Mr. Chairman, you have outlined the three bills we will be considering as well as the contempt of Congress resolution. You have asked us to address all of these matters in a single opening statement, so I will make some brief comments.

H.R. 1089, the Mutual Fund Tax Awareness Act, requires the SEC to revise its regulations to provide mutual fund shareholders with better information on their funds' after-tax performance. According to Morningstar, nearly one in four funds in existence for the past 10 years have lost more than three percentage points per year on their claimed rates of returns due to taxes. While this may not be significant when the market is barreling up, it sure will be noticed when the market is going down.

Enactment of this bill may not be necessary to achieve its goals since the SEC already has the statutory authority to require even more disclosure. Indeed, the SEC is meeting as we speak to approve a 90-day public comment period for proposed rules requiring the information contemplated by H.R. 1089. I nonetheless will support this legislation and I commend Rep. Gillmor for focusing attention on this important issue.

On the other hand, I have serious problems with H.R. 887. When a bill is opposed by the American Red Cross, the United Way, the YMCA of Greater Seattle, to name just a few organizations, it suggests that we should all take a careful look at it. The bill is also opposed by the Council on Foundations, the Business Roundtable, and the Association of Publicly Traded Companies, as well as by many corporations, including the Coors Company, Hewlett-Packard Company, Ford Motor Company, and the Charles Schwab Company. They all express concern that this bill will be costly and burdensome to implement and will result in a reduction in charitable giving. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission has expressed reservations about the bill.

Full disclosure of corporate charitable contributions is fine in principle. Many companies and foundations want credit for what they do and voluntarily disclose their charitable giving and works in glossy annual reports and brochures in addition to the disclosures required under the Internal Revenue Code. But Federal securities laws do not require disclosure of corporate charitable contributions unless: (1) the contributions are material to an investor's understanding of the company's business or financial statements, or its compensation policies; or (2) the contribution is made by the company to another entity where a conflict of interest exists and the amount is significant. There are no such standards in H.R. 887.

Also, as pointed out by the American Red Cross and others, the fact that the bill requires no similar disclosure requirement for items such as lobbying expenses or political contributions seems to imply that charitable contributions are uniquely in need of greater shareholder scrutiny. The record before the Committee does not support any such conclusion.

I must also oppose H.R. 1954, the Rental Fairness Act. This legislation preempts "vicarious liability" laws in 11 states and the District of Columbia. Under these state laws, a firm that rents or leases a motor vehicle is held strictly liable for the negligence of the driver of the rented or leased motor vehicle. The purpose of these laws is to ensure that there is adequate liability coverage for accidents involving rented vehicles.

While I might not necessarily agree with the policy these states have adopted, I see no compelling Federal reason to preempt the actions they have taken. The Committee never asked a single Governor from these states to explain why they had adopted their law, and what their view was on preemption. Within the last six months, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida signed a law, written by a Republican legislature, that more than doubles that state’s cap on "vicarious liability". Now their Republican brethren in the Congress want to second guess them.

Proponents of this bill say it’s unfair for a car rental company to be held liable when the company is not at fault. Well, what about the innocent bystander, the child who is only guilty of having the misfortune of standing on the street corner when a rented vehicle jumps the curb and runs him or her down, and the driver has no insurance? Florida, 10 other states, and the District of Columbia don’t think that child is at fault either, but if H.R. 1954 were to become law that child and his or her family would be left defenseless and without resources to deal with a lifetime of medical treatment, care and attention.

I would note that unlike many businesses that deal in interstate commerce, the auto rental business is more like a local business. Laws that might make sense for tourist areas, such as Florida and New York, may not make sense for other states. Rental companies understand the difference of each market and act accordingly. I urge my colleagues to be careful before overturning these state laws.

With respect to the contempt report against Dr. Miles Jones, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment voted to unanimously to find Dr. Jones in contempt, and I agree with their decision. Dr. Jones recently made statements on the television show 20/20 that on their face suggest possible criminal activities in the procurement and sale of fetal tissue in violation of Federal law. This Committee issued a valid subpoena to Dr. Jones to appear before the Subcommittee as part of its investigation into this subject, and Dr. Jones has ignored it. Indeed, he has failed to even provide an explanation for his decision not to honor the subpoena. In 1993 this Committee wrote a law to ensure that important medical research involving fetal tissue could be conducted, while adhering to strict ethical guidelines. We remain committed to ensuring that the requirements of the law are followed. We are also committed to ensuring that a subpoena to testify before the Committee is not ignored. Therefore, I expect the vote on this matter to be unanimous.