 that the Administration would support enactment of S. 1260 only ``so long as amendments designed to address the SEC's concern are added to the legislation and the appropriate legislative history and floor statements of legislative intent are included in the legislative record,'' noting that ``it is particularly important to the President that you be clear that the federal law to be applied includes recklessness as a basis for pleading and liability in securities fraud class actions.'' Only after the Managers clarified that the 1995 Reform Act had not altered the substantive liability standards that allow investors to recover for reckless misconduct and that the Reform Act had adopted the Second Circuit pleading standard did the SEC agree to support enactment of S. 1260. The SEC's letter of October 9, 1998 to Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes states: We support this bill based on important assurances in the Statement of Managers that investors will be protected. . . . The strong statement in the Statement of Mangers that neither this bill nor the Reform Act was intended to alter existing liability standards under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 will provide important assurances for investors that the uniform national standards created by this bill continue to allow them to recover losses caused by reckless misconduct. The additional statement clarifying that the uniform pleading requirement in the Reform Act is the standard applied by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will likewise benefit investors by helping to end confusion in the courts about the proper interpretation of that Act. Together, these statements will operate to assure that investors' rights will not be compromised in the pursuit of uniformity. The Second Circuit standard allows plaintiffs to allege facts showing either (a) the defendant had a motive and opportunity to engage in the fraud, or (b) the defendant acted either recklessly or knowingly. Dissenters argue that Congress meant to eliminate allegations of motive, opportunity and recklessness. This is flat wrong. It is simply not logical or believable to argue that we adopted a pleading standard ``based upon'' the Second Circuit standard, but yet rejected allegations of motive, opportunity, and recklessness--core elements of that standard. Allegations of recklessness or motive and opportunity continue to suffice as a basis to plead fraud. This is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and honest securities markets.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the bizarre process forced upon us by the House's failure to complete its work on time has produced an adequate legislative product in the form of the omnibus appropriations bill. If but a fraction of the time, energy and resources devoted to political investigations went instead toward passing legislation, the 105th Congress might have compiled a substantial record of achievement. Many of the ill-advised provisions that appeared in earlier versions of this legislation have wisely been dropped. The omnibus appropriations bill is not as bad as it could have been, and even has some provisions to recommend it. The legislation provides temporary relief to home health agencies that were hurt as a result of cuts required by the balanced budget agreement. The underlying health policy is not perfect, but that is to be expected in a complex issue, and the gimmicks used to pay for the policy leave much to be desired because what is given to home health care now will be taken away later in reductions. Nevertheless, home health plays an important role in caring for the elderly and disabled who depend on Medicare for their health care, and these changes will not adversely affect the access and quality of care that beneficiaries receive. The Congress may still need to address home health prior to the implementation of a prospective payment system that will provide proper incentives for agencies, but for the moment, we have averted a potential crisis for beneficiaries. I am also pleased that we were able to help women with breast cancer by including a provision from a bill introduced by my colleague, Ms. Eshoo, that requires insurance companies who cover breast cancer to provide coverage for reconstructive surgery. Another valuable provision makes available additional funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act's (``SAMHSA'') block grant program. My home state of Michigan was slated for a cut of nearly twenty percent in these funds because of a formula change. Under the bill, Michigan will receive a five percent increase. In the area of trade policy, this legislation contains important monitoring and enforcement requirements designed to ensure that Korea and other recipients of International Monetary Fund (IMF) assistance fully implement their commitments to cease government interference in the private economy. Among other things, these requirements are designed to ensure that the government of Korea does not extend government loans or subsidies to individual corporations, particularly in the auto, steel, semiconductor, and paper industries. In addition, this legislation requires Korea to fulfill all of its IMF commitments ``according to an explicit timetable for completion.'' These requirements are similar to legislation I introduced, H.R. 3573, with Congressman Murtha and Congressman Regula. Despite its claims, Korea has not fully implemented its commitments to the IMF. Our government must exercise strict and aggressive monitoring of how every penny of the IMF assistance is used and what Korea is doing to implement its IMF commitments and to fulfill its trade obligations to the world community. The American taxpayer should not be forced to finance the operation of non-viable, bankrupt Korean auto, steel, and other firms that dump cheap imports in our market and undermine otherwise competitive products made by American workers and American firms. We need much more than vague Administration statement about being ``encouraged'' by the progress of Korea's economic reform. Korea has institutions and policies that enable the government to intervene in commercial lending and corporate governance. American workers and American firms have a right to know what Korea is doing to restructure those institutions and to change those policies, so that government intervention in the private economy is minimized, and Korean markets are open to U.S. and other foreign competitors. Despite these worthwhile provisions, this legislation is not without flaws. The omnibus appropriations bill includes language conferring a substantial and unwarranted financial advantage to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The language forgives the prepayment penalty TVA would otherwise be obligated to pay to refinance a taxpayer-funded loan from the Federal Financing Bank. This continues the longstanding tradition of allowing TVA to have the best of both worlds. We have heard much lately from TVA about its effort to ``reinvent'' itself as a more market-oriented, business like entity. It even has petitioned Congress to allow it to sell federally-subsidized electricity on the open market. But TVA has several advantages which the nonfederal entities it wants to compete against do not enjoy. The most disturbing of these is forgiveness of the prepayment penalty, totaling a billion dollars otherwise due the taxpayer. According to news reports, TVA plans to use these ``savings'' to help pay down its massive $27 billion debt. This would indeed enable it to better ``compete'' against other utilities, who are relegated to commercial financing and whose stranded costs will not be shed so painlessly. This unjustified windfall is an insult to the taxpayer, a misuse of federal funds, and a further obstacle to creating anything remotely resembling a level playing field in the electricity industry. It reminds Congress to cast a dubious eye on future claims that all TVA wants is a fair shot at joining a restructured electricity market on an equal footing with other competitors. It is also, and finally, worth noting what this legislation and this Congress failed to do. This Congress did not enact the Patients Bill of Rights to protect consumers in managed care plans from the abuses and excesses of certain bad actors in the health insurance industry. The House instead passed a fatuous bill that would make matters worse for Americans by undermining current law. This Congress did not improve access to health care for the near elderly. The House was denied the opportunity to vote on the ``Medicare Buy-In'' proposal which would have provided access to health insurance for Americans age 55 to 64 who, because of termination or reduction of retiree benefits, cannot get private insurance. This Congress did not help the disabled make a transition back to work by allowing them easier access to health insurance. This Congress failed to reauthorize the National Institutes of Health, legislation badly needed to set our research priorities. This Congress failed to enact comprehensive imported food safety legislation. This Congress failed to enact tobacco legislation to assure full Food and Drug Administration authority to implement teen smoking cessation and prevention programs. Nor did this Congress provide FDA with the resources it needs to perform its existing, and essential, functions. These and other tasks will await the 106th Congress in January, and do not reflect credit on the 105th Congress.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support S. 417, which incorporates legislation previously reported by the House as well as several new provisions added by the Senate. The bill is companion legislation to H.R. 2472, which was signed into law by the President earlier this year and reauthorized other provisions of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The measure before us today reauthorizes several other EPCA programs pertaining to energy conservation for a period of five years. The bill makes needed technical changes to EPCA, the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, and the Energy Conservation and Production Act. In addition, the bill authorizes legislative and judicial branch entities to enter into Energy Savings Performance Contracts and extends a provision of the Defense Production Act of 1950 granting the President priority contracting authority for projects which maximize domestic energy supplies in times of emergency. In addition to these important reauthorizations, S. 417 amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to help biodiesel blended fuel a more attractive option as a replacement fuel. This bipartisan amendment, coauthored by Representative Shimkus and Representative Karen McCarthy, will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and air pollutants. The legislation also reauthorizes a program initiated under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to promote energy resource development on Indian reservations, and amends that Act to facilitate the continued clean up of a contaminated thorium site in West Chicago, Illinois. Finally, the legislation amends EPCA to provide the State of Hawaii special access to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) during a declared oil supply emergency. Agreement to include this provision would not have been achieved without the tireless efforts of Mr. Abercrombie, who brought this issue to our attention and helped forge a consensus. Hawaii depends entirely on oil imports for electric generation, and this provision is critical to ensuring its citizens' well-being during an oil supply emergency. The legislation authorizes Hawaii to submit a special bid for SPR oil during a declared oil emergency, and to purchase the oil at the average price of other bids accepted by the Department of Energy. Of course, other parties also are entitled to bid on SPR oil in an emergency, and the Secretary of Energy may limit the amount of oil made available to Hawaii under this measure. Finally, in keeping with other provisions in ERCA, the bill allows Hawaii to enter into an exchange agreement directing that SPR oil be delivered to locations other than Hawaii. The right to exchange SPR oil, however, is conditioned on the obligation to deliver oil of similar quantity to Hawaii. This will help ensure that the benefits reach the citizens of Hawaii, rather than speculators who might wish to resell SPR oil for great profit on the open market. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in crafting and reaching agreement on this important legislation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, the government of South Korea provided Hanbo Steel with a $6 billion subsidy to continue producing steel. Hanbo is producing the same steel that sits in our ports and results in American steel workers losing their jobs. Its time we stand up for steel. If the South Koreans protect their workers at our expense, why do we stand back and allow them to continue this illegal act. It is an abomination. This has nothing to do with free trade and whether you support increased trade. This issue is about how we react when other nations take advantage of our strong economy and our market. Its time to take a stand. I urge all members to support this resolution.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak). (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing a great respect and affection for my dear friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the committee. I do, however, rise in opposition to the conference report, and very frankly, I rise in opposition to the rather sorry process by which this document has been presented to this body. Last month the House appointed 5 Members from the other side of the aisle and three Democrats as its conferees on this legislation. There have been no meetings by the conferees. The staff of the Republican conferees have had extensive conversations with their Senate counterparts. No Democratic staff members were included or informed; not even the staff of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the chief Democratic sponsor of the House bill. To add insult to this injury, Republican staff informed us the day before this report was filed that the only Democratic amendment adopted by the conference committee, the DeGette amendment, which required the SEC to monitor and report to the Congress on the consequences of this legislation, had been unceremoniously dropped, without any justification that I can discern. Moreover, the original conference report included, at the behest of the Senate, a rather curious nongermane study of the U.S. sheep and wool industry. While that might be appropriate, it does not seem to belong here. I have also been told that the provision was taken out, but that is quite beside the point. The process here was exclusionary, unfair and outrageous. For that reason, I intend to vote against this conference report, and I will be urging my colleagues to do likewise. The substance of this legislation clearly merits a no vote. We are not shearing sheep with this legislation. We are, very frankly, shamelessly, fleecing investors. A year or so ago, the Congress passed legislation which changed startlingly the way in which ordinary investors may sue to protect their rights, and it largely stripped them of rights to protect themselves against corporate wrongdoings in the courts of the Federal Government. We were told at the time that legislation was passed that the investors would still have access to State courts to protect their rights as owners of the corporations and to protect their rights as shareholders, and to assure that there was no wrongdoing which adversely affected either the well-being of the corporation or their interests therein. This legislation very curiously terminates those rights. No longer can a citizen form a class action in a State court. For some strange reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, great advocates of States' rights, are now saying citizens cannot go into State courts. They are changing State jurisprudence as well as Federal jurisprudence. One of the remarkable things they do, if 50 citizens will go into court and sue, under the requirements of this legislation those suits must be combined into a class action, which is immediately then removed to the Federal courts and then subject to all of the hostile and constrictive constraints on the right of a citizen to sue to protect his interests and his property; the corporation which he as a shareholder happens to be the owner of. This conference report nails the State courthouse door shut to little investors then, who have to band together in class action lawsuits in order to recover the money they have lost to securities fraud. By making Federal courts the exclusive venue for most of the securities class action lawsuits, the conference report imposes the standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1955, to which I referred earlier, on all securities class action lawsuits, except those narrow instances specifically excluded by that report. The 1995 act imposed heightened pleading standards on defrauded investors, a stay of discovery so that the special facts necessary to meet those heightened pleading standards could not be reached. As a matter of fact, one of the interesting things is that neither a discovery proceeding nor a lawyer would protect an investor under the law as it is now written under the statute I am referring to. It would probably be in the interest of the investor to be represented by a psychiatrist because he literally must examine the mind of the person who has defrauded him in order to prevail in a lawsuit of that sort. These are extraordinarily high pleading standards, far higher than necessary, and that legislation also imposed an unreasonably short statute of limitations or time limit for filing a fraud claim. It included no ability under the law to fully recover from professionals, such as accountants and lawyers, who had aided and abetted in stealing funds from innocent investors. Those same standards and shortcomings are now extended across the board by fiat of the Federal Government so that a citizen who now finds the Federal court doors nailed shut to him cannot go to the State to seek redress in a State court from wrongdoing. Why? I do not know, but one can suspect that the scoundrels, rogues, rascals and thieves that infest our capital markets have now dressed themselves up in sheep's clothing and convinced many of the Members of this body that they are not wolves but, rather, are hapless and helpless victims of a litigation explosion. I would note that that litigation explosion does not exist. There is no litigation explosion, particularly given the amount of securities fraud that the bull market has engendered. There has also been a covered attempt on the part of some Members here to obliterate the ability of the SEC and defrauded investors to sue on the basis of recklessness. This is like eliminating manslaughter from the criminal laws. It would be like saying that one has to prove intentional murder or the defendant gets off scott-free. If we were to lose the reckless standard, we would leave substantial numbers of the investing public naked to attacks by schemers. That is the remarks of Chairman Leavitt, who testified before us, speaking as chairman of the SEC last October. Mr. Speaker, I am willing to support responsible reform. I do not think that this constitutes responsible reform. This is the active sheltering of wrongdoing. It is going to support those who would skin the American investing public. It is going to raise great questions of the trust that Americans can put in the securities market, because we have provided now a blanket of protection for wrongdoing and for wrongdoers who are engaged, on a continuing basis of taking advantage, of those who cannot protect themselves. This is a bad bill. I urge a no vote. Mr. Speaker, I submit the dissenting views on this legislation for inclusion in the Record, to expand and provide data on these points. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report and the sordid process by which it was conceived. Last month, the House appointed its conferees on this legislation, 5 Members from the other side of the aisle and 3 Democrats. There have been no meetings of the conferees. The staff of the Republican conferees have had extensive conversations with their Senate counterparts. No Democratic staff were informed or included, not even the staff of Representative Eshoo, the chief Democratic sponsor of the House bill. To add insult to injury, Republican staff informed us the day before this report was filed that the only Democratic amendment adopted by the Commerce Committee--the DeGette amendment to require the SEC to monitor and report to Congress on the consequences of this legislation--has been unceremoniously dropped without justification. However, the original conference agreement included, at the behest of the Senate, a nongermane study of the U.S. sheep and wool industry. I have been told that provision has been taken out, but that is beside the point. This process was unfair and outrageous. For that reason, I am voting against this conference report and urging my colleagues to do likewise. The substance of this legislation also merits a ``no'' vote. We are not shearing sheep with this legislation. We are shamelessly fleecing investors. This conference report nails the State courthouse door shut to little investors who have to band together in class action lawsuits in order to recover the monies they have lost to securities fraud. By making Federal courts the exclusive venue for most securities class action lawsuits, the conference report imposes the standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 on all securities class action lawsuits except those narrow instances specifically excluded by the report. The 1995 Act imposed heightened pleading standards on defrauded investors, a stay of discovery so that the special facts necessary to meet those heightened pleading standards could not be reached, and an unreasonably short statute of limitations or time limit for filing a fraud claim. It included no ability under that law to fully recover from professionals such as accountants and lawyers who aided and abetted in stealing funds from innocent investors. Those same standards and shortcomings are now extended across the board by fiat of the Federal Government. Why? Because the scoundrels, rogues, rascals, and thieves that infest our capital markets dressed themselves up in sheep's clothing and convinced too many Members that they were not wolves but rather helpless and helpless victims of a litigation explosion. My colleagues, there is no litigation explosion, particularly given the amount of securities fraud that the bull market has engendered. I ask unanimous consent that the Dissenting Views on this legislation be included in the Record following my remarks to expand and provide data on these points. There also has been a covert attempt on the other side of the aisle to obliterate the ability of the SEC and defrauded investors to sue on the basis of recklessness. Shame on my Republican colleagues. Shame, shame. As SEC chairman Levitt testified before us in October last year: ``[E]liminating recklessness * * * would be tantamount to eliminating manslaughter from the criminal laws. It would be like saying you have to prove intentional murder or the defendant gets off scot free * * * If we were to lose the reckless standard * * * we would leave substantial numbers of the investing public naked to attacks by * * * schemers.'' I ask unanimous consent to include a letter from Senator Reed to the conferees on this point at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I want to support responsible reform. This is not reform and it is not responsible. I urge a ``no'' vote. U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 2, 1998. Ranking Member John D. Dingell, Committee on Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Ranking Member Dingell: I write to you as a conferee on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, S. 1260. As you know, I supported Senate passage of this legislation, and voted to override the President's veto of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. While class action suits are frequently the only financially feasible means for small investors to recover damages, such lawsuits have been subject to abuse. By creating national standards, such as those in S. 1260, we recognize the national nature of our markets and encourage capital formation. However, it is essential to recognize that preemption marks a significant change concerning the obligations of Congress. When federal legislation was enacted to combat securities fraud in 1933 and 1934, federal law augmented existing state statutes. States were free to provide greater protections, and many have. Many of our colleagues voted for the 1995 legislation knowing that if federal standards failed to provide adequate investor protections, state law would provide a necessary backup. With passage of this legislation, Congress accepts full and sole responsibility to ensure that fraud standards allow truly victimized investors to recoup lost funds. Only a meaningful right of action against those who defraud can guarantee investor confidence in our national markets. Recently, on the international stage, we have seen all too clearly the problem of markets which fail to ensure that consumers receive truthful, complete information. Therefore, my support for this bill rests on the presumption that the recklessness standard was not altered by either the 1995 Act or this legislation. I strongly endorsed the Senate Report which accompanies this legislation because it stated clearly that nothing in the 1995 legislation changed either the scienter standard or the most stringent pleading standard, that of the Second Circuit. This language was central to the legislation receiving the support of Chairman Levitt of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was also central to my support. As the Senate Banking Committee recognized at his second confirmation hearing, Chairman Levitt has a lifetime of experience as both an investor and regulator of markets. That experience has led him to be the most articulate advocate of the need for a recklessness standard concerning the scienter requirement. In October 21, 1997 testimony before a Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, Chairman Levitt said, ``[E]liminating recklessness . . . would be tantamount to eliminating manslaughter from the criminal laws. It would be like saying you have to prove intentional murder or the defendants gets off scot free. . . . If we were to lose the reckless standard . . . we would leave substantial numbers of the investing public naked to attacks by . . . schemers.'' In testimony before a Senate Banking Subcommittee, on October 20, 1997, Chairman Levitt further articulated his position regarding the impact of a loss of the recklessness standard. He said, ``A higher scienter standard (than recklessness) would lessen the incentives for corporations to conduct a full inquiry into potentially troublesome or embarrassing areas, and thus would threaten the disclosure process that has made our markets a model for nations around the world.'' The danger posed by a loss of recklessness to our citizens and markets is clear. We should not overrule the judgement of the SEC Chair, not to mention every single Circuit Court of Appeals that has adjudicated the issue. I would assume that the motives which led the SEC and the Administration to insist on the Senate Report language concerning recklessness would also apply to their views of the Conference Report. With regard to the pleading standard, some Members of Congress, and, unfortunately, a minority of federal district courts, have made much of the President's veto measure of the 1995 legislation. Specifically, some have pointed out that the President vetoed the 1995 bill due to concerns that the Conference Report adopted a pleading standard higher than that of the Second Circuit, the most stringent standard at that time. As I, and indeed a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives, made clear in the veto override vote, the President overreached on this point. The pleading standard was raised to the highest bar available, that of the Second Circuit, but no further. In spite of the Administration's 1995 veto, this preemption gained the support of Chairman Levitt. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how some can argue that the 1995 legislation changed the pleading standard of the Second Circuit. The reason for allowing a plaintiff to establish scienter through a pleading of motive and opportunity or recklessness is clear. As one New York Federal District Court has stated, ``a plaintiff realistically cannot be expected to plead a defendant's actual state of mind.'' Since the 1995 Act allows for a stay of discovery pending a defendant's motion to dismiss, requiring a plaintiff to establish actual knowledge of fraud or an intent to defraud in a complaint raises the bar far higher than most legitimately defrauded investors can meet. Firms which advocate for S. 1260 do so based on the need to eliminate the circumvention of federal standards and federal stays of discovery through state court filings. They do not argue for lessening of the obligations owed investors. I am concerned that should the conference committee include language which could be interpreted to eviscerate the ability of plaintiffs to satisfy the scienter standard by proof of recklessness or to require plaintiffs, barred from discovery, to adhere to a pleading standard requiring conscious behavior, the bill will loose the support of Chairman Levitt and many Members of Congress. I urge the Conference to support language included in the Senate Report and move forward with a bill that a bipartisan group in Congress can support and the President can sign. Sincerely, Jack Reed, U.S. Senator.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It has been produced by the bipartisan efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle. I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). In looking across the aisle, I want to express my admiration for the fine leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Bilirakis), and also the staffs on both sides of the aisle. In acknowledging my colleagues, I must pay tribute to the staffs of all of the Members above and of the full committee and of the minority, and also to Brenda Pillors of the staff of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). Her work on this matter was extraordinary, as was the work of John Ford of the staff of the minority. Mr. Speaker, this bill reforms what had been previously a good bill, but not one which was good enough. It ignored a large number of people in the health care professions, particularly the nurses, whose work merits the highest respect and the greatest attention. Happily, the labors of Members on this side of the Capitol have corrected the faults of the Senate bill, and we have here a bill which all of my colleagues can support. I do again want to pay tribute to those who have made this success possible.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1722, and H.R. 4683, its identical version in the House, which is not at this moment before us. I am pleased to be the cosponsor of this legislation recently introduced by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). I do note, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very good bill, worthy of support, but unfortunately in the haste of the conclusion of this session it has not had the benefits of hearings or markup sessions in the Subcommittee on Health and Environment or in the Committee on Commerce. That normal and usual practice undoubtedly would have improved the bill. My colleagues on the committee from both sides of the aisle possess great expertise in matters of this kind and they would have given generously of their time and knowledge and thereby added greatly to the quality of the legislation. The legislation before us enjoys the support of many organizations with strong credentials in the area of women's health issues. The administration also supports the bills, but each of these supporters would have welcome opportunities to come before the committee to convey comments and concerns. The hearings would have revealed that this bill is a bit limited in scope, with many serious and controversial issues left unaddressed. In the area of research, the bill does not address controversial issues that affect women's health, such as sexually transmitted diseases. Other than a few programs named, the bill does not address the broad band of diseases that affect both genders and therefore, significantly, women's health issues, as well as men's health issues. This is why reauthorization of all NIH programs is urgently needed. I hope that this bill begins that process and that we deal with NIH in a more comprehensive and thorough going fashion in the next session. Moreover, the bill does nothing to improve women's access to quality health care. Women are the majority of enrollees in managed care plans. Women have unique health care needs that go well beyond reproductive health, and indeed their needs are quite different than those of men. The National Partnership for Women and Families, along with more than 30 other organizations, has outlined a long list of women's health issues that are addressed by the Patients' Bill of Rights, which regrettably will not be passed by this Congress and which urgently needs to be done. Those include selection of an OB-GYN or allied health professional as a primary care provider; access to clinical trials; gender specific data; plan evaluation criteria, and a ban on gender discrimination by HMOs. The legislation before us is regrettably silent on these issues. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. It is a good bill. It has, regrettably, limitations, and we are now finding ourselves in a curious procedural setting into which we need not have been cast had this matter been brought up earlier and on which we had done perhaps a better job of evoking hearings and all of the normal processes that are undertaken in the Committee on Commerce. It is important to know here today that as we pass a good bill, many important women health care issues remain to be addressed. None of this should be satisfied until this work is done.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representative Hansen for bringing this legislation before the House for consideration. I am deeply grateful for his support and the work he has done on H.R. 3910. The industrial, cultural, and natural heritage legacies of Michigan's automobile industry are nationally significant; they have made this a greater country. In cities across Michigan, such as Detroit, Dearborn, Flint, Kalamazoo, Lansing, and Saginaw, the automobile was designed and manufactured and in turn helped establish and expand the United States as an industrial power. The industrial strength of automobile manufacturing was vital to defending freedom and democracy in two world wars and fueled our economic growth in the modern era. Automobile heritage is more than the assembly lines and engineering rooms where cars were created and built. Turning a vision into a reality, the story of the automobile is a tale of hard work and growth. It is the shared history of millions of Americans who fought, during the labor movement, for good wages and benefits. This industry shaped 20th Century America like no other; it is the quintessential American story. It is a story worth celebrating and sharing. The end product of all this hard work and cooperation, the Automobile National Heritage Area, creates something special and lasting both for Michigan and America. Again, I thank my colleague from Utah, Representative Hansen, along with Chairman Don Young. The gentleman from Utah has done a superb job, and I salute him. I say to my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and from all regions of America, that the Automobile National Heritage Area will enormously benefit the people of the 16th District in the State of Michigan and those who work in and are dependent upon the auto industry. This area is very, very important to us in Michigan in terms of remembering our history, who we are, and what we have done to build America. But all these efforts in Washington would not have come about if not for the years of planning by educators, local officials, and business leaders to bring together--in one package--a way to preserve this story. These local, grassroots efforts have been supported by many organizations in Michigan, including our major automobile manufacturers, labor organizations, businesses, towns and cities, chambers of commerce, and elected officials from both parties. There are too many individuals to thank today. But I would like to extend my gratitude to Ed Bagale of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Steve Hamp of the Henry Ford Museum, Sandra Clark of the State of Michigan, Maud Lyon of the Detroit Historical Museum, Bill Chapin, and Barbara Nelson-Jameson of the National Parks Service. I urge my colleagues to support the rich history and tradition of the automobile. Support this unique American story. Support H.R. 3910.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for the fine work which they have done on this particular matter. I rise in strong support of the conference report, which I believe will implement two World Intellectual Property Organization copyright treaties. The bill was produced through the hard work and the cooperation of two committees, and it is the conference committee that has largely adopted the provisions which were added to the bill by the Committee on Commerce. We are now considering WIPO implementing legislation that strikes a proper balance between copyright owners and information consumers. It is very clear to us that we need to have the protection of the fair use provisions which had previously been in the law. This we have done. We have included strong privacy protection for consumers. We have permitted electronic manufacturers to make design adjustments to their products to ensure that consumers will receive the best playback quality without fear of liability. We have also added provisions safeguarding encryption research, security systems testing and computer interoperability. At the same time we gave content owners the tools to discourage the production of illegal black boxes which open the door to piracy. Thus the bill will continue faster innovation without stifling the growth of electronic commerce. The bill is a good one. I urge my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.