Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber for rollcall votes held the evening of Monday, June 7th. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 167, 168, and 169.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber for four rollcall votes held on Wednesday, May 26. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 158, 159, 160, and 161.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add a few words of praise for the dedication of the Lima Fire Fighters Memorial Museum. The Lima Fire Department has provided outstanding basic fire fighting and safety services to the Lima community since its formation in 1865. The museum built in Lincoln Park in Lima OH, will preserve the history of the Lima Fire Department as well as all the technological changes they have implemented over the past 133 years When the Lima Fire Department was first established in 1865, it was a volunteer organization consisting of seven men with their only equipment being six fire hooks. These hooks were used to pull burning thatch from the roofs of buildings. Over the years, however, the Lima Fire Department developed into a paid, highly trained force of 88 fire fighters and support personnel working in a three platoon system. They are housed at the Central Fire Station and four outlying stations. Equipment now includes seven pumpers, one aerial platform, two medic units and a staff car. Approximately 700 fire fighters have served the city of Lima as members of the Lima Fire Department. More importantly, this museum will memorialize all fire fighters who have served the Lima Community and especially the four Lima fire fighters who have given their lives in the line of duty. They are John S. Wolf and John Fisher, both of whom died as a result of the Allen County Courthouse fire on January 7, 1929; Frank Kinzer, who died because of a fire on October 7, 1933, at the Ohio Music Company and Page Organ Company; and lastly, Cloyd R. Webb, who died as a result of the Marshall Sporting Goods fire on January 21, 1954. I wish to offer my sincere gratitude to all who are serving or who served as Lima fire fighters. They perform a valuable and dangerous task for the Lima community during times of great need. I honor each and every fire fighter for their dedication, knowledge, and hard work and hope that the Lima Fire Fighters Memorial Museum will stand as a tribute to each of them for all time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, many of us voiced serious concern when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved strict new NAAQs standards affecting ozone and particulate matter levels. We warned that EPA was not basing the standards on good science, and indeed questioned whether the agency was running amok. This issue was of particular importance in my home state of Ohio, which faced billions of dollars in compliance costs with little prospect of any real benefit to human health and the environment. In a vindication, these rules have now been overturned by an appeals court. I commend the following Wall Street Journal article to the attention of my colleagues. The Courts Thwart the EPA's Power Grab (By C. Boyden Gray and Alan Charles Raul) Last week a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out the Environmental Protection Agency's sweeping ozone and particulate-matter rules. Citing a doctrine known as ``nondelegation,'' the judges held that the EPA was exercising too much power, effectively making rather than enforcing the law. The decision could have far-reaching implications for all government rulemaking, but it should not have come as a shock. The EPA's usurpation of legislative power has provoked significant controversy in recent years, and the only surprise is how long it took for the courts to bring it under control. Contrary to much prevailing opinion among both journalists and lawyers, the nondelegation doctrine is not some arcane, obscure and benighted legal relic of the pre-New Deal era. The doctrine has been alive and well, serving primarily as a canon of judicial construction to save otherwise overly broad statutory grants or agency claims of legislative authority from being held unconstitutional. The most important regulatory example of the doctrine's use was in the Supreme Court's 1980 decision Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, which involved the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulation of benzene. The court was faced with a claim that OSHA has untrammeled discretion to choose any regulatory policy in the spectrum between not regulating at all and imposing rules so stringent that they take an industry to the brink of economic ruin. The justices used the nondelegation doctrine essentially to rewrite the statute, limiting OSHA to regulation of ``significant'' risks. A decade later, the D.C. Circuit, in the so-called ``lock-out, tag-out'' decisions written by Judge Stephen Williams (who wrote last week's EPA decision as well), invoked the doctrine and the benzene decision to place additional limits on OSHA. An accident of timing allowed the EPA to escape these constraints for nearly two decades and retain its license to choose between doing nothing at all and shutting down an industry. The governing case (Lead Industries Association v. EPA) gave the EPA this broad power because it was issued by the D.C. Circuit five days before the Supreme Court's benzene decision, and thus was unaffected by the latter ruling. But it was only a matter of time before the EPA's power would collide with the Supreme Court's limitations. For those subject to the EPA's unchecked authority, the day of reckoning came none too soon. EPA issued these rules in July 1997 despite: Its science advisory board's admonition that the new ozone rule did not deal with any new significant risk not already addressed by the rule it replaced. The board's inability to identify any proper level of fine particulate matter to regulate. Universal recognition that extensive research was necessary to develop any implementing regulations for particulate matter. Unrebutted evidence that the ozone rule could cause more public health harm than good. Unconstrained by any coherent principle, the rules were the ultimate example of legislative horse trading. The EPA declared that in order to defuse some political opposition, it was going to exempt or favor its political allies, such as farmers, certain small business, and that section of the country (the Northeast) that provided political support for the rules. ``The new rules do not reflect the inescapable result of the available science, but simply the judgment of a political appointee,'' said Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), one of the principal architects of the Clean Air Act. The D.C. Circuit's decision to overturn these rules is not inherently antienvironmental. It leaves the EPA with considerable power to decide how much environmental protection the country needs. The court simply said the EPA is not omnipotent. Its power must be limited by ``intelligible principles'' that Congress incorporated into the Clean Air Act. The representatives who face the voters' music must call the agency's tune. This decision does nothing to impair the EPA's implementation of Congress's explicit directives in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, such as its recent auto and gasoline rules. The real question is whether future policy will be set by Congress or the unelected managers of the EPA. At present, EPA has presented no reason for going beyond the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, which the agency has not yet fully implemented. EPA's backdoor efforts to regulate green-house gases will also come in for closer constitutional scrutiny. Without express congressional authorization to address ``global warming,'' the agency should not be deciding for itself how to do so. The dissenting opinion in the D.C. Circuit decision closed with the observation that if the states had difficulty implementing the new EPA standards, they could go back to Congress and ask for repeal. But this formulation turns the Constitution on its head. It's not Congress's job to review EPA initiatives, but rather the EPA's job to carry out congressional initiatives. And it's the courts' role to keep the other players honest.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to spotlight a very special individual who has unselfishly given of his time, energy, and spirit to others in the Fourth Congressional District of Ohio. The month of August will pose many a challenge to Ohio Northern University since it will be losing its President to a well deserved retirement. His shoes will be very difficult to fill. President Freed has been with ONU in Ada, Ohio since 1979. Before serving as Ohio Northern's President, Dr. Freed was the president of Monmouth College. Dr. Freed has served in all aspects of university life. He has been a teacher, administrator, dean, and president. He knows inside and out how to guide a university to academic and financial success. Besides being a top notch administrator, Dr. Freed is a great academian. It's not every college which can boast that is has a Doctor of Nuclear Science and Engineering as president. Over the years I have witnessed how DeBow Freed cares very deeply for his university family. Students and faculty have perhaps been a bit spoiled with how good a president he has been. Though he will no longer work as president for ONU, he will never be far from it in mind and body. Moreover, the Freed Center of Fine Arts stands as a lasting tribute to his leadership abilities and the commitment he and his wife have made to the university. I wish Dr. Freed and his wife, Catherine, all the best as they approach this new adventure of retirement together.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation and commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for all their hard work in bringing this pro-competitive bill before us today. The matter certainly is a timely one, as many of my rural constituents have difficulty with the network signals. And this legislation we are considering lowers copyright fees for distant network signals, provides for the transition to local-into-local satellite delivery of local broadcasts and contains other pro- competitive features. I am also, Mr. Speaker, concerned that we should, now that we are passing this pro-competitive bill, make sure that consumers enjoy the benefits of competition in the market for video services. It is also vital to the development of competition that will lead the FCC to proceed with further deregulation of the cable industry by relaxing or eliminating rules that limit the number of homes that may be passed by a cable MSO. The 1992 Cable Act's horizontal ownership limits were imposed in an era where consumers lacked the kind of choices that they have today. It is time that the FCC understand that the world has changed and makes the appropriate changes as necessary to provide more competition and at lower cost.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a Wall Street Journal column by Lawrence Kudlow to the attention of my colleagues. The subject is the strength of the stock market and the ongoing economic expansion. The point of the piece is that sound economic policy making begets solid economic growth. Put more precisely, the absence of anti-growth policies allows free markets to flourish. Economic freedom in the form of low tax rates, deregulation, free trade, and restrained government spending leads to increased private investment, low inflation and a booming national economy. Again Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column to the attention of all interested parties. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 16, 1999] The Road to Dow 10,000 (By Lawrence Kudlow) The Dow Jones Industrial Average stands at the threshold of yet another milestone, this time 10,000. Meanwhile the longest continuous prosperity in the 20th century, begun in late 1982 and, interrupted only by a short and shallow recession in 1990-91, continues apace. These facts are worth pondering, for a proper understanding of them can instruct us toward the best future economic policy. The current stock market boom began in mid-1982 and is now the second longest in the century, exceeded only by the post- war 1949-68 cycle. Since August 1982 the Dow Jones average has appreciated 1,095%, or 615% in inflation-adjusted terms. The economy has posted a 3.2% yearly real rate of increase, while real corporate profits have expanded by 6% annually. Thirty-nine million net new jobs have been created, largely from nearly 11 million new business start-ups. Roughly $25.7 trillion of new household wealth has been created, according to the Federal Reserve. Long-term Treasury bond yields, they key discount rate used to calculate the net present value of future corporate earnings, have dropped to 5.5% from roughly 15%. Inflation has fallen to almost zero from nearly 11%, even while the unemployment rate has dropped to 4.4% from 11%. Pessimistic Gurus Yet since 1982 most economic and investment gurus have preached pessimism. For 17 years they have told the public that neither the bull market nor the prosperity can last, because of budget deficits, trade deficits, savings shortfalls, high real interest rate, capacity constraints, inadequate productivity, subpart real wages, inflation threats, Philips curves, market bubbles, income inequity, Asia, Russia and a variety of other reasons. Yet the experts have been proved wrong; optimism has prevailed. Actually, the stock market itself is a much better measure of economic progress than a barrelful of government statistics. Market prices reflect the collective judgment of millions of profit-seeking individuals who buy and sell each day based on their expectations of future wealth creation. Why has the outlook for wealth improved so dramatically? In a word, freedom. Freedom creates wealth, and wealth boosts stock prices. Economic freedom was decisively restored by policies launched during the 1980s. This led to a revival of the risk-taking and entrepreneurship that is so vital to a dynamic economy. President Reagan's policies, which are mostly still in place today, removed the barriers to growth that made in 1970s the worst stock-market economy since the '30s. Strong disinflation restored purchasing power and reduced interest rates. In other words, the ``inflation tax'' on money was repealed, Personal and corporate tax rates were slashed, providing new incentives for work and entrepreneurship. All vestiges of wage, price and energy controls were eliminated, freeing up markets to allocate resources efficiently. Industry deregulation begun by President Carter was services, airlines and later telecommunications. Organized labor excesses were curbed. Antitrust activism was shelved. Free trade was expanded between the U.S. and Canada. The two biggest periods of the stock market's current prosperity have been 1982-87, when the industrial average moved up by roughly 219%, or 26.1% per year, and 1994 to the present, as the average has gained another 172%, or 22.5% a year. In between the market meandered, as Presidents Bush and Clinton raised taxes and imposed regulations. But a steadfast Alan Greenspan brought the inflation rate down to virtually zero today from roughly 5% at the beginning of the 1990s. Along with bringing down interest rates, this has sharply lowered the effective tax rate on capital gains (which reflect inflation as well as real growth in the value of assets) to about 30% from 80%, providing a tremendous boost for the high-risk technology investment that has become the engine of our new information economy. In effect, Mr. Greenspan's disinflationary tax cut neutralized the Bush- Clinton tax hikes. The Republican Congress elected in 1994 put an end to the high-tax and reregulatory policies of Mr. Clinton's first two years. Mr. Clinton himself morphed into a middle-of-the-road president who signed a capital gains tax-rate cut, welfare reform, a balanced budget plan, the Mexican free-trade agreement and other trade-expanding measures. All these actions helped the stock market to soar Meanwhile, information technology took off. The capital gains tax cut and low interest rates intensified Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction. Low interest rates create much more patient investment money. Low discount rates also lead to high price-earnings multiples, something the stock market understands even if its critics do not. The 1980s witnessed a technology surge, based mainly on advanced computer chips, cellular telephones and personal computers. In the 1990s all this was improved, but the big push has come from innovative and user friendly software and Internet commerce. Though the government's reports of gross domestic product take little account of these developments, the stock market knows full well how important these technologies will be to future earnings, productivity, real wages, growth and wealth creation. In fact, a significant gap has opened between the performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, comprised mainly of old-economy companies, and the new-economy Nasdaq. Since 1990 the Nasdaq has outperformed the Dow by 271 percentage points. Over the past year, the Nasdaq has increased 36%, while the Dow has gained only 16%. Amidst all the bull-market prosperity, another starting development has occurred: the emergence of a new investor class. Numerous surveys report that roughly half of all Americans own at least $5,000 worth of stocks, bonds and mutual funds. The investor class surely wishes to keep more of what it earns in order to bolster savings that can be invested in high-return stocks. This is why unlimited universal individual retirement accounts may be the sleeper tax issue of the next few years. Roth IRAs--which currently invest after-tax deposits that will never be taxed again so long as the money is withdrawn at retirement--could be expanded to include redirected Social Security contributions and penalty-free withdrawals for health care insurance, education, home buying and employment emergencies. This might be the single most popular tax reform among the shareholder class. By eliminating the double and triple taxation of saving and investment, this approach opens a back door to the flat tax, setting the stage for future tax cuts, individual ownership of Social Security contributions and other free-market policies. Oversized Powers What a difference a century makes. The 1890s saw a painful and costly depression that was principally caused by government policies such as high tariffs and an inelastic currency. Politicians reacted by discrediting free-market economics; in its place, they moved toward a regime of oversized government powers and diminished personal liberty-- a movement that was interrupted only briefly in the 1920s. From Theodore Roosevelt's trustbusting to Wilson's tax hikes, Hoover's tariffs, FDR's early entitlement programs, all the way to LBJ's Great Society and Nixon's funding of it, economic freedom suffered and prosperity was sporadic. The century was filled with Keynesian nostrums that seldom delivered the goods. The dominant event of the late 20th century is the bull- market prosperity of the 1980s and 1990s. This was caused largely by a shift back to free-market economics, a reduction in the role of the state and an expansion of personal liberty. At the turn of a new century, taking the right road will extend the long cycle of wealth creation and technological advance for decades to come. By 2020 the Dow index will reach 50000, and the 10000 benchmark will be reduced to a small blip on a large screen.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to offer a tip of the old baseball cap to a great team player--Wilmer Mizell. I was saddened to learn of Wilmer's death this past Sunday at the age of 68. It's appropriate that Congress put its appreciation of one of its most genial Members in the record books. I first came across Wilmer Mizell not as a Congressman from North Carolina, but as a cagey major league pitcher known as ``Vinegar Bend'' on his baseball cards. Truly the kind of great baseball nickname I fondly remember from my boyhood in the 1950's. Anyway, I was a 14-year-old fan when I met Wilmer and some of his fellow St. Louis Cardinals in Milwaukee. He gave me his autograph--in fact, I still treasure those Cardinal autographs today--and tickets to the game. That's when ballplayers really were heroes to their fans, and when baseball was the indisputable National Pastime. You'll find Wilmer Mizell permanently listed in the baseball fan's bible, the Encyclopedia of Baseball. He pitched for the Cardinals, the Pittsburgh Pirates, and the New York Mets. He was a key addition for the Pirates in 1960, when Pittsburgh capped an improbable World Series victory over the Yankees on Bill Mazeroski's stunning home run. Wilmer then performed the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the grand old game by toiling for the expansion Mets. After a few years, Wilmer Mizell broke into another exclusive lineup. He was elected as a Congressman from North Carolina. Wilmer served his district with distinction from 1968 to 1974. He would later serve in the Commerce Department under President Ford and in the Agriculture Department under President Reagan. His easy-going style masked a savvy mind. When I was a boy, I couldn't have imagined that I would meet Wilmer Mizell on the baseball field again * * * only this time, as a Congressman. For years, Wilmer was a fixture at the congressional baseball game. As a longtime player, I can't tell you how much it meant to have Wilmer at practice and at the game itself. One of my great regrets in my first year as manager of the Republican team is that Wilmer won't be there to share his advice, wisdom, and wit. But we will all remember Wilmer Mizell when we rise for the National Anthem before the game this June. He was the essence of two traits common to success in baseball and politics: good-hearted competition and real camaraderie. We'll miss this great ballplayer, great American, and truly good friend.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true public servant and model citizen on the occasion of his 90th birthday. On March 12, 1909, John H. Keller, Sr., was born in Lima, OH. In 1927, John graduated from Lima Central High School, where he was president of the Allen County Wheelman--a group of bicycling enthusiasts. He went on to Bluffton College, where he graduated on June 10, 1931. He received further instruction at Northwestern University's Garrett Theological Seminary in Chicago. He married Charlotte Mary Basinger in 1936. John Keller is above all else a tireless civic participant. He has committed himself to witness and take part in countless governmental meetings which deliberate for the public good and he has served as a board member for agencies such as the city of Lima Tree Commission among others. From 1941 through 1974, John worked as a brakeman and conductor on the Nickel Plate Road and on the Norfolk & Western Railway. He was an officer of Local No. 457 of the United Transportation Union, and past- president and legislative representative (1950-1974) of Lodge No. 200 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Mr. Keller has recently retired from the board of trustees of the Allen County Historical Society after five decades of service. Mr. Keller is recognized as a respected expert on railroads. The Allen County Historical Museum's impressive collection of railroad artifacts, records, and memorabilia, reported to be one of the best in the Nation and named the John H. Keller Collection, is a direct result of Mr. Keller's outstanding reputation in his field. Besides being able to recount much of Allen County's history, John Keller, has been an active participant in shaping much of it for over 80 years. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate him on his 90th birthday and wish him many, many more.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true public servant and long time friend, Judge John Evans of Lima, Ohio. Judge Evans has served the good people of America and of Ohio ever since joining the United States Army Infantry in November of 1953. Judge Evans was born in Lima on January 11, 1928. Upon his completion of high school in 1945, Judge Evans went on to Miami University, Oxford, Ohio where he graduated with a bachelor of science degree in mathematics. In 1949, he entered Ohio Northern University Law School where he received his degree in jurisprudence. While honorably serving in the United States Army he was awarded the American Spirit Honor Medal. After completing his military service, he returned to Lima where he entered private practice on January 2, 1955. Beginning January 1957, he served as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Allen County, Ohio until January 1962 when he became Director of Law for the City of Lima. Moreover, Judge Evans was Solicitor of the Village of Spencerville, Ohio. In January 1963, Judge Evans became a partner in the law firm of Gooding, Evans & Huffman, where he practiced until January 1987. Judge Evans was elected to the Third District Court of Appeals and took his oath of office in February the same year. In addition to his professional responsibilities and family, which include his wife, Joyce, and three sons, Judge Evans has served as trustee of the Ohio Forestry Association, a member of the Board of the Lima Symphony Orchestra, trustee of Woodlawn Cemetery Association and a member of the advisory committee of the Ohio Biological Survey. He also served as a member of the Civil Service Board for the City of Lima. Mr. Speaker, as you can witness by this long list of public service and generosity to the people of Allen County, Judge Evans will be sorely missed after his retirement from the bench. I do know that he will continue to work on worthwhile community projects during his well deserved retirement. I commend Judge Evans and wish him and his wife, Joyce, all the best in this New Year.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the four articles of impeachment. As a former law enforcement official, I have helped put people in jail based on the strength of witness testimony. Our entire judicial system must rest on the sure and solid foundation that witnesses tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under solemn oath. Beyond a reasonable doubt, William Jefferson Clinton willfully and purposely committed perjury. He did so with alarming forethought, frequency, and disregard for the law. In a separate solemn oath, his oath of office, William Jefferson Clinton swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this nation. He has failed to keep his word, which has brought us to this sad and historic day. If you believe that President Clinton perjured himself, and I do, and if you believe that perjury is a serious matter, and we must, then we have a duty to pass these painful but necessary articles of impeachment. President Clinton and apologists for him have tried to make this a debate about anything other than the rule of law. They want to make it a debate about the man and the circumstances surrounding his actions. But we are a nation of laws, and the fundamental question must be whether William Jefferson Clinton violated the law. The facts of this case are well known. Neither the President nor his defenders have countered them effectively. Indeed, on this fundamental question, the President's team has presented no real defense. They have said that it is just about sex. They have said that he misled, but he did not lie. They have said that a reasonable person might conclude that he lied, but he did not commit perjury. They have said that even if you believe that he committed perjury, it is not an impeachable offense. They have attempted to change the subject any number of times. However, Mr. Speaker, you cannot explain away that fact that there are people sitting in prison now for making perjurious statements under oath. I have to ask my liberal friends if they have an elitist view of the Constitution. Why should the President be treated differently? Is he, alone, above the law? I have yet to meet the Democrat who believes that Republican Presidents are above the law, yet we seem to have an abundance of those who believe that this President should be able to lie under oath and get away with nothing more than a stern lecture. That is what a resolution of censure would amount to--a stern lecture from Congress with no legal underpinning. It would be an extra- constitutional concoction designed to make its proponents feel better while doing absolutely nothing. Censure may be an easy way out, but it is not a real option. The Constitution gave us no middle ground, which is as it should be. Either the House votes to impeach and refer the matter to the Senate, or it does not. It is a bright line, and I know on which side I must cast my votes. We have seen a lot of bright lines blurred in our society in recent years. Moral relativism abounds. In this case, I have heard the most amazing rationalizations: That it is wrong to lie under oath, unless you are lying about sex. That it is wrong to lie about sexual harassment, unless the woman in question was asking for it. That it is wrong to commit perjury, but if you are really, really sorry, we can forget about it. This kind of logic only makes sense to those bent on defending the indefensible. The scandals of recent years have desensitized our culture and denigrated our society. Beyond the White House scandals, such travesties as a celebrity former athlete literally getting away with murder and a physician killing a patient on national television have contributed to the notion that those with adequate legal defense funds are not accountable to the law. President Clinton lied repeatedly, with forethought, in civil litigation, before a federal grand jury, and in response to questions posed by the House Judiciary Committee. He obstructed justice in numerous ways. His deputies have systematically attempted to destroy those who dare to oppose him. He has shown contempt for the truth, the law, the Congress, and his fellow citizens. Section 4, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states that the President ``shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The threshold question is whether the President, at a minimum, committed a high misdemeanor. Who can seriously doubt that he has? President William Jefferson Clinton should be impeached by the House of Representatives and the matter referred to the U.S. Senate. It is our solemn responsibility, and we must not flinch from it.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong support of the conference report. If fraud were the only reasons that stock prices dropped, then today's volatile markets would suggest that there is not an honest company out there. That is simply not the case. Publicly traded companies, their shareholders, and their employees lose every time a company has to pay off and their lawyers have to settle a lawsuit that is based on one fact only, that the company stock dropped in value. In 1995, the Congress approved, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority that overrode a presidential veto, legislation to stop these ``blackmail settlements.'' The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was designed to put an end to frivolous lawsuits that drain values from public companies and wastefully diverted their resources. This conference report closes a loophole that has enabled plaintiffs' lawyers to continue to extract settlements from companies that have done absolutely nothing wrong. The conference report prevents lawyers from evading the protections of the Reform Act by filing their lawsuit in State court. The conference report creates a national standard under which securities class actions must be filed and that standard is the one that Congress resoundingly approved back in 1995. The conference report preserves the ability of individual investors to file suits that are appropriately brought in State courts, while preventing lawyers from using securities class actions filed in State court for their personal gains. This legislation represents a bipartisan effort to work through our political differences and reach compromises that are responsible public policy. In fact, over the last 4 years, the Committee on Commerce has produced a number of bills which have made a significant improvement to the laws governing our financial institutions and that have enjoyed support from both sides of the aisle. I am very proud of these accomplishments. This legislation should be added to that list. There are many who deserve credit for bringing this legislation to the floor today. Several Committee on Commerce members, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), the original cosponsor of the House bill, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the other original cosponsor. They not only started the ball rolling, but have worked incessantly to keep this legislation on track and have driven us crazy at the same time. I commend our counterparticipants in the Senate for their fine work improving upon the bill as originally introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and for their cooperation during the conference. I thank our full committee chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), whose leadership and perseverance has ensured that this conference report is a strong win for American investors and American businesses and, therefore, American jobs. Thanks to his hard work, as well as that of the other conferees supporting this measure, the conference report ratifies the heightened pleading standard that was adopted in the 1995 Reform Act. While we may disagree on this particular initiative, I appreciate the constructive work done by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who, as always, has been a true legislative craftsman in this area. Finally, on a personal note, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), our retiring ranking minority member of my subcommittee, not only for his work and support for this legislation, but for his years of friendship to me and dedication to the Committee on Commerce and the House. I wish him the best. We will all miss him.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998. Bribery distorts the free market system and provides unfair advantages. It does so at the expense of those unwilling or unable to use similar tactics. Those companies or governments that participate in bribery take away an opportunity from someone willing or required to play by the rules. But what happens when there are no rules or the existing laws are murky or poorly enforced? In such an environment, bribery is allowed to flourish. The United States, our Anti-Bribery law is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, also known as the FCPA, one of the strongest anti- bribery laws worldwide. Unfortunately, many foreign nations do not have similar laws as we do in the United States or certainly enforce them. As a result, American companies and American workers suffer a significant competitive disadvantage. They are bound by the provisions of the FCPA while others are not. H.R. 4353 will help rectify this serious problem. As a matter of fact, there has been evidence that American corporations lose upwards to $30 billion per year against unfair competition where foreign countries, companies bribe the public officials and in many cases actually have those bribes deducted from their tax liability. This implements the recently completed OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions. Concluded last December, this Convention will go a long way to raising the bar regarding anti-bribery legislation. The first step that must be done to make the Convention a success is bring the Parties into compliance with the Convention. This bill makes the necessary changes to the FCPA to bring the U.S. into compliance. We will be the first country to do so. These changes are small, but they are significant and very important. The administration has made a case that the U.S. must take a strong lead in implementing the Convention, and we do that today. Moreover, H.R. 4353 contains strong reporting requirements which we added to the bill in order to help ensure other nations are implementing and enforcing their commitments under the Convention. For that, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his vigilance and hard work for providing those reporting requirements. We plan to be vigilant to ensure the next steps, international compliance and enforcement, are completed. This bill will also reduce and eliminate unfair privileges and immunities of the intergovernmental satellite organizations, INTELSAT and Inmarsat, and makes it quite clear that these organizations are covered under the anti-bribery Convention as well as the statute. Doing so will help bring us closer to the point where no satellite competitor is above the law. It is clear that the American business groups support this bill. They want to compete on a level ground with their international counterparts. Furthermore, the bill has been enforced by the American business community, including the Business Roundtable, the Emergency Committee for American Trade, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, Transparency International, and the United States Council for International Business. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that without the hard work of the Commerce Department, Secretary Daley, we also would not be here today, and we want to thank them for their fine efforts. The Senate has already passed a similar version of this bill. I am hopeful that the other body will quickly approve the improvements we made to the bill so we can quickly send this legislation to the President for his signature. Let me finally take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for steering this important initiative forward. I, too, want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the ranking minority member on my subcommittee, who is retiring this year, and also of course our good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his work in this effort. During the committee process, we worked with interested parties, including the administration, to approve specific language of the bill. The bill H.R. 4353 passed in the Committee on Commerce with no opposition. The bill before us today has brought bipartisan support and deserves the support of the entire House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2375) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, to strengthen prohibitions on international bribery and other corrupt practices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I know we have no further speakers on this side. Mr. Speaker, we too, yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report. Specifically, I would like to address Section 604 which gives law enforcement officials multipoint wiretap authority. As a former special agent of the FBI, I know from personal experience that the court-authorized interception of communications is one of our most effective tools in our battle against crime. Existing law requires law enforcement officials seeking a court order for a wiretap to specify the telephone to be intercepted. Unfortunately, the modern day criminal too often is aware of this limitation and uses different phones in different locations to carry out his illicit activity. By simply walking down the street to a local pay telephone, an individual suspected of criminal activity can thwart the reasonable investigative efforts of the law enforcement community. To solve this growing problem, the multipoint wiretap provision of the Intelligence Authorization Act allows law enforcement officials to obtain court authorization to tap the phones that a person under suspicion actually uses. Thus, if a suspected drug trafficker uses a stolen cellular telephone rather than the phone in his/her residence, the law enforcement community would still be able to gather evidence of wrong-doing. To ensure that these new court-ordered authorizations do not infringe upon the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans, the Conference Report includes a provision that prohibits the activation of a tap unless it is reasonable to presume that the person under suspicion is about to use or is using a given telephone. This is a dramatic step forward for privacy rights because, under current law, once a tap is authorized it is active for the duration of the court order. Innocent Americans could have their conversations monitored if they use a phone also used by a criminal suspect. Under this new provision, the tap would only be operational when a suspect is involved in a conversation. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend the leadership of Chairman Porter Goss and ranking member Norm Dicks for their efforts on this provision. I would also like to commend Congressman Bill McCollum for his tireless efforts on this issue as well. I believe that a balance has been reached that gives the law enforcement community more effective tools to protect American citizens while also further protecting the privacy rights of our constituents. I urge the adoption of the Conference Report.

Mr. OXLEY

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 S. 2375.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a column published today by James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute. As the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank hold their annual meetings this week, his thoughts are especially timely. As the international financial community continues to struggle to find a solution to the growing Asian contagion, some commentators are beginning to call for international capital controls. The underlying argument behind this position is that the free flow of capital has contributed to our current problems and that barriers must be erected to prevent this flow in the future. However, as Mr. Glassman makes clear, ``capital does not flee sound economies.'' Rather, investors move their resources in response to changes in the market conditions of a given economy--they move money out of investments in economies as risk rises and into investments where the risk level is more acceptable. Thus, capital is efficiently allocated. Efforts to limit this movement, then, are inherently heavy- handed and counterproductive. Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Mr. Glassman to my colleagues. [From the Washington Post, October 6, 1998] Cool It (James K. Glassman) Judging from the panicky pronouncements of politicians, journalists and financiers, you would think we were on the brink of another Great Depression. On Friday, President Clinton declared that the world was on a ``financial precipice.'' The cover of Newsweek trumpets ``The Crash of '99.'' And the folks whose limousines are now clogging Washington for the 53rd annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank--Super Bowl Week for the global credit set--are rushing to erect a new, complex architecture, backed by new money, to keep the world from crashing down around them. But not so fast. Before we make the errors of haste, let's recall that never in history have businesses been better run. Never have markets been freer and wealth more abundant. Never has technology for communicating, producing and healing been so widely available. Rarely has inflation been less threatening. Rarely have the raw materials of industrial growth--from copper to wheat to oil--been so cheap. Rarely has the world been so peaceful. The truth is, the international economy was neither as terrific as practically everyone said it was in the spring, nor is it as terrible as practically everyone says it is in the fall. So, let's cool it before we do something irrevocably stupid. While countries such as Brazil have undeniable short-term troubles, the solutions are not mysterious. They need sounder currencies, linked to the dollar, less public spending, lower taxes and less regulatory red tape, borders that are more open to trade and capital, and governments that are more candid, less corrupt and less apt to meddle in the private sector. None of these improvements requires the ministrations of the IMF. Markets enforce a more efficient discipline: A country that complies with conditions hospitable to capital will get that capital, which is continually scouring the globe, seeking the best returns. Talk of ``contagion'' is nonsense: capital does not flee sound economies, as monetary historian Anna Schwartz shows clearly. Still, the financial bureaucrats gliding down Washington's streets in their limos this week think differently. They believe that, since the world is on the brink, smart people-- i.e., like them--need to do something to save it. That's the danger. British Prime Minister Tony Blair wants a ``new Bretton Woods,'' birthplace of the IMF and World Bank. The problem with another Bretton Woods is that it assumes that these institutions can actually have a beneficial effect today on economies in trouble. The opposite seems the case. The IMF bears responsibility for Asia's troubles. With the U.S. Treasury in 1995, it delivered unprecedented sums to bail out banks and investors who made reckless loans to Mexico. That rescue then encouraged investors to make riskier extensions of credit to Asia, Russia and Latin America. That led to overcapacity--too many factories unprofitably producing computer chips, cars and clothes, often under government direction--and to the current crisis. Instead, incredibly, ``the free market and the unfettered flow of capital across borders are being vilified as causes of this disaster,'' writes economist John Makin of the American Enterprise Institute. The French and the British actually want to give the IMF more power, and plans to restrict capital flows abound. Still, someone has kept his head. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has advanced a sensible proposal: Make credit available to sound countries that may be suffering liquidity problems (that is, need cash) but that haven't fallen into deep crisis. I'd like to expand this idea and obviate the need for an IMF altogether. Set up a streamlined international lending institution that would have constantly available funds, under these four conditions: (1) Loans would be made only at ``penalty rates''-- certainly higher than the 4.5 percent that Korea recently paid. (2) Nations borrowing money must put up their best collateral, such as U.S. Treasury bills or gold. (3) Borrowers must allow foreign banks to operate within their borders and be able to purchase their domestic banks. The best way to reform a rotten financial system is to admit good, free-market bankers. (4) Borrowers must subscribe to a new bankruptcy convention that would adopt laws similar to those in the United States and Europe. Lenders have to know that they can seize assets in a default. At the same time, the world's financial moguls need to: (a) pressure Japan, another villain in the tale of Asia's collapse, to fix its banking sector immediately and reflate the yen; (b) reaffirm the importance of free trade and reject restrictions on the flow of capital; and (c) use the World Bank to alleviate the suffering of innocents in countries such as Indonesia, victims of economic crimes committed by others, including the IMF. As for the extra money that the IMF wants and Congress has failed to approve: for credit under these new arrangements, as long as Japan reorganizes its banking sector, yes; otherwise, no. Right now, withholding cash is the best leverage for reform that we've got.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true public servant and long time friend, Senator Ben Gaeth of Defiance, Ohio. Senator Gaeth served with distinction from 1975 to the present in the Ohio Senate, and during that time I had the privilege of working with him on many issues of the day. Ben has also represented my home county of Hancock for 23 years during his tenure in the Senate and has always been a responsive and responsible legislator who has represented the best interest of his constituents during his illustrious career. Senator Gaeth was first elected to the Senate in 1975 serving the people of the 1st Ohio Senate District. Before this he was Safety Director for the City of Defiance from 1962 until 1965. After this, he went on to serve a long career as the Mayor of Definance until 1974. He has served as President in the Mayor's Association of Ohio as well as the Ohio Municipal League. He has fought to preserve our nation's heritage and our children's freedom. He was wounded while in the Navy in the Pacific and Atlantic War Theaters. Mr. Speaker, Senator Gaeth is a true American Hero. His many civic duties and charities include the Defiance Area Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, Masonic Lodge, Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign War, Amvets, American Legion, Loyal Order of Moose, Eagles, and BPO Elks. As you can readily see, it is a wonder that he has had any time to raise a wonderful family. He has three children, seven grandchildren and one great-grandchild. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we extend our best wishes to Ben and his lovely wife, Thelma, on this well earned retirement. Ben and Thelma have truly been inspirations to all of us in public service and have exemplified all that is best about politics and government.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child On-line Protection Act and as an advocate for a child's right to explore the World Wide Web without exposure to graphic pornography. Currently more than 60,000 Websites featuring sexually explicit and obscene material are available to unsuspecting children. While the Internet can be a positive tool for the education and entertainment of our children, it can also be a window to the dark world of pornography. Minors can readily access obscene material intentionally or unintentionally and be lured into dangerous situations. Children cannot safely learn in a virtual red light district. Common sense and 40 years of research in the field of child development clearly demonstrate that exposure to sexually explicit material is detrimental to the healthy psychological development of children. Current law does not prevent adult Websites from providing sexually explicit images to children. Commercial distributors of pornography offer free teaser pages to lure potential customers into viewing more. A child may innocently search for key words like ``dollhouse,'' ``toys'' or ``pet,'' and be led into numerous sexually explicit sites. That is why COPA enjoys broad bipartisan support today, and I specifically would like to express my appreciation to my original cosponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for bringing this bill to the floor today, the ranking member of my subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has added the protections also in the privacy side that we applaud, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). Their input allowed us to clarify the intent of H.R. 3783 and eliminate any vagueness. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) particularly deserves particular recognition for helping to refine the bill to protect Internet service providers for liability for content which they do not produce. I also want to express my support for Chairman Bliley's addition of child privacy protection language to the bill and express my sincere thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for his good work in this area. Mr. Chairman, COPA employs the constitutionally tested ``harmful to minors'' standard recognized and upheld in Federal courts for more than 30 years. It only applied to material which is not protected speech for minors under the First Amendment. COPA requires commercial on-line pornographers to take steps to restrict children's access to adult material on the Web by requiring adult verification, such as an adult access code, PIN number, credit card numbers, or new technologies such as digital signatures when they become available. COPA does not, and I want make this very clear, does not restrict an adult's ability to access pornographic Websites and does not apply to content with redeeming value or regulate content. The bill merely proposes that Web porn be treated in the same manner as the print media. Unfortunately, the Web is awash in degrading smut. There are literally thousands of sites dedicated to every manner of perversion and brutality. This is nothing less than an attempt to protect childhood. I urge all Members to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman can interpret it however he wants.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The answer is no. Because the harmful to minors, as has been interpreted by the courts, it defines harmful to minors as not covering content which, taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. And I think it is pretty clear this has political content.

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