Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 80, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on the fourth anniversary of the passage of the Telecommunications Act, the benefits of deregulation are plainly evident. Consumers are paying the lowest prices in history for telecommunications services and enjoying new technologies that were unimaginable just 4 years ago. The deregulation that resulted from the act has provided tremendous stimulation to the telecommunications industry and the American economy. Unfortunately, future progress is being held hostage by a Federal agency resistant to change. The telecommunications industry now moves on Internet time but is regulated by an FCC that relies on Depression- era rules and regulations. The FCC is too big, too powerful, and too unresponsive to the mandates of the law, congressional intent, and the needs of the American consumer. Congress thought it deregulated the telecommunications industry 4 years ago, and to a large extent we did. What we didn't know was the extent to which the FCC would subvert congressional intent and implement its own agenda. The prologue of the 1996 act states that its goal is to reduce regulation. What we now know is that the only way to do so is to sharply curtail the power of the FCC.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman. Let me first say to my good friend, the gentleman from Hamilton County, how proud I am of the work he has done in leading this effort from the Committee on the Judiciary. As one who has been a member of the Committee on Commerce for a number of years, and have had many issues with the Committee on the Judiciary, I want to congratulate him on this effort. I think it is important to point out that this is a very limited effort that the gentleman from Ohio is putting forth. It is limited to capital goods in the workplace. It does not really affect planes and automobiles for hire that would not be covered by the act. No injured party will go uncompensated, because if he is not covered by some form of workers compensation in that particular State, then the action will be exempted from coverage by the statute. This is also important from the standpoint of the commerce clause. As I stand here as a member of the Committee on Commerce, it is important to point out that clearly Congress does have the authority to step in and legislate in this area because of the need to do this. The need arises from forum shopping, in which very clever lawyers file suits in States where they can get the best deal. This would certainly eliminate that possibility. A national statute of repose will also help improve our competitiveness here in the United States. While a typical U.S. company in many cases has liability exposure for machines, machine tools up to 100 years, our foreign competitors in many cases have only that exposure for 20 years, and the competitors in many cases in Europe and in Asia have a 10-year statute of repose in their home markets. I also want to point out that not only is this a competitiveness issue for American manufacturers, but it is indeed a commerce issue, as well. This American manufacturing machinery industry, which has had a huge presence in our home State of Ohio, is the very foundation of our industrial economy. They make the tools that make the tools. That is why it is so important to our economy. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is similar to the General Aviation Revitalization Act, which passed this Congress and was signed by the President. As a result of that kind of reasonable legislation, over 25,000 new jobs have been created in the general aviation industry, so we have an indication of how successful that legislation can be. Once again, the gentleman from Ohio has done the American economy a service by sponsoring this legislation. I would ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who might have missed it, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a piece by Robert B. Zoellick from the December 14, 1999, issue of the Washington Post. Mr. Zoellick brings a unique, knowledgeable perspective to the discussion of the recent World Trade Organization fiasco in Seattle. He served in various positions in the Bush administration, including a stint as Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs, where he was actively involved in developing the nation's NAFTA strategy. Recently, Mr. Zoellick was President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I commend Mr. Zoellick's thought-provoking article to my colleagues' attention. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 14, 1999] Clinton's Seattle Straddle (By Robert B. Zoellick) Unlike The Post and others who are grappling with the deeper meaning of the Seattle protests and the World Trade Organization debacle, I think both the message and the results are straightforward: President Clinton, trying again to be all things to all people, is responsible for a failure that has paralyzed further free trade negotiations, whether globally or regionally. Clinton wanted us to ``listen'' to the demonstrators. I did. It turns out that the protesters' arguments were contradictory: They wanted both to blow up the WTO and to have the WTO establish a host of global rules to dictate social, economic, political and environmental conditions around the world. They have managed, astonishingly, to combine the aims of unilateralists--who believe the United States can order everyone else in the world to do what we want--with those of globalists--who believe national governments are illegitimate and must be superseded by ``wise'' nongovernmental organizations. Nevertheless, while the protesters' arguments were seriously flawed, their logic of action was clear: If they could overburden the process of negotiating more freedom for trade, the negotiations would break down. Then special interests would be successful in maintaining existing barriers and protections. Inefficient producers can now continue to avoid nasty competition and keep costs higher for consumers and other businesses. The Post has suggested that ``the truth [about Seattle] is more complicated'' than critics contend. Apparently, it is not enough that President Clinton has been responsible for the confusion and backsliding in America's trade policy despite these times of extraordinary prosperity. It is not enough that Clinton is the first president in 50 years to fail to ensure that America leads the world trading system toward the liberalization that has created unprecedented world growth, openness, creativity and opportunity. No, according to The Post, Clinton was ``right in principle . . . but probably wrong on the tactics.'' Since the WTO is supposed to be about trade, it might be useful for The Post to recall what trade is about: Trade enables Americans to buy goods and services from other countries; trade liberalization seeks to remove the taxes and other barriers to this freedom of exchange. By expanding the freedom to buy and sell, trade lowers costs, expands opportunities and creates better-paid work--all adding to prosperity. Prosperity, especially for developing countries, is the key to better conditions for workers and to more resources for, and interest in, a clean environment. Do fortunate Americans really think that parents in poorer countries prefer to have their children work instead of stay in school? Do they really think poor foreigners want to live in polluted cities? Or might these Americans recognize that the rules that wealthy nations want to impose on poorer nations will be ignored until poor countries have the means to improve their livelihoods? The WTO is not a global government with the power to order new environmental or labor laws--or, for that matter, better tax regimes, pension plans, health programs, civilian control of militaries or a host of other meritorious outcomes. The WTO is a forum where governments can negotiate to reduce barriers to trade and agree to rules to try to resolve disputes. We cannot make the WTO into the organization that will deal with all the problems that elected, national governments struggle with every day. Let's be honest: Once again, Clinton straddled and stumbled, and others have gotten hurt. Clinton likes to talk about free trade, because he knows open markets and competition contribute to prosperity. But Clinton also wants everyone to like him, especially if the people are his political constituencies. So he chose to host a major international negotiating meeting on trade without laying the political groundwork globally and without developing a negotiating strategy. In a negotiation where the United States needed to work with developing countries to open markets for farmers, Clinton scared off the developing world to placate domestic interests. He even sabotaged his own negotiating team by proposing new trade sanctions at a meeting that was supposed to reduce barriers, not add to them. When asked why, according to The Post, a White House aide said, ``He was just talking off the top of his head.'' The Post, seeking to be broad-minded, finds the truth to be ``complicated.'' I think the truth is simple: After following through in 1993-94 on a free trade agenda left by his predecessor--an agenda he could not abandon without looking isolationist--Clinton, through his intellectual waffling and lack of commitment, severely set back the cause of free trade.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a cold day in Washington, but the chill is on religious broadcasters. A word to the Members: If one has a religious broadcaster or people who listen to religious broadcasters in one's district, their rights have been compromised. The rights are less than they were in 1999 because of an FCC decision on the Cornerstone license swap in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Since this order, traditional religious programming can no longer be counted toward the 50 percent educational programming requirement that must be met by those who would hold noncommercial television licenses. Basically, the FCC wants less religion and more of what it considers educational on the noncommercial airways. The majority of commissioners apparently want religious broadcasters to look more like PBS. My office has received hundreds of e-mails and telephone calls from people who want to protest this decision. I know many other Members have been contacted, and I want to invite all the Members to cosponsor the bill, the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act. Join me and over 50 cosponsors already to protest the FCC's efforts to limit religious programming.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to William Ruse, a seasoned health care executive who will be retiring at the end of the year 2000 after 43 years of service in the health care industry. Bill started his career as pharmacist in 1957; and by 1963, upon completing his MBA in Hospital Administration from Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, he advanced from pharmacy director to hospital administrator. As President and CEO of Blanchard Valley Hospital, he aggressively began transforming the organization from a small rural hospital to a regional health system. Recognizing the advantages of legal savvy, Bill completed a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree ``in his spare time'' by 1972. Through his vision and entrepreneurial spirit, he developed programs on uncharted paths. He gained national recognition when he introduced the first ``guaranteed services'' policy in the country in 1974. Then in the early 1980's, Blanchard Valley Health Association was one of the first businesses to band smoking in their facilities. As small hospitals have struggled to maintain a presence in health care, Blanchard Valley has continued to grow and expand by forging partnership relationships that insure their customers' best interests. His professional leadership positions, awards, honors, and society memberships along with community service accomplishments read like a Who's Who Library. In addition, he has published articles in both health care and law journals. Bill Ruse is an American we can be proud of in every sense of the word. And one last honor of distinction--he just celebrated his 65th birthday so now we welcome him into our inner circle, the Social Security System. Pat and I would like to express our sincere best wishes to William Ruse and his lovely wife, Donna as they move through their golden years.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3194 contains a provision exempting from Superfund liability certain transactions in recyclable materials. This exemption is drawn from S. 1528. While Senators Lott and Daschle have provided a basic description of Congress's intent in passing the language, the purpose of this statement is to provide some additional detail on two particular provisions: Sec. 127(g) on the liability of other parties at affected Superfund sites, and Sec. 127(i) on the effect on completed actions. New Sec. 127 of CERCLA provides that parties who engaged in certain transactions involving recyclable materials ``shall not be liable'' under the provisions of Superfund. Subsection (g) describes the effect of this bill on the Superfund liability of owner/operators who remain liable at a site. This provision clearly provides that at a Superfund site where some parties are exempted from liability by Sec. 127, the remaining non-exempt owner/operators at the site should not face increased liability as a result of the enactment of Sec. 127. As a result, the liability of owner/operators is to be determined as if Sec. 127 had not been enacted, using the usual and customary factors considering the relative contribution of all parties, both exempt and non-exempt. This provision ensures that any exempted share created by operation of this section is not transferred to owner/operators. New Sec. 127 also contains transition language which governs how the recycled materials exemption is intended to affect Superfund liability in pending or concluded actions. Sec. 127(i) provides that the exemptions from CERCLA liability shall not affect any concluded judicial or administrative action or any pending judicial action initiated by the United States prior to enactment. One reason for this amendment is to ensure that where a judicial or administrative action has been fully complied with, this bill will not force persons who believed that they had fully settled their liability and claims to revisit those issues. However, where a consent decree or other judicial order requires enforcement of its terms after the date of enactment, nothing in this section should be interpreted to prevent a person subject to such future enforcement from revisiting the validity of those future obligations in light of the passage of this legislation. Sec. 127(i) should not be interpreted as leading to the fundamentally inequitable result that a person could be forced at some future date to take actions to abide by a consent decree where the legal predicate for the consent decree has changed so substantially that it no longer has a foundation in federal law or conflicts in part with federal law. Congress does not intend the transition language to overrule Supreme Court precedent holding that ``parties have no power to require of the court continuing enforcement of rights the statute no longer gives.'' System Federation No. 91 v. Wright, 364 U.S. 642, 652 (1961). Nothing in this legislation prevents parties from filing motions under rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to re-open the consent decree with respect to future obligations.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who might have missed it, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a piece by David Ignatius from Wednesday's Washington Post. As a strong supporter of free trade, I share Mr. Ignatius's optimism at the agreement reached earlier this week for China to join the World Trade Organization. As foreign trade becomes increasingly important in the developing global economy, we must work to ensure open access to the emerging Chinese markets, especially in the areas of financial services and telecommunications. This agreement will give that access to American companies. I salute Trade Representative Barshefsky on her hard work at achieving this agreement under difficult circumstances. I also agree with Mr. Ignatius's view that the agreement does not go far enough. As a member of the congressional delegation to the WTO Ministerial in Seattle later this month, I will work to restore some of the more favorable aspects of the agreement rejected by the President in April. I commend Mr. Ignatius's article to my colleagues' attention. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1999] A Bad Week for Isolationists If you believe that international engagement is America's best hope for the future, then this is a week to savor. For beyond the headlines, you can see the possibility for a restoration of the confident, outward-looking U.S. consensus that our history teaches is a requirement for global peace and prosperity. The cornerstone of this renewed embrace of America's global role is the deal reached early Monday in Bejing for China to join the World Trade Organization. President Clinton let this agreement slip away last April, because of fears about the anti-international know-nothingism that seemed to have infected Congress. That was one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency, and he has commendably been trying ever since to walk it back. The deal Clinton got Monday isn't quite as good as the one he backed away from before, but it's good enough. What's better is the new confidence among free traders that they can win the political argument, on Capitol Hill and around the country. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers puts the case for the WTO deal simply and starkly: Twice in this century, changes in the economic balance of power have led to wars--first with the rise of Germany before World War I and later with the rise of Japan. Now the world economic order is changing once again, with the emergence of Beijing as an economic superpower. It is overwhelmingly in America's interest to draw this modernizing China into the global economic system. Americans who are confident about the world-changing power of our capitalism and democracy will welcome the agreement. China will now have to live by the free-market rules of the WTO. It will have to accept international investments in its major industries, including banking and telecommunications; it will have to abide by international arbitration of its trade disputes; it will have to accept the Internet and its instantaneous access to information. If you can devise a better strategy for subverting Communist rule in China, I'd like to hear it. What makes the anti-WTO camp so nervous? It must be the fact that we're living in a time of economic upheaval. As the global economy becomes more competitive, the rewards for success become greater, and so do the penalties for failure. Optimists embrace this future, while pessimists seek protection from it. Fear of the future: That's the shared characteristic of the new anti-internationalists--from Pat Buchanan on the right to AFL-CIO president John Sweeney on the left. They seem to believe that every new job in China will mean one less in America. Thank goodness economics doesn't work that way. The evidence is overwhelming that global prosperity creates new markets, new demand--and more prosperity for all of us. That doesn't mean that there won't be losers--there will be and the U.S. textile industry and some blue-collar traders will undoubtedly be among them. But in macro terms, this is a pie that gets bigger, a game where two sides can win. The administration's most articulate champion for this kind of internationalism is Summers. And it must be said that the new Treasury Secretary is cleaning up some of the unfinished business left by his predecessor, Robert Rubin. Summers helped rescue the WTO agreement with a trip last month to Beijing, where he met with Zhu Rongji, the Chinese prime minister. Summers told him that ``we wanted a deal, but it would have to be on commercial terms. . . . We would both have to make concessions on percentage points.'' Thanks to hard bargaining by U.S. trade negotiator Charlene Barshefksy, that's essentially what happened. This week brought other signs of renewed political support for a pragmatic internationalism. the administration cut a deal with House Republicans that will allow the United States to pay nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations, in exchange for a ban on funding any international organization that promotes abortion. Summers has worked hard to include debt relief for the world's poorest nations as part of the U.N. funding deal, and his mostly succeeded. Wealthy lenders will take a hit under this agreement, while poverty-stricken nations will get a break. That sounds like the right kind of bargain. Another step in the internationalist revival could come next month when Summers pitches European nations to accept some new rules for the International Monetary Fund. He'll urge that the IMF support either tough fixed exchange-rate plans or genuinely free floating rates--but not the muddled in-between schemes that have gotten so many countries in trouble. He'll also urge a new IMF assessment system to detect when countries' short-term liabilities are rising toward the danger point. And in light of the recent Russian fiasco, he may argue that countries should accept outside audits as a condition of receiving IMF funds. Some Americans still believe that ``IMF,'' ``free trade'' and ``WTO'' are dirty words--symbols of an elitist conspiracy that will harm ordinary Americans. This view is dangerously wrong, and it was good to see it losing ground this week.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, Satellite television has emerged in recent years as a major competitor in the multichannel video marketplace. This is especially so in suburban and rural regions such as Ohio's Fourth Congressional District. It is a development which has been welcomed by consumers and policy makers alike. The measure before us permits satellite television providers to deliver local broadcast channels to local viewers, bringing local news, sports, and weather to satellite customers. This will provide a major boost to satellite as a competitor to cable television. The legislation will provide greater consumer choice and enhanced price competition for multichannel video services. The bill also grandfathers DBS subscribers outside of the metropolitan Grade A contour who have had or are soon to have their distant network signals terminated. In addition, all owners of the larger, C-Band dishes are grandfathered. I strongly support the grandfather provisions as a matter of basic fairness for consumers. In addition, the measure includes an amendment I offered in conference committee to protect the privacy of donors to public broadcasting stations. As members know, a scandal erupted this summer when it was discovered that PBS and NPR stations around the nation had been swapping lists of their donors with the Democrat National Committee and other partisan entities. The amendment prohibits the sharing of lists with political committees and campaigns. In addition, my amendment requires that donors to public broadcasting stations be given the opportunity to opt- out of any sharing of their personal data. The third-party opt-out is similar to the privacy amendment which I added to S. 900, Financial Services Modernization. I'm pleased that the conference committee has taken this step to protect the privacy of public broadcasting contributors. Mr Speaker, I urge support for the conference report.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. The winner in this is the consumer.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). As I said in my statement in supporting the underlying bill, we will do irreparable harm to the future of electronic commerce if we are unable to provide the basis for uniformity and legal certainty. And, indeed, that is really what this legislation is all about. Those of us who study law understood that the Uniform Commercial Code really for the first time turned loose this great engine of economic opportunity and contracts throughout our 50 States when we had some degree of certainty when we are dealing with the Uniform Commercial Code. In many ways, this legislation sponsored by our good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, is a natural consequence of following along with the Uniform Commercial Code, but we are doing it as it relates to electronic commerce. Electronic commerce is that natural consequence of what we are doing. So, essentially, that is really what this bill is all about. The substitute amendment only provides legal certainty if the transaction was conducted as a result of a contract. And indeed, a lot of commerce takes place without formal contracts. And that is what really this legislation is all about. This substitute, I would tell my good friend from Michigan, is over regulatory, it is industrial policy legislation that is contrary to what electronic commerce is really all about. Mr. Chairman, the substitute amendment is simply a failure in regards to trusting people who are becoming more and more sophisticated in dealing with electronic commerce and more and more feeling comfortable with what is happening out there in the marketplace. This would be a huge step backwards in the name of consumer protection, when in fact it is quite the opposite and trusts government and trusts regulations and trusts bureaucrats far more than we trust the consumer in making these very important decisions in the marketplace. So, for that reason, I would ask the substitute be defeated.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1714. Last Thursday, Mr. Chairman, the House passed legislation to modernize the laws that govern our financial services industry. The laws we changed were more than 60 years old and had been bypassed in recent years by the marketplace. Congress was in many ways just trying to catch up with what had already happened. The lessons we learned in that debate I think are quite clear. If Congress cannot respond quickly to the changes in the marketplace and update the applicable laws, the inevitable result will be more harm than good. The longer we wait to act, the more entrenched the various factions will become, making it more difficult for legislation with each passing day. We do not need another web of inconsistent State laws and Federal regulations that will leave consumers and businesses guessing whether their contract is valid or not just because it was conducted on line. Let us understand that the world is changing and the Congress needs to change the laws to reflect those inevitable changes. Electronic commerce is growing exponentially and will continue to change the way we conduct our business. Given the opportunity before us to enhance electronic commerce in the same manner the marketplace has, it would be foolish to a large extent not to provide the legal certainty that will benefit consumers and facilitate commerce. Our laws need to keep up with the significant technological developments. This bill, sponsored by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), is designed to bring legal certainty to electronic transactions. Legal certainty. The parties need to understand that when they sign that contract there is a legal binding obligation on both of them, and the handwritten signature more and more becomes less and less significant. Mr. Chairman, this is another essential step necessary for our economy to take advantage of the efficiencies of electronic commerce. This is the same exact legislation most of us supported just last week. I will also be supporting the amendment by our friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who will be offering that recordkeeping provision and clarifying the recordkeeping provisions of the bill. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is good public policy and it continues a strong tradition by the Committee on Commerce of enacting legislation that keeps up with the electronic marketplace that is changing so dramatically. I urge strong support of this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Last Thursday, the President and three other officials from the IBF, the International Boxing Federation, were indicted. They were brought under criminal charges for operating IBF's sanctioning body as a racketeering enterprise in which fighters' rankings were routinely altered in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in illicit bribes from promoters and managers. This scandal follows on the heels of an investigation by the Miami Herald revealing more than 30 fights in the past 12 years have been fixed or tainted, including at least one heavyweight championship match. Madam Speaker, I have with me a copy of the Miami Herald, Sunday, October 31, which is titled ``Fixed Fights, Down for the Count,'' in which the columnist, Ken Rodriguez of the Miami Herald, chronicles just how bad the situation is in boxing and how badly it needs cleaning up. And I want to cite that as an example of what we can do, working with the media, to uncover this kind of activity. In 1996, I sponsored a bipartisan boxing reform bill which prohibited conflicts of interest for State boxing commission employees. It also established the first-ever uniformed licensing and health and safety system to protect professional boxers. This legislation was a great success and the State boxing commissions and attorneys general now have asked us to go one step further to clean up the corruption among boxing promoters, managers, and sanctioning bodies. H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, is based on the numerous bipartisan hearings this committee has held over the past 2 decades on the need to reform the boxing industry. On June 29, 1999, our committee held a hearing, just after the controversial decision in the Holyfield-Lewis heavyweight championship fight, in which an IBF judge awarded the title to Mr. Holyfield, the IBF champion, instead of to Mr. Lewis, the WBC champion and clear apparent winner, according to some boxing commentators. In the words of one hearing witness, the decision was ``highly influenced.'' Another witness said bluntly, ``Lewis was robbed.'' H.R. 1832 expands on our initial success with boxing reform, extending the conflict-of-interest prohibitions in the 1996 act to apply to other boxing entities besides State commissions. Specifically, H.R. 1832 would enact seven critical reforms: First, bribes are prohibited for sanctioning bodies. Two, conflicts of interest are prohibited for boxing managers and promoters. Three, boxers are protected from coercive contracts. Four, new strong disclosure requirements are created for promoters, sanctioning bodies, judges, and referees to reduce corruption. Fifth, boxing judges and referees are required to be approved by the State commissions. Sixth, unsportsmanlike conduct would be added as a new category of suspendable offenses. And, seven, the State boxing commissions are encouraged to adopt uniform rules, regulations, rating criteria, and guidelines for contracts. These are important reforms which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have no significant impact on the Federal budget and would not result in any significant cost to the States. This legislation passed the Senate earlier this year. It passed our committee by a bipartisan voice vote, and has received support from the president of the Association of Boxing Commissions, International Boxing Digest, Boxing News, the editor of Ring Magazine, the World Boxing Council, and numerous promoters, managers, and boxers. In the words of one of boxing's greatest, Muhammad Ali, ``The day this bill is signed into law cannot be soon enough. I pray justice will be done and somehow, along the way, honor can be restored to this sport.'' Madam Speaker, I provide for inclusion in the Record two letters from Muhammad Ali in support of this legislation, the most recent dated November 8, today, as well as a letter from the National Association of Attorneys General in support of this legislation. National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, DC, April 28, 1999. Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senate, Chairman, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, Washington, DC. Hon. Thomas Bliley, House of Representatives, Chairman, Commerce Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Senator McCain and Representative Bliley: We, the leadership of the National Association of Attorneys General (``NAAG'') Boxing Task Force, and Attorneys General interested in industry reform, strongly endorse the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (S. 305) and fully support your efforts to improve the professional boxing industry. We believe this legislation will curb anti-competitive and fraudulent business practices and prevent blatant exploitation of professional boxers. We are encouraged by the support S. 305 has received in the Senate, and we look forward to working with you to protect the health and safety of professional boxers and to prevent exploitation, fraud, and restraints of trade. The Muhammad Ali Act provides a practical approach to long-standing problems of fraud and restraints of trade in this industry. The Boxing Task Force, currently comprised of 19 Attorneys General, was formally established in March 1998 after legislation was passed by both the House and Senate Commerce Committees and then subsequently by both the House and Senate. (The Professional Boxing Safety Act 15 U.S.C. Sec. 6301, et seq.). After Federal Trade Commission Chairman Robert Pitofsky's suggested that state Attorneys General review business practices in the professional boxing industry, the National Association of Attorneys General created the Boxing Task Force to examine interstate boxing practices in the United States, identify the problems therein, and recommend ways to improve the industry. In furtherance of our common objectives, the Task Force conducted a public hearing on January 19-21, 1999, where testimony, including numerous recommendations, was received from individuals representing a cross-section of the boxing industry. Testimony was elicited from boxing promoters on their role in the industry and on the issue of long term and exclusive contractual options. Sanctioning organizations testified about the methods utilized to rank fighters. Various experts on boxers' injuries discussed the necessity for medical clearance and the use of proper equipment and ringside safety precautions. Industry members and business leaders discussed a structured annuity and pension plan for professional boxers. We are in the process of reviewing the testimony, and after further consultation with members of the industry, we will compile a report with our recommendations. We seek to reform certain practices within the industry, to return integrity to boxing on behalf of the athletes and the ticket-buying public, and to otherwise enhance the well-being of boxing and all associated with it. Finally, we would like to emphasize the importance of the proposed enforcement guidelines of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, which would permit a State, as parens patriae, to being a civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate district court of the United States for violations of the Boxing Reform Act. We believe that the authority to enjoin the holding of a professional boxing match, and to enforce compliance with the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, is necessary to ensure lawful and responsible boxing industry compliance with national reforms. Thank you for your consideration of our views. We hope you will favorably consider the Muhammad Ali Act. We stand ready to assist you as the bill advances, so please feel free to call on us. Sincerely yours, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, Chair, NAAG Boxing Task Force; Jim Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois, Vice Chair, NAAG Boxing Task Force; Janet Napolitano, Attorney General of Arizona; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California; Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida; Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of Indiana; Tom Miller, Attorney General of Iowa; Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland; Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi; Jeremiah W. ``Jay'' Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri; Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada; Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey; W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Hardy Myers, Attorney General of Oregon; Mike Fisher, Attorney General of Pennsylvania; Jose A. Fuentes-Agostini, Attorney General of Puerto Rico; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General of Virginia.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, the month of November has been designated Native American Heritage Month, a time in which to honor the positive contributions of our Nation's earlier inhabitants. I was disturbed to learn then that November has already been designated Leonard Peltier Freedom Month by a group pressing for his release from Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. Because of the publicity surrounding this case, we should all be familiar with its details: Leonard Peltier is serving two consecutive life sentences for the cold-blooded murder of two FBI agents on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in 1975. But it is important that we review the facts of the case separating them from the myths that have arisen over the years, especially as Peltier's supporters are petitioning the White House for clemency for this convicted killer. On June 26, 1975, FBI Special Agents Ronald A. Williams and Jack R. Coler entered the Jumping Bull Compound of the Pine Ridge Reservation pursuing a man in connection with an assault on two young ranchers in nearby Manderson, South Dakota. One of the three people in the vehicle the agents were pursuing was Leonard Peltier, a fugitive from justice wanted for the attempted murder of a police officer in Milwaukee. Peltier and his associates stopped their vehicle abruptly and opened fire on the two agents. Surprised, outmanned, and outgunned, Agents Williams and Coler were severely wounded in this barrage of gunfire. Agent Coler was hit in the right arm, the force of the bullet nearly tearing it off. He fell unconscious within moments. Agent Williams, although hit in the left shoulder and right foot, tore off his own shirt in the midst of this chaos and fashioned a tourniquet around his partner's arm. Ambushed, the two agents lay helpless, completely at the mercy of their assailants. Peltier and the other two gunmen, though, would not be showing any mercy to these law enforcement officers that day. They walked down to where the two agents lay dying after this horrendous assault. Agent Williams, kneeling on the ground with his hand out as if to surrender was shot directly in the face. He died instantly. Peltier's group turned on the still unconscious Agent Coler. They shot them twice in the head with a shotgun at close range and both men died instantly. An examination of the crime scene revealed that Agents Williams and Coler were only able to fire five shots in defense. Peltier and his men by contrast left more than 125 bullet holes in the agent's vehicles. After these vicious murders, Peltier fled the reservation and was put on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. Five months later, he was spotted hiding in an RV by a state trooper in Oregon. Peltier fired at the officer and fled once again. Investigators found Peltier's fingerprints on a bag underneath the RV's front seat. Inside the bag was Agent Coler's revolver, stolen from him in the bloodbath 5 months earlier. Peltier escaped into Canada, where he was ultimately arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Confirming beyond a doubt his cold- blooded mentality, he said that if he had known that the officers were about to arrest him, he would have ``blown them out of their shoes.'' Mr. Speaker, those are not the words of a candidate for clemency. Leonard Peltier's heinous crimes are not the actions of a candidate for clemency. Yet Peltier's supporters are confident that the President will pardon this murderer, pointing to his pardon of the FALN terrorists earlier this year. These supporters would have us believe that Peltier is being held unjustly, that he was framed because he is Native American. They have politicized the case, bringing in liberal Hollywood actors who glorify Peltier and refer to the slain agents, Williams and Coler, as ``faceless soldiers'' sent by the government. They have elevated this thug, calling him a leader of his people, further dishonoring the law enforcement officers he killed and dishonoring Native American heritage as well. Our legal system has ruled again and again that Leonard Peltier is a killer. The Supreme Court refused to review his case, and a parole board ruled in 1993 that Peltier be denied parole for the next 15 years. FBI Director Louis Freeh is on record saying that ``[t]here should be no commutation of his two life terms in prison.'' In a recent letter to his supporters, Peltier makes reference to the ``many years'' of his life that have been ``stolen.'' To this day, he remains oblivious to the fact that he stole many years of life from the two agents he killed. Jack Coler was 28, Ron Williams was 27 and a father of a 4-year-old son. They were at the beginning of what promised to be long and successful careers in law enforcement. They were cut down at the prime of their lives by a coward who has shown no remorse. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I was also a FBI special agent and I am appalled that Leonard Peltier has chosen to exploit Native Americans for his own selfish purposes. This is not about ethnicity, it is about murder. It is about respect for the law and law enforcement officers. I call on the President to see through the myth that has built up around Leonard Peltier and recognize that Peltier is trying to manipulate emotions and use political issues to gain an undeserved release. The President owes at least that much to the families of these slaughtered heroes.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, as we discussed, in single-event transactions such as the ones the gentlewoman from New Jersey mentioned, financial institutions must disclose to the customer their privacy policies and practices at the time the transaction is entered into. A customer relationship is created, but it is over in an extremely short amount of time. In these types of transactions, no continuing relationship between the financial institution and the customer is created. For this reason, the financial institution is not required to provide its privacy policies to such customers annually. That was clearly our intent.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this historic legislation. We are replacing Glass-Steagall finally, after 65 years, with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and everybody participated in this effort. There is a great deal of credit for a job well done. We have had the heart and the courage. A lot of people have doubted us because it took us a long time but we are here tonight to pass this bill. It sets a standard, a strong standard, for consumer safeguards and establishes a strong regulatory foundation for financial services. Let me mention a few highlights. This year in our committee I introduced the first ever comprehensive financial privacy protections for consumers. It was adopted by the full House and stronger provisions with the work of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and others in the House-Senate conference committee. Under current law, consumers have no ability whatsoever to find out how their personal financial information is being shared. This bill, for the first time, gives them that ability. If we want strong consumer protections, particularly a right to privacy, vote for this legislation because to keep the status quo is to have no privacy protection whatsoever. It protects account numbers and access codes. It protects strong State privacy laws from being overridden, and that is very, very important. I find it interesting that some Members, while recognizing that everything in this bill is an improvement over current law, still argue that we should not enact any protections, nothing at all, if we cannot load up the bill with every bell and whistle that they want. This is partly why this bill has been sabotaged in every effort in the last 65 years until this Congress demonstrated the leadership to move it forward. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act affords real protections and safeguards for Americans that become law, not just empty words and political posturing. The privacy protections are only some of the many pro- consumer entitlements in the bill. Under current law, individual consumers have no statutory protections governing bank sales of insurance. This bill provides that protection. Domestic violence. Protection against domestic violence discrimination. State insurance regulators now have equal standing to protect consumers when regulating. In fact, this bill establishes the consumers' right to functional regulation of all financial activities, which is the bedrock of this legislation, this functional regulation. I am proud that this bill does that. This bill makes our system work, and it makes our financial system strong and safe and the envy of world. I want to congratulate all of those who were involved in this effort, particularly the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach), the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for their strong efforts in this regard. Madam Speaker, I would be remiss at this time in not mentioning the hard work and dedication of a young man named Greg Koczanski, who was senior vice president of Citigroup, and many of my colleagues knew him, as we discuss this legislation that was so important to Greg. As many of my colleagues know, Greg died in a tragic hiking accident earlier this year in Colorado. He was a devoted family man, an avid sportsman, and true professional in every sense. I salute Greg for the time and energy he committed to the process of moving this bill forward. S. 900 bears the imprint of his hard work. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a good friend of mine, always likened this bill to Sisyphus rolling that boulder up the hill, and he was doomed, doomed to have that boulder roll back on him and time and time again, doomed for eternity. I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, no longer, no longer do I have to hear that speech in the Committee on Commerce or on the floor. For that reason and that reason alone, it is important that we pass this bill tonight.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. Commerce on the Internet is projected to grow exponentially to hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions in just a few years. Because the access to financial information has improved dramatically, the Internet poses significant opportunities for more Americans to become directly involved in the capital markets. The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, which I chair, held hearings on this bill and passed it through subcommittee unanimously. This bill will provide a critical cornerstone for the electronic financial transactions in the next century. The securities industry has responded to the new world of e-commerce with a proliferation of on-line trading brokers. Today, millions of Americans trade securities and manage their investments on-line. The cost savings to investors are significant. Full service brokerage can cost as much as $400 per trade. On-line brokerage costs less than $10 per trade at many firms. The law needs to keep up with this significant technological development. H.R. 1714 brings legal certainty to electronic transactions. The legislation states that contracts shall not be deemed invalid because they are entered into electronically rather than the old-fashioned way, by handwritten signature. One goal of this legislation is to allow customers to open accounts on line without mandating a physical signature on a brokerage agreement and mailing it back to the broker. Title III of this legislation modernizes securities laws by providing that requirements for a writing can be satisfied by an electronic signature with just a click of a button. The legislation does not endorse any particular electronic authentication technology. We think that the market is the best place to decide that. I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his vision and introducing this critical legislation that will benefit the future of American economy. This is not just a bill that will benefit the American companies that develop new technology, it will also help American businesses, large and small, that use technology to develop and grow their business and provide new and innovative service to consumers. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this sound and worthwhile legislation, one of the key pieces of technology legislation this Congress will consider.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, as we send Ambassador Barshefsky to the WTO Ministerial in Seattle next month, the world is on the verge of a crucial decision for electronic commerce. Will it remain duty and tariff free? We are here today to say, yes, it should. That is the consensus here in the United States about what is best for the growth and development of e-commerce. But other countries in the world are not so sure, and that is why we are backing Ambassador Barshefsky in her efforts that will be undertaken at the WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle 5 weeks from now at a session that many of us will be attending. This week, I am circulating a letter to Ambassador Barshefsky for Members' signatures that share the same spirit as the Cox resolution. We need strong congressional support to show the world that the United States stands firmly opposed to any taxation of e-commerce. The imposition of tariffs and duties on electronic services or information will only mean that they will become less available to the world. Unless cyberspace is tax free, how will people in developing nations have consumer choice? In my view, the tariff moratorium should be made permanent. It should be as broad as possible to cover the wide array of what is available electronically. This decision in Seattle is no doubt going to be a difficult choice for developing nations strapped for revenue while watching the Internet grow exponentially. It is the principled choice, however, and I believe the right conclusion will be reached in Seattle with the leadership of our delegation and others who agree with this policy. The U.S. leads the world in the software industry. The fact is that we live in an age where the downloading of software is an export directly to a consumer. It has never touched the hands of a government agent at a post office, a shipping port, or an airport. That freedom of government intrusion is what we hope to protect. Mr. Speaker, if the world fails here, we will see an immediate rash of tariffs, customs duties, and other trade barriers. The only possible result is the limitation of available information and services, and that cuts to the very heart of what the Internet does so well. I ask strong support for the Cox resolution.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in honor of a great American, Hank Aaron. I had the opportunity to see Hank Aaron in 1958 in Milwaukee County stadium when I was visiting there with my parents. I had a chance to see him play a number of times after that. But I remember so well that experience. I remember I was a big sports fan, still am, reading the sports magazines, Sports Illustrated and others, how Hank Aaron came up from Mobile, Alabama. He started out as a cross-handed softball player. I always wondered how anybody could hit cross-handed at all. Come to find out that, with his talent and drive and ability, he was able to set so many records, including the home run record because of that dedication and hard work and true talent. He has been one that has made us all proud to be Americans in what he has been able to accomplish on the baseball field and off. My hat is off, as the Republican manager, the successful manager, by the way, of a 17 to 1 victory this summer.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and particularly my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for their leadership in this legislation. I have had numerous discussions with her particularly about this important legislation. The U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect reports that 2,000 children die each year as a result of abuse or neglect. In my home State of Ohio alone, a child is reported abused or neglected every 3 minutes of every day. With these statistics, it is clear our Nation needs to do more to protect our children from abuse and prevent it from happening in the first place. That is why this legislation is so important, because it focuses in on prevention. Child abuse prevention is true crime prevention, and all of us, I am sure, support that concept. We needed to recognize that on the State and local level, the child protective workers, the police, prosecutes, judges, doctors, the nurses, are in the best position to prevent child abuse and find ways to treat those who have been abused. We need to empower those on the State and local level in their efforts to prevent child abuse and treat victims. That is what the CAPE Act is designed to do. The bill would give State and local officials flexibility to use Byrne law enforcement grants for child abuse prevention, to increase the earmark currently at $10 million for education out of the crime victims fund, and the best news of all is, it does not cost taxpayers' dollars because it comes from forfeited assets, forfeited bail bonds and fines paid by the government. This funding can be used by the States for important things such as training child protective service workers, training court-appointed special advocates, and child advocacy centers. Child advocacy centers help provide treatment and examination for abused children in a way which will not revictimize the child. We are fortunate in this country to have the assets necessary to carry out this important function. This act is supported by the National Child Abuse Coalition, Prevent Child Abuse America, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize my former Findlay High School classmate, Dr. Kathleen C. Crates, upon her selection as Ohio's 1999 Principal of the Year. This award, sponsored by MetLife and given by the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), acknowledges the achievements of Ohio's most outstanding secondary school principal. Candidates were judged based on their relationships with teaching staff, their ability to promote positive change, and their use of creativity in solving problems. In announcing Dr. Crates's selection, Ohio NASSP Director Steven Raines cited her outstanding leadership skills and her creation of a caring environment at Findlay High School, a facility that serves more than 2,100 students. Before she was named principal of our alma mater in 1995, Dr. Crates served as principal of Findlay's Donnell Middle School, assistant principal at Findlay High School, and as a teacher of learning disabled students. She completed her undergraduate work at Findlay College, now the University of Findlay, in 1968, and earned her master's and doctoral degrees from nearby Bowling Green State University. Dr. Crates has supplemented her skills through seminars at Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of California. In her honor, March 12, 1999, was designated ``Dr. Kathleen Crates Day'' by the students and staff of Findlay High School. Last month, Dr. Crates was further honored as one of six Ohio educators chosen to receive Ohio's first ever Pioneer in Education Awards, presented by the Ohio Department of Education. Dr. Crates will now compete on the national level with 49 of her peers, as they vie for the title of National Principal of the year. I am proud to join the chorus of voices saluting Kathy's quarter century of dedication to the young people of Findlay. I congratulate her on a job well done, and wish her the best of luck in the national competition and in all her future endeavors.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, the strength of our republic lies in the participation of all people, exercising their individual liberty by making their voices heard. One person can make a difference that can benefit us all. Congress is, and should be composed of 535 laymen. We each have expertise in something, but on the wide array of issues with which we deal, we need a lot more information, a lot of educating--or we can make some mistakes. The two concepts--one person making a difference, and Congress needing solid information on a wide variety of topics--are combined in the career of a man named Brad Currey, Jr. Brad Currey retires at the end of this year as Chairman, President, and CEO of the Rock-Tenn Company in Norcross, Georgia. Brad always says that Rock-Tenn's value is based on the unique competence of its people; with those people, he built one of the country's largest manufacturers and converters of 100 percent recycled paperboard. Their products are all around us, but we rarely recognize them: cereal boxes, bookcovers, overnight express mail envelopes, and countless other items. During his career with Rock-Tenn, Brad demonstrated why a ``special interest group'' is not necessarily a bad thing. He has helped Congress refine an important part of environmental policy, especially in the area of recycling. In doing so, he and his colleagues in the 100 percent paper recycling industry helped remind us of the broad power Congress has to affect the way business is done. A few years back, we grappled with what was referred to at the time as the ``solid waste crisis.'' Legislation was introduced and considered in the Commerce Committee to help spur the recycling markets. We certainly did not know all that we needed to know about recycling, and few people in environmental organizations or the lobbying community had an expert background in it, either. Brad Currey recognized that the future of his paper recycling industry was about to be decided in Congress. He called on his industry colleagues, many of whom were owners and operators of small family-run recycled paper companies, and convinced them of the need to make their voice heard in the debate on solid waste and recycled issues. From that point, the story takes on a more ``inside Washington`` character: they chose a name for themselves, the Paper Recycling Coalition (PRC), and hired a consulting firm to guide them through the legislative and regulatory process. Thanks to Brad and his colleagues, I have learned more about the recycled paper industry and its presence in Ohio and around the country. I have also learned more about the issues that affect them, and recognized that heir collective voice was valuable in crafting the nation's recycling policies. They created a more visible identity for the recycled paper industry, and they did it without arm-twisting or crass tactics. They did it with information. From what I have heard from his friends, inserting the paper recycling industry in the policymaking process is just one of many Brad Currey accomplishments. As Brad gets ready to retire, I want to thank him for his guidance and assure him that he has made a difference--he has had a positive impact on the policy process. Like Brad, I hope others will see that they too can make a difference. One willing, dedicated person can have a positive influence on policies that benefit the nation as a whole. Operating forthrightly and with integrity, they can inform us, and help to make our policies sounder. That is an important contribution, and, perhaps, the most vital lesson Brad leaves behind. it is about the people. People like Brad Currey.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the resolution, and I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Fossella), for his work on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, this is really about the respect for law in this country, and whether folks who have decided to use terrorist activities and criminal behavior against innocent individuals should pay a price as dictated by the law, or whether we are going to turn our backs on law enforcement and the rule of law in this country. What would happen if the President, whoever he may be in a few years, would grant clemency to the World Trade Center bombers, or the Oklahoma City terrorists? Or to my liberal friends, how about the folks who have bombed abortion clinics? Would they be a good subject for having clemency granted? I do not think so. Basically what we have here is an issue of common sense and the rule of law. One hundred and thirty FALN bomb attacks on civilian and military targets, six people dead, dozens wounded. I was based, Mr. Speaker, in New York City in the early seventies, right before these terrorist attacks took place, when I was stationed there with the FBI. I have had some discussions with some of my friends who had served in New York, and still some of them currently serve in New York, as well as with the FBI headquarters. I can tell the Members without exception that those gentlemen who are sworn to uphold the law and in fact arrested these criminals are adamantly opposed to this action by the President. I would ask that the House pass this by a substantial margin and send a strong message to the White House that the rule of law must be protected.