On the recordMarch 7, 1995
Well, may I just respond to the gentleman? Could we inadvertently leave it out when there were no hearings on it? It was mentioned in the bill, but there were a lot of things mentioned in the bill. On this pretext, anything that was not put in the bill could have been accidentally left out. The problem that we have is that the gentleman's amendment is asking the Congress in broad daylight to believe that the biggest amendment for fighting civil fraud that has ever been put on the books was accidentally left out. I guess we accidentally did not have any hearings. I guess there accidentally were not any witnesses. I guess this was all an accident that needs to be corrected right now. If it was an accident, let us go back and do it correctly. The provision of this amendment is broader than any attempt at a modification of RICO, and the gentleman knows it.
Source
govinfo.gov




