Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1260) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to limit the conduct of securities class actions under State law, and for other purposes, with a House amendment thereto, insist on the House amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of free trade and against the ad hoc proliferation of State and local trade sanctions being imposed throughout the United States, and I strongly oppose the Kucinich- Sanders amendment, which is designed to protect such sanctions from Federal challenge and would in effect promote free-lance foreign policy making at the State and local level. I thought that is what we got elected to do, was that the Congress and the President make foreign policy. But apparently, because of this amendment, it means that my home city of Findlay, Ohio, and the city council therein could have a foreign policy. I thought we settled that many, many years ago in this country. Denying contracts to American firms with business commitments in Tibet, Burma or Nigeria may be at first glance on the cutting edge of political correctness, but the real and immediate effect is to punish local businesses who have no control over events in foreign countries. I would say to my friend from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) that those companies who are trying to find markets overseas who employ his constituents and my constituents are much more concerned with not only making a profit but employing people than they are having the City of Montpelier, Vermont, or Findlay, Ohio, making foreign policy, and I would say to my friend, and I may have time to yield at the end, and I will be glad to do so if I have, but that is really the issue here, whether in fact the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States have the ability to make foreign policy or we are going to let 50 States and Lord knows how many communities throughout this country make foreign policy. The imposition of State and local sanctions has become almost a fad which will do more harm than good no matter how well-intentioned. Let me read an editorial in the San Francisco Examiner, and the language suggests that, quote, at the city's current rate of sanctioning it would soon be able to do business only with companies who limited their international work to Monaco and Iceland, end quote. So the San Francisco Examiner, not exactly a conservative newspaper, I think really hit the nail on the head. State and local sanctions are protectionist, they are anti-trade and may even be unconstitutional. As a matter of fact, I would submit they are unconstitutional. These laws are not always applied consistently and often send mixed signals of the U.S. intent. Think for a moment. Sanctions could be potentially imposed by 50 States and thousands of municipalities. This could raise serious questions among our trading partners as to the stability and predictability of U.S. business relations. American values and business practices are best advanced through engagement, not by isolating us or angering allies through the threatened use of secondary boycotts. Furthermore, when faced with a mandatory choice businesses may abandon the local government market in favor of the global market which only harms local distributors of the boycotted companies. The plain facts are that State and local sanctions undermine the unity of U.S. foreign policy and make the U.S. less credible and effective in economic negotiations. That is why the Clinton State Department opposes this amendment. That is why the U.S. Trade Representative also opposes this amendment. State and local sanctions are counterproductive, ineffective and frustrate cooperation with U.S. trading partners who frequently view them as a violation of U.S. international commitments. Now, Mr. Chairman, in closing let me quote from our distinguished U.S. Trade Representative, Charlene Barshefsky, who has done a superb job in her tenure at USTR. She says about the Kucinich, et al. amendment: This amendment is unnecessary and ill advised. The amendment appears to be founded on a faulty premise. Global trade rules have been in effect now for over 50 years. Despite scores of panel reports over the past decades, the Federal Government has never, has never brought suit or even threatened suit to enforce a panel report against a State or local government. She closes with this paragraph: Over the past 5 years fully one-third of U.S. economic growth has been tied to our dynamic export sector. American workers and companies depend on open markets around the world. Congress and the administration have worked very hard over many decades to put trade rules in place that open those markets and to keep them open through effective dispute settlement procedures. The United States is by far the most frequent user of international dispute settlement mechanisms. They have benefitted U.S. workers and industries across a wide range of sectors and were put in place at U.S. insistence with our sovereignty concerns fully in mind. No change in U.S. law is needed to ensure that this remains the case. Signed Charlene Barshefsky, U.S. Trade Representative. That really says it all, and this really comes down to the question of whether the Congress of the United States in our responsibilities to help create foreign policy and trade policy as well as the administration is going to be trumped by some city council somewhere out in the Midwest that I would submit does not have nearly the amount of information available that we do.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2281, the WIPO enabling legislation. I want to pay special tribute to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), for their work as well, as my good friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on the other side of the aisle. The digital revolution presents special opportunities and special challenges for copyright holders and users of copyrighted works. Working with the Committee on the Judiciary, I think we put together a bill that we can all be proud of that deals with issues like fair use, encryption research and temporary and ephemeral copies. This legislation will extend copyright protections for intellectual property into the digital age, while simultaneously protecting fair use of such works. It will provide an important foundation for the growth of electronic commerce on the Internet. The bill also includes an important provision preserving the authority of the SEC over the mechanisms by which the public obtains information about our securities markets, including stock quotes. This ensures that the commission will be able to ensure that investors have ready access to the information they need to make their investment decisions. I again thank the work of both the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing us where we are today.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, the U.S. has been firmly committed in its battle against international bribery and corruption. Unfortunately, our policies have left U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage in the international environment, where they frequently lose commercial contracts to foreign firms willing to participate in bribery or other corruption. This situation has cost American companies billions of dollars in lost opportunities over the years. Now, through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, signed in December 1997 by 33 countries including the United States, we have the opportunity to ensure that other signatory countries commit themselves to outlawing the use of bribery to influence officials or gain business abroad. The convention obligates signatory countries to enact domestic laws to combat foreign bribery. Because the U.S. already has strong federal anti-bribery laws in place, the implementing legislation submitted by the administration seeks to close loopholes in the statute and otherwise strengthen the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Building upon the legislation submitted to Congress, Commerce Committee Chairman Bliley and I today introduce the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act of 1998. I intend to hold hearings in the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, which I am honored to chair, when the Congress reconvenes in September. The proposal requires several definitional adjustments to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including coverage of individuals as well as businesses, and officials of international organizations as well as other foreign officials. The bill expands the scope of proscribed activities to include payments to secure ``any improper advantage.'' It also expands the jurisdiction of the law to cover the acts of U.S. citizens taking place wholly outside the United States. While the amendments to U.S. law required by the convention are relatively modest, the changes required of other signatories will mean, in many cases, a radical departure from past practices. Such a change in attitudes towards corruption will be of enormous benefit to American firms seeking to do business abroad. With the introduction of the International Anti-Bribery and Fair Competition Act, we have the opportunity to redress an imbalance and level the playing field for U.S. companies, giving them the chance to compete in a fair and corruption-free environment. These refinements are necessary to emphasize and reinforce America's view that bribery is not only morally reprehensible but that it ultimately creates a destabilized international trading climate. If the U.S. is to continue to demonstrate its firm commitment to fair trading opportunities, we need to take the lead and act as a model. Enactment of this legislation will represent and reflect America's determination to foster economic development and trade liberalization, as well as the promotion of democracy and democratic institutions.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I call to my colleagues' attention this incisive and well-written column by George Will that in many ways captures the essence of what is going on at the EPA and throughout the environmental community. I would particularly direct my colleagues to the final paragraph in Mr. Will's column in which he quotes from an article by Dennis Prager in the Weekly Standard about ``this assault on the idea of personal responsibility.'' [From the Washington Post, July 30, 1998] EPA's Crusaders (By George F. Will) Before the tobacco bill was blown to rags and atoms by its supporters' overreaching, they substituted reiteration for reasoning. But then, for years now the debate about smoking has been distorted by vehement people who rarely suffer even temporary lapses into logic. A new reason for skepticism about the evidence and motives of the anti-tobacco crusaders comes in a ruling by a federal judge in North Carolina concerning a 1993 report by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA said secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen that causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year. The judge said: ``EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the [1986 Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research] Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion; and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion.'' The judge charges EPA not just with bad science but with bad faith--with having ``cherry picked its data.'' Granted, this is just one judge's opinion; EPA demurs; the litigation, already five years old, will churn on. Still, what disinterested persons considers the judge's conclusion implausible? EPA's report came in 1993, when the infant Clinton administration was preparing to micro-manage the nation's health, and hence its behavior. Furthermore, do not all bureaucracies tend to try to maximize their missions? EPA's mission is to reduce environmental hazards. What kind of people are apt to be attracted to work in EPA? Those prone to acute anxieties about hazards. Is an agency apt to get increased appropriations and media attention by moderate assessments of hazards? What is the evidentiary value of the EPA defenders' assertion, in response to the judge, that in California (where smoking has been banned even in bars) the state EPA agrees that secondhand smoke is a serious carcinogen? The anti-tobacco crusade was a money grab by government that, had the grab succeeded, would have acquired a dependence on a continuous high level of smoking to fund programs paid for by exactions from a legal industry selling a legal product to free people making foolish choices. The crusade's rationale was threefold: Secondhand smoke is deadly to nonsmokers; people start smoking because they, poor things, are putty in the hands of advertisers; smokers cannot stop because nicotine is too addictive. The last rationale is inconvenienced by the fact that there are almost as many American ex-smokers as smokers. The assertion of the irresistible power of advertising is so condescending toward the supposedly malleable masses (notice, the people who assert the power of advertising never include themselves among the susceptible), the anti-tobacco crusade had to become a children's crusade. Hence the reiterated assertion that almost as many 6-year-olds--90 percent of them--recognize Joe Camel as recognize Mickey Mouse. This assertion, akin to EPA's ``science,'' was based entirely on interviews with 23 Atlanta preschoolers. There has been no demonstration that advertising by tobacco brands increases tobacco consumption (rather than particular brands' market shares). One mechanism of the money grab was to be a tax increase of up to $1.50 per pack. However, John E. Calfee of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in the Weekly Standard, notes that in the late 1970s, when teenage smoking declined nearly one-third, cigarette prices were declining about 15 percent. Given that teenage smokers smoke an average of only eight cigarettes a day, adding even a dime per smoke ($2 per pack) would not deter them. The 40 percent decline in smoking between 1975 and 1993 coincided with a public health campaign emphasizing individual responsibility for choices. Then came the Clinton administration and the ascendancy of victimology: Wicked corporations preying upon helpless individuals are responsible for individuals' behavior. Calfee says per capita cigarette consumption has barely declined since 1993. Also in the Weekly Standard, Dennis Prager, a theologian and talk-show host, notes that the full apparatus of the modern state has been mobilized for ``the largest public relations campaign in history teaching Americans this: If you smoke, you are in no way responsible for what happens to you. You are entirely a victim.'' This assault on the idea of personal responsibility, Prager writes, further pollutes ``a country that regularly teaches its citizens to blame others--government, ads, parents, schools, movies, genes, sugar, tobacco , alcohol, sexism, racism--for their poor decisions and problems.'' This assault, a result of the politics produced by a culture of irresponsibility, is an emblematic fruit of Clintonism.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I also add my voice to the chorus of sympathy being sung on this day of mourning here at the Capitol for the Chestnut and Gibson families. To them we give thanks in the memory of their fallen heroes. We pray that their grief will be comforted. They died protecting freedom and protecting the lives of all of us here in the Capitol. They died as any U.S. soldier would have in any war. It is now just to remember how much we appreciate and admire their leadership and their service, and we send our deepest sympathies to the family as we proceed to the memorial service in the Rotunda. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Patient Protection Act. Since Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 we have worked diligently to pass health care reform legislation that gives Americans greater choices, makes health care more affordable, and improves the quality of the health care they receive. I believe this legislation adds to the long list of legislative accomplishments that Republicans have achieved in this arena. Allow me to expand on some of these accomplishments. First, through passage of comprehensive Food and Drug Administration reform, the Republican Congress helped expedite the development and delivery of new healthcare technology. As a result of these reforms, which streamlined the FDA bureaucracy and cut government red tape, we will help save the lives of millions of Americans over the coming years. Second, while many initially criticized our efforts at passing much needed Medicare reform, we succeeded in passing a bipartisan reform package designed to save this critical program until 2007 while establishing a bipartisan panel to consider options that will ensure Medicare's long-term financial health. This responsible package of reforms also included provisions to give Medicare beneficiaries greater choice, crack down on fraud and abuse, and grant beneficiaries new preventative health benefits. For the 34 million seniors that rely on Medicare for their health care needs I was pleased to support this valuable legislation. Finally, any discussion of major health care accomplishments would not be complete without highlighting the 1996 Health Care Portability and Accountability Act. This legislation was a common-sense, market based solution to one of America's most difficult health care problems--namely the portability of health insurance. By guaranteeing that people can go from one employer to another without facing pre- existing condition restrictions or being denied coverage by a new employer's insurance plan this legislation ended the problem of job- lock by allowing workers to switch jobs without the fear of losing their insurance coverage. Today, in our continuing efforts to strengthen the health care American's receive, we will consider legislation that address many of the concerns patients all over our country have with the health care marketplace. This legislation focuses on making health care more affordable for working families and small businesses, while holding insurance companies accountable for their decisions, and expanding access to health care for millions of Americans. I commend Congressman Hastert for his fine work with the House Republican Working Group on Health Care Quality in bringing this legislation to the House floor. I am pleased with the outcome of the working group that I feel builds on and strengthens our previous accomplishments. While many have advocated reforms that would significantly increase both costs and expand government bureaucracies, I support the Republican Task Force legislation because it protects patients and expands access to health care without damaging the free market health care system we enjoy today. Mr. Speaker I urge my fellow colleagues to support this much needed legislation that ensures that the health insurance Americans receive is accessible, affordable, and accountable without crippling the free market's ability to hold down health care prices.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution of disapproval. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the thrust of my comments, I think most of all we need to be reminded that this debate is really all about extending normal trading relations with China, something that we do with 223 other countries and we finally got around to changing that nomer and I am glad that we did. We have got to consider how far our relationship has gone with China in the last 20 years. In 1978, China was trying to recover from the results of the cultural revolution. The little economic activity that did take place was completely controlled by the government in a traditional, centrally-planned system. The Chinese people were lucky to have rice on the table. There was no religious or political freedoms whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, 20 years of economic freedom have created a thriving middle class of 350 million people. Freedom of religious expression, while certainly limited, has returned and churches of all faiths are active across the country. Finally, local elections are now free and competitive. People are beginning to have a say in politics. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit China with several other members. We were pleased to participate in a luncheon that was hosted by AT&T, one of our major telecommunications companies that are opening markets within China. I was seated beside a young lady who was working at that time for AT&T. We discussed her past and her future and she told me that she had been a student at Brown University, one of 20,000 college students from China who study in the United States every year, most of whom return to China to build a new China. That is what she said she was all about, that she wanted to return to her home country, build a new China, and she said, I realized my utmost dream, and that was I had a chance to be educated in the United States and work for an American company in my home country. China is changing. We have to recognize that fact. I ask that the resolution be defeated.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to close the loophole that enables plaintiff's lawyers to continue to sue for what Judge Friendly called ``blackmail settlements.'' Blackmail settlements occur, of course, when trial lawyers attempt to hold up very effective companies who have had particular problems with their stock and end up spending a great deal of money that could be used for more useful purposes, like research and development and creating jobs, aiding economic expansion. And who pays for that? Really investors do. The company's shareholders and employees lose every time that the company has to pay off a passel of lawyers just to settle a case based on nothing other than one fact, that the company's stock dropped in value, along with some vague nonspecific and baseless allegations of fraud. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act put into place protections against these types of claims, and, indeed, what we have seen over the last several months has been a deterioration of that, and, indeed, the loophole that the gentleman from Michigan pointed out has been widening as the days go by. Since passage of that Reform Act, however, we have seen a dramatic change in that securities litigation. But like a teenager who cleans his room by putting everything under the bed, we have not really eliminated the problem, it just moved. In this case it moved to the State court. The shift to State court means that investors, employees and the companies seeking capital are wasting valuable resources paying off lawyers, who continue to be successful in extracting blackmail settlements from companies who cannot afford to fight even baseless securities fraud claims. This legislation before us today eliminates the State court loophole by creating a set of uniform standards for class action lawsuits and eliminates a lot of these fishing expeditions that take place as a result. It does this by granting Federal judges the power to quash discovery in State actions if that discovery conflicts with the order of the Federal court. I want to thank particularly my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the lead Democrat sponsor, for their indefatigable efforts on the part of this legislation. I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for leading the committee to develop and improve this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the ranking member of my subcommittee, who has been very helpful in this area. Let me first of all say that we will all miss the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton) and his good work here, and we hope to have words later for him in honoring him. But let me say to my friend from New York that I pledge to work with him as we go to conference on the provision that the gentleman had inserted into this legislation. It is important, not only for the State of New York, but for the SEC and for states in general. We want to make certain. It is unfortunate because of a jurisdictional dispute that we had this. This is good legislation that closes a major loophole. I am proud of the bipartisan support that this bill has engendered.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and would concur in what she said, pointed out that she was not referring to any case to revolving loan funds and the money therein, because obviously, they could not be conducted under the current law, and as long as we clarify that, I think that is important to put in the record.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that being the case, I hope that the gentleman will make the permissible scope of the activities clear in his work in conference.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear in the legislative history, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that the enactment of that amendment that just passed does not give EPA any new or additional statutory authority to conduct its brownfields programs. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, which has primary jurisdiction over the Superfund law in the House, I do not want the EPA or anyone else to think that the current Superfund law authorizes the Agency to use brownfields money to capitalize revolving loan funds. Moreover, brownfields money may be used pursuant to section 311(c) of CERCLA to fund only, and I quote, ``Research with respect to the detection, assessment and evaluation of the effects on and risks to human health of hazardous substances and detection of hazardous substances in the environment.'' The language of section 311(c) does not, I emphasize, does not, authorize the Agency to use brownfields money to fund conferences, seminars, meetings, workshops, or other activities that have nothing to do with actual research.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies is willing to engage in a colloquy with me regarding the amendment just passed.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the community of Upper Sandusky which celebrated its sesquicentennial. This celebration is a time to reflect on the attributes which have made Upper Sandusky the strong city it is today, while focusing on the stepping stones of the future to ensure continued growth and prosperity. What officially became known as Upper Sandusky in July, 1848, was once an area occupied by the Wyandott Indians. This location was attractive to the pioneers that arrived after the Wyandotts moved Westward because it offered fertile land and all the opportunities of starting a new life without traveling to the new frontier out west. While keeping up with the expansion of the village, the early leaders and citizens of Upper Sandusky began to build churches, schools, libraries, a courthouse, and a post office. Furthermore, railroads, bridges, roads, and a phone system were all in place by the mid 1850's which aided the rapid development of the area. Following this pattern of growth, Upper Sandusky was the first village in Wyandot County to be granted a city charter in 1966. Contributing to the vitality of Upper Sandusky was the early establishment of an industrial base. While the surrounding area was ideal for agriculture, the village also had brickmakers, steam pump works, cabinet making, and saw mills, just to name a few. Today, Upper Sandusky continues its tradition of being a rich agricultural and industrial center. Even more important than the growth of commerce has been Upper Sandusky's tradition of community based values. Much of this can be attributed to early German Irish immigrants to the area who trusted in God and esteemed ones family. I know the positive effects of a small town that values each of its citizens. There is a feeling of security and reassurance that comes from calling your community your home; a place where your neighbors, classmates, coworkers are not only your friends, but become an extension of your family. Continuing to develop in an enriching environment, I have no doubt that Upper Sandusky will prosper for another 150 years.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House chamber for roll call votes held the evening of Monday, June 22. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on roll call 252 and ``yea'' on roll call votes 253 through 256.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight the outstanding performance of my hometown high school in Findlay, Ohio, in the ``We The People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals held in Washington, D.C. this May. I would like to congratulate Findlay High School students Amber Ayres, Richard Bornhorst, Rebekah Browning, Andy Cole, Jill Crusa, Annie Davis, Brian Fiske, Julie Francis, Levi Gephart, Phillip Hodgman, John Kennedy, Scott Kidwell, Mark Laux, Kurt Lindamood, Nick Lotz, James Ring, Kate Scoles, Hannah Shadle, Michael Taylor, Evalyn Vanderlaak, Taryn Wilgus, and their teacher, Alvin R. Bell, for their in depth knowledge of congressional issues and legislative procedures. The national finals competition simulates a congressional hearing whereby students testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. These outstanding young people competed against 49 other classes from across the nation and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental ideals and values of American government. They are prime examples of all that is right in our local education system. They are to be commended for a job well done.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a study on competition in video services by the Hudson Institute to the attention of my colleagues. Price inflation in cable television service is causing some policy makers to suggest renewing rate regulation--that is, re-re-regulating cable prices. While it is the case that there have been notable price increases by some cable systems, to recommend extending price controls is to ignore the realities of the marketplace and the lessons of the past. It is important to note that these cost increases are authorized under the 1992 Cable Act, which I opposed. Indeed, it is my view that passage of the Cable Act did little to keep down prices, that it resulted in reduced capital investment and a stagnation of services offered by the industry, and that the regulations themselves proved to be a costly and inefficient expense. The rate regulation imposed by the Cable Act increased the cost of capital to cable systems and prevented many from upgrading their systems. One of the major goals of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was to promote competition and investment in the delivery of video services to the home. Under the Telecommunications Act, rates for cable services beyond the basic tier are to be deregulated three years after enactment. The Act also removed the statutory ban on telephone companies offering video services within their regions. While competition to incumbent cable operators may not be growing as quickly as anticipated, it is significant nonetheless. The regional telephone company Ameritech is building cable systems throughout the Midwest to compete alongside existing cable operators. Upwards of ten percent of households in the market have Direct Broadcast Satellite service, and wireless cable service is expanding as well. Technological improvements in the area of satellite broadcasting alone promise more choices for video consumers. Equally as important, the cable industry has been investing to provide competition in new areas, such as Internet access, local telephony, and Personal Communications Services. Cable firms also are leaders in the use of fiber optic and digital compression technology, and have been upgrading their systems to provide customers with a greater range of programming choices. Having made the case for competition and against price controls, I must add that I am not satisfied with the current state of competition in video services. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for Congress to reexamine program access rules, copyright laws, and other potential barriers to free and open competition. As Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, I am committed to see full-blown competition and choice in video programming. Mr. Speaker, I again commend the following executive summary of the Hudson Institute study to the attention of all Members. Executive Summary In late 1997 and early 1998, concerns have been raised among regulators, members of Congress, and consumer groups regarding cable television rates. This study analyzes the rationale for new efforts by the FCC to limit rates or impose other regulations on the cable television industry in response to such concerns. It examines the historical record of cable regulation, takes a new look at the state of competition for multichannel video programming, reviews the important capital investment in new digital services by the industry, and assesses the possible impact of new price controls on competition in the wider telecommunications market, including Internet access, telephony, and video programming. The study finds that, despite current market share of around 85.6 percent (falling to around 75 percent by 2002); dynamic services offered by Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), broadcast television, and other multichannel video delivery systems provide substantial and growing competition for cable television. More than 65 percent of households can receive six or more broadcast channels with a suitable antenna. For many households, DBS offers greater levels of service at prices comparable to or lower than, cable's. DBS appears to provide a good substitute for cable even after accounting for up-front equipment costs. Competing cable systems (overbuilds and Satellite Master Antenna (TV) have become cost-effective and are growing rapidly, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. The study also finds that past cable regulation, especially rate controls, provided little or no benefit to consumers, and in fact harmed consumers by inducing lower quality of service. On the other hand, periods of less regulation, such as the years between 1984 and 1990, stimulated production of greater quality and wider choice of programming for consumers, produced steady increases in demand for cable, and produced net consumer welfare gains of $3 billion to $6.5 billion per year. Finally, the evidence shows that the cable industry is in the midst of investing up to $28 billion to improve its infrastructure, including over $1 billion per year to convert to interactive digital services. The entry of cable firms into new businesses such as telephony, Internet, and digital video is improving consumer choice and reducing prices for these services, especially to residential customers; spurring a competitive response from the telephone industry to upgrade its data transmission capabilities; and giving a boost to the introduction of digital television and to competition in the Internet business. An imposition of rate controls similar to those of 1993 and 1994 would undermine the financial basis for the cable industry to enter these new businesses in the near term, and hence weaken competition in the wider telecommunications market place.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider legislation, H. Con. Res. 171, to declare that the memorial service held each year in Roanoke, Virginia to honor emergency medical services personnel who have died in the line of duty be designated as the ``National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Service''. As the House debates this thoughtful legislation, I would like to take a moment to honor one of my constituents, a dedicated and heroic paramedic who was killed in the line of duty. On June 6th of last year Mr. Robert Good, of Marion Ohio, was responding to a motor vehicle accident involving live downed power lines. Knowing of the danger, Mr. Good and several other rescue workers extracted the accident victim from the automobile. While Robert Good was able to save the lives of two people, a bystander whom he pushed out of the way of live power lines and his partner whom he directed to stay clear of the accident, he was, unfortunately, not able to save himself. Mr. Good, the motor vehicle accident victim, and two rescue volunteers were killed in the courageous rescue attempt. Since this is National Emergency Medical Services Week, it is fitting that today the House is passing legislation honoring those emergency medical services personnel, like Mr. Good, who have died while saving the lives of those in need. We all owe a debt of gratitude to these highly skilled professionals. This week, Mr. Good will also be honored posthumously as part of a program that pays tribute to the men and women of the emergency medical service profession. During the ceremony, Mr. Good's partner will accept the appropriately named Stars of Life award on his behalf. I believe this is a fitting award for his selfless actions to save the lives of others. At this time, allow me to personally add my praise and tribute to the memory of Mr. Good for his courageous actions. Robert Good was truly a hero to all who knew him and benefited from his valiant and noble work.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and congratulate him on an excellent product, this rule. Indeed, this does allow the House to work its will on several important issues dealing with H.R. 10, and I do rise in support of the rule for the Financial Services Act of 1997. This is the 10th time that Congress has tried to repeal Glass- Steagall since 1979. In the absence of congressional action, regulators have stepped in and essentially usurped congressional authority to make national policy for financial services. I believe it is time now for Congress to consider this issue and for elected representatives to discharge their constitutional authority rather than unelected regulators. We are, indeed, responsible and answerable to our constituents, and that is the way it should be. Accountability is what this body is all about. The rule makes in order a bipartisan manager's amendment dealing with important issues, including consumer protection, SEC backup authority, information sharing among the regulators, and provides for a study of community needs. And indeed, I congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our ranking member on the Committee on Commerce, working very closely with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), our ranking member on my subcommittee; as well as the Committee on Banking and Financial Services members, led by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and others who were able to craft this very important manager's amendment that provides some reasonable consumer protection, but still allows the competitive nature of the enterprises to go forward. In addition, the rule also eliminates the bulk of the thrift title, which has been of great concern to many thrifts throughout the country who understandably have not wanted to give up their charter. The legislation will now essentially leave all thrifts as they are under current law. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to an informed debate on these necessary changes to enhance the competitiveness of our financial services system. Let us hope that, after all these years, Congress can come together, pass a measured bill that breaks down a lot of these barriers to competition, allows for the affiliation between banks and insurance companies and securities companies to give the consumer the kind of savings that have been projected in the $15 billion and more range per year with the reduction of fees and the necessary advantages that come with these changes that are inherent in this bill. So this is a fair rule. It is one that was carefully crafted to allow all sides in the debate to have their say and to have their vote, and I commend it to the membership.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia, and let me commend him on his amendment. I was at the Committee on Rules when he offered the amendment. To correct my friend from Minnesota, this was the product of a very carefully balanced compromise between warring parties that have been at this for at least 20 years. We finally got an agreement with many of the banks and with the insurance industry and the agents to finally put this issue behind us. That was the essence of what this compromise is all about. Did it give the banks everything they wanted? Of course, not. And the gentleman from Minnesota seems to think that that is the way it ought to be. I would suggest to the gentleman that this was a product of a reasonable compromise. That is what this bill is all about. The gentleman's amendment will provide, I think, a meaningful amendment. Let me just say, in closing, I commend the gentleman on his amendment but simply say that the gentleman from Minnesota wants it all and that is not the way the process works around here.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, let me first of all say that it has been an excellent debate. I have great respect for the gentleman from Louisiana, as he well knows, and he certainly has expressed his position exceptionally forcefully and well to this body. Frankly, I have some empathy for his position, particularly on some CRA relief versus small banks. But I really do have major concerns with how this particular amendment treats insurance sales in banks. As I had indicated earlier during the debate on the LaFalce amendment, this issue, the bank sales of insurance, has bedeviled this Congress for a long, long time. It has basically kept this modernization legislation from passing Congress now for the last 20 years. We finally in our committee, after a lot of hard work and a lot of gnashing of teeth and a lot of long nights and negotiations between the parties, came to an agreement on how we would best deal with banks selling insurance; and we basically came to that conclusion that indeed, based on court decisions, the Barnett decisions and decisions by the OCC that indeed banks would be in a position to sell insurance. So the next question is how do we best protect the consumer and at the same time allow that kind of activity to take place. So we got the players together, the president of the insurance agents, the representatives of the insurance agents, representatives of the banks, or some banks at least, the ones that were participating in our effort, particularly Bank One and NationsBank, who were real leaders in trying to come to a conclusion. And after a lot of negotiations and after having testimony from the Illinois representatives of the agents and the banks telling us how they worked so hard to get a bill passed in the Illinois legislature unanimously and signed by the governor that became essentially the template for what we tried to do in this piece of legislation. It is not perfect. In many cases, all of us would have written this differently depending on where we are coming from. But the fact is it was forged in the caldron of compromise in a major State and signed off on by the major players. That is really what we use the basis for our provision on insurance in our committee. It has survived on to the floor. Unfortunately, the amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) would rend asunder our ability to make those kind of changes that we basically have the major players sign off on. It removes, in my estimation, a critical consumer protection preventing implicit coercion; that is tying of insurance sales to loans. I think we do have to provide the kind of protection for the consumer that is absolutely necessary. Another concern I have is that the Baker amendment contains a mischievous provision requesting the OCC, the Federal bank regulator, to report to Congress on the effectiveness of State insurance laws. That, in my estimation, is already predetermined how that would come out. I ask you to defeat the Baker amendment, as well- intentioned as it may be and support the underlying bill.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Chairman, first I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Manton), the ranking member of our subcommittee, for their good work in bringing this bill to the floor today. We have reached a critical watershed in the evolution of the financial services industry. Congress has been trying for 63 years to modernize our financial markets; trying for 63 years to allow banks to diversify their portfolios, to protect the solvency of the banking industry, to provide our American companies with some abilities that their foreign competitors already have, and to provide a fair and comprehensive system of functional regulation to protect consumers and the American taxpayer. When my subcommittee began work on H.R. 10, we focused on three fundamental goals: Protect consumers, increase competition and maintain the safety and soundness of our Nation's financial system. This legislation, H.R. 10, achieves those goals. H.R. 10 establishes full functional regulation of financial activities, balancing Federal and State regulations to ensure maximum protection to consumers. It repeals the depression era 1930's restrictions on competition so that banks will no longer be forced to make riskier and riskier investments to hang on to a dwindling share of consumer savings. And it brings our American financial industry into the 21st century on an even footing with our foreign competitors with full competition and consumer choice. When H.R. 10 came to our committee, it was opposed by almost every regulator and industry group. Now, after months of hard work by Republican and Democrat bipartisan committee staff, we have a bill that has the support of the Federal Reserve and Chairman Greenspan, Securities and Exchange Commission, Chairman Arthur Levitt, Consumers First, the National Association of Home Builders, insurance agents, insurance underwriters, securities firms, mutual funds and banks representing a quarter of their market. Most importantly, this bill helps advance the interests of consumers. Consumers want to be able to go to a financial planner or investment adviser and take care of all their financial needs. They want to be able to have the opportunity to choose from a variety of hybrid products without artificial limits placed on their choices. And they want to take advantage of the $15 billion per year in consumer savings that would result from repealing the inefficient and archaic Glass- Steagall bill. The Washington lobbyists and the media have panned this bill from day one. They said it could not be done. They said the Congress will not have the will to buck the tide and pass a bill that does not have the unanimous support of all segments of the financial industry. Each step of the way we have proved them wrong. We are going to prove them wrong again today. Congress will not be paralyzed by lobbyists who get paid to stop good legislation. At the beginning of this year, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and I decided to go around the lobbyists and convened a meeting with top CEOs of the financial industry for their commitment to getting financial reform. Some lawyers are continuing to try to pick apart our efforts. Some companies do not want to face increased competition and are afraid of H.R. 10's brave new financial world that forces them to be more responsive to their consumers. But the leaders of American business know this bill is good for their shareholders and good for their country. Eventually they came to us and said, we will support your efforts. Let us support H.R. 10. It is a well-balanced and well-crafted piece of legislation.