Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the Government Printing Office [GPO] for its outstanding work on the GPO Access Network. For its efforts, the GPO has received the James Madison Award for 1995. The Madison Awards are presented by the Coalition on Government Information to those individuals or organizations who enhance citizens' knowledge while championing the public's right to know. Previous winners of these awards include Vice President Albert Gore, Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, and Representative Henry Waxman. The GPO is certainly worthy of joining this list of well-known and respected officials. The GPO has developed an access system which allows American citizens to obtain information including congressional bills, the Congressional Record, Federal Register, the U.S. Code, and more than 6,000 other files from 25 Federal agencies. Additionally, the network can be accessed at no charge from libraries that act as Federal depositories 24 hours a day. As James Madison stated, ``a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or, perhaps both.'' Madison realized that a well-informed citizenry is the crucial ingredient for healthy debate. As all of my colleagues are aware, informed and spirited debate is the root of a healthy democracy. The GPO access network is a perfect example of how the new information ``super highway'' will heighten the level of public discourse. In Rhode Island, the GPO has done an outstanding job of fulfilling Madison's vision of a politically aware and active citizenry. Because of the team effort of the GPO, Ocean State Free Net, and the Federal Depository libraries in the State, Rhode Islanders are now able to access all of the aforementioned information with their own home computers. Having such information available will enhance our citizens understanding of Government and their desire to participate in the democratic process. I am confident that continued cooperation between the Federal Government, State Agencies, and American citizens will yield rapid advancement into this new era of shared information. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend the outstanding achievement and continuing efforts of the Government Printing Office, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in saluting them.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gephardt education tax deduction legislation and in strong opposition to the ill-conceived Republican tax bill. I am opposed to the Contract on America tax bill because it is a return to the failed policies of the 1980's, it provides much for the well-to-do and little for the middle-class, and it will massively increase the deficit. It is also interesting to note that this tax cut bill actually would raise taxes on Federal workers. In the 1980's the American people were told that tax cuts for the wealthy would trickle down to the average American. They didn't. The American people were also told that the deficit would be cut. Well it wasn't. Regrettably, the Republicans are ready to try this experiment again today. Proponents of the Contract tax bill claim it will help the American middle-class. Well, it won't. Indeed, it is estimated that 51 percent of the benefits from this bill go to the top 12 percent of earners. For the average family most of us would consider middle-class, those making $30,000 to $50,000, would get a tax break of $569, but a family making over $200,000 gets $11,266. If this isn't unfair enough to make someone question this bill, the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which President Reagan introduced, further tilts the balance against working Americans. The AMT ensures that large corporations have to pay at least some tax. Prior to President Reagan's introduction of the AMT, large, profitable companies paid no tax and in some cases actually got rebates. For example, AT&T got a $636 million rebate, even though its profits were $24.9 billion. DuPont got a $179 million rebate, but made $3.8 billion. GE didn't get a rebate, it just didn't pay taxes for 3 years between 1982 and 1985. How does this help middle-class families? Not only does the Contract tax bill do little for the middle-class, it also swells the deficit. Over the first 5 years, the Contract tax bill would cost roughly $200 billion which the majority has paid for by cutting child nutrition programs and tightening the caps on discretionary spending. However, the total cost over 10 years would be almost $700 billion. I believe this is why many in the Senate, like Senator Chafee, are opposed to the Contract's tax cuts. If the Republicans follow through with their pledge to protect Social Security and defense spending while balancing the budget, this tax bill will require 30 percent cuts in all other domestic programs like student loans, transportation, and job training. Cutting the deficit further than we did in 1993 will be a tough job, but the Contract tax bill makes achieving a balanced budget all the more difficult, if not impossible. I would also like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they promised to pass specific spending cuts before they passed any tax cuts. I know many of my Republican colleagues share this concern over the deficit impact of their party's tax bill. Indeed, many of them tried to add a provision to the bill to prohibit tax cuts before the deficit is eliminated. However, their party's leadership was not willing to support that proposal. Instead, the Contract tax bill only requires an annual report on progress in balancing the budget. However, the Democratic alternative requires that all tax cuts would be revoked, if deficit targets are not achieved. This Democratic provision guarantees that deficit reduction comes before any tax cuts. I support cutting Congressional pensions and bringing them in line with private sector pensions which a provision of this bill will partially do. However, I am disappointed that this initiative was included in this mistaken tax bill solely for political effect. In response, I wrote and urged Minority Leader Gephardt to include Congressional pension reform in the only amendment allowed by the Republicans. Therefore, I am glad that the motion to recommit includes Congressional pension reform, and I plan to support this motion which requires that the Ways and Means Committee fix Congressional pensions. However, I cannot support fixing Congressional pensions as part of this spurious Republican tax bill. Mr. Chairman, the Contract tax bill would also require the new Governor of Rhode Island to make-up the loss of $280 million in revenues over 10 years. Rhode Island already faces a budget crisis and unfortunately this bill just compounds this problem. But Rhode Island's Governor might be lucky compared with New Jersey's Governor Whitman whose State loses $3 billion over 10 years. In contrast, the Democratic alternative provides fair, reasonable, and targeted tax benefits aimed at helping middle-class families make a productive investment in their children's education. The Democratic tax fairness bill provides a $10,000 tuition deduction. It expands the number of Americans who are eligible for a tax deductible IRA which will increase our savings rate. The Democratic alternative would create new U.S. savings bond which would help middle-class families save money for their children's education. It would also allow students to deduct the interest on their loans. The Democratic alternative is geared toward education because education is an investment in our future. Education means an increased earning potential, greater global competitiveness, and self-sufficiency. Of course, there are other proposals that the minority leader's substitute might have included, But, to the alternative bill's credit it maintains deficit reduction as the major focus of Congress. Mr. Chairman, this debate did not have to be them against us. The Republicans could have worked with Democrats to develop an affordable, fair, bi-partisan tax bill. Indeed, there are many items in the Contract tax bill that I support and wish we could have worked together to pass. First, I am in favor of reducing taxes for families making under $100,000. Second, I have voted for targeted capital gains tax breaks in the past in order to spur productive investments in jobs, not just for Wall Street billionaires. Third, I would like to see a repeal or modification of the change in the amount of Social Security that is subject to taxation. However, I am concerned that Republicans would change this tax by cutting funds for the Medicare trust fund. Fourth, I would be glad to support a bipartisan change in the Social Security earnings limit. Fifth, I believe we need to correct the home office deduction. Finally, I am sure there are a number of tax provisions we could all agree on, but the Republicans decided against a bipartisan approach. Mr. Chairman, I wish the majority had decided on a bipartisan approach and developed a sensible tax bill that truly helps America's struggling families. Instead, they chose to favor those least in need and cut programs for society's most vulnerable members--children.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to two young women who are extraordinarily ambitious and creative. Kami Grudzien and Kristina Cannon, of Coventry, RI, are two of the seven winners in the National Teen Business Plan Competition. This competition, sponsored by the Income of Her Own organization, encourages teenagers to create their own businesses and develop their economic skills. Kami and Kristina produced an extremely ingenious idea which incorporated their vision, creativity, and compassion. Their plan is to start a company called World Cheerleading Dancers. This business will stage two competitions each year for young girls who want to develop dance and cheerleading moves into a choreographic routine. This competition will provide young women with the opportunity to simultaneously develop self-confidence and performance skills. In addition to becoming entrepreneurs, Kami and Kristina also plan to make a positive contribution to the community with their enterprise. Five percent of the profits made by this venture will be donated to the Impossible Dream Foundation, which makes dreams come true for ailing and handicapped children. Besides being seasoned performers and budding entrepreneurs, Kami and Kristina are also successful students at Coventry Middle School. Kristina is an accomplished student athlete in softball and volleyball, and Kami has received national recognition for an outstanding 500-word poem on the Holocaust. These two young women are among our Nation's most promising leaders. Their example is a source of pride for all Rhode Islanders. I am truly inspired by individuals like Kami and Kristina, who pursue the American tradition of creativeness and ingenuity in business while having a positive impact on the community. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting these two outstanding young women as they begin to plan to hold their first competition later this summer, and wish them continued success.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Alphonse Auclair, a distinguished individual from Rhode Island who through his dedication and hard work, has selflessly served the people of Rhode Island in many capacities. Mr. Auclair is a lifelong resident of Rhode Island. He was born in Woonsocket, RI and was educated in area schools. On his 18th birthday, November 9, 1942, Alphonse enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. After serving his country with valor and distinction in the Pacific, including the battle for Iwo Jima, Aphonse Auclair returned to Rhode Island. Mr. Auclair served as a police officer in the city of Woonsocket from 1952 through 1977, when he was elected to represent his community in the Rhode Island State Senate. In this capacity, Mr. Auclair was a champion of veterans issues in Rhode Island. In 1962 he helped to found the St. Joseph's Veterans Association, which has played a key role in veterans affairs in Woonsocket ever since. In addition to working to improve the lives of Woonsocket's veterans, Mr. Auclair was instrumental in the building of a monument dedicated to the many Rhode Islander's that made the supreme sacrific in the Vietnam war. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring a truly exceptional individual, Alphonse Auclair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, throughout the debate on welfare reform, I have stated that real welfare reform must meet three important tests: Does the proposed plan promote work? Does it provide States with adequate resources? Does it protect children? Although the bill offered by Representative Deal as a Democratic substitute is not perfect, I believe that it meets these three tests. Individual responsibility is at the heart of this bill. On the first day an individual applies for welfare benefits, that individual will be required to sign a comprehensive individualized responsibility plan detailing what the individual is expected to do to find a job and what the State is expected to do to assist them in achieving this goal. If an individual refuses to sign such a plan, that individual will not be eligible for AFDC benefits. In contrast, the Republican bill does not require that an individual actively look for a job for 2 years. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has stated in its analysis of the Republican bill that all 50 States will fail to meet the job requirements of the bill. In addition, whereas the Republican bill simply requires States to move a growing percentage of their welfare caseload off of the welfare rolls, the Democratic bill requires States to move a growing percentage of their welfare caseload off of the welfare rolls and into jobs. The substitute also removes traditional barriers to employment by recognizing the reality of our changing work force. If welfare reform is successful and truly about work, the demand for child care will increase as individuals move from welfare to work. The substitute guarantees that child care assistance will be provided to any parent on AFDC who needs child care assistance to accept and keep a job or participate in a work program. In recognition of this accepted increase in demand, the substitute increases child care assistance for the working poor by $424 million over 5 years above current projections. Under our current system, States are often forced to choose between providing child care assistance to individuals on welfare and the working poor. The Deal bill recognizes that real welfare reform is not cheap, and it provides States with the resources needed to move recipients from welfare to work. The bill provides $9 billion to assist States in establishing programs to move people into the work force. The Democratic substitute also maintains the current structure of successful child nutrition programs. In contrast, the Contract With of programs into block grants and handed over responsibility, without the necessary resources, to the states. As one of my colleagues recently stated, ``their bill is about who gets the problem, not how to fix the problem''. The Deal bill does not make children suffer for the shortcomings, real or imagined, of their parents. The bill does not require that States deny benefits to teen mothers or their children, but the bill does require, however, that teen mothers live with a responsible adult and that the teen mother stay in school. The Deal bill also retains the guarantee that abused and neglected children will receive foster care and adoption assistance. There has been a lot of talk about the abuses in the Supplemental Security Income Program [SSI]. The Deal bill attempts to get at the abuses in the program without harming the medically disabled children the program was established to assist. And perhaps most importantly, the bill retains the decisionmaking power on how to care for a disabled child with the family, not with a State bureaucrat. In contrast, the Republican bill would deny cash benefits to 700,000 disabled children in the SSI Program. This is welfare reform that is tough, but fair. It promotes work, provides States with the resources to design effective programs, and provides protection for our children. At the heart of the Democratic welfare reform bill is work--at the heart of the Republican welfare reform bill is shifting responsibility, not resources to States. The Democratic bill represents real welfare reform that does not take from our children to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 1821, Greek patriots declared their independence from the Ottoman Empire. The 174 years that have passed since that important day have tested the Greek people, as the whole world has also been tested by those who seek to dominate free men and women and crush the human spirit. However, throughout the centuries it could always be said that the valor, courage, and love of freedom by the Greek people has never waned. The defense of independence by Greeks has always been a constant in the world, but in the years since the Founding of America, another truth has emerged in the history of Greek people. * * * and that is the special relationship between the United States and Greece. There are an estimated 3 million Greek-Americans living in the United States today. From the boardroom, to the operating room, from the halls of Government to the halls of academia, Greek-Americans have made a significant contribution to all aspects of American culture. The positive contribution made by Greek-Americans to American society has been especially true in my home State of Rhode Island, where a proud and prosperous Greek-American community has helped enrich the lives of all the citizens of our State. In recognition of Greek Independence Day, I wish to extend my deepest respect and warmest congratulations to all Greek-Americans and all the citizens of Greece.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered together with my colleague the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka. I also want to commend him for his leadership on this amendment. We are talking about creating a block grant structure. I have some very serious concerns about that. But if we are going to pursue a block grant strategy, this amendment must be adopted. We want to ensure that the Governors and the State legislatures not only have flexibility but also that we have accountability. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] so well explained, the underlying bill provides for a rainy day fund so that in good times moneys can be built up to face more difficult economic times. At present the bill requires the states to run this account up to 120 percent of the title I moneys but after that there is no clarification or determination of what excess funds should be used for. As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, under the present law, these funds could be used for any general State purpose. And having served in a general assembly, I never underestimate the ingenuity and the imagination of state governors and state representatives to find ways to spend Federal moneys. So as a result, I think it is incumbent upon us to insist upon accountability, to require that when this 120 percent fund level is met that any additional funds be either returned to us or used for the purposes that we provide them for these welfare programs. but it does not ignore accountability by the states. I urge this amendment be adopted. And again, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his leadership.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule before us today. Welfare reform is one of the most important issues we will consider in this Congress, and yet, of the more than 150 amendments filed with the Rules Committee, only 30 amendments have been made in order. And furthermore, most Democratic amendments have been shut out of the debate. I had filed an amendment, not allowed to be considered under the rule before us today, that would have made the two nutrition block grants more flexible to changing economic conditions within states. My amendment would have established a trigger which would have made States with rising unemployment eligible for increased funding to expand its nutrition programs during economic downturns. I offered this amendment in markup of the Opportunities Committee, and it has received bipartisan support. In addition, both Republican and Democratic Governors are on record as supporting a block grant trigger. I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I was one of two Democrats to support H.R. 956 during its consideration by the Judiciary Committee. I support product liability reform and I support the core principles of the original H.R. 10/H.R. 956. A cap on punitive damages We need to bring certainty and proportionality to the process. Everyone agrees that some awards are totally out of proportion to the harm done. The cost of insuring for this uncertainty is part of the litigation tax that drives up costs for all consumers. Proportionate, not joint, liability for de minimis tortfeasors. This is a necessary reform: defendants who are peripherally responsible should not be handed the entire bill for someone else's wrongdoing just because they may have deep pockets. A statute of repose Manufacturers should not be sued for a product that is still being used long past its useful life. And they deserve protection against suits that result from misuse or alteration of their products. However, this bill has been distorted by the adoption of a series of floor amendments and the failure of the Rules Committee to allow consideration of amendments that would have, in my opinion, improved the bill. For example, an amendment by Mr. Berman of California that would have provided relief from joint liability for de minimis tortfeasors while retaining liability for highly culpable wrongdoers was not allowed to be offered, in spite of the fact that this amendment received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. As it stands now, the bill offers protection not only to de minimis tortfeasors but to serious wrongdoers who are 80 or 90 percent responsible for an injury. But it is really the adoption of several floor amendments that vastly expand the scope of the bill that prevent me from being able to adopted without the benefit of hearings and careful deliberation and may have many unforseen and unintended consequences. For example, the bill now preempts State laws that impose punitive damages on drunk drivers and sexual predators, among others. It also will enable clever wrongdoers to escape punitive damages. For example, the manufacturers of the drug Zomax reported adverse reactions to the FDA as required to gain an exemption from punitive damages under one of the floor amendments; then, before the FDA could act, they intentionally dumped their inventory on the market, causing 14 deaths and 400 allergic reactions. I do not believe this is the type of behavior we should shield from punishment. Finally, because of the way the caps are structured, the bill disadvantages children, seniors, women, and middle income working Americans who are injured. A high income executive who is injured by a Ford Pinto would receive a far higher share of the damages allowed under State law than a child or a senior citizen injured by the same product. I do not believe these are the results my constituents are looking for when they ask for litigation reform. Although I support tort reform, I believe this bill needs improvement. I hope that the final conference report will return to the sound principles of the original bill, and embrace true product liability reform. If it does, I intend to support it. However, at this time I do not believe that this bill is worthy of support. I voted in favor of a projob creation bill in committee that became, on the House floor, a bill that tilts the court system against people of modest means, and includes several anticonsumer provisions.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated his life to the battle against hunger. Mr. Alan Shawn Feinstein is a businessman, philanthropist, and humanitarian. Mr. Feinstein is the founder of World Hunger Program at Brown University, the first university center for research and education addressing the issue of world hunger. He also found 10 community food banks throughout Providence and is a contributor to 30 other food banks across Rhode Island. However, his efforts go far beyond simply providing contributions and food to battle hunger. Mr. Feinstein has been instrumental in elevating the plight to end hunger to statewide and national attention. His belief that on one should go hungry has been his motivation to get other people involved, in particular our Nation's youth. In 1990, he established the Youth Hunger Brigade in Rhode Island--a statewide initiative to involve eighth-grade students in the study of the causes and effects of hunger and the development of programs. The Congressional Hunger Center, of which Mr. Feinstein is the honorary chairman, is now working to establish this program in schools nationwide. As a former public school teacher, Mr. Feinstein has always recognized that our children are one of our most important assets, and he has continually worked to improve the lives of many Rhode Island students by establishing community service projects, scholarships, and grants for self-developed programs. He has committed over $1 million to high schools throughout Rhode Island in order to start public service programs and to give students the chance to put their ideas to work. His support has enabled students to design, develop, and implement their own programs to fight hunger. Mr. Feinstein has also committed $1 million to teach community service and its rewards to children in elementary schools across Rhode Island. Author of one of the most widely circulated financial newsletters with over 350,000 subscribers world-wide, Mr. Feinstein has also authored several best-selling financial guides, a novel, and several children's books. He has been the recipient of numerous awards and citations for his dedication to the cause of world hunger. With all of these achievements under his belt, Mr. Feinstein continues to strive to empower them to take action. His financial contributions have been great, but it is his compassion and sense of humanity which has been the force behind his actions. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to commend this individual today, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Mr. Feinstein.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to object to yet another attack by the Republicans on America's most vulnerable citizens. This time, the target is low income and elderly Americans who rely on public housing assistance. Last week, House Republicans reported a rescission package totaling $17.3 billion dollars. Forty percent of the cuts came from one Department; the Department of Housing and Urban Development. These Housing rescissions cut across virtually all of the Department's housing programs, from public housing projects to elderly housing, and from tenant-based rental assistance to homeownership initiatives for working families. Rhode Island stands to lost $73.5 million dollars. In Rhode Island alone, we are expected to lose over $9 million dollars in modernization funds and operating subsidies for housing authorities throughout the State. This will severely hurt city and town officials because these reductions come in the middle of the fiscal year. Without warning, they will be left with less money to run and maintain public housing buildings where mostly elderly, low income and disabled people live. Without proper funding, many households will be displaced throughout Rhode Island and the Nation. In addition, Republicans have cut $2.7 Billion in the Incremental Rental Assistance Program. This means 69,000 rental certificates and vouchers will be denied to low-income citizens who need some assistance in paying their rent. Rhode Island's funding for Section 8 Rental Assistance has been cut by $22 million dollars. This is a loss of 209 units, which means that those households with so-called Federal preferences will spend more time on Rhode Island's waiting list. Those without Federal preferences could wait forever. How can we expect to reduce government assistance to low income people when we gut programs that are designed to move these individuals from dependence to independence? Mr. Chairman, when so much talk around here is about reforming our welfare system and ``empowering'' our citizens, it disappoints me greatly that Republicans have decided to rescind funding for programs that are designed to encourage self-sufficiency. One such program is the Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program, an approach that was hailed by former Republican HUD Secretaries Jack Kemp and Carla Hills as the primarily Federal program for helping low income families achieve decent housing. This program maximizes individual choice and requires minimal government interference in the private market, yet the Republicans believe it is not worthy of proper funding. It is important to point out that the rescissions to HUD will also have a major impact upon our children. Among the funding on the Republican chopping block is the lead hazard reduction fund. This funding is necessary to reduce the high level of lead based paint still found in many homes throughout America. In fact, my district has been faced with the increased health and educational problems found in children who have been exposed to lead. About one-third of children under six in the Elmwood area of Providence have blood lead levels high enough to require medical care. In 1994, 25 kids were hospitalized in Rhode Island for lead-related heath problems. Without this funding, these homes will go unprotected and result in higher cases of children being exposed to lead. In addition to hurting our children and the elderly, the Republican rescission bill eliminates $297 million dollars to help fight this Nation's homelessness problem including the deletion of 3,000 housing certificates for persons with AIDS who are homeless. This action by the House Appropriations Committee will only increase the current rate of homelessness. Republicans have argued that this rescission package will be used to reduce government spending. At the same time, they propose a tax cut that benefits families making over $100,000, a capital gains tax break that will cost $183 billion over the next 10 years, and a so called ``neutral cost recovery'' tax break for capital intensive companies. So while the American people are hearing from Republicans about how they are reducing spending, the reality is they are reducing spending on the poor, the elderly and our children to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. The people I mentioned tonight--the elderly, the children, the disabled, the homeless, the poor, anybody who benefits from HUD--will all be worse off it this rescission bill passes. Make no mistake about it, if this bill passes Congress, the only public housing for many people will be on the streets of America. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to call their local housing officials and ask them if this bill will make it easier or harder for them to run their programs. If they tell you that these cuts will make it easier, then I recommend you to support this bill. If, like the officials I have spoken with, tell you this will severely hamper their programs, I ask you to join me in opposing this bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. based on any underlying opposition to the bill as it came from the Committee on the Judiciary. I was one of two Democrats who supported this bill as it came to the Committee on the Judiciary. But what has taken place with this rule is that the Committee on Rules has cut off consideration of important amendments. For example, the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] has an amendment that would clarify the issue of de minimis tort feasors. This amendment received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. It was not made in order. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] has an amendment to raise the punitive damage ceiling to $1 million. Once again this amendment received bipartisan support in the committee and is not being allowed to be considered on this floor today. That is outrageous. I think the reason is because these amendments do have bipartisan support. They would have likely engaged not only a full debate but they may well have passed and may well have improved this legislation. And clearly, that seems to be the last thing the majority wants to do at this moment, make better legislation or conduct a fair and open debate on these issues. In addition to these points, they have made matters worse by approving a whole list of amendments which, if they pass, have the potential of making this bill a special interest Christmas tree, not tort reform but a special interest Christmas tree. Furthermore, they have compounded that by in fact, through the rule, changing amendments that they were adopting in the Rules Committee, and this is a travesty. Mr. Speaker, we should reject this rule and get on to real tort reform, not rhetoric on the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I believe legislation is needed to deter the meritless strike suits that are siphoning resources away from so many of our innovative bio-technology and high-technology companies. I also strongly support the sections of the bill dealing with proportionate liability for defendants who did not act knowingly. In fact, I have been a cosponsor of bills to correct these problems with securities litigation that were introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] in past Congresses. However, I am troubled by some of the extraneous provisions that have been included in the legislation before us today. I am particularly concerned about the redefinition of the recklessness standard. Initially, section 204(a)(4) of the bill would have allowed any defendant to escape liability by asserting they genuinely forgot or that disclosure did not come to mind. Fortunately the drafters of this provision realized this sentence created a giant loophole for wrongdoers. Unfortunately, instead of deleting this absurd provision, a hastily drafted amendment was adopted that, to my mind, confuses the issue even further. There are other troubling provisions. For example, the bill limits the plaintiff to only one amended complaint: there were six amended complaints in the suite against Charles Keating. An amendment to exempt municipalities from some of the bills restrictions was defeated. Municipalities are hardly the professional plaintiffs we are attempting to stop and should not be barred from protecting their--and the taxpayer's--interests. As Arther Levitt, the chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, has said, ``Our markets are the best in the world, partly because our securities laws are the best in the world. We tamper with the securities regulation system at our peril.'' If this bill comes back from the Senate in a more reasonable form, I intend to support it. But I cannot support it as it now stands. Responsible legislation is needed to stop frivolous lawsuits. But we should not hinder our ability to police future calamities like the savings and loan frauds, the Orange County bankruptcy, and an increasing number of derivatives scandals.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of National Sportsmanship Day, which is being observed today in America and throughout the world. A national sportsmanship day presents the opportunity to stress the importance of ethics and fair play, both on the playing field and in the classroom. National Sportsmanship Day was conceived by the Institute for International Sport, which is located in my district at the University of Rhode Island, to create an awareness of the issues of ethics, fair play, and sportsmanship within athletics and society. Since its inception in 1991, over 7,000 schools in all 50 States, have benefited from this program. This year 5,000 schools from all 50 States and 48 countries will join in the National Sportsmanship Day festivities. The goal of good sportsmanship is an important one. It is worthwhile for us to demonstrate to our children the good values and ethics learned through sports. These same lessons will guide them in all aspects of everyday life. With the help of Sports Ethics Fellows like Olympic skater Bonnie Blair, the institute is providing an example of the pride young athletes can find in competition. As a result, young athletes learn that while winning is a goal worth working for, it is honesty, integrity, and hard work that is most important. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and the Rhode Island congressional delegation in recognizing this day.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, first let me say it is my intention to discuss briefly this amendment, because it is important, and then ask unanimous consent to withdraw it. This amendment focuses on the issue of judicial review in title II of this legislation. It is an important issue because I think we are all concerned about having an economical judicial review process. The language now is not specific enough, and I would in this amendment make it more specific by making it clear that the review process would only be commenced upon final regulation of a rule and not somewhere or anywhere within the process itself. I think that leads to a more efficient adjudication of the rules, it allows for a more coherent review by the judicial authorities, and it saves money for the American taxpayers. In addition, this amendment would limit the review with respect to the regulatory impact analysis to the procedural aspects. Was it performed, did the agency act arbitrarily and capriciously in performing that analysis. It would not invite, encourage, require a battery of experts to battle over every detail, whether the tests should have been done on cats, dogs, are applicable to large people or small people, et cetera. This is important legislation, and I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] that as we consider this bill in the future that we would once again return to this issue of judicial review and ask with your good offices if we could once again study it.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment designated amendment A.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. I echo his sentiments. I think he has expressed very eloquently the major points we have been talking about this afternoon. I would just like to briefly say that again we are trying to create a responsive, streamlined process that saves the American people money and aggravation, particularly businesspeople. What I would regret very much is that 6 months, a year from now, if this legislation becomes law, if we saw articles about a Federal agency spending $1.6 million proposing a regulation and doing a regulatory impact analysis for a regulatory matter that was, say, much less than that. You can pick out an abundant amount of examples, raising, lowering bridges, setting time zones. All these things potentially could have a $50 million impact triggering this procedure, but I think the American people would say why are we spending money doing something we have done year in and year out which has very little effect at all on small business or most Americans or if it does have an effect it is not at all deleterious or harmful. I think again we have to be very, very careful. If we stick with what seems to be working, which is the $100 million threshold, I believe we will have a bill that is better than the present model and one that we can support strongly. Again, I would urge everyone to support the amendment to raise the threshold to $100 million.

Mr. REED. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate the gentleman's attempt to balance this. I think it is not only in good faith, but he is talking about the range of voices that we heard in the hearing, but I am persuaded by Mr. Gray, and I believe he was much more definitive in his selection of $100 million. In response to my question to Mr. Miller, the former director of OMB, candidate for the Senate in the State of Virginia, recently, and someone else who is involved in the business community, he sort of said ``Sure, $100 million that is fine. We cannot have every regulation,'' and I am paraphrasing, but clearly there was no objection to the $100 million threshold. The other point I would say again, reiterating, is that this is a threshold that has been on the books for 20 years, that has been part and parcel of both Republican and Democratic administrations. I do not think also that dropping this $50 million threshold will give relief to the small business people that the gentleman is very sincerely trying to protect. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, there are rules that well be picked up that apply only to multimillion-dollar enterprises.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I give the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] great credit to this process of witnessing to the witnesses, and trying to adjust the form of the legislation. I believe Mr. Hubner was the only business person who spoke specifically about the threshold, and in fact, the witness that I heard with most sort of persuasive force was C. Boyden Gray, who is a representative of the business community, the president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, which is one of the groups that represents the business community. In Mr. Gray's written testimony, and also in his verbal testimony, he said ``$100 million is a central threshold.''

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED. The legislation itself and perhaps for good or bad makes the OMB director a regulatory czar. At page 143, an agency may not adopt a major rule unless the final regulatory impact analysis for the rule is approved or commented upon by the director of OMB. So I mean, specifically, the OMB director is involved in this process. The gentleman from New York is making a very good point. That is, I think, the appropriate way to respond to some of your concerns. Indeed, some of your concerns demonstrate some of my fears, which is a very able, articulate and thoughtful attorney can find in every rule some of the consequences you made. And my concern ultimately is if every rule is a major rule, then in a sense there are no major rules. We have taken the process and we have to do analysis for everything. We do not have the resources to do that. I think, again, as I know we disagree, we disagree in principle that a bright line $100 million represents an efficient practical way to do what we want to do, which is make sure the big rules that impact on people at sectors and regions get addressed and the other rules can go to routinely.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and say that we have looked at the amendment. It simply requires a further specification in the regulatory impact analysis of certain provisions for the proposed regulation, including whether the individual would have to obtain licenses, permits, or other certification and a discussion of the question of fees or fines. It strikes me that most of these provisions would be outlined in the basic law governing the particular activity. I do not see any particular harm by specifying the regulatory impact analysis. It tends, I would think, to simply do what is done elsewhere. But I at this point, subject to further review and perhaps if we have comments, working with the gentleman from New Jersey as we move through the process, would be prepared, I think, to accept the amendment unless someone else has a more persuasive argument at the moment. I believe at this time we are prepared to accept the amendment.