[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                H.R. 1058

                                 ______


                            HON. ZOE LOFGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 8, 1995
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for H.R. 1058 even though I 
continue to have concerns about some provisions of the bill. Because 
the bill has been significantly improved and moderated, I was willing 
to support it as a vehicle for the Senate to complete the improvements.
  I oppose loser pays or the English rule and I note that the 
provisions in H.R. 1058 allow judges for good cause to order the loser 
to pay what that result would not be unjust. In fact, to some extent 
the language in the bill tracks language found in section IIe of the 
Securities Act of 1933. Nevertheless, I believe that section 20(B)(c) 
could be improved. I continue to have concerns about section 
20(B)(c)(2) of the bill. I realize that this provision has been 
moderated considerably and may, in actual practice, prove to be 
workable. Nevertheless, it is my hope that the Senate will further 
revise this section so that it might substitute rule ll on a mandated 
basis. I understand that existing pleadings requirements may need 
reform, but have concerns that the pleading language in the bill may go 
to far. This is one area where a more deliberative legislative process 
would have been extremely helpful in shedding light on what changes 
should be made.
  My colleague, Anna Eshoo, prepared a thoughtful amendment to the 
recklessness standard that was superior to the changes adopted in the 
bill. Nevertheless, the amendment adopted is an improvement over the 
original language.
  Over the past year of study, I have reached the conclusion that, 
especially for high technology companies, there is a problem of strike 
lawsuits that requires remedy. While H.R. 1058 is considerably better 
than H.R. 10, I have concerns about some provisions as I have outlined 
here. Had I had the opportunity to provide meaningful input into this 
legislation, I would have written something different. But that luxury 
is not available to me.
  Because I am convinced there is a problem requiring remedy, I voted 
for H.R. 1058. Some vehicle for reform must be passed in order to allow 
the Senate to act and, I hope, to correct the remaining problems that 
exist in this bill, when it comes before me again after the conference 
committee. My standard for judging the Senate's efforts will be, does 
this prevent abusive lawsuits while preserving the rights of legitimate 
victims of fraud in the securities arena?
  I know that the Senate will proceed more deliberately than has the 
House of Representatives in reviewing this bill. It is a shame that the 
current processes in this body preclude more thoughtful action and 
consideration of laws here. It is a shame, indeed, that useful 
amendments offered by knowledgeable people to improve the bill have not 
been permitted because of arbitrary time constraints. Had we taken the 
time, I am convinced we could have crafted a bill that would have 
attracted broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful yet that we will see a 
final product out of conference committee that allows for that to 
occur.


                          ____________________