Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been such a leader on this critical issue. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act. I introduced this legislation along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and a bipartisan group of cosponsors in order to provide long overdue liability relief to individuals, families, and small business owners unfairly trapped in the litigation nightmare of the Superfund program for over 2 decades. The Superfund is in bad need of reform. I have worked for years to enact comprehensive and meaningful Superfund reform to create a fairer liability scheme for the Superfund program. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that we will be able to accomplish broader reform this year. But that does not mean that we cannot make real progress. It is time to provide relief to innocent parties like Barbara Williams, the former owner of Sunny Ray Restaurant in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and to Greg Shierling, the owner of two McDonald's restaurants in Quincy, Illinois, as well as thousands of others just like them whose only crime as small business owners was sending ordinary garbage to the local dump. H.R. 5175 provides relief to innocent small businesses who never should have been brought into Superfund in the first place. First, it provides liability protection to small businesses who disposed of very small amounts of waste. Second, it provides relief for small businesses who disposed of ordinary garbage. Third, it provides shelter from costly litigation for small businesses who dispose of small amounts of waste and parties who face serious financial hardship by directing the Federal Government to offer these parties expedited settlements to remove them from the web of Superfund litigation. This bill provides relief for innocent small businesses with up to 100 employees and revenues of not more than $3 million. It is limited to common garbage and ordinary garbage that may have small contributions of other waste. If the waste that a small business sends to a site causes big environmental problems, then the liability exemptions would no longer apply. I would point out that some who have criticized our definition of a small business have actually voted for exemptions that do not include any business size restriction whatsoever. Moreover, the administration's current de micromis policy applies more broadly than this bill to any size company. In addition, H.R. 5175 shifts the burden of proof under Superfund to the government when it goes after small businesses. I do not believe that small businesses should be presumed guilty and be forced to hire and pay for attorneys to prove their innocence. This is fundamentally wrong and unfair. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. The government or larger businesses should have the burden of providing evidence, solid evidence, that small businesses are liable before demanding cash settlements. It is hard to think of anything in Congress that has been more open and public than Superfund reform. Protections for innocent parties in H.R. 5175, including de micromis relief, relief for ordinary garbage, and expedited settlements, were included in both H.R. 2580 and H.R. 1300, the broader bipartisan Superfund bills reported this Congress from the Committees on Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure, respectively. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, I have personally conducted 6 years of Superfund hearings. In fact, in just the House alone, there have been a combined 46 hearings on Superfund with testimony from 416 witnesses. At those hearings we have heard the administration, environmentalists, and businesses all tell us that innocent small businesses were never meant to be in Superfund in the first place. I am entering some of these statements into the Record. Mr. Speaker, even in the last few weeks, to accommodate concerns about the legislation, we have met with the EPA and others and redrafted the legislation to address their concerns. The bill on the floor today reflects those changes. While it is unfortunate that EPA does not yet support the legislation, the fact remains that we have gone way above and beyond the call of duty in trying to address concerns raised, and we have asked repeatedly for any specific written proposals to address outstanding concerns with the legislation, but received nothing. For thousands of small business owners across America who have already been dragged into litigation or forced to pay cash settlements for legally putting out their trash, this bill most likely comes too late. But in just the last 7 days, we have received letters, faxes and e-mails from small business owners around the country who need our help. This is an example of some of the letters we have received just over the last week. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members to please join me and other bipartisan cosponsors today in saying enough is enough, and let us pass this narrowly targeted Small Business Liability Relief Act so these other innocent small businesses can be spared the litigation nightmare that has already befallen so many. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record. Superfund is a Small Business Litigation Nightmare for the record: what they've said Environmental Protection Agency ``If you are a small business, if you sent garbage, like the stuff you and I put out every Monday evening for the garbage company to pick up, you should never hear the word Superfund. I think there is not a person up here who doesn't agree with that. We have worked hard within the current law to protect these small parties, but we cannot do it without a fix in the law in the way that we all agree it needs to be done.''--Testimony of Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, May 12, 1999 ``We have tried to solve the problem of the little people from day one. The owner of the diner who sends mashed potatoes to the local dump should not have to worry about being sued by large corporate polluters who are responsible for the contamination of that site. Innocent landowners, churches, Girl Scout troops, small storefront businesses should not have to wonder if they will find themselves brought into the Superfund net by large corporate polluters. ``Unfortunately, this is what happens; this is what has happened; and this is what will continue to happen if we don't rewrite this law. It is a tragedy. It is wrong. It is a flaw in the current law. We have to fix it.''--Testimony of Carol Browner, EPA Administrator, before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, October 29, 1997 Environmentalists ``It is inefficient to sue a bunch of companies that will clearly be unable to make any significant contribution to cleanup costs; doing so merely increases transaction costs for all concerned without providing funds for actual cleanup, and leads to delays in decisionmaking.''--Testimony of Karen Florini, Senior Attorney, Environmental Defense Fund, before the Water Resources and Environmental Subcommittee, October 29, 1997 ``We agree that many small businesses and minimal waste contributors have been unfairly subjected to harassment under the CERCLA statute. . . . We suggest an exemption for parties who only contributed household-type wastes to sites, liability waivers for those who only sent tiny amounts of hazardous materials to a site--that is, de micromis contributors--and aggressive settlements with parties who sent small amounts of hazardous substances to a site but still have some ability to pay toward cleanup--this is, de minimis contributors.''--Testimony of Jacqueline Hamilton, Senior Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, April 10, 1997 ``NWF also has heard the concerns of people who only have tangential ties to a Superfund site. These mom and pop entities, often cited as de micromis parties, deserve relief from the system.''--Testimony of Patricia Williams, Counsel and Legislative Representative, National Wildlife Federation, before the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, June 21, 1995 Small businesses ``For my company it started on February 10, 1999 when we received a letter in the mail from the EPA that stated 6 large local corporations and the city were looking to recover some of their costs for the cleanup of our local landfill. Even though the majority of what we had hauled there was only trash and legally disposed of at the time, the EPA said . . . we were potentially responsible for paying our proportional share of that cleanup. ``When I read the letter, I felt sick. For me and the 148 other companies that received the letter, it was unexpected and without warning . . . It was asking us, as small companies to `contribute' 3.1 million dollars . . . ``. . . the EPA sent one of their attorneys . . . Many people stood up and pleaded their situations and how unfair and un-American this whole situation was. He admitted to everyone that the law was probably unfair and very harsh . . . he couldn't do anything about its unfairness . . . he said that it was all he had to work with.''--Testimony of Mike Nobis, JK Creative Printers before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, September 22, 1999 ``Even those who paid their assessments can't put the situation behind them . . . different agencies could come after them for additional money . . . `By paying, I thought we had closure, says Eldor Hadler, whose truck dealership was assessed $46,000. He recently sold his business to his son and another partner . . . `There's a dark cloud hanging over the business,' he says, `They could come back any time'.'' ``The fight continues for Greg Shierling . . . He was in grade school in the '60s and '70s when his parents hired [a trash disposal company] to take away the garbage from their McDonald's . . . Shierling took over the business from his parents in 1996 and was dumbfounded when he got the letter from the EPA in 1999 telling him he was a polluter to the tune of $65,000. Shock turned to defiance, and he's refusing to settle--even though the feds reduced his fine to $47,000. Meanwhile, Shierling is paying $4,000 a month in legal bills and faces a six figure judgement if he loses. He has been forced to lay off two longtime employees, and says his parents are drawing on their retirement money to help him and his wife support their two young children. Firing loyal workers was one of the hardest things he's ever had to do, he says. He had written a prepared script to help him maintain his composure, but he says he burst into tears any way. Yet he refuses to buckle under. ``I just couldn't feel good about saying, `I'm sorry, here's $47,000, I'm out' . . .'' ``Many of those who settle still seethe about the situation . . . Pat McClean . . . was hit for $21,900. He says his trash consisted of chicken bones, potato peelings and soiled napkins. He thought about fighting, but he was demoralized by a recent divorce. McClean is a weekend biker who likens the assessment to a shakedown. `Paying that $21,900 was like buying a brand new Harley, loading it up with chrome, and handing it over to the EPA' he says.''--From ``Unintended Victims'' by Eric Berkman, Fortune Small Business, July/ August 2000 ``Most of the cost contributed by our companies to this site didn't clean one ounce of the landfill . . . Of all the money spent, the attorneys received the most . . . It has been reported in our local newspaper that the EPA and the major [potentially responsible parties] PRP's are now suing many of these companies who didn't settle, resulting in more business for the attorneys. As I understand it, these companies will be allowed in later months to bring third party lawsuits. Where will it end? I do not think the law's intent is to place hardships on small business when the ultimate winners are the attorneys, not the environment. ``Who were the companies forced to pay this settlement . . . Some are people in their retirement years. Some are widows whose husbands passed away and they now have this settlement to deal with. Some are sons whose fathers once owned the business and now, years later, they have inherited the problem . . . Mothers and fathers would have been reluctant to pass a family business--and its liability--to the next generation. We have some men in their late 70's and early 80's that could lose their life's savings when they should be enjoying their retirement years. They are spending their time and money paying the EPA for something they did 25 years ago that was legal . . . . . . It is needless business pressures like this that destroy small businesses and cause undue pain and hardship. Victimizing small business is not going to help speed the cleanup of Superfund sites.'' Testimony of Mike Nobis, JK Creative Printers before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, September 22, 1999 ``When examining the few sites that have been cleaned up, the costs associated with such cleanups, coupled with the staggering amount of money that has gone directly to lawyers' coffers, it's easy to see that the fault and liability system currently in Superfund is flawed. Congress may have envisioned a system that would only catch the few, large, intentional or irresponsible polluters, however, the reality has been very different. . . . The effect of the current liability system is permeating all segments of the small business community. No issue in this very complex public policy debate will have a more direct impact on the present and future economic viability of many small businesses . . . There isn't one segment whether it be a retail store, a professional service business, or a construction business that has not been touched.''--Statement for the Record by National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), for the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control & Risk Assessment, Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, March 5, 1997 ``I am a fourth party defendant in the Keystone Superfund lawsuit. I have been sued by my friends and neighbors. Why did they do this? Upon the advice of attorneys bringing others into the suit, this was the only way they could lessen the amount of their settlements . . . I am being sued for $76,253.71 . . . This legal action has angered, depressed and confused me . . . I obeyed, State, local and Federal regulations. Being forced to defend myself is a travesty of justice. Being forced to pay this settlement would be devastating to my business. Has anyone considered the effect on my employees and their families. Has anyone considered the effect on our community? . . . What is the Superfund law accomplishing? The attorneys are making a fortune, small businesses are unfairly burdened, and the contamination still isn't cleaned up.''-- Statement of Barbara A. Williams, former owner, Sunny Ray Restaurant, Gettysburg, PA, before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, April 23, 1996 ``In October 1997, you and I were featured in a `60 Minutes' segment on how the Superfund law unfairly victimizes small-business owers. Since that time you have moved to Washington and I have sold my business. While I congratulate you on your recent appointment as the number two official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I have not been as fortunate. The sale of my business (Sunny Ray Restaurant) was hampered by the liability forced upon me by the Superfund law. I remain personally liable in the ongoing litigation related to the Keystone Landfill Superfund site. While you and I have publicly agreed that this is a gross miscarriage of justice, the law remains unchanged . . . It will soon be five years since I was brought into this lawsuit. Isn't it time for it to end? Please . . . --Letter from Barbara A. Williams to Michael McCabe, Deputy Administrator of EPA, August 24, 2000. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, along with a bipartisan group of original cosponsors, the Small Business Liability Relief Act to provide long overdue liability protection to individuals, families and small business owners who are innocent parties that have been wrongly and unfairly trapped in the litigation nightmare of the Superfund program for two decades. Superfund badly needs to be reformed to provide liability relief for innocent parties. Today, I am saying enough is enough. It is time to provide relief to Barbara Williams, the former owner of Sunny Ray Resturant in Gettsyburg, Pennsylvania and to Greg Shierling, the owner of two McDonald's Restaurants in Quincy, Illinois, as well as thousands of others just like them whose only ``crime'' as small business owners was sending ordinary garbage to the local dump. This bill only provides relief to innocent small businesses who never should have been brought into Superfund in the first place. First, it provides liability protection to small businesses who disposed of very small amounts of (110 gallons or 200 pounds) of waste. Second, it provides relief for small businesses who dispose of ordinary garbage. Third, it provides shelter from costly litigation for small businesses who dispose of de minimis amounts of waste and who otherwise face serious financial hardship. It is my strong belief that we can pass this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support so that countless others can be spared the litigation nightmare that has already hit so many of America's small businesses.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, twenty-five years ago last Monday, FBI Special Agents Ronald A. Williams and Jack R. Coler were mercilessly gunned down on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation. The agents were pursuing a fugitive on June 26, 1975; one of the three people in the vehicle the agents were tracking was Leonard Peltier. A fugitive from justice wanted for attempted murder, Peltier and his associates abruptly emerged from their vehicle and opened fire on the agents. Williams and Coler were shot point blank in the head, and died instantly. Peltier was captured after several months, and now serves two consecutive life sentences at Leavenworth. Time and again, Peltier rightly has been denied parole for his heinous crimes, most recently just two weeks ago. Each of his appeals has failed. Even after a quarter century, and amid the constant barrage of liberal Hollywood actors glorifying this murderer, the American people have not forgotten Peltier's fatal assaults. Leonard Peltier slaughtered two young FBI special agents at the beginning of their careers, for which he deserves to spend the remainder of his life in prison. As a fellow former FBI special agent, I am honored today to recognize the supreme sacrifice of Ronald A. Williams, age 27, and Jack R. Coler, age 28. These slain heroes gave their lives in defense of justice for all. I join law enforcement officers throughout the nation in saluting their memories on this day. Their fidelity, bravery, and integrity live on in their comrades. I commend to my colleagues' attention the following statement by FBI Director Louis Freeh. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC June 26, 2000. Statement of FBI Director Louis J. Freeh On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, and in memory of all who have lost their lives in the line of duty, I would like to observe the 25th anniversary of the brutal slaying of Special Agents Ronald A. Williams and Jack R. Coler. Twenty-five years ago today, these two outstanding Special Agents of the FBI were summarily executed by a gunman in South Dakota. Ron Williams and Jack Coler had been searching for a robbery suspect near Pine Ridge on 6/26/75 when they were shot from a distance of 250 yards. They were grievously wounded and on the ground when the killer approached and shot them, one after the other, at point blank range, through their faces. The FBI cannot forget this cold blooded crime, nor should the American people. I was a new Special Agent, still in training school, when this horrific crime was enacted. Its cold blooded disregard for law and order ensured that it would never be forgotten, its criminal nature never obscured. In February 1976, Leonard Peltier was arrested and charged with the murder of these two agents. The evidence was unarguable and conclusive. On 4/18/77, he was found guilty of the first-degree murders of Williams and Cofer and sentenced on 6/1/77 to two consecutive life terms. All his many appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit have failed. The Supreme Court of the United States has twice denied Peltier's petitions for review of his case. Most recently, on 6/12/2000, his parole board held its regular 2- year statutory review of the case, pending the full hearing it is required to hold in 2008. Once again, parole for Leonard Peltier was not recommended. It is a testament to the American judicial system and the American people that 25 years have not been able to erase or soften the facts of the case. The rule of law has continued to prevail over the emotion of the moment, the cornerstone attribute of our criminal justice system. The men and women of the FBI--and law enforcement officers everywhere--put their lives on the line on a daily basis to protect the American people. They, with me, would like to remind the nation of the fidelity, bravery, and integrity of Agents Williams and Coler who 25 years ago today lost their lives but not their places in our hearts.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, while I am proud to join my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), and 54 of our colleagues on both parties in supporting this resolution, I want to particularly thank my good friend, the gentleman from Cincinnati (Mr. Chabot), for his work as well. I am troubled by the misinterpretation of the Constitution that has compelled us to introduce it and bring us here today. Two months ago, with a 2-to-1 decision, a three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Ohio's official State motto, ``With God all things are possible.'' The court sided with the ACLU in declaring that the motto expresses a particular affinity towards Christianity and thus violates the establishment clause of the Constitution. While the phrase does appear in the Gospel according to Matthew, it actually predates Christianity by almost 1,000 years. The line ``With the gods all things are possible'' appears in Homer's Odyssey. Similar lines appear throughout other ancient Greek works and in the writings of Cicero, all of which were written before Matthew's counsel. According to the Council on American-Islamic relations, a similar phrase appears throughout the Koran. Mr. Speaker, certainly this simple phrase of optimism and faith is not offensive to anyone. These six words make no reference to Jesus Christ in this context, and cannot be said to promote the Christian faith in any way. The court's action is nothing more than political correctness run rampant. Four other States and American Samoa mention God in their mottos. Ohio's expression of faith in God is no different from any of these references. Together with ``In God we trust,'' these mottos stand as a testament to the religious foundation of this great country. While the courts have upheld the biblically-based ``In God we trust'' as the Nation's motto time and time again, the Sixth Circuit panel ignored precedent and struck down Ohio's similar expression of faith. In fact, the 10-year-old boy who suggested the phrase as Ohio's motto more than 40 years ago was not even aware of its Biblical origin. He said it was something his mother and grandmother would say to him all the time. Despite the ACLU's position, I doubt that this 10-year-old set out to establish Christianity as Ohio's official religion. Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters on this issue from my constituents in Ohio and from all across the Nation, each one supporting Ohio's right to keep the motto as it is. People around the country are tired of having their religious freedom squelched by fringe groups in the name of separation of church and State. As one of my constituents noted, ``Ours is a government of the people and by the people, not of the ACLU and by the ACLU.'' To paraphrase another of my constituents, ``We would be a very fortunate Nation if the biggest threat our society had to face was a saying attributed to Jesus Christ.'' I would urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan resolution supporting Ohio's appeal of the court ruling, and upholding the right of every State and Territory to affirm the Founders' faith that, with God, all things are, indeed, possible.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The good news on the Republican side, we will not practice tomorrow morning due to wet ground. Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherwood

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of free markets and the Sprint-WorldCom merger, I wish to bring the lead editorial from today's Wall Street Journal to the attention of my colleagues. On both sides of the Atlantic, there persists a certain regulatory bias against large corporate combinations. I believe regulators commit an error when they scrutinize such alliances on a regional basis instead of taking a global perspective. Such mergers offer efficiencies and synergies very much in demand in the age of instant global communications. Again, Mr. Speaker, I submit the following editorial. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2000] Super Mario Smothers Look out, Mario Monti is in town. While it seems unlikely that U.S. unemployment will shoot up right away to German levels or Silicon Valley will suddenly take on the lugubriousness of a French panel in charge of setting lawn mower standards, you can't be too careful when the European Commission's ``competition'' czar is visiting. Mr. Monti arrived in Washington yesterday to bring us his unique perspective on the pending Spring-WorldCom merger. His meeting agenda included Janet Reno and Joel Klein and the FCC's Bill Kennard. No wonder the markets went all languid yesterday. Though Internet services aren't a big part of this landmark deal, Mr. Monti has decided to grab the opportunity to make WorldCom cough up UU-Net, its wholly owned Internet backbone carrier, which hauls a large share of Europe's web traffic. Never mind that others are rapidly adding backbone capacity. Never mind that this new investment is more likely to dry up if Europe is seen punishing those who successfully invested in the past. Mr. Monti has decided WorldCom's share is ``too big'' according to some static gauge of industry concentration. It's not his job to notice other dynamic factors in a rapidly advancing industry that make his gauge irrelevant. It's hard to say what's worse, Mr. Monti's academic rigidity or the Clinton Justice Department's notion that it can fine-tune ``innovation'' to a fare-thee-well. We'll wait to be apprised of Justice's full reasoning for aligning with Mr. Monti in trying to scuttle the merger. The latest leaks say Justice is taking its advice from the company's long-distance competitors Qwest and Level Three Communications. Let's see: These other companies fear that WorldCom would be a formidable competitor, so the Justice Department is opposing the deal as . . . anticompetitive? Whatever he comes up with for this one, antitrust chief Joel Klein has lately been on a bender claiming that his ministrations are necessary to free up technological advance, which apparently is something lacking in our economy. Perhaps we need more lessons on this from dynamic Europe. What seems to be missing on both sides of the Atlantic is a little humility. These days the best minds in industry are regularly caught flat-footed by change. Why should somebody who hung around with Bill Clinton at Renaissance Weekend or graduated first in his class from some finishing ecole have any better handle on the direction of markets and technology? At some point the danger is going to manifest itself in lost jobs and opportunities for middle-class voters. If businesses are not allowed to move forward, they stagnate and die. If enough businesses are blocked from moving ahead, the whole economy slows down. That's a voting issue. WorldCom is a good example. Bernie Ebbers assembled a nice collection of telecommunications assets, but he didn't see how important wireless would be. Who did? Cell coverage and bandwidth are improving so rapidly that wireless is becoming many people's primary phone. Unless he can cajole regulators to sign off on the acquisition of Sprint's wireless business, he doesn't have a viable strategy. One reason Europe is Europe and we're not is that our companies have been free to adapt. The Founding Fathers granted us rights so we wouldn't be in the position of arguing with our rulers for our freedom on a case-by-case basis. These rights extend even to companies and their shareholders, and just any old reason for blocking their private strategies shouldn't be good enough. Indeed, it would be quite a feat if our trustbusters manage single-handedly to bring European-style corporate stasis to the U.S. economy, but they're working on it. We're not talking just about the Microsofts, WorldComs, AOL-Time Warners and other businesses that make the evening news. Late last year the FTC scuttled a Pathmark merger just as the company was trying to break out of the pack by bringing modern supermarkets to the inner city. Last month Pathmark filed for Chapter 11. Too bad for Harlem, which was just about to get a new store. Hmm, maybe we know why the Europeans sent Mr. Monti to Washington after all. It's part of their comeback plan to offload their antitrust hang-ups on U.S. companies so their own economies can catch up. Only in a Clinton presidency could they think such a strategy might take wing.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address a couple of very recent news articles about the WorldCom-Sprint merger. I have been a supporter of the proposed merger since its announcement in October of 1999. My reasons for supporting the merger are the same now as they were then. When we wrote and passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we predicted many things, among them some consolidation in the telecom market. One of the major reasons for this urge to merge is to accommodate positive changes in the industry both domestically and internationally. These changes would be the direct result of greater competition and the resulting growth in the telecommunications sector. The distinctions between local and long distance have begun to blur and and almost disappear. Telecommunications companies, in order to survive and compete on a global basis need to have global size and reach. The fastest and most practical way to achieve such economies of scale is through strategic unions. The new world telecom company must provide services that will go beyond local or long distance. They must offer a wide range of services including at the very least local, long distance, high-speed Internet access, and wireless. I believe the proposed WorldCom-Sprint merger is a textbook example of what we in Congress envisioned when we passed the Telecom Act. The combination of these two corporations would create an American company suited to compete with anybody and everybody on a global basis for the foreseeable future. Its size and offerings will create jobs, encourage technological innovations, and promote competitive pricing for consumers. Given that, you can see why I am so concerned about the recent articles I've read in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal stating that the European Commission is on the verge of recommending against approving the merger. While I'm not privy to the technical reviews conducted by the E.C. and don't know why they may have reached their reported conclusion, I find it disconcerting to see actual quotes attributed to ``senior EU officials'' before the member states have voted. I also find it troublesome to read in the papers statements made by U.S. Department of Justice officials stating that they are inclined to recommend that the merger be blocked. Does the merger review process encourage the publication of intentions, real or imagined, which could have an effect on the final outcome of the review? I doubt that it does, and I am confident that it is not productive to do so. I believe it is important that the all merger review panels have an established and fair process to which they strictly adhere. Perhaps if that can still be done, they will find that this merger brings a great deal to the economy, the telecom industry and the consumers it seeks to serve.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. It is always a good debating point to set up a straw man. In this case, my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) sets up this straw man as being some kind of a cult that would somehow get a noncommercial license and proselytize through that operation. I would simply say to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), that the legislation that was debated in committee, now being debated on the floor, is pretty clear, that unless it is unreasonable or arbitrary that the decision by the broadcaster will maintain and, in fact, that is the way it was from time immemorial until the FCC in this middle-of- the-night decision over the holidays determined that they would use a rather ordinary license swap to try to maintain their ability to determine what content was in the area of religious broadcasting; and had it not been for the Congress and Members of the Committee on Commerce acting quickly to point out what problems that decision would bring, had it not been for that outcry and the outcry from the people of this country, the FCC would have never decided to rescind that decision. This bill makes certain that no matter who is at the FCC, no matter who appoints an FCC in the future, that these kinds of arbitrary decisions based on educational or cultural content basically determining what that content is by the Government shall not maintain, and that is really why this legislation is absolutely necessary. If I was confident that in the future any FCC would follow the standard procedures that they had in the past and license swaps and decisions on licenses, I would feel a lot more comfortable. But I have to say that we have evidence to the contrary. Three FCC commissioners, the three Democrat FCC commissioners made the determination that they would determine what content in religious broadcasting was all about. We are, indeed, representatives of the people. The FCC, despite being an independent agency, is essentially bureaucrats that interpret the law. We write the laws, so this legislation sets us back where we were very comfortably before understanding what the purview of the status was and understanding the role of the FCC. Ultimately, the FCC cannot, should not be an arbiter of what content is in this form of broadcasting, and that is ultimately what this decision is all about. I do not know whether my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) supported the original decision by the FCC or the decision to overturn it, but I do know where he stands on this issue. This legislation is absolutely critical.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let us review a little bit of history. Back in December of last year, late December, between Christmas and New Year's, the FCC determined, in a rather ordinary license swap that goes on virtually every day, in this case a Pittsburgh license swap where the religious broadcasting was changing from a commercial to a noncommercial broadcasting license, the FCC determined at that date, when Congress was not in session, under what would be considered to be an ordinary license swap that the FCC would determine what would be educational, and they would determine whether, in fact, that particular broadcaster was broadcasting enough of what they would consider to be educational programming in nature. This was essentially a determination by the FCC what was educational or what was not, for the first time basically setting up the Government as the arbiter of what was to be considered educational broadcasting. It was a brazen attempt to force traditional religious programming off noncommercial channels. At that point, working with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), we all immediately wrote a letter to the FCC and then later introduced a bill, as soon as Congress returned, which overturned that directive. Religious viewers and listeners flooded Capitol Hill. I am sure many of the Members received phone calls and letters and faxes and E-mails regarding this outrageous decision by the FCC. Because of the public outcry, the FCC almost immediately then vacated the order that they had first introduced after our bill was put in the hopper. But ultimately they never acknowledged, that is the FCC majority, their procedural, legal, or constitutional errors. And let me point out that the original vote, with two strong dissents from Republican Members, was a 3 to 2 vote, basically ruling that the FCC had that ability to determine what was educational. They quickly retreated and that vote was a 4 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Tristani voting in the negative to vacate the ruling. But the interesting thing about the original decision and the vacation of the ruling was that the FCC never acknowledged their procedural, legal, or constitutional errors. They blamed the controversy on ``confusion over their intent.'' I do not think there was ever any confusion about what the intent of the majority was. One commissioner, Commissioner Tristani, even dissented from overturning the order, saying that she would continue to vote as if the original directive were still in place, and she, in fact, testified to that before the committee. Against this backdrop we worked together to craft a bill, which is now 4201, sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, which is on the floor today. It would prevent the FCC from restricting religious content in the future by affirmatively stating that cultural and religious programming meet the educational mandate. Now, I assume my friend from Massachusetts probably supported the original decision by the FCC; and as a result, we are here today. Some public broadcasting stations are opposing the bill. I can only conclude that they do not want to share their free noncommercial spectrum with religious broadcasters. But let us make one thing clear. Public broadcasters do not have a special claim to noncommercial channels. Indeed, if they did, C-SPAN would not be on the air. Religious broadcasters and others have an equal right to hold such licenses. H.R. 4201 is a measured response to the effort to single out religious content for special scrutiny. The FCC has no business discriminating against faith-based programming. H.R. 4201 merely spells out that religious and cultural programming deserve the same treatment as educational and instructional programming. Nothing more and nothing less. Ultimately, the issue is about freedom of religious expression and, indeed, whether government can control content. That is the ultimate issue. And the Constitution is pretty clear on that; that government shall not determine content. Now, my friend from Massachusetts is worried about a cult getting a radio station. I would point out that the bill states that broadcasters' determinations that their programming serve as an educational, cultural, or religious purpose may not be arbitrary or unreasonable. So I would say the argument is fallacious.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to speak in tribute of three of our country's bravest--pioneers who united this nation through their heroic feat: the astronauts of the Apollo 11 mission. Thirty-one years ago next month, Commander Neil A. Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins completed what was an almost unthinkable task: a successful manned moon landing. It is often noted that each one of us remembers where we were when Neil Armstrong spoke the words, ``The Eagle has landed.'' Indeed, a part of each of us traveled with these adventurers into space on their record-breaking mission. I am especially honored to salute the visionary Neil Armstrong, born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, which I am privileged to represent. Wapakoneta boasts the recently renovated Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum, which has on display various Apollo 11 artifacts, a moon rock, and the Gemini 8 spacecraft Armstrong commanded in 1966. Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of these three heroes are too numerous to compile. All three had distinguished military flying careers prior to their NASA days. All three were part of the monumental Gemini program, which saw the first spacewalk by an American and the first docking with another space vehicle. In the heart of the space race, these pioneers set the stage for today's continuing exploration of the new frontier. They conquered the moon despite the many unknown dangers of doing so, and thereby paved the way for NASA's space shuttle program and the International Space Station. Their bravery has inspired thousands of young people around the nation to pursue their hopes and dreams. Indeed, their bravery cannot be heralded enough. Before the mission, Michael Collins commented: ``I think we will escape with our skins . . . but I wouldn't give better than even odds on a successful landing and return. There are just too many things that can go wrong.'' Despite the obstacles and potentially fatal problems, the Apollo 11 astronauts did achieve a successful landing and return, bolstering the adventurous spirit of all Americans. Neil Armstrong once noted, ``We were three individuals who had drawn, in a kind of lottery, a momentous opportunity and a momentous responsibility.'' Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins fulfilled this opportunity with dignity, courage, and honor. It is right that we recognize their supreme accomplishment today by presenting them with a congressional gold medal in commemoration of their sacrifice. They ``came in peace for all mankind,'' as reads the plaque they left on the moon. Their achievements in the advancement of space exploration have revolutionized America, and renewed our sense of unity, pride, and hope for the future.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the E-Sign conference report. This legislation is deceptively simple. It provides that anywhere in law a written signature or paper record is required, that requirement can be satisfied by an electronic signature or electronic record. Other than repealing some of our law school educations, this legislation provides a real future for electronic commerce. Its application is clearly sweeping. It will promote legal certainty in all on-line transactions. In so doing, it will accelerate the growth of electronic commerce. E-Sign is a rare example of legislation in which Congress is being proactive rather than reactive. Because the access to financial information has improved dramatically, the Internet provides significant opportunities for more Americans to become directly involved in the capital markets. Be it trading stocks on-line, assembling a retirement portfolio or getting a mortgage on-line, E-Sign will allow consumers to do it faster, cheaper, and better. Today, millions of Americans trade securities and manage their investments on-line. The cost savings to investors are enormous. Full- service brokerage can cost as much as $400 per trade. On-line brokerage costs less than $10 per trade at some firms. One goal of E-Sign is to allow consumers to open accounts on-line without mandating a physical signature or a brokerage agreement and mailing it back to the broker. E-Sign will lower transaction costs to firms and improve the audit trail for customers. E-Sign will also facilitate an increase of the provision of insurance products on-line and provide for on-line mortgages. It has been estimated that consumer savings will amount to $5 billion in mortgages alone. I want to highlight two other provisions to which I contributed. The first is the amendment that I sponsored to allow letters of agency, or LOAs, to be submitted over the Internet for the purpose of changing telecommunications carriers. The second provision of which I took special interest is intended to limit the liability exposure of insurance agents so they are not liable for deficiencies in electronic procedures. I want to take this opportunity to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his leadership once again on this important legislation. It is a fitting legacy to his chairmanship, along with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Litigation Reform, and the Telecommunications Act, among many others. Under the gentleman's leadership, the Committee on Commerce has become the e-commerce committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for their work on the conference. E-Sign is not just a bill that will benefit companies that develop new technology. It will also help American businesses, large and small, use technology to develop their businesses and provide new and innovative services to consumers. This a proud day for the Congress, a proud day for the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin first, Mr. Chairman, by thanking my good friend, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Porter), for his service to this institution for so many years. We will all miss his great leadership on the Committee on Appropriations. It has been a pleasure to work with him on a number of issues. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that reduces the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting by 1 percent. Let me begin by saying that it is unfortunate that the last authorization for the CPB expired in 1996 and, as a result, in the failure of the authorization process, the Committee on Appropriations has basically been appropriating funds for CPB during that time, including today's bill. The CPB funding makes up approximately 14 percent of public broadcasting's budget. Last year's appropriations bill increased CPB spending by some $10 million and this year the bill that my friend from Illinois brought forward has another $15 million increase. With this kind of increase each year that appropriators have provided for CPB, I would argue that it leaves little room or any incentive for reform by CPB. And, indeed, they need reform. All of us are familiar with last year's fiasco, when it became obvious that PBS had swapped donor names with Democrats for a number of years and affected thousands and thousands of members of public broadcasting stations all over the country. And while the stations ultimately apologized, it turned out it was a far more widespread scandal than anyone could have anticipated. But the fact is that this Congress, nor anybody else, has really reacted to provide some kind of incentive for CPB to look at some real reforms and some accountability for what went on. These were illegally shared lists of donors with Democratic campaigns. Many of my colleagues will recall that when we had the hearing in the Committee on Commerce, CPB came in and initially said that this was also shared with Republican groups. Those Republican groups turned out to be nonexistent and, in fact, this was clearly an effort by CPB to work with the Democrat campaigns and Democrat donors. I wrote language in last year's satellite bill to protect the privacy of contributions to PBS and NPR stations but there was never any sanction for the violation of this public trust. In 1997, it was discovered that senior executives at NPR and PBS had evaded a statutory cap on their pay by granting themselves bonuses of up to $45,000 a year, which gave them more pay than the Secretary of State, other cabinet officials, and Members of Congress. Rather than complying with the law, they hired expensive lobbyists to get the cap lifted. Public records show that PBS alone payed Covington & Burling $60,000 to get the cap removed. Last year, it was revealed that PBS headquarters in Old Town Alexandria employs a professional masseuse as part of its ``preventive health'' program. So much for providing cultural content as part of public broadcasting. Now, many of these NPR stations and public stations have, I think, started to understand that maybe some time in the future the Federal largess will end. And as they expand into Internet ventures, satellite, radio, and digital cable, I think, frankly, this provides the opportunity that we have all been looking for to wean public broadcasting away from the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers' money. And, indeed, the digital conversion that is mandated in the Telecommunications Act sets up the possibility for public broadcasting to go digital and to have the capability, at least in part of their digital programming, to provide the necessary funding that can wean them away from this dependency on taxpayers' dollars. So, for that, I applaud them. I think it makes a lot of sense, if they will continue to follow through, make those kind of changes necessary. And, in fact, as I told our worthy chairman, I support the concept of digital transition for public broadcasting. I support the money necessary, the $10 million. I wish we had authorized a program in the Committee on Commerce so we could have done exactly that, and I would have been the first to support it. Because I think it provides the magic key to separating the tax dollars from the members. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the 1 percent cut that we have proposed, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and myself, be accepted.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of H.R. 4576 and thank Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha, and the Defense Appropriations Committee for the great work in putting together this legislation. They are to be commended for expertly balancing our national security interests with very unforgiving budget constraints. Even though the Army, in my opinion, has shortsightedly threatened the superiority of our heavy forces by terminating the Heavy Assault Bridge program, the committee is wisely supporting the bridge and the most superior tank in the world, the M1A2 Abrams. The M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program [SEP] tank is a major component of the Army's heavy forces and will remain so through the year 2020. The committee very wisely is providing $512 million for the Abrams Upgrade Program. I am also pleased the committee provides $36 million for the SEP System Enhancement Program and $36 million for M1 Abrams tank modifications. The Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge [HAB] is a mobile bridge deployable in five minutes, retrievable in less than ten minutes, and can support 70-ton vehicles. Like the Grizzly Breacher, the President's budget terminated this program to pay for Army Transformation efforts, even though Congress has provided multi-year procurement authority and additional funds for HAB in recent years. It is the top unfunded modernization requirement of the Chief of Staff of the Army for fiscal year 2001. To restore this program, the committee rightly directs the Army to use $82 million in fiscal year 2000 funds to procure the Wolverine. An additional $15 million of unobligated FY00 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army funds appropriated for the Grizzly program is transferred to procure additional Wolverines as well. I urge all my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and this legislation. Let me relate a story, since I only have a minute. I attended a trip to China a few years ago. It was headed up by our former colleague, Jack Fields. One of the opportunities that we had was to have a luncheon with an American company, in this case AT&T, that was trying to penetrate the Chinese market in telephones. I was seated beside a young lady, Chinese, in her late 20's who was the number one assistant to the executive vice president of AT&T. I asked her what her job was, and she related a little bit about her job. I said, What is your background? She said, Congressman, I am enjoying my lifelong dream. I said, What is that? She said, I was educated at Brown University in your country, I returned to China to build a new China, and I am working for an American company. That really tells us what we need to know about this change that is taking place in China. We have to have the courage and we have to have the vision, and most of all, we have to have the patience that these young people can rise to leadership in China. We can do it by passing PNTR.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 1836) to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Alabama, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her words and for her support of this legislation, as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). I would be remiss, also, without mentioning our good friend, Senator John McCain, who had been a real leader on this issue, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce in the Senate and the driving force behind this bill and the one we previously passed 2 years ago. So we want to thank him for his leadership.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Act, to enact anti-bribery safeguards for the sport of boxing. Four years ago, I sponsored another piece of legislation, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996. This act established the first- ever uniform licensing and health and safety system to protect professional boxers, and prohibited conflicts of interest by boxing's State regulatory commissions. This legislation was a great success, but the State boxing commissions and attorneys general have now asked us to go the next step to clean up the corruption among boxing's promoters, managers, and sanctioning bodies. Ironically, the Professional Boxing Safety Act took effect on the same weekend as the now infamous fight between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, where Tyson bit off a piece of Holyfield's ear. Before this act took effect, there was no uniform safety laws governing boxers, and States were unable to effectively regulate the sport. Because of the Professional Boxing Safety Act, the suspension of Mike Tyson by the Nevada Boxing Commission was recognized nationwide, preventing Tyson from fighting again until his suspension was completed. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which we consider today, amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act to expand the consumer protections and anti-bribery provisions. It prevents promoters, sanctioning bodies, and networks from forcing boxers into coercive contracts as a condition of participating in a mandatory bout. No longer will promoters be able to abuse boxers and monopolize the sport by requiring boxers to sign away all their rights in order to get a big break or keep their ranking. The bill also cleans up the arbitrary ranking systems of sanctioning bodies. In the past, promoters and sanctioning bodies have been able to rig the sport by placing favored boxers who have signed away promotional rights in the top rankings. Boxers who do not grant appropriate favors are arbitrarily dropped from the ranking or prevented from moving up. This bill requires the sanctioning bodies to publish written criteria for ranking boxers and requires sanctioning bodies and promoters to disclose all revenues and other compensation received in connection with the boxers to minimize the opportunities for bribery and back-room dealing. This new system will force sanctioning bodies to rank boxers based on merit not subservience. It will mean new opportunities for honest boxers who are trying to fight their way up the rankings and more integrity and respect for the sport since boxing fans will know that championship matches are being fought by true champions. Judges and referees are also required to clean up their act under this legislation. They must be certified and approved by a State boxing commission, and they are required to disclose their sources of compensation in order to prevent any impropriety. No longer will sanctioning bodies and promoters be able to influence judges or hire uncertified referees. The State boxing commissions are directed to develop and approve guidelines for uniform rating criteria for boxers. Boxing has long suffered from the lack of standardized rankings. This legislation maintains flexibility but directs the establishment of uniform guidelines to increase public confidence in the sport. H.R. 1832 finishes the job started several years ago by weeding out corruption from boxing. It passed the House last November by voice vote. The only change today is the addition by the Senate of a provision stating that commercial broadcasters cannot coerce boxers into coercive contracts, parallel to the same restrictions already in the bill for promoters. I do not believe that broadcasters have any interest in forcing boxers into exclusive long-term contracts as a condition of being able to fight in a broadcast event, so I view the amendment as a supplemental safeguard. This legislation is good for boxing and good for the fans. It has been endorsed by almost every major boxing magazine, numerous high- profile boxers, promoters, managers, and almost half of the U.S. State attorneys general. In the words of one of boxing's greatest, Muhammad Ali, ``The day this bill is signed into law cannot come soon enough. I pray justice will be done and somehow, along the way, honor can be restored to this sport.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1832) to reform unfair and anti- competitive practices in the professional boxing industry.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.