Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, it was the President's own decisions and actions which have brought us to this circumstance. It was the finding of his own Attorney General, Janet Reno, that resulted in the appointment of the special prosecutor. The findings of fact by the special prosecutor have not been disputed, and no one here tonight has risen to defend the actions of this President. All that is in question is what punishment is appropriate given these facts? When this vote is closed, William Jefferson Clinton will still be President no matter whether the motion to adopt the articles of impeachment is adopted or rejected. All that will be decided when this vote is closed is to determine whether there will or will not be a trial giving the President his due process in the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, that would appear the least this House could do given the facts that we have before us and if we are to uphold the rule of law. It is unfortunate, it is distasteful, it is regrettable, but it is the actions of William Jefferson Clinton that bring this Nation and this Congress to this distasteful moment in history, and we must do our constitutional duty.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Mr. Tauzin and Mr. John in introducing legislation that will correct a wrong suffered by the State of Louisiana over a decade ago. I believe that all of my colleagues know that most of the Federal Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development occurs off the coast of Louisiana and, indeed, off the coast of my Congressional district. Large portions of the Gulf of Mexico are among the very few areas of the OCS where offshore drilling is not prohibited by the Administration's recently announced leasing moratorium. To put the contribution of the State of Louisiana in perspective, in fiscal year 1997 $3.2 billion of the slightly over $4 billion of OCS revenue received by the Federal government was generated off the coast of Louisiana. Louisiana has been making this type of contribution to the Federal government's effort to develop its oil and gas resources every year beginning in the early 1950's. Throughout the entire history of Federal oil and gas development off the coast of Louisiana, the state and the Department of the Interior have cooperated on the development of oil and gas resources that might underlie both the state and Federal offshore waters. Obviously, the interest of our state and our delegation is that the revenues generated by the development of oil and gas resources owned by the people of Louisiana be returned to the treasury of the state of Louisiana. Where oil and gas resources occur in underground formations that underlie both state and Federal waters, the state and the Federal government have developed these areas through cooperative agreements that ensure that neither sovereign develops the resources of the other. Unfortunately, this spirit of cooperation broke down in the mid- 1980's in the development of a natural gas field along the seaward boundary of Louisiana called the West Delta Field. For the first and only time in the history of Federal OCS development off the coast of Louisiana, the Department of the Interior refused to cooperate with Louisiana in protecting Louisiana's resources from being developed by Federal lessees. As a result, Federal lessees drained over $18 million of Louisiana's natural gas, the revenues from which went to the Federal treasury rather than the State of Louisiana's treasury. In 1989, an Independent Fact Finder appointed by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of Congress confirmed these facts. Section 6004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorized an appropriation to repay the State of Louisiana and its lessees for the $18 million of gas developed improperly by the Federal lessees, plus interest. Today, the total authorized payment to the State and its lessees, with interest, is approximately $32 million. The State of Louisiana and its lessees have never received this money. Therefore, this legislation authorizes an alternative means of compensating the State and its lessees. Under this legislation, the state lessee in the West Delta Field would be authorized to withhold its Federal royalty payments on other OCS production in the Gulf of Mexico, using these funds to pay the State of Louisiana and itself until the authorization in Section 6004 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (U.S.C. 2701 note) is satisfied. At that point, the lessee would resume its royalty payments to the Department of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to close this unhappy chapter in the relationship between the State and Federal government on Federal OCS oil and gas development. Louisiana has been a good host to the Federal government with respect to OCS development. Louisiana expects the Federal government to honor the authorization enacted in 1990. I respectfully encourage all of my colleagues to support this long- overdue legislation and ensure its swift enactment this year before Congress departs in the coming month.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been rather unclear, unfortunately. I think one must first look at the condition of public housing in this Nation today to understand what we are really about with this amendment. Unfortunately, many of our public housing facilities are crime- ridden, filled with single moms with kids, without role models of dads going to work. What we know for a certainty is what we have is simply not working. Should we come here and take taxpayer money and pour more and more and more into proven failure, or should we try perhaps to do something slightly different? What Mr. Lazio is proposing with this amendment is really very simple, to encourage people to go get a job and work, so if dad is working and mom wants to get the second job in the family or dad wants to take two jobs, not to tell mom or dad, if you go out and earn more, we are going to take more in rent. If mom goes to work, she has to have child care. She has to have transportation. She has to pay the increase in rent under the current rules. When she sits down and does the math, she has got to be crazy to go out and work 40 hours a week for a net of $25 or $50 dollar gain. We are encouraging people not to try with the current system. The end result is not just taking away a person's ability to earn money. We are taking away their hope, their hope that life for their kids and their family can be better tomorrow if they simply try harder. I do believe that if we give this one option a chance, we will be giving more than taxpayers a good return for their investment. We will be giving the working poor of this country an opportunity move up the ladder and not be warehoused like they have been for the past 40 years in deteriorating conditions with no opportunity to improve their lot in life. This is serious legislation which desperately needs to be adopted.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, on the family farm a man's word has sealed many a deal. Among working people, a handshake has led to an agreement. In corporate America, they sign on the bottom line and that leads to an understanding. In our judicial system, signing on the bottom line with witnesses is an enforceable contract. Only in the United States Congress, where we vote in the light of day, in front of the witnesses of the press, before our constituents, where we promulgate the action of this body into the law of the land and print it officially for all to read, is a deal not a deal. The working men and women who struggle in the heat back home trying to raise a crop to feed their families, I can tell my colleagues, do not look at this as corporate welfare. If any of my colleagues have a doubt, I invite them down. We will put them on a nice tractor with a big comfortable seat. We will let them sit there for 12 hours in the 98-degree heat of summer in south Louisiana. And at the end of the day when they get off that tractor, I hope without help, we will talk about welfare reform. They may have discovered a new concept. If it looks like this, we want it.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Louisianian and a great American, who died on March 28th, 1998: Colonel David Michael Moak, United States Army. He will be missed, not only by his wife of 21 years, Julia, his son Aaron and his daughter Shelane but by all who worked with him as he defended our freedom and by a greatful nation. It is fitting that we remember the sacrifice and dedication of Colonel Moak as we near Memorial Day, the day Americans pay tribute to all the brave men and women who died in the service of America. Colonel Moak was a true American hero who put country first. Colonel Michael Moak, U.S.A., 47, who was born and raised in Baton Rouge, Louisiana died on March 29, 1998 at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. Col. Moak was assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence where he was responsible for enhancing the Department of Defense's intelligence capabilities to support combating terrorism and force protection. In 1973, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government from Southeastern Louisiana University where he was also commissioned as a 2nd Lieutenant, Infantry, in the Regular Army. Upon commissioning, Col. Moak attended and completed the U.S. Army Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning, Georgia. After graduation, he was assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, where he served as a Rifle Platoon Leader, Scout Platoon Leader, Rifle Company Executive Officer, Battalion S3 Air, and Rifle Commander. Col. Moak's subsequent assignments include Commander, Army ROTC Detachment, Louisiana College, Operations Officer, 202d Military Intelligence Battalion (HUMINT), Commander, 641st Military Intelligence Company (HUMINT), Operations Officer, Executive Officer, and interim Battalion Commander, 18th Military Intelligence Battalion (HUMINT), Brigade S3 Operations, 66th Military Intelligence Brigade, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Army Special Operations Forces, Europe, Executive Officer, 201st Military Intelligence Battalion (Tactical, I Corps), Battalion Commander, 14th Military Intelligence Battalion (Tactical Exploitation), and Systems/Force Integrator, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Headquarters, Department of the Army. Col. Moak's military training included, in addition to the Infantry Officers Advanced Course, Airborne School, Ranger School, Air Assault School, Jungle Warfare School, Rappel Master, German Airborne School, Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Course, Counter Intelligence Special Agent Course, HUMINT training, Terrorism Counteraction Course, Command and General Staff Course, and the National War College. Col. Moak's civilian education, in addition to a Bachelors of Arts in Government, included a Masters of Arts in Human Resource management from Pepperdine University and a Masters of Science in National Security Strategy from the National Defense University. Col. Moak did extensive study in the counterterrorist field and published one book commercially entitled, ``Surviving Hostage Situations''. He also developed an individual self study manual for the Army entitled, ``Terrorism Counteraction''. Col. Moak was responsible for the oversight and enhancement of Department of Defense intelligence programs and capabilities to support combating terrorism and force protection for the Secretary of Defense. He oversaw and assured effective intelligence support to force protection operations for U.S. forces deployed in Bosnia. He coordinated efforts with DoD agencies, Unified Commands, and the Services. He also worked closely with FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies to assure appropriate intergency coordination, Col. Moak routinely developed and provided information to Congress on intelligence support to combating terrorism and other transnational threats. He monitored DoD agencies and commands' combating terrorism and force protection budgets to assure sufficient funding was available to meet emerging requirements. Col. Moak's awards include the Army Meritorious Service Medal (6th award), the Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Service Medal, Army Overseas Medal, National Defense Medal, Expert Infantryman Badge, Airborne Badge, Air Assault Badge, Ranger Tab, and German Airborne Badge. He received the 1997 Department of Defense award for the Most Innovative Initiative in Combating Terrorism due to his relentless efforts identifying and resolving systemic issues impacting on the Department's intelligence capabilities. Our nation is fortunate to have been represented by a man of character like Col. Moak. He served his hometown as he did his country and will long be remembered for what he gave both. The people of Baton Rouge and Louisiana could have asked for nothing more.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and former member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. BAKER. May I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), another distinguished member of Committee on Banking and Financial Services.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman's inquiry. Under the provisions of the insurance portions of the amendment, there was a technical reference to section 104 being cross- referenced with section 308; stated in other words, consumer protection standards for the sales of insurance by banks. Given the fact that some in the insurance community had expressed concerns about the consequences of those provisions, I simply chose to remove that section from the consideration from the House, thinking that that would be moving in the gentleman's direction in the consideration of this amendment. I regret that he was unable to allow that modification to be considered. Madam Chairman, the amendment before us is substantive and quite broad-based. Simply stated, it is an amendment which addresses many of the community banks' concerns who, in the process of financial modernization, have felt, frankly, not only left out, but all too often stepped on. Just last month this House passed H.R. 1151, which gave credit unions the unfettered right to continue to provide services to their consumers. Unfortunately for most small banks in this country, they are feeling increased competitive pressures from the mergers and consolidations, increased regulatory oversight, and little ability to offer new products to their shrinking consumer base. Madam Chairman, reemphasizing the point, there is little in this bill, as it now stands, that is attractive to the community banker who is struggling to survive with high end regulatory costs. This amendment makes four simple changes. It exempts community banks under $100 million in asset size from compliance with CRA; it amends the insurance provisions to allow enhanced flexibility for the marketing of insurance products; it provides an operating subsidiary structure reported out by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services months ago, which does not allow for merchant banking, underwriting of insurance, or direct investment in real estate; it provides for a prohibition on the sale of unitary thrifts to commercial enterprises. Many of my colleagues on the other side of this issue are very much concerned about the merger of commerce and finance, and the giant corporations gobbling up small town banks. We now have in law what is known as a unitary thrift, a unique financial creature which combines the resources of commercial enterprises with financial resources. This amendment would prohibit the future sale of those enterprises to the Microsofts, the General Electrics, the General Motors. It is, in fact, a protection against the further breach of banking and commerce. This is an extraordinarily important amendment, and I would suggest that unless the amendment is adopted, it is highly unlikely that many of the hometown bankers now calling Members' offices and complaining about the consideration of this bill will find an ability to tolerate the provisions of H.R. 10, without the inclusion of this amendment. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond just briefly to the intent to modify, so that the distinguished individual can understand our intent. Madam Chairman, under the provisions of the consolidated amendment, there is one small element of the insurance provisions---- Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment under the rule.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. That is correct. The gentleman makes the point that there is no revenue limit at all with regard to the unitaries that can be sold to commercial enterprises, so that a General Motors can get into the thrift business by accessing that charter. This amendment does not address that question. And so what we have left at the end of consideration if this amendment were to prevail is a very unbalanced marketplace where a few authorized actors have the right to have very diverse incomes, while we are taking banks and financial enterprises down to zero level and requiring them to divest themselves of currently legally authorized activities. When we look at those currently authorized institutions that have significant activity, American Express, for example, enjoys 9 to 14 percent of revenue annually coming from nonfinancial related activities. We see A.G. Edwards, Charles Schwab, Lehman Brothers, we can go down the list and look at what is going on in the market today and realize the consequences of this amendment are not minor. Now, I certainly understand the proponents' perspective that we should not allow commercial and financial interests to intermingle. But I have to tell my colleagues, smart people are figuring out ways to do that no matter what the Congress might attempt to limit. This is a very serious amendment. It is a very thoughtful amendment. It is a very important amendment. But it is a disaster for the existing financial marketplace of this country if it were to be adopted.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. I certainly want to acknowledge the hard work that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has given in the difficult management of H.R. 10 throughout not just this session, but many years. However, this is one issue where the chairman and I have had significant differences of legitimate opinion as to the appropriateness of diversified financial structures. If we were to adopt the zero parity amendment that is proposed by this amendment, we would find significant dislocations in the current marketplace. There would be corporations and entities legally engaged in businesses which they have engaged in for many years which would, of necessity, have to divest those revenue streams from their corporate structure. Stated another way, people lawfully engaged in business that does no harm would now, by action of this Congress, be told they can do that no more. That, to me, seems to be a bit unreasonable, especially when we realize that one of the important elements this amendment does not address is the structure of the unitary thrift, which will continue to exist and proliferate, which may be resold without limit in which one cannot only have nonfinancial income, they can own a plywood plant, a hotel, a restaurant, and a thrift.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, in 1950, the average American family had 50 percent of their assets in a bank. Today, that percentage is 17 percent. And in the corporate arena, it is even worse. For many years, the banks were the only place in town where moderate- to large-size businesses could get credit to grow or expand. And from perhaps 80 percent of corporate lending, we now find that banks provide less than 20. And it is not only just that markets are changing. New products are being created. In 1980, there were 266 mutual funds in this country. Today there are over 2,600. As the stock market continues to surge ahead to unparalleled record highs, investors are not worried about deposit insurance; they are worried if they are going to miss out on the next 25 percent rate of return. The creation of money market funds, a nonbank product, allowing people to put their money in a perceived safe location and earn interest on their checking accounts, again, more disintermediation, more money flowing out of the banks into nontraditional sources. So many banks in the marketplace are surging ahead with these new mergers because this gives them a way to keep the profitability up as they spread fixed operating cost over larger and larger and larger customer bases. It makes good sense for the large institutions. It is reported that the NationsBank merger, for that institution alone, will result in annual savings in excess of $2 billion. Phenomenal savings are occurring through these efficiencies in the marketplace. Now, the question becomes, how does the typical $47 million bank in America, the 6600 subject of the CRA amendment, see any benefit from any of this? Is there any provision that we can point to in this bill that we can go back to hometown XYZ in our State and say, this is going to help make us more profitable, it is going to relieve us of regulatory burden, it is going to give us an opportunity to grow and prosper? Sure, if they are a billion-dollar institution with branches in multiple States, maybe who has even acquired a recent insurance company in spite of Federal prohibitions to the contrary, they might see tremendous potential in diversification and opportunities, particularly if H.R. 10, as currently constituted, is passed. But for the average consumer who goes home today and uses their ATM machine, if they have them in their community, who is complaining about those fee increases, who bitterly hates the new charges for all the service the banks are providing, those banks are desperate. They are looking for ways to get new revenue streams. Because it is a historical fact, interest on loans is in decline and the real growth market is in the fee business and trying to find new products. Again, that is not a significant problem to a competent management team who has diverse interests. But to the hometown bank, walk in a hometown bank, the the president and vice president are not only the loan officer, not only the fellow who locks the door, there are probably two tellers at the window, they are the CRA compliance department. They are the OCC compliance department. They put up with the audit from the FDIC or the Federal Reserve. They are doing it all. Make no mistake, this amendment is a great deal more than just limiting the load of CRA and its financial obligations on small town institutions. It is, in fact, the product of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on restructuring how a bank can sell new products. There is nothing insidious about the words ``operating subsidiary.'' It is a way of doing business. And quite to the contrary opinion of the Federal Reserve, the Secretary of the Treasury, I am told, will urge a veto of this legislation because we do not allow operating subsidiaries to be engaged, in the base text of H.R. 10, as envisioned by the administration. I would also point out, for those who are scared of the new world of commerce and finance, of all the megamergers and the banks gobbling one another and perhaps the giant of all, Microsoft, one day finding a way to enter the financial marketplace, guess what? The unitary thrift is alive and well if this bill passes. And even worse, it is bigger than ever if this bill fails. And there is no restraint, no other amendment, no limiting factor. There are approximately 800 unitaries that have been in the marketplace quite successfully. They own over 62 percent of all thrift assets in the country. They are enormously successful. Look down the application line. Why, even in Louisiana, we have got my Farm Bureau and 26 more who are joining together on March 9 to apply for a unitary thrift charter. Do my colleagues think they just want to make farm loans? I think they have got other plans. Now, all of these applications, unless there is something just basically deficient with the applicant, will be approved. It could be 1,500, it could be 2,000 of these new commercial enterprises that own thrifts. Under the bill, there is no prohibition about selling these entities to Microsoft or to General Motors or any of the other horror stories we have heard time after time after time as we concern ourselves about where our financial markets are going. This amendment would prohibit those sales. It would keep the Microsofts from buying unitary thrifts. This amendment is a lot more than just CRA operating subsidiaries and closing down thrifts. It is an amendment that does important insurance reform. If they want to get into the insurance business in this bill, as a bank, they have to buy an existing insurance agency that has been in business for 2 years. What if they are in a town that does not have an existing insurance agency that has been in business for 2 years? This amendment allows them to petition the State insurance commissioner to certify there is no competition in the community and allows them then to enter into the insurance business, a small-town, small-bank provision. Sure, I know financial modernization is an absolute necessity and frankly will proceed whether this Congress or the regulators notwithstanding choose to take a position that moves the marketplace forward. Bright people are going to find a way to get around the law, the Congress notwithstanding. But we can facilitate it. We can make it less expensive. For the past 50 years, this Congress has taken the pasture of financial services and fenced it off; and what we decide is some people get 10 acres, some people get 30, some people get the really pretty waterfront property in the fertile valley, others get the rocks. Now, whether they have 10 acres in the rocks or 30 acres on the waterfront has depended on how successful their lobbying effort is. That ought not to be the case. We ought to take down the fence lines. We ought to let them roam wherever they choose and eat as much grass as they want. But if they get sick, do not come back to us. This proposal does not allow for that innovation. This proposal makes it difficult for small banks to be innovative, to sell new products, to use that dreaded operating subsidiary, to reach out to their consumers and provide them competitive products at competitive prices in small towns across this country. This amendment speaks to that point. I understand the differences that some Members may have with the philosophy of this amendment. I understand that the Federal Reserve and the OCC fight each other for regulatory turf. I understand there are a lot of reasons for people to be opposed to this amendment. But I can honestly tell my colleagues, the sole motivation for seeing it included in H.R. 10 is to give hope back to the small community banks across this great Nation.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, and Lou Frey, ladies and gentlemen, as you can observe, Nancy always has the last word, and that is as it should be. When I answered my name on the roll call this morning, that was the first word I had ever spoken on the floor of this chamber, notwithstanding, as you say, that I am a congressional brat and that I have been in and around this chamber since I was a very young man, a condition from which I have now fully recovered. But as I approached the south side of the Capitol, I was reminded of the times when my father brought me here and how awestruck I was by the majesty of this place, of this institution, and the inspiration I took from not only his service but that of you and many others like you who preceded us, and then my chance to serve in the Senate of the United States and to say there were many days when I envied you the rules of this body, especially on the opportunity of leadership to challenge and limit the direction of debate and deliberation. It will always be the high point of my public career that I have had an opportunity to serve in the Congress. I will not speak further except to say that I believe, as I think you believe, that our constitutional form of presidential government, of congressional government, and judicial oversight is unique in the world. It is very much a continuing process. As you have contributed to its unfolding development, so will our successors. I am greatly honored to be included in this award. I yield the floor to my senior partner.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today joined by the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, in introducing the ``Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1998.'' This is an industry initiated, self-help, pro-environment bill that places public health and human safety at the very top of the list of our concerns as this nation builds an underground infrastructure that we all rely on for the movement of goods and services across this country. The introduction of this legislation addresses an important national public safety issue--the prevention of damage to this nation's underground infrastructure. My bill is aimed at improving state one- call notification, or ``call-before-you-dig,'' systems. Participation in one-call programs saves lives and protects the environment by reducing the number of accidents caused by excavation near unmarked facilities. These accidents are serious business--something my constituents know about first-hand. In May 1996, an underground petroleum pipeline near Grammercy, Louisiana, was hit, causing the release of 8,400 barrels of highly flammable gasoline into a nearby swamp. The accident killed hundreds of fish, six alligators, snakes and at least one deer. It caused the closure of U.S. Route 61, inconveniencing scores of re- routed drivers. It forced the shutdown of the Kansas City Southern Railroad. And finally, the bearer of the Olympic torch, who just happened to be passing through the area on the way to the opening of the Atlanta games, was forced to detour. This accident was caused when an unknown excavator dug into the pipe, and failed to report the damage. Mr. Speaker, my bill could prevent such terrible accidents. Too often, laws are only changed as a result of a disaster, such as the one in Louisiana. In Louisiana, we learned from our experience. We passed a strong state one-call law. Now it is time for the rest of the nation to follow suit. One-call programs work by giving excavators a clearinghouse to use prior to beginning a project. A contractor or other excavator calls a central number and notifies the one-call center of the location of the planned excavation. The one-call center then notifies all pipelines, utilities and phone companies in the area of the proposed excavation, so that all underground facilities can be located and marked. The excavator can then work around the underground utilities, and avoid the use of heavy equipment near such facilities. Better communication is the answer, and better communication is what one-call centers are all about. But while 49 states have one-call statutes and programs, these programs vary widely in the level of required participation, and in the overall effectiveness of damage prevention. Some states exempt certain groups of excavators, and some states exempt certain underground facility operators. The result is an accident rate that is much too high. This is unacceptable. We must improve the effectiveness of state one-call programs--before another disaster occurs. And that is precisely what this legislation does. The idea is simple: prevent accidents by establishing an open line of communication. All excavators should call before digging. All underground facility operators should accurately mark their facilities. And states should enforce their own laws to discourage violations. The answer to better one-call systems is not billions of dollars in federal money, or federal mandates on the states. The answer is national leadership on improving one-call systems nationwide, followed by more comprehensive and consistent programs in all 50 states. Mr. Speaker, this bill does not try to write the perfect one-call statute. Those decisions need to be made at the state level, by those involved in looking at the unique problems within a particular state. What this legislation does do is encourage states to provide for a maximum level of one-call participation by all excavators and all underground facility operators. It also encourages states to develop more effective enforcement efforts. On the question of exemptions, the bill advocates the use of a risk- based analysis to determine whether a party should be required to participate. Those entities which represent a potential risk to the public or the environment should be required to participate. On the other hand, those who represent only a de minimis risk can participate on a voluntary basis, if at all. The whole question of whether exemptions should be made, however, is still left to the states. Ultimately, it is the state governments which need to be examining the unique situations within their borders. My legislation is based on incentives, not mandates. If a state feels that its one-call program provides the level of coverage and enforcement envisioned in this legislation, then it can apply to the Department of Transportation for a one-time grant. We are, in essence, rewarding the ``A'' students and encouraging the others to do better. States are not compelled to apply for a grant, and they are not punished if they chose not to participate. This legislation does give the advocates of stronger one-call programs one more tool to use in their efforts at the state level. Let me be clear. This legislation is not a federal ``takeover'' of state one-call programs. To the contrary, the goal of my legislation is to support states in their efforts to improve the quality of underground damage prevention. After this becomes law, states will continue to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over one-call programs within their borders. I view this type of legislation as an example of the kind of responsible federalism that should be supported by this Congress, and extended to other programs as well. Similar legislation has already passed unanimously in the other chamber. That legislation, S. 1115, was sponsored by Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle, as well as a host of other Republicans and Democrats. The bipartisan support of the Senate bill is something I believe will happen in the House as well. Improving public safety is not a partisan issue. All of us want to do a better job in preventing life-threatening accidents. I want to encourage my Republican and Democratic colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move the process forward here in the House and send this common sense initiative to the President for his signature. The Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act provides a public policy statement which is long overdue. My state of Louisiana learned its lesson the hard way. It's time for the rest of the country to follow our example. Let's not wait for another accident. Let's improve One- Call programs today.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will serve as a legislative remedy to a flaw in the private sector process for developing financial accounting standards. Specifically, the Financial Accounting Fairness Act (FAFA) will provide for judicial review of accounting principles that the Financial Accounting Standards Board has developed and the Securities and Exchange Commission has approved. In short, public companies will not be able to do what they currently cannot: have their complaints with the substance of a proposed accounting principle aired in the neutral forum of the federal court system, just like those companies can when they are affected by other SEC rules and regulations. Congress should not have to inject itself in these controversies each time they erupt--as it has in recent years with squabbles over accounting for stock options and derivatives. Rather, the federal court system, the traditional mechanism our democratic republic has employed to solve disputes, should be called upon to serve as the final independent adjudicator of thorny issues that arise in accounting principles. Yesterday the issue was stock options. Today it is derivatives. What will the issue be tomorrow and beyond? The process needs to be fixed, and fixed now, before another disagreement again causes congressional intervention--an outcome few observers want. Since 1934, when Congress and President Roosevelt created the SEC, the agency has had the ultimate responsibility for establishing financial accounting and reporting standards for public companies. Although the SEC decided long ago to place that authority in the private sector--a system that by and large has worked well--it has maintained oversight authority of these principles with regard to the federal securities laws. Since its creation in 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has served this role. Like its two predecessors, the Committee on Accounting Procedure and the Accounting Principles Board, statements and interpretations of the FASB have benefited from an SEC presumption that financial statements not in compliance with these principles are misleading and therefore in violation of the federal securities laws. As a result of this policy, FASB pronouncements have generally had the full force and effect of SEC regulations. Although it is true that the FASB itself has extensive procedures to allow parties interested in FASB projects to make their opinions known, questions have arisen whether persons aggrieved by FASB pronouncements have the right to judicial review of their complaints, and whether such prononuncements must comply with the requirements applicable to other SEC regulations. Recently, for example, the FASB held 100 public meetings to discuss a project, followed by four days of public hearings, and still more public meetings on an ``Exposure Draft'' of a proposal related to accounting for derivatives and hedging activities. Yet, even with all this openness, and ample opportunity for interested parties to comment on the project, there exists substantial dissension on what has emerged as the final product. Some have claimed that the process, however open, does not provide meaningful opportunities for a party--whose business may be fundamentally affected by SEC-enforced accounting and reporting standards--to truly have their concerns heard. Ultimately, the FASB can and will move forward, and its product will be endorsed through routine SEC policy. This process is flawed. Congress, having given the SEC an important responsibility for establishing accounting principles for public companies, should now clarify that judicial review can and will be available for persons whose livelihoods are at stake because of these rules. FAFA makes it clear that judicial review is available in the event that an aggrieved party decides to seek it, and that accounting principles established for federal securities purposes shall meet the same good standards that other SEC promulgations must. To require less is to say that financial accounting principles are somehow different in nature and kind from other SEC regulations, and that they should be exempt from legal challenge, no matter how good the reason. At the end of the day, this legislation will simply provide a last chance for an aggrieved party to make its case before a neutral forum--a federal appeals court--rather than limiting it to pleas before the very body that implemented and created the standard. The Financial Accounting Fairness Act retains the current system of private sector development of accounting principles. It in no way interferes with the FASB's process for producing financial accounting guidelines. It will not meaningfully affect the speed with which these standards are implemented, except in the event that an appeals court decides that good cause exists to stay the implementation of the standard pending resolution of a case before the court. As a result of SEC policy, FASB pronouncements have generally had the full force and effect of SEC regulations. Other SEC regulations are subject to judicial review, and the Act would allow SEC-recognized accounting principles to be similarly reviewable. Under the Fairness Act, FASB accounting principles, as well as the FASB's record of proceedings, would be delivered to the SEC, which would in turn publish notice of each principle, and provide interested persons an opportunity to comment. The SEC would then determine whether the principle shall apply to public companies by issuing an order approving or disapproving it. In making this decision, the agency must consider the proposed principle's impact on the protection of investors, and whether it will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. Additionally, no principle may be approved that imposes an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition. These requirements are identical to those applied to other SEC regulations. If the principle will apply to persons subject to Federal banking agency oversight, each applicable agency shall be consulted, and its views considered. Without SEC approval, SEC registrants shall not be required to comply with FASB standards for the purposes of SEC filings. If an aggrieved party determines to seek judicial review, the Act would, in accordance with current law regarding SEC regulations, recognize the conclusiveness of SEC findings of fact supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, the reviewing court must affirm and enforce the regulation unless the SEC's action in approving the regulation is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, among other such considerations already required under existing law. The Act would only apply to FASB pronouncements formally adopted after January 1, 1998. Recent events have highlighted the need for this legislation. I look forward to its passage, so that the need for congressional involvement in the development of financial accounting principles will be reduced or eliminated in the future. Only when aggrieved parties clearly have the opportunity to make their cases in court will we have accounting standards that are truly accountable for their impact on public companies

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the opportunity to extend a warm welcome to Paul Ndong, Mayor of Joal-Fadiouth, Senegal, West Africa, and his delegation as they visit their sister city, Baker, Louisiana. Sharing similar traits such as their French heritage, seaside ports and a love for life, Louisiana and Senegal have several things in common. So, it is only natural that the town of Joal-Fadiouth and the town of Baker should select each other to be sister cities. As a result of a visit from Baker Mayor Bobby Simpson to Senegal last year, the mayor of Joal-Fadiouth, Mayor Paul Ndong, will visit Baker, Louisiana, this week and complete the ceremonial bridge that will formally unite these two cities. I am excited about this newly forged friendship and look forward to the promising partnership which stands to grow. As these two cities continue to cultivate their friendships, I am confident that residents of both Baker and Joal-Fadiouth will gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of each other's culture and identities. Through education, scientific, economic development and cultural exchanges, the citizens of both of these cities have the tremendous opportunity to learn more about another country through exciting and interactive means. These real, hands-on experiences will bridge the geographical gap between Baker and Joal-Fadiouth and bring a land which was at once both foreign and distant, closer to home. So, as Mayor Paul Ndong travels through Baker, I wish him the warmest welcome and hope that he enjoys and learns much from his stay. And in the tradition of our shared French heritage, I would like to say soyez les bienvenus a la Louisiana--faites comme chez vous.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Electronic Financial Services Efficiency Act of 1997. This bill is designed to provide a uniform nationwide framework to encourage the use and validity of electronic authentication. New forms of electronic communication are being utilized as an alternative to paper-based documentation and correspondence. Computers are now routinely used to initiate and execute a substantial and growing number of personal, business, and financial transactions. As a result, the problem of authenticating the identity and the signature of parties using computers has become a major concern. Unless a reliable alternative to written signatures is acknowledged, the promise of electronic commerce will not be fully realized. State legislatures have recognized this need. At the present time 30 States have enacted or have introduced some form of digital authentication law. Unfortunately, these State statutes lack uniformity both in scope and application. Electronic communications and commerce take place on the Internet or elsewhere in cyberspace. Therefore, State boundaries have little relevance and conflicting State electronic authentication laws may ultimately inhibit the development of electronic commerce. The bill I am introducing today is designed to address the issue of conflicting and confusing developments under current and proposed State law. The purpose of the Electronic Financial Services Efficiency Act of 1997 is threefold: First, to provide for the recognition of digital and other forms of authentication as an alternative to existing paper-based methods, second, to improve the efficiency and soundness of the Nation's capital markets and payment system, and third, to harmonize the practices, customs and uses applicable to electronic authentication on a uniform, nationwide basis. The first goal is accomplished by explicitly recognizing that all forms of electronic commerce that comport with specific, basic statutory standards shall have parity with written signatures. As a result, they will be considered valid for all communications with Federal agencies, U.S. Courts and other instrumentalities of the U.S. Government. In order to minimize confusion and encourage uniform national treatment, unless the laws of a State otherwise expressly provide, all forms of electronic authentication that comport with the Federal statutory standards shall have the same standing as written signatures for all legal purposes. The second goal is met by the establishment of the National Association of Certification Authorities [NACA]. Any person or group that wishes to provide electronic authentication services in the United States must be a registered NACA member. The NACA may admit any person or group to membership, provided they are licensed and provide electronic authentication services consistent with the standards set forth in this act. The third goal is met by the creation of an Electronic Authentication Standards Review Committee within the NACA. Overseen by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Standards Review Committee shall establish, develop, and refine criteria to be applied to new electronic authentication methods, consistent with the specific standards set forth in the Electronic Financial Services Efficiency Act of 1997. Recognizing that digital authentication will be used in retail transactions, this legislation requires that consumers be notified of the fact that an electronic communication or transaction has been digitally authenticated. Furthermore, the act states that any rights currently afforded to consumers in underlying transactions are not in any manner impaired or weakened. Additionally, the Standards Review Committee has the authority to address consumer protection by exercising its rulemaking and enforcement powers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation will authorize and validate the use of electronic authentication. It will also encourage innovation and stimulate competition in the design and use of reliable state-of-the-art digital technology.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 122) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding tactile currency for the blind and visually impaired.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York for his courtesies and support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.