Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, the LaFalce amendment would strike down any ability of a State to regulate bank affiliated insurance agents. I want to make that very clear. The gentleman from Minnesota stated quite the opposite, that this amendment would provide functional regulation. I would challenge him on that. For example, if a bank-affiliated insurance agent commits fraud by representing health care coverage, for example, the result of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from New York would mean that we would have virtually no regulatory authority whatsoever at the State level. Now, if we believe in functional regulation and we believe strongly that State insurance regulators have the ability to regulate insurance, then we have to oppose this amendment. The State insurance regulators have indicated very strongly that they believe this amendment would be catastrophic. It would go beyond the fact that we would have no discrimination, but it would result in no regulation at all. Now, those of us who believe in State regulation and functional regulation also believe, I think, that the States are the laboratories for democracy. Let us take a real-life look at what happened in banking sales of insurance in the real world. Our committee held hearings on this bill, and we had the president of the State Bankers Association from Illinois and the president of the State Insurance Agents from Illinois testify about the fact that they had gotten together, worked out a compromise on State bank sales of insurance, had gone to the State legislature in Illinois, not an insignificant State, probably represents a great microcosm of this country, and passed that legislation unanimously and signed by the governor. We decided in our committee, after a lot of hard work and a lot of head-knocking between the parties, to basically provide that the Illinois statute become a safe harbor for legislation, so if the States had regulation, they would be able to put it up against what Illinois had done. This was the real world. This was a compromise that was worked out very effectively. Before my time runs out, let me tell my colleagues the States that would be deleted from protecting different State laws. Let me just list the States if I could, Mr. Chairman. These regulatory functions would be struck down in these States if the LaFalce amendment becomes law. States of Texas, Virginia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Maine, Louisiana, Indiana, Connecticut, Colorado, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Vermont. All of those State regulatory laws would be out the window if the LaFalce amendment passes. All of my colleagues who represent those States, and everybody else, let us defeat the LaFalce amendment and preserve the integrity of this regulatory process.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight an especially important milestone for the State of Ohio. From May 15th to the 17th, the Village of Waynesfield will be celebrating its sesquicentennial birthday. Festivities include opening ceremonies, village tours, old time movies and a parade. I would like to recognize this profound civic event. Wayne Township and Waynesfield were named for General Anthony Wayne. General Wayne was a leader and hero in the Revolutionary War. His victories against the Indians in the Northwest Territory helped end this crisis. His soldiers won the second battle of Ft. Recovery, as well as the Battles of Ft. Defiance, Ft. Miami and Fallen Timbers. In 1948, Waynesfield was also home to John R. Bennett, the second to last surviving Civil War veteran in Ohio. Harriet Beecher Stowe's sister, Lucinda, married and lived in Waynesfield. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Waynesfield has a long and patriotic past that all Americans can view with pride. As the Member of Congress representing the citizens of Waynesfield, I appreciate all their hard work which continues to make theirs a vibrant community. Waynesfield's spirit of family and responsibility serves as a model for other towns to follow. From its family farms to its small-town churches, this town exemplifies all that is good in our great land. I commend all the villagers as they celebrate their 150th birthday, and I look forward to many more to come.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his comments and would simply point out that in this kind of area, we ought to walk very, very softly before we consider these kinds of abrogation of contracts. This is very serious business, and I would caution that, in fact, the marketplace is working, that those telecommunication companies out there will be able to renegotiate, will be able to sign new contracts in the due course of business. We ought not to interfere with that right of contract. It would be a serious mistake on the part of this Congress.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the rationale behind the ``fresh look'' provisions of this bill and I agree that the privatization we seek must be pro-competitive, it is my view that the abrogation of private contracts called for by this bill is simply not justified by the admittedly worthy goal of accelerating the transition to a more competitive marketplace. It is not appropriate in my opinion for this Congress to allow corporations to simply walk away from legal contracts because we believe that there may have been better deals for them in the offing. With privatization the transition to a competitive market will come soon enough, and these contracts will expire and be renegotiated in the normal course of business without the kind of congressional interference in the process. My sense is that we should go very, very slowly when Congress is dealing with the issue of abrogating contracts. This is a very serious issue. Those of us who studied contracts in law school learned, probably on the first day, that contracts have a particularly meaningful role in our business world and that those contracts and particularly the breaking of those contracts should be taken very, very seriously and with a great deal of caution, particularly by the national legislative body, the Congress of the United States. We should allow the marketplace to work its will in due course without resorting to heavy-handed tactics. After all, the bill is premised on the idea that competition will cause market participants to realize new efficiencies and alternate ways of doing business. The incentives are already there for telecommunication firms to seek out the most efficient access to international communications. And while it may be tempting, Mr. Chairman, to try to jump start the competitive process through these ``fresh look'' measures, I think we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. We should allow the private sector to work its will and without abrogating the privacy of these contracts. Mr. Chairman, we can argue as to whether or not free agency has ruined baseball, but the truth is that telecommunication companies today are already free agents without ``fresh look.'' I encourage support for the amendment to remove these provisions.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1872 and commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their strong leadership in bringing this issue to the floor. There can be no doubt that the time has come for privatizing and restructuring the intergovernmental satellite organizations. While there may be some differences of opinion on the components as we move forward, there is certainly unanimity about the fact that privatization and increased competition in satellite communications are best for the marketplace and best for the consumer. To illustrate this point, it is worth noting that a significant development has occurred since the Committee on Commerce acted on the bill. The international government organization INTELSAT, consisting of 142 member countries, agreed on March 30 of this year to move toward privatization by creating a private company separate from INTELSAT to compete in the commercial satellite marketplace. The member countries of INTELSAT, after a lengthy negotiation process heavily influenced by the United States, came to a unanimous agreement to voluntary spin off assets and create a new competitive entity. While some may question whether this privatization effort is sufficiently procompetitive, it strongly demonstrates the recognition around the globe of the need to privatize and enhance competition in the international satellite market. Mr. Chairman, I also believe that it clearly demonstrates the extent to which the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) has garnered the attention of the industry and the markets, and for that the courage and leadership shown by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) are to be commended. Mr. Chairman, I encourage all Members to support this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA). In my district, and in the districts of many of my colleagues, the rural highways that have served our nation since the mid-fifties are no longer capable of serving the growing number of cars and trucks that use them everyday. Additionally, many of these highways often prove to be hazardous, and unable to meet the needs of the small towns and growing economies that they serve. Adding to this problem is the fact that more often than not rural highways are overlooked when upgrade decisions are made in favor of major interstate projects that serve large metropolitan cities and constituencies. U.S. Rt. 30 that runs through my district is a perfect example of this growing problem. As a major east-west thoroughfare U.S. 30 is a integral trucking route serving the northern half of Ohio between I-70 and the Ohio Turnpike. Over the years this narrow two-lane stretch of highway has logged a disturbing number of automotive accidents, which, when combined with the increase in truck traffic and lack of sufficient shoulder room, has all too often led to fatalities. With truck traffic on this route up 11 percent since 1994, much of which can be attributed to an increase state tolls elsewhere that forced many trucks to re- route to rural thoroughfares like US 30, the need for a four-lane upgrade has never been more critical. I support BESTEA because it will give Ohio the needed resources and flexibility to bring much needed relief to those who live along and drive U.S. Rt. 30. Of great importance to me is the fact that Chairman Shuster' bill finally provides equity for donor states like Ohio that have long provided more revenue than they have received back in federal-aid highway funds. By providing a true 95 percent return on contributions to the Highway Trust Fund Ohio will be able to complete many projects that have long been shelves due to lack of federal funding. Moreover, by taking the Highway Trust Fund off-budget, BESTEA will restore the integrity of the fund and provide all states with the transportation funding their citizens have already contributed through gas taxes. While in 1991 we made great strides in improving our transportation system by passing ISTEA, in fact increasing Ohio's return from a meager 79 cents on the dollar to 87 cents, Today's BESTEA legislation will significantly strengthen this commitment to our nations infrastructure that we began many years ago. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Chairman of the Transportation Committee for his leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation to the House floor. I plan to support it and I look forward to its passage so we can ensure that our nation has the best and most modern transportation system in the world.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Let us take a look at where we have been. We have been, the last many years, controlled in this financial services industry essentially by court decisions and by fiat from unelected regulators and bureaucrats. Is that the way we want our financial services industry to be conducted? Or do we want to have the Congress of the United States, who is responsible to the voters and the citizens of this country, to make these ultimate decisions? If we do not pass this rule, we do not have the opportunity to have Congress step in where courts and regulators have always penetrated and give us an opportunity to set the basic framework for financial services into the next century. That is really what this debate is all about. But we cannot get to that debate, no matter what our particular position is, unless we pass this rule. This has been heavy lifting. Those of us who have worked in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce trying to craft compromises have worked long and hard to get to this day. In my own Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, we had a historic agreement between two warring factions that had gone on for years and years, the independent insurance agents and the banks. The insurance agents finally recognized that today banks are going to be able to sell insurance, and banks finally recognized that they had to follow a certain set of guidelines and be regulated by State insurance regulators. We came to that historic agreement, something that had held up this legislation time and time and time again. So we have seen these compromises made, and we have seen this product come together for the first time in 10 attempts by this recent Congress to reform Glass-Steagall. The WTO agreement that was recently signed in Geneva opens up markets all over the world. Countries all over the world are liberalizing their markets and allowing Americans and other companies to come in and compete for insurance. We gave up nothing in those agreements in WTO, but other countries throughout the world, 100 of them, have agreed to open up their markets, many of which have been closed from time immemorial. Are we going to, in this Congress, fail to pass a rule and fail to pass a bill that would modernize our financial structure at the same time we see the rest of the world coming our way and opening up their markets? I hope not. There has been too much work, too much sincere effort at compromise to get us where we are today to throw it all away and say Congress is incapable of dealing with these difficult issues. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, vote for this rule. Give us an opportunity to explain how effective this bill can be in providing a modern financial services industry that will be the envy of the world.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of all those present before the House of Representatives and hope that other civic groups will follow in the footsteps of the VFW Post 8832 Ladies Auxiliary in Roundhead, Ohio as they celebrate their 50th Anniversary. A copy of my congratulatory letter to them is included for the Congressional Record. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 16, 1998. Ms. Shirley Kramer, VFW Post 8832 Roundhead Lakeview, OH. Dear Friends: I just learned that you will be celebrating your 50th anniversary this month. Please allow me to add my name to the list of well-wishers on this great occasion. This is quite a milestone and one that you all can certainly be proud of achieving. This achievement validates all your hard work and dedication. The community owes a debt of gratitude for all that you have contributed to it every since your beginnings in 1948. I commend all your many worthwhile programs which benefit our hospitals, youth, veterans, and families. I look forward to 50 more exciting years from VFW Post 8832 Ladies Auxiliary, Roundhead. Once again, congratulations on your anniversary and please keep up the great work. Sincerely, Michael G. Oxley, M.C. Fourth Ohio District.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who missed it, I would like to bring an opinion piece from the March 11th Wall Street Journal to the attention of my colleagues. As the piece makes clear, our sense of right and wrong and our commitment to the rule of law is being challenged by the attacks on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's credibility and integrity. We would be wise to allow the investigation to proceed in an environment free of partisan bickering to allow the truth to be found. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column to the attention of all interested parties. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 11, 1998] The Borking of Starr We blink every time talking heads discuss Kenneth Starr's low approval ratings; we hope we aren't the only ones taken a bit aback by the very idea of conducting opinion polls about judicial officers. In the judicial branch, we thought, the game was about statutes and precedents and scholarly qualifications, not about popularity. But perhaps this useful distinction too is being obliterated in the current climate. If so, the corner was turned with the campaign against Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. Precisely because his scholarly attainments and intellect were the cream of his generation, his opponents feared his views would dominate a new crop of jurists. So they mounted a campaign to drive down his poll ratings, and thereby frighten the Senators weighing his nomination. They succeeded, but the cost to American institutions becomes clearer and clearer with the passage of time. We have arrived at a point where a James Carville goes on television to declare ``war'' on Kenneth Starr. Mr. Starr is an official of the U.S. government, duly appointed by a panel of three judges pursuant to laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. Presumably this means he is not the local football coach, removable by mob sentiment. If Mr. Starr is abusing his powers, that same law provides that the Attorney General can remove him, and she should do so. Instead, Mr. Clinton's Attorney General has expanded the scope of Mr. Starr's investigation at least three known times. Four former attorney generals, including Griffin Bell of the Carter Administration, have testified to Mr. Starr's long-standing personal reputation for integrity and judicial temperament. (Since their statement has not been widely covered, we reprint it in its entirety nearby.) None of this matters in Mr. Carville's war, and we're confident none of it is explained to people when the pollsters put their questions. What we have here is a public relations offensive intended to turn the public against a court official going about his work and not in a position to reply to every criticism. In the March 2 New York Times an obviously confident White House aide casually describes ``our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr.'' This ``continuing campaign'' hasn't been restricted to Mr. Starr, himself a former appeals court judge. Judge David Sentelle of the three judge panel has been diminished by Clinton operatives as merely a tool of Senator Helms. Other troublesome judges can expect to be similarly targeted. This is, in effect, an attack on the judicial branch if not indeed the law itself. In this campaign, the President of the United States avails himself of his own personal Praetorian Guard of dirt-diggers, personified by Terry Lenzner's Investigative Group Inc. Back in 1994, the President's private attorneys, Robert Bennett and David Kendall, retained IGI's services in the Paula Jones and Whitewater cases. Jack Palladino, hired in the first Clinton Presidential run to help with Betsey Wright's ``bimbo eruptions,'' has also appeared on the scene, bragging about his success in avoiding subpoenas. Mike McCurry, spokesman for the Presidency who's doubling inappropriately as flack for Mr. Clinton's own lawyers, said the President was aware that his private lawyers had hired outside investigators but that the detectives weren't looking for ``personal derogatory information.'' Yet somehow derogatory information, some of it plainly false, keeps popping up. Former prosecutor Joseph diGenova said last month on ``Meet the Press'' that journalists told him that both he and his wife were being probed after they'd given interviews critical of Mr. Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal. Mr. Starr's private life has also been investigated, with all involved denying a White House connection. Mr. Starr's perhaps impolitic subpoena of White House spinner Sidney Blumenthal came after the IC's office started receiving reporters' calls asking for comment on destructive rumors about staff prosecutors. Wire stories, for example, suggested that prosecutor Bruce Udolf has been fined 10 years ago for violating a defendant's civil rights in Georgia. A former federal judge defended Mr. Udolf against the implication that he could be expected to abuse the law. Richard Nixon's Watergate ``plumbers'' offended mainly because the President, who has authority over a powerful national security apparatus, had created a private posse to investigate his enemies, unchecked by professional pride and the mores of an ongoing institution. It's now evident that the Clintonities learned two things from Watergate: Burn the tapes, and put your plumbers in your personal law firm to acquire attorney-client privilege. No doubt the White House is proud of its success in Borking Mr. Starr. Yet serious people would recognize the damage being wrought to institutions developed over centuries to uphold the idea that civilization means something more than the sentiment of the passing moment. If poll ratings are all that matter in the nation's capital, a President can perhaps sustain them with a prosperous economy and a winning television manner, or as the Romans said, bread and circuses. Mr. Carville's war and Mr. Starr's polls give us a glimpse of one possible evolution of our political system in an era of instant communications. The issue is whether we will be governed by men or by laws.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who missed it, I would like to bring an opinion piece from the March 6th Wall Street Journal to the attention of my colleagues. William J. Bennett has once again provided an insightful analysis on recent developments in the White House that demands the consideration of Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Mr. Bennett to the attention of all interested parties. [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 6, 1998] Why It Matters (By William J. Bennett) In the matter of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, almost everything points to the conclusion that something unseemly happened: the tapes; Ms. Lewinsky's 37 visits to the White House; Mr. Clinton's morning-after-the-deposition meeting with his secretary, Betty Currie; the gifts; the talking points; Vernon Jordan's many activities; the job offer from United Nations Ambassador Bill Richardson; the president's stonewalling; his initial, unconvincing denial; his refusal to explain what happened; Press Secretary Mike McCurry's remark that the relationship is probably ``very complicated''; and White House surrogates' declaration of ``war'' against the independent counsel. Nevertheless, many Americans think the scandal--even if true--is either ``none of our business'' or not worth the effort to inquire about. This apparent indifference is surprising and unsettling. It is therefore important to respond to the most common arguments made by those who believe that a president's sexual involvement with a 21-year- old intern, and the ensuing suspected coverup, are essentially irrelevant to our national life: We shouldn't be judgmental. At a recent speech before an organization of religious broadcasters, I criticized the president's unwillingness to explain what happened in the Lewinsky matter. A member of the audience took me to task for ``casting stones.'' I responded that it shows how far we have fallen that asking the president to account for possible adultery, lying to the public, perjury and obstruction of justice is regarded as akin to stoning. This is an example of what sociologist Alan Wolfe refers to as America's new ``Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not judge.'' Lost Its Way Even the Rev. Billy Graham declared yesterday: ``I forgive him. . . . I know how hard it is, and especially a strong, vigorous, young man like he is; he has such a tremendous personality. I think the ladies just go wild over him.'' Mr. Graham, perhaps the nation's most admired religious figure, apparently is willing to shrug off both adultery and lying, without any public admission or apology on Mr. Clinton's part. This is what the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called ``cheap grace.'' All of us are in favor of tolerance and forgiveness. But the moral pendulum in America has swung too far in the direction of relativism. If a nation of free people can no longer make clear pronouncements on fundamental matters of right and wrong--for example, that a married, 50-year-old commander-in-chief ought not to have sexual relations with a young intern in his office and then lie about it--it has lost its way. The problem is not with those who are withholding judgment until all the facts are in, but with the increasing number of people who want to avoid judgment altogether. For it is precisely the disposition and willingness to make judgments about things that matter that is a defining mark of a healthy democracy. In America we do not defer to kings, cardinals or aristocrats on matters of law and politics, civic conduct and moral standards. We rely instead on the people's capacity to make reasonable judgments based on moral principles. Our form of government requires of us not moral perfection but modest virtues, and adherence to some standards. How high should those standards be? Certainly higher than the behavior alleged in this case. Those who constantly invoke the sentiment of ``Who are we to judge?'' should consider the anarchy that would ensue if we adhered to this sentiment in, say, our courtrooms. What would happen if those sitting on a jury decided to be ``nonjudgmental'' about rapists and sexual harassers, embezzlers and tax cheats? Justice would be lost. Without being ``judgmental,'' Americans would never have put an end to slavery, outlawed child labor, emancipated women or ushered in the civil-rights movement. Nor would we have mobilized against Nazism and communism. Mr. Clinton himself put it well, in a judgment-laden 1996 proclamation he signed during National Character Week, which said that ``individual character involves honoring and embracing certain core ethical values: honesty, respect, responsibility. . . . Parents must teach their children from the earliest age the difference between right and wrong. But we must all do our part.'' A president's private behavior doesn't matter. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 57% said that private character doesn't matter at all or matters only if it interferes with his ability to do the job. Of course, if Mr. Clinton did have sexual encounters with Ms. Lewinsky, it involves at least adultery and lying to the public--and probably lying under oath as well. In any event, the attempt to rigidly compartmentalize life in this way is divorced from the real world. A mother would not accept from her son the explanation that his drug habit doesn't matter because he did well on the Scholastic Assessment Test; a police commissioner should not dismiss the raw bigotry of a detective because he has a good arrest record. Yet in the name of ``compartmentalization,'' many now seem willing to accept raunchier behavior from our president than we would from any CEO, college professor or Army drill sergeant. Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo put it this way: ``Let's remember what's important here. The lives of the American people are more important than the personal life of the president.'' But Mr. Clinton is a laboratory test case of why private character is relevant. Prevarications typify his private and public life. A seamless web of deceit runs through the man and through his administration. John Adams held a far different view than Mr. Cuomo does. Adams wrote that the people ``have a right, an indisputable. unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees, for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority than they themselves have deputed.'' To better understand the limits of the ``private-public'' argument, imagine the storm that would engulf a president who privately supported a whites-only membership policy in a country club. Most voters would rightly deem this private sentiment to be of intense public interest. Why, then, are we supposed to accept a man in the Oval Office whom many parents would not trust alone with their daughters? The only thing that matters is the economy. ``What we should be talking about is that we are going to have the first balanced budget in more than three decades.'' says one citizen, who voted against Mr. Clinton in 1996. ``That's going to impact our children, not this sleaze that is masquerading as news.'' This sentiment reveals an arid and incomplete understanding of the presidency. More than any other person, the president symbolizes America. He stands for us in the eyes of the world and of our children, who inevitably learn from his example. Whether or not Bill Clinton escapes impeachment, his legacy will be one of pervasive deceit, squandered trust, a reckless disregard for the truth, heightened cynicism and a nastier political culture. A Rogue in Our Midst This corruption matters a great deal. Even if the Dow Jones breaks 10000. Even if Americans get more day care. Even if the budget is balanced. It matters because lessons in corruption, particularly when they emanate from the highest office in the land, undermine our civic life. Children are watching, and if we expect them to take morality seriously, they must see adults take it seriously. As C.S. Lewis wrote: ``We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.'' Today we find not a traitor but a rogue in our midst. Of course, rogues have been with us forever, and the corruption of people in power is at least as old as the Scriptures. But in America today, more and more citizens seem to be complicit in that corruption. One worry of the Founders was that luxury and affluence might dull our moral sensibilities. The next few months will go a long way toward determining how strongly we believe in something we once revered as ``our sacred honor.''

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend a recent column by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post to the attention of my colleagues. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1998] A Deal That's Worse Than Worthless peace in our time--again Two days before Kofi Annan made his ``breakthrough'' in Baghdad, the U.N. Security Council, with U.S. approval, authorized a huge increase in the amount of oil that Iraq can sell. In an stroke, this ``humanitarian'' gesture doubled Iraq's oil income to $10.5 billion a year. Iraq can now sell nearly 2 million barrels a day--about two-thirds of the oil it was selling when producing at peak capacity before the embargo. And that number does not even count the oil that we know Saddam is illegally smuggling through Iranian coastal waters. At this U.N.- and U.S.-authorized level, Iraq--under sanctions!--becomes the eighth-largest oil exporter in the world. This embargo-buster passed with little fanfare. It barely made the back pages of the newspapers. All hands pretended, moreover, that there was no linkage between this bonanza and the subsequent Saddam-Annan deal in Baghdad. But remember that last November, when the administration was desperately looking for a way out of the last Iraq crisis, the State Department said we'd be willing to offer Saddam a ``carrot'' to get him to be nice. Such as? Such as a sharp increase in the amount of ``humanitarian'' oil that Iraq could sell. So last time, when Saddam broke the Gulf War agreements and kicked out U.S. arms inspectors, the carrot was offered. This time, when Saddam broke the Gulf War agreements and stymied all the arms inspectors, the carrot was delivered. Last time, President Clinton flapped about threateningly, then watched meekly as the Russian foreign minister brokered a ``compromise.'' This time, Clinton flapped about threateningly, then watched meekly as the U.N. secretary general brokered a new ``compromise.'' Last time, Clinton's U.N. ambassador crowed that Saddam had ``blinked.'' This time, Madeleine Albright's spokesman deemed the deal ``win-win'' for us. Last time, the deal turned out to be completely worthless, giving Saddam four more months to hide his nasty stuff. This time, the deal is worse than worthless, giving Saddam crucial victories on the two issues he cares most about: economic sanctions and weapons inspections. 1. Sanctions. Not only did Saddam incur no penalty for his open defiance of the United Nations and open provocation of the United States, he was treated by Annan with a deference and flattery that bordered on the indecent. Moreover, the Annan-Saddam Memorandum of Understanding breathes not a word of criticism about Iraq's violating previous agreements, nor about its creating this crisis. On the contrary, Annan trashed his own arms inspectors (UNSCOM) as unruly ``cowboys'' and undertook, in writing, to bring Saddam's ultimate objective, the lifting of sanctions, ``to the full attention of the members of the Security Council.'' Sure enough, upon his return to New York, Annan began emphasizing the need to show Iraq ``the light at the end of the tunnel,'' the Iraqi code phrase for ending sanctions. Like Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who brokered the first nonagreement in November, Annan has become Saddam's sanctions-lifting advocate to the world. Unlike Saddam buddy and ex-KGB biggie Primakov, however, Annan is an effective shill. 2. Inspections. The United States had demanded no retreat from free and full access and no tampering by Iraq with the composition and authority of UNSCOM teams. Annan came back with a radical change in the composition of the inspection teams and a serious erosion of their authority. Inspection of ``presidential sites,'' those huge complexes with hundreds of buildings where Saddam could be hiding anything, is taken away from control of UNSCOM, the tough inspectors whose probity we can rely on. These sites are instead entrusted to a new body, headed by an Annan appointee. It will comprise political appointees, including diplomat-spies from Iraq-friendly France, Russia and China, as well as inspectors who presumably possess the requisite delicacy and sensitivity to Iraqi feelings. Iraqis can be so touchy about their stores of poison gas and anthrax. How do you carry out a spot inspection--the only kind that has any hope of finding anything--when you first have to notify and await the arrival of, say, the Russian appointee, who has a hot line to the very Iraqi regime he is supposed to inspect? Inspector Clouseau has a better chance of finding concealed nerve gas than this polyglot outfit of compromised politicians and handpicked inspectors. So tote it up. For Saddam: No penalty. Annan shilling for his demand to end all sanctions. UNSCOM undermined. Presidential palaces secure for storing anthrax and such. And his oil output doubled. Another triumph of Clinton diplomacy.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to spotlight a very special lady who has unselfishly given of her time, energy and soul to others in her community. She has earned the honor of being named the 1998 National Catholic Education Association Distinguished Principal for the States of Ohio and Michigan. She is one of only twelve Catholic School Elementary Principals in the country and the only one from Ohio to be chosen for this honor. The lives of many young people have been deeply touched with the kindness and sincerity that Sister Davis has shown. As principal of St. Mary's School, Shelby, Ohio, she worked to place computers into classrooms so that students will benefit from technological advances such as the Internet and other educational tools. I extend my best wishes to her as she receives this award, and I urge her to keep up the good work. She truly is a remarkable teacher and role model. Thank you Sister Davis.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who missed it, I would like to bring an opinion piece from the February 26th Wall Street Journal to the attention of my colleagues. The subject of the piece is international trade in the Americas. Foreign trade is of increasing importance to Americans and the companies they work for in today's global economy. After reviewing the relevant data, it is only possible to conclude that North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, has been of great benefit to Ohio's economy. Specifically, Ohio exports to Canada and Mexico grew 34.7 percent between 1993 and 1996, and Canada and Mexico have become Ohio's leading and sixth most important export markets, respectively. Exports to our NAFTA trading partners accounted for nearly half of Ohio's total exports in 1996. Fifty percent of the impressive national economic growth of the last five years can be attributed to our exports, and the success of NAFTA has been crucial to this growth. Ohio jobs supported by exports--which pay 13 to 16 percent higher than the national average for non-export related jobs--have grown 19 percent since 1992. Finally, U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico have resulted in an increase of 311,000 jobs for Americans. It is an economic fact that free trade benefits those on both sides of trading relationships. Again Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Sidney Weintraub of CSIS and Jeff Chisholm of the Bank of Montreal to the attention of all interested parties. [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 26, 1998] Extend the Benefits of Free Trade (By Sidney Weintraub and Jeff Chisholm) The most significant obstacle to the U.S. further extending its trading relationships has been the domestic political challenge posed by vocal critics who assert that freer trade destroys jobs. Opponents used that argument in November when they blocked congressional reauthorization of President Clinton's fast-track authority. But the facts belie the anti-free-trade rhetoric. In the years since the North American Free Trade Agreement was ratified, unemployment has declined in each of its member countries--the U.S., Canada and Mexico. In the U.S., whose economic expansion is beginning its eighth year, unemployment has reached its lowest level in a quarter century. Canada, emerging from a long recession, is anticipated to have the highest growth rate of all G-7 countries in 1998; its unemployment rate dropped dramatically in December, to the lowest level in seven years. Mexico, which only two years ago experienced its worst single-year economic decline since the Great Depression, rebounded in 1996 and 1997 to its best performance since the 1970s. Its economic growth was 7% last year; inflation is declining; its stock index is more than 20% higher than it was a year ago. Unemployment in the main cities is now below 3.5%. A recently completed survey of 361 medium-size and large businesses in the U.S., Canada and Mexico not only confirms these macroeconomic trends, but specifically indicates that Nafta has had no adverse impact on jobs. This survey--to be released next week by Bank of Montreal; its U.S. subsidiary, Harris Bank; and its Mexican affiliate, Grupo Fincanciero Bancomer--found that since Nafta came into effect in 1994, 47% of all North American businesses have gained employees while another 41% employ about the same number. Only 11% of the firms surveyed said that they had lost employees since 1994; of the 361 firms surveyed, only one, a U.S. company, directly attributed its job losses in Nafta. These findings indicate that increased international opportunities, coupled with the significant domestic growth all three economies have experienced in recent years, has fueled job creation across North America. Seizing on Nafta's success, Mexico has been concluding free-trade agreement with countries throughout the Western Hemisphere. Canada has concluded a free-trade agreement with Chile and has plans to expand its free-trade network further. Of the three Nafta countries, then, the U.S. stands alone in its inability to expand its access to Latin American and Caribbean markets through trade negotiations. The consequence is that North American producers will increasingly base their operations in Canada, Mexico and elsewhere to avoid the discrimination they would face by exporting directly from the U.S. American workers will suffer as a result. The continuing crisis in Asia makes trade within the Western Hemisphere more important than ever. Already, Canada and Mexico are the top two destinations for U.S. exports, and Latin America has become the fastest-growing regional market for U.S. goods. Similarly, the U.S. is clearly the most important destination for Canadian and Mexican goods. The leaders of the hemisphere will meet in Santiago, Chile, for the Summit of the Americas in April, at which they will make final preparations to negotiate a Free Trade Area of the Americas. They will look for leadership from North America, especially the U.S. If Mr. Clinton arrives in Santiago without fast-track authority in hand, the U.S. will be isolated from the current hemispheric trend of market opening and subregional economic integration. The proposed FTAA is the logical next step for expanding trade and investment opportunities throughout the hemisphere. It would be unfortunate if the U.S. squandered the opportunity.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my most sincere congratulations to the people of Auglaize County as they celebrate their county's Sesquicentennial Anniversary. In reviewing the history of the county, it came to my attention that Dr. George Washington Holbrook was principally responsible for the county's existence. Indeed, when Dr. Holbrook arrived in Wapakoneta, Ohio, from New York in 1834, what we now know as Auglaize County was then located in Allen and Mercer counties. With the belief that the people of Wapakoneta and its neighboring communities deserved further recognition and representation, Dr. Holbrook convinced both local and state leaders of the need for a new county. Dr. Holbrook's efforts and dreams were realized on February 14, 1848, when the Ohio General Assembly passed legislation creating Ohio's 84th county, Auglaize. For his contributions, Dr. Holbrook is known as ``the father of Auglaize County.'' To commemorate the tremendous achievements of the people of Auglaize County over the last 150 years, a variety of celebrations are scheduled throughout the year. I am especially looking forward to the Air Show at the Neil Armstrong Airport in New Knoxville and the County Fair. I congratulate the great people of Auglaize County on this historic achievement and wish them the best of luck over the next 150 years!

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to file on behalf of the Committee on Commerce a supplemental report to accompany the bill (H.R. 10) the Financial Services Act of 1997.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me thank the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for bringing this Expo 2000 resolution to the floor today and for his leadership in the Committee on International Relations on these important issues. As the gentleman from Nebraska indicated, I am Chairman of the Congressional Study Group on Germany for 1997. I am proud to rise in support of this resolution. The resolution provides an important congressional endorsement of Expo 2000 and, as an original cosponsor, I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this resolution. The Expo, to be held in Hannover, Germany, will provide an important opportunity for the international community to discuss solutions to problems we will be facing in the 21st century, including global climate change, sources of energy, population growth, and development. Given America's leading position in the development of technology and our problem-solving capabilities, I applaud the President's announcement of American participation in the Expo 2000. This resolution will provide another voice of support to American academic and private sector involvement in the Expo. Given the dramatic progress this Congress has made in balancing the budget and promoting fiscal responsibility, I think it is important to note that no Federal funds will be used to support American participation in this Expo. While this was the clear intention of the resolution when introduced, I applaud the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] for introducing an amendment in the committee process that makes this absolutely clear. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation and thanks to all of the Bundestag colleagues I have gotten to know over the past year. I believe that German-American relations provide an important cornerstone of stability in Europe. American participation in Expo 2000 will further this relationship, and I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 139.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to this, I think, well-intentioned effort, but what is really the purpose behind this resolution? Is it to embarrass the German Government? Is it to embarrass the German people? What will ultimately come out of passage of this resolution? I frankly fail to see what good it would do. As the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] indicated, I am the chairman this year of the congressional study group on Germany and have had numerous discussions with our colleagues from the Bundestag particularly and also with the German Ambassador about this very sensitive issue. I was concerned, frankly, when I looked at a copy of the letter from the German Ambassador to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], in which he indicates that he had offered to have a discussion with those who would support this amendment, and as near as I can tell, and this was dated October 29, has had no opportunity whatsoever to tell the German side of the story on this matter. I find that frankly appalling when Germany is one of our staunchest allies and ones who have a great deal at stake in our success in Europe, expanding NATO, expanding trade relations and the like. And so instead of trying to stick a needle in the eye of the Germans, it seems to me we ought to be more helpful in trying to come to understand what these problems are. I find the language in this resolution quite strong, particularly when it talks about a German fostering an atmosphere of intolerance toward certain minority religious groups. Then it goes on to say the resolution expresses concerns that artists from the United States, members of minority religious groups, continue to experience German Government discrimination. Now, I fail to see how the German government is somehow behind these boycotts of certain movies. There may be particular political groups, but as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] said, that happens all the time over here. So I would say to our friends, let us defeat this resolution and look toward a more positive attitude as we relate to our strong allies such as Germany.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 507, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. So if we fix it, the Committee on Appropriations will fund it?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, second, let me be very clear in how I ask this question. The money will only be available at that time if we enact comprehensive Superfund reform; is that correct?

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Alvin R. Bell, a constituent of mine who for the second straight year participated in CIVITAS@Bosnia and Herzegovina, an intensive program from August 1 through August 17, 1997, designed to train teachers from throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina with materials and methods developed to educate for democracy. Mr. Bell was part of a team of 20 American educators who were assigned to 16 locations throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Republic of Srpska; the Americans teamed with 18 teachers from the Council of Europe in nine of these sites. This education for democracy program reached 550 teachers from both entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The summer training program was developed by the Center for Civic Education as part of a major civic education initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The goals of the program are to provide teachers with the tools necessary to help prepare students and their communities for competent and responsible citizenship, including participation in elections and other opportunities to take part in the political life of their communities. Achieving this goal will contribute to the reconstitution of a sense of community, cooperation, tolerance, and support for democracy and human rights in this war torn area. I am also pleased to announce that the curricular materials being used for the program in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been adapted from the we the people * * * the citizen and the Constitution foundations of democracy, and the project citizen programs, which are supported by Congress and used in schools throughout the United States. Initial reports evaluating the summer program indicate that materials (selected and adapted by educators from Bosnia and Herzegovina) and teaching methods were enthusiastically received and will be adapted for use in classrooms in both entities of the country. Alvin Bell is a teacher at Findlay High School in my hometown of Findlay, OH. Mr. Bell has guided five different teams of students to Washington, DC, to participate in the we the people * * * the citizen and Constitution national finals. This impressive academic competition simulates a congressional hearing and provides students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Alvin Bell for his dedication and commitment during the CIVITAS@Bosnia and Herzegovina summer training program. His work is helping to achieve the overall objective of building democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.