Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and it is most likely with the intention of closing debate at this particular point in time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple issue at this point. It is not really substantive. It is a question of whether or not we are going to have a proper use of the procedures of the House in order to deal with a very important piece of legislation which for the past 3\1/2\ years has been considered in the Committee on Commerce. Again, in the last session of Congress we dealt with this issue, we dealt with it on a bipartisan basis and we dealt with it in a comprehensive fashion. This bill is being dealt with on a piecemeal basis and in a partisan fashion. That is not necessary. We are being promised here on the floor that if we foreswear our concern legislatively for the interstate aspects of this bill, and, by the way, what could be more important to the States in the Midwest than how much waste is going to come into their States from other States? The States of New York and New Jersey, they are basically adopting Horace Greeley's philosophy, which is, ``Go west, trash deliverer, go west.'' That is the philosophy. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line here is that we have no guarantees, none at all. If we do not deal with this interstate issue and if the Senate acts on it, which we hope that it does--we are not sure that it does-- we are ceding our legislative responsibility to the Senate--something which I find to be highly undesirable generally given their overall conduct--that we should in fact deal with these issues ourselves. However, if in fact they deal with this interstate issue and they send it back, we are going to be dependent upon the Rules Committee to determine whether or not this issue is within the scope of the bill, given the fact that the House never in fact acted upon it. If the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, would get up and promise us that that bill will come out on the floor, no matter what, it will be out here on the floor, dealing with interstate waste, then that will give us all a lot more comfort. However, if that is not the case, we are going to be like Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. They are holding the ball for us right now, run up to the football, but at the end of the day, and I mean April or May when the bill comes back, we are not sure that the Rules Committee will ever allow an interstate bill to come out here. This is our opportunity to act. Vote ``no.'' Force this process, this House of Representatives, to produce a bill that deals with both aspects of this problem, and then we can go to the conference committee with the Senate with all of the cards on the table and a guarantee that the issues of the Midwest, the issues of all those States that might ultimately become the home to this waste, are dealt with properly. That is my message to the House today, that a vote ``no'' on this issue guarantees that we will get a good and comprehensive bill dealing with all aspects of this legislation.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky]. (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of the crew of the space shuttle Challenger, and to recognize in particular, Christa Corrigan McAuliffe, one of Framingham State College's most distinguished graduates. Ten years ago, on January 28, 1986, the Challenger disaster occurred and changed millions of lives instantly. For the families and friends of the astronauts, it meant incomprehensible loss. For young school children throughout the world, a dashing of hopes. But hope springs eternal. We are fortunate in this country that our citizens respond so well to adversity. This national tragedy of a decade ago also served to spark the imagination of educators and students to develop a fitting tribute to our Nation's first teacher-astronaut. In October 1994, Framingham State College opened the Christa Corrigan McAuliffe Center and the Challenger Learning Center, two innovative educational facilities. Inspired by the memory of the Challenger crew, the learning centers serve as a continuation of part of the Challenger mission: to motivate students to pursue math, science, and technology studies by providing them with exciting educational programs which use space exploration as a theme, and to energize teachers by providing new and interesting training. In addition, Framingham State College is commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Challenger mission by sponsoring a program entitled ``Christa's Teachers,'' a teachers' honor roll which pays tribute to Christa McAuliffe, America's teacher in space, by recognizing the best teachers in America. Christa Corrigan McAuliffe and the Challenger crew were true American heroes. They have left an indelible mark on the fabric of our society, particularly in education; and their enduring legacy is the network of Challenger Centers throughout our Nation which links our students and teachers and captures the imaginations of millions.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, radical Republicans in Congress are preparing again to take political hostages in order to force President Clinton to accept their extreme agenda. If insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, legislative lunacy is shutting down the Federal Government for a third time and expecting public support. Having learned nothing from the two Government shutdowns they manufactured last year, key Republican leaders are threatening to force yet another fiscal crisis unless they get a substantial share of their agenda. They're threatening to load up funding bills with extremist riders and let the United States go into default unless the President agrees to give massive tax breaks for the rich paid for by deep cuts in Medicare, education, and the environment. Last fall, the Republicans launched their first fiscal strike, shutting down the Government for 5 days. In December, the GOP launched their second strike, shutting down the Government for 3 weeks. If there is another Government shutdown or a default, the American people have every right to go to the polls in November and tell the GOP: ``Three Strikes and You're Out.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this resolution must be defeated. It is a resolution that allows Congress to go into recess for 21 days with the Government partially shut down. For the last 21 days the Federal Government has not been paying some Federal workers to work and not paying other Federal workers not to work, while all the time promising to pay both groups for working and not working. The GOP has come up with a brilliant new idea: ``We will pay Federal workers to come to work but do not actually let them work.'' That is what we are doing here today. We are paying workers not to work. That is what the so-called back-to-work resolution that the Republicans have put out here on the floor is. It is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms, like jumbo shrimp or carnivorous vegetarian or moderate freshman Republican. There is no such thing. Now, just what are these Federal workers supposed to do when they come back to their offices for the next 21 days? Play solitaire? Watch ``Oprah'' in the office? Well, I can tell you some of the things they will not be doing: Contractors will not be funding the processing of Medicare claims for our seniors. Funds will not be provided to State Medicaid programs. EPA will not be able to investigate midnight dumpers. OSHA will not be able to investigate workplace safety problems. You know, in ``Alice in Wonderland,'' the Red Queen said, ``When I use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean. What matters is who is master.'' The GOP reopening the Government means keeping it partially closed. There is a better alternative. We should pass a clean continuing resolution for the next 21 days, but, no, the Republicans say, ``We will not do that unless Bill Clinton agrees to submit a plan using CBO numbers for the next 7 years to balance the budget.'' However, the Republicans signed that very same contract back in November, promising they would submit a plan that would protect Medicare, protect education, protect the environment, and give back their crown jewel, their 245 billion dollars' worth of tax giveaways to the rich. They have refused thus far to give back their crown jewel of tax breaks for the rich, and as a result they are in violation of the contract last November. So, the hostage again continues to be the Federal Government, their employees, and those who benefit from the services, Medicare, Medicaid, and those that need protection, and the environment of our country. Vote ``no'' on this recess. Let us stay here and work to keep our whole Government open.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing right now reminds me of the story of the little boy in Lithuania who hated kreplach. No matter how many times his mother made it, he just hated it. Finally his mother decided that she would just take kreplach apart and show him that all the parts of it were not bad. She took out the sausage and fed him the sausage. ``Don't you like sausage?'' He said yes. She took out some onions and sliced them up. ``Don't you like onions?'' Yes. She took out some carrots, gave him some carrots, he said ``yes.'' She gave him some broccoli, he ate the broccoli, not too bad. Then she put it all together, stirred it together, put it on the plate, and the boy said, ``Aiyee, kreplach.'' So the Republicans start off the day and they say, ``We don't like the Government.'' We take it apart. We say, ``How about small business assistance?'' They say, ``We like that.'' ``How about nursing home protection?'' ``Well, we like that.'' ``How about a little extra money for crime protection?'' ``Well, we like that.'' ``How about some money for NIH?'' ``Well, let's put that back in.'' But we stir it all together, we put it together, we say, ``It's the government.'' They go, ``Aiyee, kreplach.'' Let us hope when we bring it back out here on the floor in one big package, we could get out of here tonight without all your members shouting, ``Aiyee, kreplach.''

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the President was wise in vetoing this bill. This is terrible energy policy, terrible environmental policy. It is an all-out assault upon the environment in our country. We can go down the litany from Tongass to California Desert, through all of the parks decisions which are made under the guise of an appropriations bill, but there is a 50 percent cut in money for low income weatherization, thousands, thousands of poor and elderly across this country dependent upon this money--cut 50 percent for the poor in this appropriations bill. The energy efficiency standards that were put on the books in 1987, 1989, 1991, which have improved the efficiency of stoves, of refrigerators, and people say, ``Who cares?'' I will tell my colleagues who cares. Because of those laws we have saved 4 billion barrels of oil from having to be imported in the United States from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, 4 billion in the last 8 years. We saved the need for us to build 50 500-megawatt nuclear power plants in this country. We saved consumers in this country $132 billion in electricity costs, untold billions of dollars in nuclear power plants that would have had to have been constructed, and they say, well, this is just a small compromise. No new energy standards for any refrigerator, or stove, or light bulb, when we know the gains that are made by working smarter and not harder in environment, in energy efficiency in energy. This is terrible policy. It is a direct assault upon the environment of this country. This bill must be vetoed, the veto must be sustained, if we are to have an environment in this country that is worth respecting. Please, instead of having the EPA turn into every polluter's ally, support the President and sustain the veto.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, once again, the Government for 200 years stayed open when a President vetoed a bill. The Congress could sustain the veto, the Congress could override the veto, but the Government continued to work. The only reason the Government is shut down is the Republicans have decided, after 200 years, they are going to use as a technique laying off hundreds of thousands of employees and the services that they provide for Americans, including their ability to walk into national parks across this country. Why are we going to suspend that constitutional, historical, and successful way of governing this country? Because there is an emergency in this country, and the emergency is that the one thing the Republicans cannot do is get this $245 billion tax break for the wealthy in America. That is what the whole debate is over. The bills which they are insisting upon the President passing include other parts of the Contract With America which include gutting of environmental laws. The historical mechanism by which we change environmental laws was through the appropriations process, by which you brought the EPA, Superfund, and the national parks laws out here separately. They do not want to do it that way. We are in emergency, martial law, to get that tax break for the wealthy. We will hold every ordinary Federal employee hostage. America held hostage to this tax break for the wealthy. That is what it is all about. We are going to gut environmental laws, we are going to cut Medicare, but we cannot keep the Government going. For 200 years, and, by the way, there are a lot of things that can be said about the Democratic Party, but for the 60 years we ran this place, the Government did not shut down. Once the Republicans get in charge, the whole thing comes down around their ears. That is why we should sustain the President's veto and ensure that regular constitutional process is continued.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any of us can tolerate the misrepresentation of why the parks are closed down. The parks are closed down for one very simple reason. The Republicans have yet to receive their crown jewel in the Contract With America, which is a $245 billion tax break for the rich in America. You guys are holding up the whole Federal government in order to get that. Whether it be the parks or Medicare or student loans, you are going to hold your breath until you get that $245 billion to fulfill your contract with the country club in America. Do not lay off the closing of the Federal parks on Bill Clinton. All he is saying is, open the parks, but do not expect me to cut Medicare and student loans and give a big tax break to the wealthy as the price for doing it. You can open the parks this afternoon if you want to, but you do not want to because you cannot as a result stop the Federal Government from operating in order to give your huge tax break for the corporate officials and country clubs across this country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the budget negotiators finally got to the key issue in the budget debate: whether or not we are going to provide a $245 billion tax break largely for the rich in this country as part of the 7-year balanced budget plan. The Republican Party considers the tax cut for the rich to be the crown jewel in their Contract With America, and they have promised to keep the Government shut down until we give this tax break to the rich. The crown jewel is a good metaphor, for without the tax cut for the rich, the contract will not sparkle, it will not shine. But it is a jewel at a great price. To pay it, we must cut student loans, we must slash Medicare, we must cut Medicaid, we must slash environmental programs. The Gingrich budget promises 7 years of milk and honey and tax breaks for the rich, but 7 years of financial famine and locusts for the working-class people of our country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when a hurricane or a tornado causes a billion dollars' worth of damage to homes and families, the Nation races to their aid. But when investors are defrauded of $1 billion, such as the Prudential Securities case, it is a silent hurricane that ravages the life savings of families across this country. The President wants to protect growing companies and growing families. We must help him to fix this bill. We must have a ``no'' vote on this override. It is absolutely critical for us to block all frivolous cases. The President, and those of us who are supporting the President's position, want to block all frivolous lawsuits, and we will do so. But we do not want to block meritorious cases. Mr. Speaker, what a sad state of affairs in this country if, in the name of job creation, we block meritorious cases brought by defrauded investors against financial scam artists who have lied and deceived investors in this country. Mr. Speaker, a ``no'' vote is the only correct vote here to defend against the defrauding of investors in this country; to ensure that meritorious cases can be brought; to ensure that the pleadings are not too high; to ensure that, in fact, loser-pays does not become an absolute block to ordinary individuals in bringing cases; to ensure that companies and financial experts cannot lie, deliberately lie, deliberately defraud individuals across this country. Support the President. Vote ``no''. Vote ``no'' here to protect average investors in this country. Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, we will come back and we will give them a bill which will block all frivolous lawsuits that will be brought in this country. Vote ``no.''

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman]. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the President has determined that a veto is appropriate for this particular piece of legislation, and has sent back to this Congress a number of concerns which I think he has legitimately raised about the legislation in its present form. I think that it is ill-advised for us to be debating a veto and its override at this particular time. I think that the more appropriate course for this House would have been for there to now have been conducted a conversation, a negotiation between the White House and the Members of Congress who have an interest in this bill to determine whether or not changes could have been made which would have dealt with the very legitimate concerns which were raised in the President's veto message. That has not been the case. Instead, what we see is a rush here to the floor to override the President's veto without any real deliberation as to the substantive issues which were raised in his message. I think that is a big mistake, Mr. Speaker. I think that this House should have, in fact, engaged today at least in a discussion of the very important issues that have been raised. Mr. Speaker, let us begin with a number of these concerns and try our best to lay out why the President did take the time to pour over this particular bill and to dissect it, as the good law professor which he used to be, in an attempt to come to some common sense resolution of a very troublesome set of issues. Clearly, the President agrees with just about every Member out here that frivolous lawsuits have to be cut off. We cannot allow the courts to be used in a way that have frivolous lawsuits being brought by unscrupulous lawyers in an attempt to hold up legitimate businesspeople across this country. But at the same time, the President does not want the law changed in a way that prohibits meritorious lawsuits from being brought. He makes quite clear his concern that, in fact, that would be the necessary result of passage and ultimate implementation of the bill as it had originally been passed through the House and the Senate. The pleading requirement, as it has been included in the legislation originally, must be modified so that it is tough, but that it is also reasonable. The Second Circuit's existing standard for pleading, which passed the Senate, by the way, in June, should be included in the bill, in my opinion. This is the second highest priority, I think, overall in this legislation, along with a number of other concerns which I will raise a little bit later. My colleagues should note that the ninth circuit, which includes California, rejected the second circuit standard in favor of a much more relaxed approach. So, the codification of the second circuit's standard is something which in my opinion is something that we should be debating out here on the floor. The issue has been raised by Senator Specter who has taken the time to write to the White House and he strenuously objects to the bill in its present form. Leading legal scholars, including the dean of the NYU Law School, believes that this is one of the most harmful issues in the bill. In addition, and something that is quite important in the overall deliberations, is the safe-harbor provision for forward-looking statements, which would give blanket immunity to those who would commit intentional fraud. A scienter requirement should be added to the safe- harbor so that intentional wrongdoers cannot cloak them in immunity that was intended only for those who make good-faith projections in estimates. That is, in fact, a contention which has to be debated throughout this entire proceeding. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the statement of managers accompanying the conference report instructs courts to look only at the adequacy of the meaningful cautionary language to determine if the safe-harbor should apply. The state of mind of the company's executives, meaning whether not they intended to deceive or to mislead investors, is supposed to be irrelevant, even if the executive of the company, of the financial firm, intentionally lies to the investing public. Now, that is wrong; simply wrong, and it must be addressed in this debate that we are having on such an important piece of legislation. I also want to note that this revision would be consistent with a statement previously attributed to the President, which I think is now quite clear in his veto message, that he could not sign a bill that allowed someone to lie intentionally and to get away with it. That is the core of his message, and it is something that I think we are going to have to deal with today, and in the subsequent days ahead, as we with what the ramifications of passage of this bill without inclusion of the very wise recommendations that have been made by the President to the Congress in his veto message. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at this point, the Members are presented with a very narrow issue: Will the House block meritorious suits, or will it allow meritorious suits to go forward in the courts of this country as they have throughout our history? The President has asked for a very narrow set of changes. This is not about frivolous lawsuits any longer. The President agrees that frivolous lawsuits must be discontinued. This is now a battle over whether or not we will support the President's veto, sustain him and, in fact, then begin the discussion over the narrow set of issues which he has raised to ensure that this bill does not go too far in cutting off the meritorious cases which citizens of our country have been allowed to bring throughout our history. The President has said that he will sign just about anything in the bill except those provisions which block meritorious suits. The veto message makes very clear what changes he is seeking, and that those changes are meant to protect investors who have been defrauded. Let me emphasize again that the President is not seeking to allow frivolous suits. The only issue raised by his veto message is whether or not, in fact, we will deal with the points in the legislation which have gone too far, which have raised pleadings standards too far, which have changed the safe harbor provisions to the point where actual lying is permitted, which put an unfair burden upon plaintiffs in terms of the risks which they must assume in terms of loser-pays. That is what we are talking about now. The rest of it the President says is acceptable to him. Now, he is in good company. Let me read to you some of the people who side with the President. We begin with the Fraternal Order of Police, the Fraternal Order of Police, ``I urge you to reject the 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.'' That is the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police. The International Association of Firefighters: ``Firefighters put their lives at risk to save others. Should they also have to put their hard-earning savings at risk too?'' That is the general president of the International Association of Firefighters. The Consumer Federation of America: ``The bill would immunize knowing and reckless violations of the securities laws, reduce compensation to victims of fraud, and undermine public confidence in the market. It represents special interest politics at its worst.'' That is the Consumer Federation of America. Here are the Attorneys General of the United States, 11 attorneys general writing to the Congress: ``We cannot countenance such a weakening of critical enforcement against white collar fraud. The bill goes too far beyond what is necessary. It would likely result in a dramatic increase in securities fraud.'' Here is the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities commenting on this bill: ``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 this bill would imperil the ability of public officials to protect billions of dollars of taxpayers monies in short-term investments and pension funds.'' The changes which the President recommends in his veto message will still guarantee that the frivolous lawsuits will be straight-armed out of court. But what it also does is ensure that we do not raise the bar so high that the meritorious cases, in instances where individuals across this country have been defrauded, are also knocked out of court. If we ask people to put at risk their money in a loser-pay provision, after they have already lost half of their life savings to some financial scam, who in this Chamber expects that person to now take the double or nothing risk of knowing that under loser-pays they would be held responsible for the additional cost of trying to defend themselves against the fraud which had been perpetrated against them under these extremely high barriers that are being constructed in this bill?

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MARKEY. Exactly. I am saying they would have to put at risk the money they do have left after they have been defrauded. Who in the world as an ordinary citizen would do that to their family, to take on a major financial or corporate entity, with the sure uncertain knowledge, not that they could lose, but that there is the risk? The risk itself it could happen, no matter how small, would serve as an absolute bar to an ordinary citizen participating in these lawsuits. That is what this debate is about; not immunizing ordinary lawsuits, just the opposite. Let us join together to ban frivolous lawsuits with the President, but let us not wall out the capacity to have the meritorious lawsuits which we all know, we all know in our souls, should be continued to be brought in court. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.