Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) did not have the right. That is the reason for the objection.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Skelton amendment. I would remind the Members of this body when President Bush stood up to another thug in the person of Saddam Hussein, every Member of the Republican leadership voted to give maximum executive authority to enable President Bush to act as Commander in Chief regardless of the War Powers Act. Then after the vote was taken on which the Democrats were divided, we requested another vote; and we voted nearly unanimously to give maximum authority to President Bush to act as Commander in Chief. And on every single subsequent vote, it was nearly unanimous that this entire House voted to support the President. But now the Republican majority wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We have prevailed in this war. We have a more resolute, a stronger NATO. We have worked in coordination with 19 nations. We have achieved something nearly miraculous. We have not lost one soldier, sailor, or airman to enemy fire. We have shown that we can wage an air war alone and be successful. We have won. Let us sustain this victory. Let the President act responsibly with the advice of the military and not politically with the advice of the Republican majority of this Congress who are absolutely and irresponsibly wrong on this issue. Support the Skelton amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Objection, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, do we really want to take care of ourselves first before the rest of the country? This is the bill that takes care of us, of our internal operations. When we finish with this, 97 percent of the appropriations process is still undone. Legislative branch may be the first appropriations bill. It could be the only appropriations bill enacted. Do we really want that? Do we really want to be increasing the majority whip's organization by 35 percent when we cut Head Start by 20 percent, when we cut Meals on Wheels for the elderly by 20 percent? Is that really the situation that we want to present to our constituents? If in fact we are going to increase House operations, is it really appropriate to be putting the money into the leadership offices, into the committee offices, as deserving as they may be, when we know that the people who are most underpaid are the people who work directly for us for our constituents, the people who answer constituent letters, the people who deal with constituent problems, the people who are out face- to-face with the people we represent? They are the most underpaid of all of the people that work within this organization. We can show the Members the statistics. Yet, their allocation is frozen so that we can provide the money for the leadership, for the whip's operation, primarily. If I am wrong, if the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) can tell me that the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not get a 35 percent increase in this budget. I would be more than happy for that to be explained on the floor. My understanding is that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does get 35 percent.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Would the knowledgeable gentleman from Indiana tell us on the floor how much the whip's organization is funded, and how many personnel work for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that the operation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will get a 35 percent increase in this legislative branch appropriations bill?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I appreciate the gentleman putting that information on the Record. The fact is that all of us, we are going to have to tell our staffs that we have to swallow a cost of living increase, which means that we are going to probably have to make cuts across-the-board. This bill freezes what we are going to be allocated for our personal staffs. I do not think that is what we want to do, and I do not think this is the proper allocation of very limited resources that are available to us. I do not think we want this bill to be the first and perhaps the only appropriations bill that actually gets enacted. I think we ought to be taking care of Health and Human Services first; of State, Justice, Commerce. FBI gets a 10 percent cut. Do we really want to deal with that when we have already provided significant increases for the leadership of this body? I do not think so. I do not think this shows that our priorities are in the right place. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a no vote on the rule.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, let me just say a word about what is happening in another part of the world. We are achieving at least a temporary peace in the Balkans. Hopefully, it will be a sustained peace. NATO and the United States have prevailed. They have been resolute, they have been strong, and in fact, they have been successful. There has only been begrudging admission that it has been a successful policy. But when we consider the fact that we have not lost one pilot to enemy fire, we did not have to send in troops, and yet NATO has now prevailed. And it is clear now that NATO is resolute, it is stronger, and in fact it can control what happens in Europe, particularly the volatile region of Eastern Europe, into a much greater conflagration that might otherwise have expected that we would have been responsible for ultimately getting under control had not NATO been able to pull together 19 nations and pursue a coordinated, resolute policy. This is terribly important for the long-term security of the United States. The President, the Secretary of State, General Clark and NATO, deserve a great deal of credit for their principled and resolute leadership.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The prior gentlewoman from New York was so right. We spend an enormous amount of our time in this body trying to restrict women's access to the best and safest reproductive health care. If we can channel this energy into more productive activities, maybe we can find more money for the women and infant care program or even help to prevent more of the unplanned pregnancies that are the cause of this problem. None of us want to support abortion, and hopefully all of us want to create an environment where there will be far fewer abortions. But what we are talking about today is really the political practice of medicine, and this amendment should be opposed. The drug mifepristone known as RU-486 has been proven a safe and effective method through clinical trials. We now know that there are researchers at the National Institutes for Health that believe that RU-486 could be a very effective drug in treating breast cancer, in treating brain tumors, and yet this amendment would preclude that kind of research from being conducted because as part of the FDA approval process, drug trials can proceed only if the FDA does not disapprove of a trial. If the FDA is prohibited from reviewing applications under the Coburn amendment, research may be conducted without the safety of review and oversight of the FDA. So women would be asked to participate in trials with no review of the safety of the protocol. So that is not going to happen, and as a result, we may be precluding very important advances in medicine. But we also are told by the lawyers that there is, and I accept the fact it is unintentional, but it is a very important side effect because there are many drugs whose principal purpose may not be abortion, but in fact, are effective in chemotherapy, cancer treatments, hypertension, cirrhosis, rheumatoid arthritis, ectopic pregnancies, ulcers, epilepsy, severe viral infections, all kinds of drugs that may have a corollary effect of inducing abortion. Those drugs are important. We should be supporting them. We should not be engaged in the political practice of medicine. I urge rejection of this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Oklahoma is aware that NIH is currently looking at RU-486 as potentially a very effective method of addressing both breast cancer and brain tumors. They feel that there is a substantial potential with RU-486. That ability to research the capability of RU-486 would be completely terminated under this legislation. So my colleague's suggestion is inconsistent with the facts.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. The lawyers' opinion is quite different, but I think we will make that point subsequently on the record.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 33.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentleman from California for yielding to me. I would say to the gentleman, 13 young people die from firearms every single day. That amounts to nearly 5,000 a year. It is the second leading cause of death among young people. There is a reason why there are more deaths from firearms of young people in the United States than in all 25 other industrialized nations combined. Something is wrong here. What is wrong is the fact that there are over 225 million guns available in the United States that invariably are getting into the hands of our young people. There are many things we could and should be doing. For one thing, we have concealed weapons laws. In the Commonwealth of Virginia it is lawful to take a concealed weapon into a children's recreation center. In the Commonwealth of Virginia and many other States, one can take guns and park one's vehicle in a high school parking lot with a gun in or on one's vehicle. That does not make sense. It does not make sense to be able to buy more than one handgun a month. What people oftentimes do is buy a whole case of guns in one State. They travel up the East Coast and then set up shop on a street corner in an urban area and sell those guns. These are not responsible situations when we see the kind of death and destruction that is occurring from firearms every day. It is time for the House to take action to complement the action of the Senate, to put forward a good, responsible juvenile justice bill that will in fact make our schools and streets safer for our children.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to me. I also want to say a word about the comments of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my friend and colleague. He is absolutely right. Mr. Milosevic is a war criminal and he is a bully, and we cannot yield to him. We must not let him prevail, nor can we as a society ever become apathetic to the suffering, the murder, the genocidal campaign that has gone on in the Balkans. We must stand firm; we must stand with NATO, and that means whether it is politically popular, or whether it is not the popular will, it is up to us to show leadership. The President is showing leadership. Most of the leaders of NATO are showing leadership, particularly in the United Kingdom, and we applaud them for doing that. History will give them credit if they do not get it from their electorate today. As we approach the dawn of a new millennium, we as a people, individually and collectively, must stand up for a civil society, a society under the rule of law, a society where democracy determines leadership, a society where people are rewarded for their effort within a capitalist economy. So we have a major role internationally. But we must also set a standard domestically, and there is an area where this society falls short of meeting that standard, and that is in the area of gun control. Because the statistics will show that that is one area where we trailed the rest of the industrialized nations. In fact, there are more children killed by firearms in the United States than all 25 other industrialized nations combined. Now, when we stand for principle internationally, it would seem that it is incumbent upon us to do the right thing domestically, and it is not right that 13 young people every day lose their lives due to firearms, whether it be through homicides, suicides, or unintentional shooting. Mr. Speaker, there are events such as happened today, such as happened recently in Littleton, Colorado where that enters the radar screen of our mind. But it should be an objective every day, particularly in this House, to bring us in line with the other civilized nations and to stop the proliferation of handguns and assault weapons. The last year for which we have statistics, we know that about 3,000 children and teenagers were murdered with guns, over 1,300 committed suicide with guns, and about 500 died in unintentional shootings, just in one year. A total of nearly 5,000 young people were killed by firearms, and that is a relatively typical year. In fact, in a typical year, we have over 20,000 people, adults and children alike, killed by firearms. That is way out of sync with the rest of the civilized world. There is no country that even registers on the same radar screen as the United States. They do not reach 100 deaths by firearms in a year, and we have 23,000. Mr. Speaker, two in 25 high school students, so we are talking about tens and tens of thousands of high school students, report having carried a gun in the last month. Where are they getting these guns? Why are they getting these guns? They are getting these guns because we have lax laws, because of our gun control policy which is too determined by politics and by political campaign contributions. I speak particularly of the gun lobby and of contributions from the National Rifle Association. If the Republican Party does not want this to be a campaign issue, if they do not want this to be a partisan issue, then they should not be accepting the millions of dollars of campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association. Because it is going to be a campaign issue when 85 percent of those campaign contributions are going to Republicans, when one can go right down the line of the people who lead the fight against gun control, and look at the campaign contributions, and most of them have gotten $9,900 a year. Some have gotten as much as $14,000. I do not know how they do that, because they are supposed to be limited to $10,000 a year, maximum. But we have the numbers. The numbers are available. People should look at it. People should compare those to votes. People should also respect the fact that an important vote was cast today. It was a deadlock, it was decided by the Vice President of the United States, and it was the right thing to do. I hope that this will not continue to be a partisan issue, that we will do the right thing in the House of Representatives. That, in fact, we will be able to add the same amendments to the Juvenile Justice Authorization, and lacking those amendments, that we will be able to at least add them to the appropriations bill on Treasury and Postal Operations. It is long past time. Thousands of people have died because we have not been willing to stand up to the kind of political bullying that comes from many in the gun lobby. Mr. Speaker, we should not miss this opportunity to focus on this very serious problem in our society. We must start to do the right thing legislatively. We must stop this violence. I am not suggesting that to take away guns is a magic bullet. But I am suggesting that when we went to school, we had the same kind of psychological problems with peers and girlfriends and so on, but we did not have dead victims as a result. We might have done silly things, but gosh, we did not have access to guns; we did not shoot people, we did not leave people dead in a pool of blood. And that is happening because guns are much to easily accessible to our young people who do not have the maturity to be able to use them. We ought to increase the age of accessibility to guns, we ought to put safety locks on guns, and we ought to reduce the proliferation of them, whether it be through pawnshops or through gun shows or retail or wholesale or whatever. The time has long since passed for us to take the lead in this very serious issue and restore a civil society and reduce the violence that is prevalent throughout this American Nation. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan taking this time to speak about school violence. School violence is a reflection of society. This is an important issue. We ought to be addressing it today.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time to make a general statement on the bill, having decided previously that it may be more efficient to make the statement while I was speaking on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, unless this legislation is enacted, the costs associated with year 2000 lawsuits will pose a very serious threat to our Nation's continued economic prosperity as we enter the new millennium. It is absolutely essential that individuals and companies that suffer legitimate economic injuries due to Y2K disruptions retain the right to sue. Left unchecked, strident litigators could discourage preventative action by businesses and stifle innovation and economic growth. That is why I believe that this is reasonable, bipartisan legislation that will lessen the economic impact of this Y2K potential problem, encourage businesses to fix their problems now and help to ensure a balanced, fair and efficient outcome to Y2K litigation. Excessive litigation and the potential negative impact on targeted industries threaten the jobs of American workers and the position of American industries in the world market. Unless legislation is enacted quickly, Y2K-related problems could result in more than a trillion dollars in litigation expenses. It has been estimated by one technology association that the amount of litigation associated with Y2K will be two to three dollars for every dollar that will actually be spent fixing the problem. In fact, a panel of experts at the American Bar Association's last annual meeting predicted that legal costs associated with Y2K suits could exceed that of litigation over asbestos, breast implants, tobacco and Superfund liability combined. Think about that. That is more than three times the total annual estimated cost of all civil litigation in the United States. It is inconceivable that this could occur without serious long-term damage to the United States economy. Currently, American businesses, governments and other organizations are tirelessly working to correct potential Y2K failures, but as diligently as we work on this problem it is nevertheless a daunting task. It involves reviewing, testing and correcting billions of lines of computer code. It has been estimated by the Federal Reserve that the U.S. Government will spend over $30 billion to correct its computers and American businesses will spend an estimated $50 billion to reprogram theirs. Regardless of all the efforts and all the money, some failures are bound to occur. This legislation does not protect companies that have reason to know they will have failures and do nothing to correct them. Even companies that simply run out of time will still be liable for economic damages that they cause. We have to understand that many of the Y2K computer failures will occur because of the interdependency of the United States in world economies. Every Y2K failure will have a compounding effect on other organizations that are dependent upon it. Those disruptions, in turn, cause further disruptions to other interdependent organizations and individuals. In other words, we will have an exponential domino effect. That is what we have to worry about. Many of those organizations, whether they are compliant or noncompliant, will nevertheless find themselves suing and being sued for the entire amount of damages caused by the business interruptions. That will create a substantial drag on our economy if we do not intervene, at least with this legislation. Every dollar that is spent on litigation and frivolous lawsuits is a dollar that cannot be used to invest in new equipment, pay skilled workers, train them or pay dividends to shareholders. In addition to the potentially huge costs of litigation, there is another unique element to this Y2K problem. In contrast to other problems that affect some businesses or even entire industries engaging in damaging activity, this Y2K problem affects all aspects of the economy, especially our most productive high tech industries. In the words of Robert Atkinson of the Progressive Policy Institute, it is a unique one-time event, best understood as an incomparable societal problem rooted in the early stages of this entire Nation's transformation to the digital economy. This is something we can see coming. We need to act now so that it does not have the kind of adverse consequences that it potentially could have. This bill, I emphasize, does not prevent economic damage recoveries. Injured plaintiffs will still be able to recover all of their damages and defendant companies will still be held liable for the entire amount of economic damages they cause. In addition, all personal injury claims are totally exempt from this legislation. So it is time for Congress to protect American jobs and industry with this legislation. It has been endorsed by impressive coalitions of over 300 organizations, including the Information Technology Industry Council, the Business Software Alliance, the National League of Cities, the Information Technology Association of America. It is a very wide array of public and private sector organizations representing both likely plaintiffs and defendants. On May 7, Alan Greenspan was quoted in the Post as saying that an unexpected leap in technology is primarily responsible for the Nation's phenomenal economic performance and the current extraordinary combination of strong growth, low unemployment, low inflation, high corporate profits and soaring stock prices. The goal of this Congress should be to encourage economic growth and innovation, not to foster predatory legal tactics that will only compound the damage of this one-time national crisis. Congress owes it to the American people to do everything we can to lessen the economic impact of the worldwide Y2K problem, lead the rest of the world and not let it unnecessarily become a litigation bonanza. In his State of the Union address, President Clinton urged Congress to find solutions that would make the year 2000 computer program the last headache of the 20th century rather than the first crisis of the 21st. The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act is an important part of the solution. By promoting remediation over unnecessary litigation, we can help bring in the next millennium with continued economic growth and prosperity. That is why I support this fair bipartisan bill, and I urge the support of my colleagues for this bill as well as for the amendment immediately before us.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of the underlying bill. I know that this is a well-intended effort to come up with a compromise solution that will get the White House on board, but it needs to be stated explicitly and definitively on this floor that none of the organizations that need this help endorse this amendment. There are over 300 organizations that are directly affected by the Y2K problem that understand the liability involved that support the underlying bill. That includes the National League of Cities, which is hardly a foil for the Republican Party. They discussed it at length, mayors and county board members. They concluded that this bill, the underlying bill, not the alternative amendment, is what they need. Mr. Chairman, how important is this? It has been estimated that $2 to $3 will be spent in litigation for every $1 that will be spent on fixing the problem. But it is actually more serious than that. The Federal Government, according to the Federal Reserve, will spend about $30 billion fixing its Y2K computer problem. The private sector, private industry, will spend about $50 billion. But it is also estimated that nearly $1 trillion will be spent in litigating the problem. What kind of an allocation of resources is that? That is insane. In fact, and I want every Member in this body to listen to this, a panel of experts that studied the Y2K problem of the American Bar Association came up with the conclusion that there could be more litigation involved in Y2K than asbestos, breast cancer implants, tobacco, and Superfund liability combined. This could be the greatest liability expense this Nation will have experienced. Imagine, asbestos, breast cancer implants, tobacco, and Superfund liability combined may equal the amount of litigation involved in Y2K. The problem is, there are no really bad actors here. Nobody deliberately wants to keep their computer programmed in a way that is not useful for the 21st century. That would be nuts. Everybody is trying to fix this. The problem is that some people have seen a disincentive to fix it because of the potential liability. The underlying bill fixes the problem. I do not think the alternative amendment does. I will vote against the alternative amendment and for the underlying bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies and ensures the intent of the sponsors of this bill regarding the exemption of personal injury claims. The amendment addresses possible unintended liability for defendants, including doctors and other health care providers. Under the existing legislation, personal injury actions are excluded from the scope of the act, but there is some uncertainty regarding its impact on defendants in such claims. So this proposed amendment would clarify that defendants, including physicians or other health care providers, who incur personal injury liability caused by a Y2K defect would be able to recover from the manufacturer of the malfunctioning product to the extent of those damages. The amendment makes it clear that none of the provisions of H.R. 775 shall apply to any claim based on personal injury, including any claim asserted by way of counterclaim, cross claim or third party claim, and will make sure that third party defendants brought into Y2K personal injury claims are not provided with the liability protections of this legislation. The amendment further clarifies the original intent of the legislation, and that is why I do not believe there is any opposition to it. I think it strengthens and balances it, and I would ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions made by the National Consumers League. Mr. Speaker, the National Consumers League is the nation's oldest consumer advocacy league. The League celebrates its 100th anniversary in May of this year with a Consumer Summit to be held here in Washington, DC. The League has fought persistently for such important measures as child labor laws, fair wage and fair hour workplace standards and the elimination of sweatshops both here and abroad. The League has also been actively involved in consumer protection issues such as product safety and telemarketing fraud. As a nonprofit advocacy group representing consumers on marketplace and workplace issues, the League operates multiple programs to give consumers the tools they need to make informed choices, and also to provide a forum for recourse. One of the League's projects is the National Fraud Information Center, a toll-free hotline which offers help and support to victims of telemarketing and Internet fraud. Fraud reports are sent within minutes to law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general. The League supplies the U.S. government national fraud database with a large majority of its data. The League has been an energetic and effective champion of American consumers and workers. I applaud the League's perennial concern for and contributions to the well being of Americans, and I wish them the best of luck in all their future endeavors.