[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2749-H2759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1058, SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM 
                                  ACT

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I 
call up House Resolution 1058 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
                       [[Page H2750]] H. Res. 105

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1058) to reform Federal securities litigation, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a 
     period not to exceed eight hours. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. Points of order under clause 7 
     of rule XVI against the amendments printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. H. Res. 103 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. All 
time yielded will be for debate purposes only.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act, with 
1 hour of general debate. Following general debate, the bill will be 
open for amendment under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 8 
hours.
  While there is no requirement that amendments be printed in the 
Record prior to their consideration, priority in recognition can be 
accorded by the Chair to Members who have had their amendments 
preprinted.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI relating to 
germaneness for two amendments. One is the amendment offered by my 
friend from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
Wyden], which establishes audit procedures to detect financial fraud in 
securities matters. The second amendment is offered by a Member of the 
majority, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], to exempt securities 
fraud from the RICO statute.
  Upon completion of the consideration of all amendments to the bill 
the rule provides for one motion to recommit to the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, providing for an open amendment 
process. While there is a cap on total time for amendments, the 
minority is able to give priority consideration to whatever germane 
amendments their leadership considers most important. Let me repeat: 
that they are able to give priority consideration to whatever germane 
amendments they consider most important.
  The Committee on Rules majority is not shutting particular amendments 
out of the process. Securities litigations reform is a critical step in 
our effort to help create more high-quality private-sector jobs right 
here at home.
  Private securities legislation is undertaken today in a system that 
encourages meritless cases, destroys thousands of jobs, undercuts 
economic growth, and raises the prices that American families pay for 
goods and services.
  Mr. Speaker, the defenders of the status quo in the minority have 
said on issue after issue this year: ``If it ain't broke, don't fix 
it.'' Well, this is one time there is no doubt that the current system 
is broke, and we are very fortunate that the bill being reported 
forward from the committee will fix it.
  H.R. 1058 creates a system that swiftly finds and punishes real fraud 
and allows the victims of fraud to be fully compensated for their 
losses. At the same time it will free innocent parties from wasteful 
and baseless litigation designed to enrich litigators alone. While 
Chairman Bliley of the Commerce Committee and Chairman Fields of the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance have done tremendous 
work in bringing this bill to the floor, I would like to note the 
tireless efforts of my friend from Newport Beach, CA [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. Cox is a former securities lawyer and has been involved in 
securities litigations reform since his days at Harvard Law School. He 
has pushed this important reform effort throughout his 6 years in the 
House, and was ready to move forward when the new majority in the 
Congress made real reform possible. His hard work and leadership has 
been critical to this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, presenting this modified open rule to the House reminds 
me of a report that I heard last week on National Public Radio's 
Morning Edition. It was about a graduate school course offered by 
American University here in Washington, DC. The subject of the course 
was lobbying. As I listened to the trials and tribulations faced by 
those in the lobbying community with all of the changes occurring here 
in Congress, I was very proud to hear that the professional lobbyists 
under the new majority's policy of open rules find the issue of dealing 
with open rules extraordinarily difficult.
  In the words of the lobbyist that has taught the course for years, 
and I quote:

       A position of more open rules is a detrimental thing to a 
     lot of lobbying interests. One of the lobbyist's commandments 
     is ``keep it off the floor.'' If you can get something done 
     in committee and have it sealed and come out with a closed 
     rule, then you're safe. If everything is amendable on the 
     floor, that makes the job of the lobbyist that much harder 
     because then you're dealing with 218 folks instead of just 22 
     or 23.

  Mr. Speaker, lobbyists know that the new Committee on Rules has 
brought a new openness to the House, and they do not like it. The new 
majority on the Committee on Rules and the many Members of Congress 
that are supporting the more open rules are doing right by the American 
people.
  House Resolution 105, this rule, is no exception. It is another in a 
growing series of rules that do not pick and choose amendments to 
stifle debate. I urge my colleagues to support this very fair, 
balanced, modified open rule as we proceed with debate on the 
Securities Litigations Reform Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record material on the amendment 
process under special rules reported by the Rules Committee, 103d 
Congress versus the 104th Congress.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of March 7, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 18                 86
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                  3                 14
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 21                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                                                                                                                
[[Page H2751]]
                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of March 2, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: v.v. (2/2?/95). 
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/   
 95).                                                              Protection Act.            95).              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95).              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                                            

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this rule. Legislation of 
this complexity and which may ultimately have an enormous impact on 
securities markets and investor transactions in this country deserves 
informed and considered debate. H.R. 1058 was not thoroughly examined 
in the Commerce Committee, and now, this rule does not give the House 
an opportunity to thoroughly consider this legislation. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, there is ample proof that in the haste to send this 
legislation, along with the other pieces of H.R. 10, to the full House, 
a significant issue was left out, or perhaps forgotten.
  That issue, relating RICO to securities transactions only came to the 
attention of the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon--2 days after the 
original rule, H.R. 103, had been reported to the House. In order to 
provide for the consideration of the RICO issue, it was necessary for 
the Rules Committee to meet and report yet another rule on H.R. 1058. 
Yet, in spite of the fact that another issue was added to the debate on 
H.R. 1058, the Rules Committee did not see fit to allow the House any 
more time to debate these important issues through the amendment 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, House resolution limits consideration of all amendments 
to H.R. 1058 to 8 hours. That 8 hours includes time for voting--which, 
in effect, places strict limits on the consideration of amendments. I 
opposed this limit during the debate on this rule in the Committee on 
Rules last Friday and last night and I bring my opposition to the floor 
today. Limiting the time to consider amendments ultimately limits the 
debate and the number of amendments which may be offered. This 
limitation is contrary to the stated objectives of the Republican 
majority to open the House to free and unfettered debate. Considering 
the complexity of this legislation and the potential impact it may have 
on our economy, I question whether 8 hours is really an adequate amount 
of time to debate this matter in a free and unfettered manner.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
originally requested 12 hours for consideration of amendments on this 
bill. The majority has asked that the Democrats on the Rules Committee 
confer with our leadership to determine the number of hours that we 
feel would be adequate to cover the anticipated amendments to 
legislation scheduled for the floor. The Democratic members of the 
Rules Committee made a responsible request last Friday: that request 
was based on our best estimates of the time needed to thoroughly debate 
this legislation. Our request was based on our discussions with the 
ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee after his 
consultations with his members.
  Last week, the majority of the Rules Committee saw fit to only grant 
66 percent of the requested time. And, last night when an additional 
issue, some say a major issue, was added to the issues to be considered 
by the House, the majority refused to grant any additional time for 
consideration of amendments to H.R. 1058. Mr. Speaker, it is for this 
reason that I must oppose this rule. Last week we made a good faith 
offer under the terms articulated by Chairman Solomon and last night we 
reiterated our position.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic members of the Rules Committee believe 
the 8-hour time limit is inadequate for the consideration of this 
legislation because of the enormity of the issue, as well as the 
addition of the RICO amendment. We support efforts to deter those who 
abuse the judicial system by filing meritless lawsuits. We support 
efforts to provide substantive sanctions on those who engage in these 
activities. The desire to make corrections in the process is indeed 
bipartisan--the only question is how to accomplish those corrections. 
Members need time to consider all the options.
  Democratic members have made a good faith effort to participate in 
the deliberations on the rule for this bill, but again our efforts have 
been rebuffed. In spite of bipartisan desires to end frivolous lawsuits 
while protecting average investors and honesty in the securities 
market, this is not a bipartisan rule. For this reason, I urge defeat 
of the rule.

 AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON VOTING UNDER THE RESTRICTIVE TIME CAP PROCEDURE
                          IN THE 104TH CONGRESS                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Time 
 Bill No.               Bill title             Rollcalls   Time     on  
                                                           spent  amends
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 667..  Violent Criminal Incarceration            8   2 hrs.  7 hrs.
             Act.                                          40      20   
                                                           min.    min. 
H.R. 728..  Block Grants.....................         7   2 hrs.  7 hrs.
                                                           20      40   
                                                           min.    min. 
H.R. 7....  National Security Revitalization.        11   3 hrs.  6 hrs.
                                                           40      20   
                                                           min.    min. 
H.R. 450..  Regulatory Moratorium............        13   3 hrs.  6 hrs.
                                                           30      30   
                                                           min.    min. 
H.R. 1022.  Risk Assessment..................         6   2 hrs.  8 hrs.
H.R. 925..  Takings..........................         8   2 hrs.  9 hrs.
                                                           40      20   
                                                           min.    min. 
H.R. 988..  Attorney.........................                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             members shut out by a time cap--104th congress

       This is a list of Members who were not allowed to offer 
     amendments to major legislation because the 10 hour time cap 
     on amendments had expired. These amendments were also pre-
     printed in the Congressional Record. This list is not an 
     exhaustive one. It contains only Members who had pre-printed 
     their amendments; others may have wished to offer amendments 
     but would have been prevented from doing so because the time 
     for amendment had expired.
       H.R. 728--Law Enforcement Block Grants: 10 Members.
       Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Kasich, Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Stupak, Mr. 
     Serrano, Mr. Watt, Ms. Waters, Mr. Wise, Ms. Furse, Mr. 
     Fields.
       H.R. 7--National Security Revitalization Act: 8 Members.
       Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Meehan, Mr. 
     Sanders (2), Mr. Schiff, Mrs. Schroeder, Ms. Waters.
       H.R. 450--Regulatory Moratorium: 15 Members.
       Messrs. Towns, Bentsen, Volkmer, Markey, Moran, Fields, 
     Abercrombie, Richardson, Traficant, Mfume, Collins, Cooley, 
     Hansen, Radanovich, Schiff.
       H.R. 1022--Risk Assessment: 3 Members (at least three other 
     Members had amendments 
      [[Page H2752]] prepared but were not allowed to offer them: 
     Mr. Doggett, Mr. Mica, Mr. Markey).
       Mr. Cooley (2), Mr. Fields, Mr. Vento.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and 
classmate, the gentleman from Humboldt, TX [Mr. Fields], the 
distinguished chairman of the Telecommunications Subcommittee.
  (Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on 
H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act.
  Today's votes will bring to an end the debate on one of the least 
understood and potentially most important legal reforms the Congress 
will address this year. The arcane subject of securities litigation 
reform concerns a great many more people than just the nine law firms 
that dominate this practice. It concerns more than the handful of law 
school professors who seem intent on examining the individual trees and 
missing the forest. It concerns more than the accountants and the 
brokers and the lawyers.
  H.R. 1058 concerns desperately needed reforms that focus on the need 
to protect the employers of American workers from being abused by a 
handful of lawyers. It concerns protecting American shareholders who 
invest their savings and use them to provide for their own welfare, the 
education of their children, and to insure they have a secure 
retirement. American investors are entitled to see us protect them from 
watching their hopes and confidence disappear when the companies in 
which they invest their savings are victimized by those who file 
abusive and frivolous lawsuits.
  Perhaps the greatest contribution to the debate on this subject has 
been to help people understand there are shareholders on both sides of 
these cases, and that in most cases they all lose. Even SEC Chairman, 
Arthur Levitt, has noted:

     there is a sense in which class action lawsuits simply 
     transfer wealth from one group of shareholders, those who are 
     not members of the plaintiff class, to another group of 
     shareholders. Large transaction costs accompany this 
     transfer, as the total amount paid to attorneys on both sides 
     may equal or even exceed the net amount paid to the plaintiff 
     class.

Something is very wrong with a civil litigation system in which only 
the lawyers win.
  H.R. 1058 is about Congress removing the incentives that exist in the 
current system for lawyers to sue a company because the price of its 
stock has dropped. It is about protecting the corporations that play so 
large a role in this country's economy from having to divert resources 
that are used to run and expand their businesses into defending 
frivolous lawsuits. This legislation is sorely needed, it is not an 
academic exercise. Witnesses have testified before the Commerce 
Committee for the last two Congresses that abusive litigation costs 
have led their companies to contract their business, to cancel research 
and development, and to be less forthcoming with financial information 
to their shareholders.
  This is an open and fair rule, that allows consideration of all 
legitimate amendments. Let us cure this sickness, Mr. Speaker, and 
restore the health of America's employers. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 6 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] is recognized for 8 minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule we are considering today adds another 
Republican broken promise to that ever growing heap. The Republicans 
promised to let the American people have their say in Government by 
granting 70 percent open rules. They are breaking that promise.
  Republicans promised to consider every single contract item under an 
open rule. Mr. Speaker, they are breaking that promise also.
  I guess, Mr. Speaker, legislating is not as easy as it looks. In 
their hurry to finish the contract and begin the April recess, the 
Republicans forgot to put the civil RICO amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] in H.R. 10. They also made a series 
of mistakes in the committee report which would have opened all sorts 
of points of order.
  But they decided to throw away the old bill and come up with a new 
one that has never seen the inside of a congressional committee room. 
That way they protect the bill from all types of points of order.
  Once again, the Republicans sang the praises of a deliberative 
democracy. Where is that chorus now, Mr. Speaker? It certainly was not 
in committee. In fact, the amendment this rule adds was not even 
considered by a congressional committee. It had no hearing, and it was 
never reported out.
  How is that for sunshine? Mr. Speaker, this restrictive rule will 
keep the people's representatives from improving this bill by capping 
the time allowed for amendments. Democrats asked for 12 hours for 
amendments, and the Republicans said they had time only for 8 hours, 
because they did not want anything to interfere with their April 8 
recess.
  Well, I cannot help it, Mr. Speaker, if the Republicans put 
themselves on schedules, but we at least, if we are not part of the 
schedule, we should not have to abide by all of the schedules.
  Then they added the controversial rewrite of the civil RICO laws, and 
they still refused to increase that 8 hours to 10 or 12 hours.
  I would add, Mr. Speaker, that Republican time caps are even worse 
than they look, and all the time caps that we had issued in the last 
couple of Congresses, not one person was ever frozen out of bringing 
their amendment forward.
  Under the Republican time caps, they include
   actually the voting time. That means an 8-hour rule or an 8-hour 
debate time is only about 6 hours, and once again, they have broken 
their promises.

  Mr. Speaker, just so I can show you what they mean by moderate open 
rules, H.R. 728, law enforcement block grants, shouted to the rafters, 
``This is an open rule, this is a moderate open rule,'' they froze out 
10 Members with their amendments.
  Let me tell you, the Members frozen out were the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Stupak], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]; at least this 
is an equal opportunity freezing out of all kinds of Members.
  On H.R. 7, the National Security Revitalization Act, moderate open 
rule, ``This is what we promised you,'' eight Members, and their 
amendments died on the altar down there.
  The Regulatory Moratorium Act, H.R. 450, 15 members were not able to 
bring their amendments forward; 1022, H.R. 1022, risk assessment, three 
Members, and at least three other Members had amendments prepared but 
were not allowed to offer them. And even the Attorney Accountability 
Act, four Members were frozen out, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Parker], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. 
``These are open rules.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from south Boston, the 
former chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding.
  The reason I underscore the fact he is the former chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, is that it is so apparent the 
disparity that one must look at between the 103d Congress and the 104th 
Congress.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], Mr. Speaker, has just 
said that these Members were knocked out, prevented from having the 
opportunity to offer these amendments. The Committee on Rules did not 
have a single thing to do with that, Mr. Speaker. The Committee on 
Rules said that we will provide a process that is open and accountable. 
We made it very clear this is a modified open rule. This is a modified 
open rule.
  [[Page H2753]] Mr. MOAKLEY. Reclaiming my time, the Committee on 
Rules had everything to do with this, because the Committee on Rules 
could have given more time in order that those Members who struggled to 
get those amendments in proper form could have brought them forward.
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield further, the point is very 
clear, and that is the Committee on Rules did not make the decision 
which amendments could and could not be offered, as has been the case 
in past Congresses. It is up to the leadership of each party to 
establish their priorities.
  We are not trying to say that an idea cannot be considered here on 
the House floor. What we are saying is that with this outside time 
constraint of 8 or 10 or 12 hours, which we have had, what we have said 
is you all establish your priorities and then bring them to the House 
floor and have an up-or-down vote on them.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. It is really up to the Committee on Rules to offer the 
amendments, to offer the time to bring these amendments to the floor, 
and I do not care how my friend cuts it and talks about leadership. 
Being on the Committee on Rules, you can make a bill, if it is a 
germane bill, or you waive points of order, and you bring it to the 
floor, if you give it time, it can be heard.

                              {time}  1515

  Last year we had time caps on half a dozen bills. Not one person was 
frozen out from the debates. Under their time caps, there is not a bill 
that goes by that people are not frozen out.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, not one person was frozen out in debate. What happened 
in the 103d Congress was that Members were frozen out from the third 
floor, frozen out because they were told their amendments could not 
even be offered because we had so many closed rules.
  Down here we are saying any amendment that is germane can be offered. 
We have an outside limit of sometimes 8 to 12 hours.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has 5 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Five seconds? Well, thank you.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 5 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am overwhelmed. I want to make the point that the 
Republican Party came down and said, ``What happened in the 103d 
Congress will never happen again. We are going to give out open 
rules.'' Well, where are they?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend 
and classmate, the gentleman from Findlay, OH [Mr. Oxley], Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Commerce and Trade.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I 
rise in support of the rule as well as H.R. 1058.
  Our committee has worked long and hard on providing for a reasonable 
set of rules that these kinds of debates can take place. I think we 
have achieved that.
  I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Texas, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Securities, and 
also to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and my friend from 
Louisiana, who has really been the godfather of this provision for a 
number of years. We appreciate his ability to work with the majority in 
crafting what I think is a very effective bill that will start to get 
some common sense back into our legal process and at the same time 
permit people who are truly aggrieved to pursue their claims in court.
  I thought the debate in the committee was lively, informative, and I 
suspect the same thing will occur on the floor during general debate 
and the amending process.
  Securities litigation reform is a bill whose time has come. It is a 
provision that will allow for, I think, some dealing with securities 
litigation that is long overdue. Numerous groups throughout the country 
support this effort. We think that those companies that are just 
starting out, entrepreneurial companies particularly, are highly 
vulnerable to these kinds of strike lawsuits. That is exactly what this 
bill tries to mitigate and to change.
  I think the gentleman is correct, the rule is proper, and the bill is 
a good step in the right direction and true commonsense legal reform.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1058, The 
Securities Litigation Reform Act.
  Is there a person in this Congress or in this country who honestly 
believes that our current system of securities fraud litigation does 
not require serious and immediate reform?
  H.R. 1058 is the answer.
  As we speak, a strike suit plague is devastating our Nation and 
crippling American competitiveness.
  Unprincipled lawyers are spreading this plague at an alarming rate. 
One firm in particular files a strike suit every 4.2 business days, and 
1 of every 8 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange has been 
crippled by strike suits.
  While these lawyers claim to sue in the name of the investor, a 
number of recent studies show otherwise. For example, the National 
Economic Research Association has concluded that investors recover just 
7 cents on every dollar lost.
  Their actual recovery is even lower. Plaintiffs' lawyers usually take 
one-third of all the settlement proceeds.
  The strike suit plague is forcing our companies to squander resources 
rather than devoting them to productivity and job creation. It stifles 
innovation and adds tens of millions of dollars to the cost of doing 
business. It is time we rid our countryside of this disease and cure 
our Nation's economy.
  Strike suits are devastating our Nation. A study by the Rand 
Institute of Civil Justice says excessive litigation--largely designed 
to coerce settlements from successful defendants--may cost our economy 
as much as $36 billion each year.
  All Americans pay a hidden litigation tax to subsidize the massive 
cost of strike suits. Some pay with their jobs, as workers are laid off 
in the wake of extorted settlements. Scores of other able-bodied 
Americans are never hired in the first place. Research and development 
and other investments that spur economic growth are slashed. Consumers 
pay higher prices for their goods and services. All of us pay the price 
for strike suits as the lawyers quietly walk away with fortunes in 
extorted settlements.
  It is time to rid our Nation of this strike suit epidemic. It is time 
for a litigation tax cut.
  I urge you all to support H.R. 1058 in the name of the fiscal health 
of all Americans.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake of it, H.R. 1058 will 
encourage securities fraud. It is a bad bill. Milken, Boesky, people 
like that would have been delighted to have functioned under the 
provisions of this legislation.
  The rule is a bad rule; it is unfair, and it does not give sufficient 
time for the matters involved in this legislation to be properly 
addressed. Both should be rejected by the House.
  Now, I am no water or spear carrier for trial lawyers. I began 
pushing product liability over 10 years ago. Two weeks ago I voted for 
legislation to reform product liability laws. I have long felt there 
was a real need for reforming medical malpractice and for dealing with 
securities litigation, which does happen to constitute a problem.
  But this legislation goes well beyond meeting needs. It does what the 
old Chinese story tells about: It burns down the barn to cook the pig.
  H.R. 1058, in its zeal to eliminate abuses, goes too far. It creates 
shelters, it creates loopholes, and it creates incentives for 
securities fraud. It will impair the transparency, the fairness of our 
marketplace, and it will make it more difficult for the SEC to deal 
with problems of securities fraud, and it will raise real questions 
about whether Americans can continue to trust and to believe that their 
securities markets are the best and fairest and most open in the world.
  [[Page H2754]] This legislation is opposed by a large number of 
people and agencies that should be listened to carefully.
  It is opposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the State 
securities regulators, Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the Government Finance Officers Association, 
individual investors and all major consumers groups--all opposed.
  The American Association of Retired Persons, the Gray Panthers, 
Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America--all oppose it.
  Citizen Action, Public Citizen, and the U.S. Public Interest Research 
Group all oppose this legislation.
  Why? Because it is bad legislation, because it does not adequately 
protect the interests of the honest, innocent and small investors, and 
because it
 threatens the trust of the American people in the American securities 
market.

  I need to remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle 
that one of the reasons the United States is regarded as the wonders of 
the world in terms of our securities markets and capital-raising system 
is the fact that our system is known to be fair and people know they 
can trust it. This is a peculiarity not found elsewhere in the world.
  The bill suffers from multitudes of defects, and these reveal the 
extreme goals of the supporters, goals like ``losers pays,'' 
establishing a defense against recklessness that allows a miscreant to 
get off by the simple statement of, ``Ooops, I forgot the law,'' and 
imposing harsh pleading requirements that are impossible to meet for 
real-life plaintiffs with good cases.
  I would observe that under the requirements for Scienter in the 
pleadings in this legislation a person who has been wronged by 
securities fraud will need not only a layer but he will need a 
psychiatrist and a psychic to tell him what was going on inside the 
mind and head of the wrongdoer who skinned him and thousands of other 
Americans of their hard-won and thousands of other Americans of their 
hard-won and hard-earned savings.
  The process? The process was intolerable. Neither I nor the ranking 
member of the relevant subcommittee were included in the discussions on 
the bipartisan compromise.
  Members and staff received markup documents the night before markup. 
That is insufficient time to review and prepare amendments and 
statements. We were then presented with totally different documents and 
totally different legislation the next day, without time to review or 
to understand the changes.
  Debate was inexplicably and unfairly shut down at 2:30 p.m. on 
Thursday, February 16, in a markup which had already been shortened by 
prolonged recesses for negotiations and by a process which permitted 
neither adequate hearings nor opportunity to amend or to ask questions 
or witnesses.
  This was dictated by the Republican leadership because of scheduling 
the bill on the floor. Originally, it was not even intended for the SEC 
to be heard. The SEC came forward and said that the bill, as originally 
drafted, would even foreclose their anti-fraud actions at the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.
  This legislation still has significant defects. It ought to be 
recommitted, it ought to be defeated, it ought to be amended, but it 
should not be passed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from east Petersburg, PA [Mr. Walker], chairman 
of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been fascinated by the series of speeches that 
have been made on this rule and several others that seem to basically 
complain about the fact that things are actually getting done in the 
U.S. Congress these days.
  Now, they are not things that the Democrats want to have done, so 
they bleed and bray out here on the House floor about the nature of the 
process.
  But the fact is that we are moving legislation they do not happen to 
agree with, and particularly a lot of the left-wing special-interest 
groups they are beholden to do not agree with, several of whom were 
named by the gentleman from Michigan.
  It is true those groups probably do not agree with what we are doing, 
but then they always were for big-government solutions to virtually 
everything that comes down the pike.
  But I am particularly fascinated by the discussions that we have had 
on the floor today about the process by which we are passing 
legislation and particularly the concept of open rules.
  I have consistently come to this floor over a period of years and 
talked about need for open rules. I made those points within the 
leadership of the House of Representatives. I would prefer things come 
out here under an open rule. But I must say that I was somewhat 
disappointed in the earliest days of this process when apparently the 
Democrat leadership decided to sabotage open rules and were part of a 
process that called adjournment votes and a variety of other things in 
order to try to undermine that process, simply so they could come to 
the floor now and complain about the fact that the rules are not open 
as they would like.
  I think that is a nice tactic, it makes for good legislation. It 
makes, though, for a very difficult process to defend.
  I would also say that I think the complaints about the fact that it 
is done under a period of time is also a rather interesting argument. 
The period of time, of course, forces the Democrat leadership to 
actually pick amongst their Members who have amendments to bring 
forward, or to refuse to pick among them, which is what they are really 
doing now, in an act of total ineffectual leadership they are refusing 
to pick among their Members.
  So, against what you give them a full day to debate, 8 hours, 10 
hours, 12 hours, and so on, and they cannot manage their time well 
enough to figure out how to get various amendments to the floor, which 
leaves them then in the position of being able to go to the floor and 
say, ``This Member, somehow during a 10-hour period, was unable to work 
his amendment in.''
  I would suggest that at the very least what we are doing is debating 
these issues under a 5-minute rule and having a free and open debate 
about the issues, a debate which is much better than the system the 
Democrat leadership would like to go to, which picks the members in the 
Rules Committee.
  You see, what the Democrat leadership would really like to have done 
is they would like to go up to the Rules Committee and have the 
Republicans choose the Democrat who will be able to offer amendments. 
That gets them off the hook. Then they get a chance to complain about 
the fact that this Member was knocked out and it was the terrible 
Republicans who did not allow this Member to have his amendment.
  Well, actually I think it is a better system to allow Members to come 
to the floor freely and offer their amendment and debate them under the 
5-minute rule. And if the Democrats want to do the job of picking and 
choosing amongst their Members, they can certainly do that. But the 
system is far better than the closed system operated by the Democrats 
for all too many years.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for one 
very simple reason: It is not going to allow us enough time to debate a 
very complex and important issue that will potentially affect every 
single American.
  At the subcommittee level we debated only from 1 until 7, with many 
rollcalls on the floor during that markup. At full committee we started 
in the morning, but it was the day we were breaking for Jefferson/
Jackson weekend. As a result, with many rollcalls on the floor, we only 
had, again, a couple of hours to debate these very important issues.
  We went before the Committee on Rules and we asked, quite reasonably, 
I think, for an open rule with unlimited time so we could bring these 
issues out on the floor.
  The problem now, as we know, is that the majority is limited by their 
Contract With America in allocating any time to any of these very 
important issues. So, as a result, despite the fact we are given 8 
hours here on the floor, 1 hour is on the rule, 1 hour is on general 
debate, 6 hours are left over. And 
[[Page H2755]] to add insult to injury, the Republicans on the Rules 
Committee have now reported out a second rule allowing for a nongermane 
amendment to be made by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], and 
that will also come out of the time of the consideration of this 
legislation.
  Let me say quite simply that there are four good reasons to oppose 
the legislation substantively as well. One, an English rule which the 
very conservative----
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I would be happy to yield on the gentleman's time.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts has an additional minute.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to inquire of my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts; did he say that the 1 hour that the rule 
is being considered is out of the 8 hours that is considered for the 
amendment process?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that that is, in fact, 
accurate, and I thank the gentleman from California for his 
clarification.
  Mr. DREIER. And the 1 hour of general debate is also----
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker----
  Mr. DREIER. Eight hours is an amendment process----
  Mr. MARKEY. The staff of the Committee on Rules has just informed me 
of that.
  Mr. DREIER. I want my friend to enjoy his entire additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, but at the same time we 
have to note that all the rollcall time does come out of that 8 hours, 
and the time for the additional amendment that the Committee on Rules 
has put in order to allow a nongermane amendment is also coming out of 
the time of our ability to consider this legislation.
  A English rule is built into this law which puts the burden on the 
loser in any lawsuit. It makes it almost onerously impossible for 
anyone to bring a lawsuit against a large financial institution in this 
country. It, second, imposes an I-forgot defense. That is, if any of 
the people who are engaging in any of this fraud say, ``Well, I 
forgot,'' then they are protected.
  Remember the old Saturday Night Live skit where Steve Martin would 
stand up at the end and say, ``Well, I've got a sure-fire, guaranteed 
defense.''
  I say to my colleagues, ``Anytime you're stymied for an answer to any 
charge which is being made against you, just say, `I forgot,''' and 
that is our defense here today.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to allow that as a defense in these 
important cases, and, third, we have the depleting requirements which 
require a specific pleading at the get-go of any of this legislation 
requiring any plaintiff to be Carnac in terms of their ability to know 
what was going on in the intent of the defendant's mind at that time, 
although they know with some certainty that some fraud has been 
perpetrated, and finally the fraud on the market----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Markey] has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify that we have 8 hours 
of time on amendments, an hour of general debate, and an hour on this 
rule, a total of 10 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and another classmate 
from Richmond, VA, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the 
chairman of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to provide 
for consideration of H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act. 
This bill is title II of H.R. 10, the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act, 
as reported by the Commerce Committee. It is ground breaking 
legislation, part of the original Contract With America.
  As we said in the contract, America has become too litigious a 
society. We sue each other too often, too easily, and regrettably, too 
well. The burden on the Federal courts is enormous. The number of 
lawsuits filed each year has almost tripled in the last 30 years. 
President Bush's Council on Competitiveness concluded the American 
litigation explosion carries high costs for the American economy. We 
see it everyday as manufacturers withdraw products from the market, or 
discontinue product research, reduce their work forces, and raise their 
prices.
  There is a problem even more insidious than an increase in the number 
of lawsuits filed. It is the realization that an increasing number 
should never have been filed in the first place. The Congress has been 
petitioned repeatedly over the last few years by executives of some of 
America's fastest growing high tech companies, as well as the 
accounting and securities professions, who believe the civil liability 
system is broken. In case after real case, they can show from their 
experiences that the system no longer recovers damages for investors 
who are actually wronged and it unfairly focuses the enormous costs of 
litigation on reputable public companies and not upon those who engage 
in fraud.
  The subject of litigation reform has been before our committee under 
both Democrat and Republican control. Late in the 103d Congress the 
committee held two hearings on the subject, and early in the 104th we 
held two more. Empirical studies show that virtually all claims in 10b-
5 class actions, meritorious and frivolous, are settled. Unfortunately, 
the settlement amounts bear no relationship to the underlying damages, 
but instead are related principally to the amount claimed, or the 
defendants' insurance coverage.
  Much of H.R. 1058 is no longer controversial, despite the continuing 
cries of the plaintiffs' bar and their supporters in the State 
securities commissions. Most Members of Congress now understand and 
agree with us that lawyers should not pay referral fees to brokers who 
send them clients, or that named plaintiffs should be barred from 
receiving bounty payments. Most Members are appalled that the current 
system is a race to the courthouse which rewards the first to file, 
regardless of how little merit the case has. Only the most strident 
supporters of plaintiff lawyers disagree with the provisions of H.R. 
1058 that require disclosure to class members of settlement terms or 
that private plaintiffs legal fees should not be paid out of SEC 
disgorgment pools.
  H.R. 1058 will not cure all the ills of a litigious society that 
looks to the courts to solve its problems. But it will help to restore 
some balance between plaintiffs and defendants and to constrain that 
small group of plaintiff securities lawyers who have gamed the 
procedure and turned our judicial system into a weapon against American 
businesses, workers, and shareholders.
  This rule is drafted to provide for an open and constructive debate 
of the problems and the solutions proposed in H.R. 1058. I urge my 
colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule for a good bill, a bill I 
will probably support.
  We have just concluded a frustrating debate on the Legal Reform Act 
under a bad rule, and many ideas that could have perfected that bill 
could not be considered. I, for one, had hoped to change the fee 
shifting mechanism in that bill to make it identical to the fee 
shifting provisions in this bill. A bipartisan group wanted to make the 
change, but the inadequate time for debate elapsed before we could 
offer our substitute. Had the substitute been considered, I believe it 
would have passed, and this Member and many others would have supported 
that bill.
  H.R. 1058, to which this rule pertains, includes important and 
meritorious steps to reform securities litigations to 
[[Page H2756]] reduce the costs and distractions of unwanted 
litigation. Several amendments to be offered by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Eshoo] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
will further ensure that high technology companies, which are essential 
to U.S. competitiveness, are reasonably and properly protected by its 
provisions.
  In true bipartisan style, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], my friend and colleague, for his 
leadership on this issue. He described himself yesterday as a 
recovering corporate attorney. Not only did he and I attend the same 
law school, but I suffer from the same affliction. I, too, am a 
recovering corporate attorney.
  Securities litigation needs reform. This is a good bill. It is a 
shame debate will be so truncated.
  Mr. Speaker, the future of our Nation's future competitive advantage 
lies in our ability to develop products and services that are on the 
leading edge of technology and research. The business ventures which 
undertake such activities are among the fastest growing sectors of our 
economy. Indeed, they are the pride of our economy.
  Regrettably, many of these business ventures are saddled by the costs 
and distractions of unwarranted and meritless lawsuits, filed when 
stock prices fluctuate for reasons often beyond the control of business 
management. The consequences of these abusive suits are settlements and 
costly legal proceedings unconnected to the merits of the underlying 
case. Despite the absence of wrongdoing by managers, corporations are 
essentially forced to pay large sums to avoid even larger expenses 
associated with legal defense. Advocates of litigation reform cite 
empirical studies that show virtually all claims in 10b-5 class 
actions, meritorious or not, are settled.
  Let me share an example from the world's leading manufacturer of 
computer workstations, Sun Microsystems.
  Founded in 1982, the company now has annual revenues in excess of $4 
billion with over 13,000 employees world-wide, including many in my 
district.
  Since it's initial public offering in March 1986, the company has 
been profitable every quarter except June 1989. In that quarter, as the 
result of the introduction of new technology and the switch-over to a 
new internal management system, the company reported a loss.
  When it issued a special public advisory it was hit with three 
securities class actions within days.
  And, when the company actually announced its earnings results, two 
more class actions quickly followed. The five suits were consolidated 
into a single suit seeking over $100 million.
  In September 1990, despite the fact that Sun Microsystems had a 
profitable quarter, two more suits followed the company's announcement 
that earnings were about 10 cents per share less
 than what analysts expected. These two suits were consolidated into a 
suit seeking over $200 million.

  Mr. Speaker, these suits have drained a staggering amount of money 
from Sun Microsystems--money that could have been devoted to product 
development, research, even a return on earnings. In the period from 
June 1989 to January 1993, Sun Microsystems spent over $2.5 million on 
attorney's fees and expenses. And this does not include the value of 
the time lost by management.
  Because of the possible exposure of $300 million, and with only $35 
million covered by insurance, the company agreed to settle the first 
suit for $25 million and the second suit for $5 million.
  Amazingly, after these settlements were announced, Sun was hit with 
an unprecedented derivative action in State court alleging that the 
settlements were too generous. These actions were also settled, with 
Sun paying plaintiff's attorney $1.45 million and its own attorneys 
$500,000.
  Mr. Speaker, what did shareholders get because of these suits? 
Nothing more than minor changes to Sun's internal policies.
  Mr. Speaker, the record is replete with such examples. Examples like 
Silicon Graphics, Inc. of Mountain View, CA and Rykoff-Sexton, Inc. of 
Los Angeles. Examples that do not even begin to measure the huge waste 
in resources spent defending as well as prosecuting such suits.
  These are resources which companies, like small high-technology and 
emerging growth companies, can better devote to research, and product 
development and promotion.
  The bill, and the improvements that will be offered through the 
amendments, will reform securities litigation, end abusive lawsuits, 
and lift the unwarranted burden placed on companies that provide the 
competitive edge of America's economy.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Newport Beach, CA [Mr. Cox], the foremost congressional 
authority on securities litigation.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I will reserve for general debate 
most comments on the substance of the legislation, but I would like to 
speak a little bit about the process by which this bill came through 
subcommitte, came through committee, after two hearings and is coming 
to the floor.
  I found, when I first was elected to Congress, that the House and the 
Senate were in the business, rather routinely, of producing thousand-
page epics that nobody read. The S&L bailout bill comes to mind. 
Nineteen hundred and eighty-nine it came up here, drafted by the 
administration. Nobody in the House or Senate read it. We know that 
because it was not printed in the Record until after the vote took 
place. It happened that when we did the 6-year transportation 
reauthorization bill, even though I was on the Subcommittee for Surface 
Transportation, we did not get a markup for the 6-year transportation 
reauthorization, not in subcommittee, and in committee we got the whole 
bill the first time, and for the record my hands are probably a foot or 
so apart. The whole bill got plunked down on our desks the very day of 
the markup, and that was the first time we saw that bill, and then, 
when it went to conference, it was changed so dramatically that nobody 
knew what was going on. It was produced, I think, about three in the 
morning, or something, and we voted on this huge bill without anybody 
having read it or understood it. This has become rather routine.
  Contrast with the way the Congress used to run what we have been 
doing with securities litigation reform. We had two hearings, this 
Congress. We have had hearings in prior Congresses as well. The bill 
was bottled up in committee, and, after those hearings, we went to 
subcommittee markup, and we had a very long subcommittee markup that 
was so long that we were arguing about adjectival modifiers of words in 
particular lines. The bill itself is not very long, and of course 
everyone has read it. Then we went to full committee, and we made still 
more amendments. There was some criticism in full committee because 
amendments were allowed, that we were changing the bill in committee, 
although that is what markups are supposed to be all about, and here we 
are on the floor with a rule that is so open that just about everybody 
who wants to offer amendments is able to do so.
  Nonetheless, I understand how the ranking member might be upset 
because the bill came out of committee with only 10 Democrat votes. It 
was produced 33 to 10, a huge bipartisan majority for a very, very 
sound bill. If it did anything like what we have been hearing here on 
the floor today, of course those Democrats and all of the Republicans 
would not have voted for it, but it protects investors. It protects 
investors by providing a guardian ad litem or a steering committee that 
their class-action lawyer will now deal with to make sure that the 
clients get represented. It prevents bonus payments to favored 
plaintiffs in a class action so all the class is treated equally. It 
says that in the future the lawyers are going to have to pay attention 
to their clients when they file these kinds of lawsuits, and they are 
going to have to know that they have a case first so that the investors 
in a company that might be extorted from will also be protected.
  Finally I should point out that some of this I-forgot business 
relates to the fact that this is a fraud statute, it is not a 
negligence statute, and we do not have negligence in the securities 
laws now, nor will we have it after this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] of the Committee on Rules for according me this time, and I rise 
on this rule to point out with strong vehemence my opposition to this 
last minimum effort to completely undercut the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and allow the majority to offer an amendment 
to H.R. 1058 that would end civil RICO lawsuits for securities fraud.
  [[Page H2757]] The Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations 
legislation would now be brought to an end with one sentence that has 
never been examined in either the former Committee on Commerce, the 
present Committee on the Judiciary, in any subcommittees or full 
committees. As a matter of fact, it was not even on this rule. It was 
through a remeeting that this rule even allowed it to be joined, and 
this is one of the great protections against fraud that exists in our 
law today.
  It is absolutely incredible that the RICO amendment that is included 
in here is broader than any RICO amendment that Congress has ever 
considered before. The previous attempts at this legislation have 
failed, and those attempts do not ever go as far as this sweeping 
amendment that we are considering with such a short amount of time.
  We need more time. We could use the whole time for this bill on RICO 
alone, and it is with great regret that I have to make these points 
about a very important part of this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Westbury, NY [Mr. Frisa], a new member of 
the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. FRISA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], my friend, for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker I am happy to rise in support of the rule which will 
provide more than ample time for careful, thoughtful, deliberate 
consideration of this much needed measure which will finally bring 
about reforms to our legal system.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, the American people want our system to work, and we know 
that right now it has not been working. I find it rather amazing that 
my good friends on the Democrat side, who have not been able to do 
anything about these reforms for 40 years, are now complaining that we 
are moving toward reform too quickly.
  Well, I think the American people spoke last November 8, Mr. Speaker, 
and they have sided with the Republican majority in saying it is long 
past time to act, to use some common sense, to enact some changes to 
our system.
  Let us roll up our sleeves and get down to work. Mr. Speaker, 
constituents in my district, hard-working, taxpayers, put in an 8-hour 
day, and they can get the job done. I do not know why the Democrats in 
Congress cannot get the job done in 8 hours to amend this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to rise in support of this 
rule so we can get to debate on the bill itself, and then for a full 8 
hours, a full day's work, to amend the legislation, pass it, move it to 
the Senate, so finally we will have those legal reforms.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I will shortly offer an amendment that 
stipulates that if there is a major fraud that corporate managers 
refuse to remedy, the corporate auditor would have to report the fraud 
to Government regulators.
  I want to thank Chairman Soloman and Mr. Hall from the Committee on 
Rules for their effort to support it, and would like to note that the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] joins me as a cosponsor in 
offering this amendment.
  This amendment has passed the House twice, it has the support of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission and the accounting profession. I 
would like to note that if this amendment had been the law of the land 
in the Keating case, the auditor, instead of slinking away when the 
auditor saw the wrongdoing, the auditor would have been required to 
bring that to the attention of Government regulators and taxpayers 
would have been spared considerable liability.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The last 
time it came before the Committee on Commerce it passed unanimously 
with the support of every member of the committee.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The gentleman from Louisiana 
[Mr. Tauzin] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy for those who believe this bill is 
moving too fast this session, but I remind my colleagues that I offered 
this bill two Congresses ago. I crafted this bill two Congresses ago 
with the hopes we could have hearings two Congresses ago. We got no 
hearings.
  I refiled it last year, 182 Members of the Congress last year 
cosponsored it; 67 Democrats. And we could get no hearings until the 
very last week or two of the session when it was too late for us to 
take any action on the bill.
  There were 4 years for this Congress to move on this bill if we had 
wanted to take that time. But for 4 years, we could never even get this 
bill moving, except finally a series of hearings right at the end of 
the session.
  We have had hearings again this year. We have had markups, 
subcommittee and the full committee. We will have a full and active 
debate the next day and a half, with 8 hours for folks to offer 
amendments under this modified open rule. And I am excited that we will 
finally get a chance to fix something that desperately needs fixing.
  The old rule that ``If it ain't broke, do not fix it'' not only 
applies here, it applies in buckets. When 93 percent of these cases 
settle, most of them at 10 cents on a dollar, we have a system that is 
ultimately broke. We have a system made for the attorneys. When 8 cents 
on the dollar is all that is recouped for the stockholders, when most 
of the suits are brought to shake down companies, to shake them down 
any time their stock prices drop a couple points, when these suits are 
produced on Xerox machines, when the same plaintiff repeatedly appears 
in the suit time after time, one of them 35 times, you begin to see a 
picture of professional plaintiffs.
  I ask the attorney who brought that suit for the same plaintiff 35 
times if perhaps he did not have a professional plaintiff, or if maybe 
this was the most unlucky person in America.
  It is time for us to put an end to that kind of a legal system. When 
a legal system preys upon our economy instead of trying to render 
justice, something is wrong. The bill we will present to you today had 
the support of eight Democrats on the Committee on Commerce, almost 
half of our membership. It will have the support of many Democrats and 
Republicans on the floor today and tomorrow. It will truly be a 
bipartisan effort to put an end to a terrible legal system and to 
replace it with one that works, one that corrects fraud, one that urges 
plaintiffs to bring good cases and take them to a conclusion, to prove 
fraud exists, and to make the guilty parties pay, and to end this 
business of frivolous shakedown lawsuits that is threatening to cripple 
many small businesses just trying to get going and discourage them to 
disclose more information to us, not keep it all secret because they 
are afraid of another lawsuit right around the corner.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a day we have long waited for. This day and the 
next day ought to produce a good legal system instead of the rotten one 
we have. I look forward to it under this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the propose of debate only, I yield the 
remaining time to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] 
is recognized for 4 minutes.
  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think somewhere there has to be a middle ground 
between the previous Republican speaker who was ecstatic that we were 
going to be allowed 8 full hours of debate. Of course, that includes 
voting time, which, if you look at the chart of the last bills under 
this so-called open rule procedure, means about 25 percent of 
[[Page H2758]] that debate time is taken up. Somewhere between 8 hours 
that the Republican gentleman was excited about and the 200 years of 
common law in jurisprudence and getting into court, that threatens to 
be upset. So somewhere between 8 hours of debate time and 200 years, 
perhaps we could have a little more debate time.
  I am delighted that the gentleman from Louisiana is happy. I am happy 
it is coming to the floor. But I think on something of this magnitude, 
dealing with the securities industry, one of the pillars of the economy 
in our country, that you need better than 8 hours of debate time, 
including the voting time.
  Remember, the voting time takes a minimum of 17 minutes. Now, let us 
look at the chart in the past on voting time. To those who say that the 
problem is that the Democratic minority does not allocate its time 
wisely enough or manage it, I might point out on the H.R. 728, the Law 
Enforcement Block Grants, there were at least two Republicans, Mr. 
Bereuter and Mr. Kasich, who joined a number of Democrats in being shut 
out from offering amendments. H.R. 7, the National Security 
Revitalization Act, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Schiff joined a number of 
Democrats in being shut out from being able to offer amendments. The 
regulatory moratorium, there were at least three Republicans shut out. 
Mr. Mica was shut out on the risk assessment bill. Just most recently, 
Ms. Harman, who has appeared here already, was shut out, and Mr. Smith 
of Michigan, a Republican, was shut out as well.
  Once again, we cannot even get in the Republicans to offer their 
amendments. Some might say if Republicans and Democrats are being shut 
out, what is the difference? The difference is on the Republican side, 
being in the majority, they get to craft the bill. Democrats do not. So 
the best bite we get at the apple is here on the floor.
  Also, I might point out the only bite many of us get at the apple is 
on the floor, right here, and that is why this kind of rule is 
restrictive and not open, and I think violates the promise that the 
Republicans gave us of open rules on the contract items.
  So picking right back up again, because this is the only time I get 
under this with the time limitations, I would just urge people to 
understand that on these very important contract items, when they say 
there is an open rule, there is no open rule; that indeed 25 percent of 
the time is being taken up alone on votes. Meritorious votes, some 
called by Republicans, some called by Democrats, some called by Members 
of both sides, interestingly enough, when it is clear that is an 
overwhelming majority. So you get a situation on the risk assessment 
bill, 10 hours of debate, with 2 hours taken up by rollcall votes 
alone.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do business better than this, If you were in a 
courtroom, even under the legal reform being put forward this week, you 
would get a chance to make your arguments. You would get a chance to 
have a full and open hearing. You would get a chance for every point of 
view to be offered for all evidence, if you would, if you consider an 
amendment to be offered. You would get a chance to have that done. Not 
here. Not here.
  Talk about a contract, there is a breach of contract, and that is 
that open rules will precede each of these items. There is no open rule 
in this. No matter how you dress it up or put it, it is a race to the 
clock. A race is what is involved in here. How quickly can you talk and 
can you get a vote and will there be time for the next person, 
Republican or Democrat, to be able to offer their amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
is recognized for six minutes.
  Mr. DRIER. Mr. Speaker, this is not a so-called open rule. This is 
not a wide open rule. This is a modified open rule. What it means very 
simply is the Committee on Rules did not say what amendments are going 
to be made in order. The Committee on Rules said that any Member who 
has a germane amendment can stand up here on the floor and say ``Mr. 
Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk,'' and that amendment has to 
be considered.
  The only constraint is the outside 8-hour limitation on debate, and 
that limitation simply means that we have to responsibly determine 
exactly what priorities there are and what they should be.
  Now, there have been some arguments that have come forward from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow this is a rule 
which is closed and we are shutting out people. Well, we have heard 
from the gentleman from Louisiana, making this clearly a bipartisan 
modified open rule. The gentleman believes , as I am sure other 
Democrats do, along with Republicans, that this rule will allow for 
consideration of legislation that for years and years and years 
Democrats and Republicans have tried to bring up to deal with the 
question of securities litigation reform. Tragically, because of the 
recalcitrant leadership of the past, they were unable to do that.
  This rule allows every single idea that is out there to be 
considered.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DRIER. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. I understand what the gentleman is saying in terms of 
anyone can bring any idea up. But do you not think it is a closed rule 
if any idea will not be able to be offered because of the clock, 
including Republicans' ideas, as precedence goes to members of the 
committee first.
  Mr. DRIER. Reclaiming my time, the answer is a resounding no. This is 
a modified open rule, because what it says to my friend is if he has an 
amendment that he wants to offer, and one of his colleagues also has an 
amendment that he decides is equally as important, they should say let 
us take 10 minutes each so we can get the full membership of this House 
on record to vote up or down on this amendment.
  So my point, Mr. Speaker, is that every idea, every single idea, can 
be considered if we can structure it in such a way that all of those 
proposals move forward.
  Mr. WISE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, if that is the 
case, why did Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Kasich, for instance, when they were 
protesting, particularly Mr. Bereuter the other day on the law 
enforcement block grants, why did not Members of your party get 
together? The fact is this closes people out.
  Mr. DRIER. Unfortunately, they did not get together. That was 
something that was not able to be worked out under that process. What 
we are saying to both leaderships is establish priorities, but under an 
open amendment process. Let us proceed with making
 this institution accountable.

  In years past the Committee on Rules would kill ideas from the left 
or the right, not allowing them to even be considered here. Now every 
one of those ideas can come up under an 8-hour time limit.
  Now, as I listen to the people whom I represent, they know that the 
Gettysburg Address was delivered in 3 minutes. They believe that we 
should, within an 8- or 10- or 12-hour period, we will be spending as 
Mr. Markey said, a total of 10 hours on this, with 1 hour for general 
debate, 1 hour of debate on the rule, and 8 hours for amendments, they 
believe within 10 hours we might be able to under an open amendment 
process consider these ideas.
  Mr. WISE. If the gentleman will yield further, do they know how many 
days it took to prepare that 2-minute Gettysburg Address?
  Mr. DREIER. I do not know, the 3-minute address.
  Mr. WISE. The shorter it is, the longer is spent to prepare it.
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, I would say Mr. Tauzin, who said that 
three Congresses ago he introduced this legislation, that totals 6 
years that it took to prepare this, and I believe that Mr. Tauzin and 
others who have been involved in this should have an opportunity to 
consider this, and it is going to be done under a fair and open 
process. I suspect the gentleman from south Boston would like me to 
yield.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Is it not true though that the gentleman's party 
promised 
[[Page H2759]] open rules, more open rules than they had the year 
before?
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly what 
we have provided, many more open rules than we had in the 103d Congress 
or the 102d Congress. What we have got is a structure where modified 
open and open rules are 82 percent, about 82 percent of the legislation 
that we have considered. I think that, as we listen to people like 
Cokie Roberts, who, when I was quoting National Public Radio earlier--
--
  Mr. MOAKLEY. She erred, she was in error.
  Mr. DREIER. Cokie Roberts erred by saying that we are doing this 
under an open process. Well, Cokie happens to have spent a great deal 
of time observing this institution. She also has, there have also been 
a lot of other people who have looked from the outside. And they have 
watched this on television and they have said, ``You all are doing it 
under an open process.'' Why? Because they see that a modified open 
rule, while it does have an outside time cap, does in fact give every 
Member the right to offer their amendment, have it considered, have it 
voted on.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman promised that the contract on America 
would be based on all open rules.
  Mr. DREIER. I do not know about a contract on America. I know about a 
Contract With America.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Was it not true that the gentleman's people said that 
these would be all open rules?
  Mr. DREIER. Well, my people said that we would consider----
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Did not the Speaker say that?
  Mr. DREIER. It was said that we would consider these proposals under 
an open amendment process. That is exactly what we are doing. We are 
doing it under a modified open rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentleman is changing it. He is going to consider 
them under an open process. It does not mean an open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that it would be best for me to 
say that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this fair and responsible modified 
open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 257, 
nays 155, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 208]

                               YEAS--257

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Lowey
       

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bono
     Chapman
     Condit
     Dicks
     Durbin
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Greenwood
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Largent
     Livingston
     McCrery
     McDade
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Rangel
     Roth
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. MOLLOHAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. RAHALL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________