Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me further be sure that I understand the two events that are necessary to unlock the funding. First, the money will only be available after October 1, 1998; is that correct?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to be sure that my understanding of the provisions in the bill before us is correct. As I read the bill, it appropriates $2.15 billion for the Superfund program, but $650 million of that money is effectively held in reserve. I ask the gentleman from California if that is correct.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, is the committee trying to tell us that it shares our strong desire for fully funding toxic waste cleanups?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time. We will get a new law as soon as we can.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1262) to authorize appropriations for the Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a sponsor of the legislation before us today which will authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission for appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The capital markets of this Nation are expanding at an unprecedented rate. The broad spectrum of investors that these markets attract, individual Americans saving through mutual fund investments, institutional investors like pension funds, venture capitalists and more, are fueling the growth of our economy. Last year, $50 billion was raised for new businesses through our capital markets. Today, mutual fund assets, at a record $3.7 trillion, surpass bank deposits by more than $1 trillion. As our markets are expanding, they are also developing. The astonishing advancements in technology in recent years are creating new mechanisms for investors to access our markets and to obtain better, faster information about market activity. Against this backdrop, this legislation takes on increased significance. The Securities and Exchange Commission is, indeed, the investor's advocate. The growth and success of our great capital markets is dependent upon their fundamental fairness. The Securities and Exchange Commission has demonstrated its commitment to ensure that the fairness of our markets is not compromised. Investors around the world come to the U.S. markets in no small part because of the confidence they have in that basic fairness. Our capital markets rely upon not only investor confidence, but also the extraordinary ingenuity that has spurred the markets' development. It is essential that in regulating these markets, we do not stifle them. Chairman Arthur Levitt and the Commission are to be commended for initiating regulatory changes to facilitate the ability of companies to raise capital. They have eliminated unnecessary regulations, liberalized exemptions for all business, streamlined filing requirements, and promoted the use of something we are often in dire need of here on Capitol Hill: good old plain English. Reduction of regulatory burdens has aided the tremendous growth of our markets, and I intend to ensure that regulation continues to become less intrusive, less expensive, more flexible and more sensible. H.R. 1262, the Securities and Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1997, authorizes $320 million for fiscal year 1998 and $342 million for fiscal year 1999. The authorization for fiscal year 1998 is essentially flat from the current year. The increase of approximately $22 million for the 1999 appropriation will provide the Commission with necessary resources to manage the growth and development of our capital markets. Importantly, this legislation is consistent with the provisions of the fee reduction agreement among the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] of the Committee on Appropriations, as enacted in the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. Through this agreement, the fees that the Commission receives will gradually be reduced, while the funding for the Commission will be increasingly provided through an appropriation. I am pleased to have sponsored H.R. 1262 and to be joined by my friends, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Manton], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], as cosponsors. This legislation is as necessary for the economy as it is for investors, and I urge all of my colleagues to join us with their support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on the bill (H.R. 1262).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I honor two constituents and friends, Joseph and Patricia Garlock, by marking the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary, which will be celebrated this October 4. I want to send Joe and Pat my warmest congratulations on this special occasion. I have known both Pat and Joe for a number of years, and I want to convey how much this couple has given to their family and to the Lima, OH, community. Pat and Joe are lifelong residents of Lima, having met a few years after her graduation from St. Rose High School and his graduation from St. Johns High School. They settled down to live on West High Street, where they still live today, some 43 years later. Pat worked as a store clerk, has been a valued member of the choir at St. Charles Church for years, and is still active in volunteering her time with the Heartbeat of Lima, the St. Vincent DePaul Charity, and the Our Daily Bread Soup Kitchen. Joe also volunteers at the soup kitchen, and is a Navy veteran of World War II and the Korean war. He retired a few years ago, after a career as an officer for the Lima Police Department and the Chief Investigator for the Allen County Prosecutor. For all their contributions to others and to the Lima community, the legacy of this great couple is their family. Joe and Pat raised 12 children, 11 boys and 1 girl. Mr. Speaker, the lesson of raising such a family on a cop's salary is one that the folks on the Budget Committee should learn from. Joe and Pat's accomplishments are measured by the values they instilled in their 12 kids, their spouses, and their 22 grandchildren. It gives me great pleasure to recognize this strong American family. I join the Garlock's family and friends in wishing them a very happy anniversary and many more years of good health and happiness.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, for those who missed it during the August recess, I would like to bring a column by James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute to the attention of my colleagues. The subject of the piece is the current economic expansion. The most important economic lesson Ronald Reagan taught us is that high tax rates inevitably discourage investment and productivity. The theory behind reducing taxes remains perfectly sound--namely, that people will have a greater incentive to engage in fruitful enterprise if the government confiscates less of their earnings. Through deregulation, privatization, and across-the-board tax cuts, Ronald Reagan unleashed the longest economic expansion in U.S. peacetime history. He also inaugurated a new era of American enterprise and prosperity. The author is right on target when it comes to attacks on so-called trickle-down economics. What the opponents of supply-side tax cuts are really assailing is the simple idea of allowing people to keep more of their own money, so they may invest capital, hire workers, and produce goods and services. Although I would, of course, give the Congress more credit than does the author for the prevailing economic figures, I could not agree more that President Reagan set it all in motion. I would only remind him that the same principles guide today's Congress and, whether they like it or not, members of the current administration. Again Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Jim Glassman to the attention of all interested parties. [From the Washington Post, August 12, 1997] The Reagan Boom (By James K. Glassman) Whose economy is this anyway? Both President Clinton and Congress are eager to take credit for our 3 percent GDP growth, 4.8 percent unemployment and 2.3 percent inflation--amazing figures, all. But government doesn't make things or sell them. People and the companies they create do. What has happened in the past 15 years is that businesses are making things (and providing services) better and cheaper. Through risk-taking, hard work, good management and the exercise of sheet talent, the economy is booming. What have Washington politicians done to effect this success? Practically nothing, except to have the sense, occasionally, to get out of the way. President Clinton and Hill leaders are little more than supernumeraries, bit players in this great economic opera, but they still can't resist shoving to the front of the stage for the curtain calls. For instance, last week, it was particularly annoying to see both Republicans and Democrats reveling in the balanced budget deal--as though this fictive creation were revitalizing the economy. The truth is precisely the opposite: It's the economy that is balancing the budget, not the budget that is boosting the economy. The reason the deficit has fallen from $290 billion in 1992 to $34 billion this year is that a tidal wave of tax revenues, generated by the private sector, has washed into the U.S. Treasury. The figures are astounding. In fiscal 1992, the government collected $1,090 billion in taxes. This year, which ends Sept. 30, it will collect $1,578 billion, according to new estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. Tax receipts are up 45 percent in five years, while inflation has risen only 14 percent. In other words, the government is taking in $488 billion more in 1997 than it did five years ago. Unfortunately, it is also spending $231 billion more. If that rise in spending has only been kept down to the rise in inflation, we'd be running a surplus of about $50 billion this year. This flood of cash is not the result of higher tax rates. Yes, Bill Clinton imposed some increases in 1993, but they were paltry compared with Ronald Reagan's cuts in 1981 and 1986. The top rate, pre-Reagan, was 70 percent on ``unearned'' (meaning investment) income, 50 percent on earned income and 35 percent on capital gains. Those rates have fallen to a maximum of 39.6 percent for income and 28 percent (now 20 percent) for capital gains. And what's happened? Revenues poured in, just as the supply-side economists predicted they would. In 1980, government tax receipts were only $517 billion. Since then, they've risen 205 percent, while consumer prices are up just 85 percent. If not higher tax rates, then what's the reason for the increase in revenues? Businesses are generating more profits, hiring more workers and compensating them better. And government gets a lower percentage of a much higher take. But why are businesses doing so well? The best answers may come from the people who run them. Last month, Investor's Business Daily commissioned a survey of 200 CEOs and chief financial officers from the nation's largest publicly traded firms. They were asked, ``What triggered recent economic growth?'' Leading the list: productivity (making more with less). Second: Federal Reserve policies, which have helped keep inflation low. Next, in order: information technology, restructuring and globalization. The first politician to appear on the list was Ronald Reagan, in sixth place. His policies were credited by 26 percent of the CEOs and CFOs as triggering the surge in growth. Farther down the list, at 14 percent, were ``Bush policies.'' And near the bottom, at 8 percent, were ``Clinton policies.'' Now, I'll admit these captains of industry have GOP leanings, and their answers may be self-serving. But their answers have the force of logic. Consider Silicon Valley, subject of a cover story in Business Week. How did it ``reach its zenith?'' the magazine asks. ``What we found was a huge brain trust, companies galore to service the tech machine, and a daredevil, risk-taking culture.'' No mention of an increasingly irrelevant Washington. In fact, the CEOs and CFOs have it right. Reagan is the only politician who deserves credit for the rebirth of the American economy. But at his Aug. 6 press conference, Clinton could not resist taking a swipe at him. ``In 1993,'' he said, ``we abandoned supply-side, trickle-down economics.'' Nonsense. Supply-side economics is still with us, and it's performed as advertised. In fact, the past 15 years, the longest stretch in U.S. history with just one shallow recession, should be called the Reagan Boom. The incentives of lower tax rates and deregulation have encouraged more risk-taking, less diversion of valuable resources into tax shelters, more sensible investment and work. Revisionism dominates the press today, but the facts were clear nearly a decade ago. ``Measured in 1982-84 dollars, the income tax revenue collected from the top 10 percent of earners rose from $150.6 billion in 1981 to $199.8 billion in 1988, an increase of 32.7 percent,'' wrote James D. Gwartney of Florida State University in the ``Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.'' ``In effect, lower rates soaked the rich.'' The current flood of revenues is merely one result of what is literally a supply-side boom. For all this, politicians shouldn't be congratulating themselves. They should be thanking the robust private sector, plus, of course, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to highlight an especially important milestone for the State of Ohio. From August 15 to the 17, the village of McComb will be celebrating its sesquicentennial birthday. Festivities include opening ceremonies, village tours, and a parade. I would like to recognize this profound civic event. As the Member of Congress, beholden to the constituents of McComb, I appreciate all their hard work which continues to make McComb a vibrant community. Their spirit of family and responsibility serves as a model for other towns to follow. I commend all the villagers of McComb as they celebrate their birthday, and I look forward to many more to come.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 1902, the Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act of 1997. This bill continues Congress' efforts, begun in the 104th Congress, to protect charities from abusive litigation. My colleagues may recall that this legislation was sparked by concerns raised by a nationwide class-action lawsuit filed in Federal court in Texas in 1994. That litigation charged that charitable gift annuities and other similar products that are widely used by charities, universities, and other organizations to raise donated funds, were issued in violation of the securities and antitrust laws. That lawsuit caused great concern among the charities and other organizations that were the suit's target, which saw potential liabilities in the billions of dollars as a result of this litigation and the likely copycat suits that would follow. In 1995, the Commerce Committee moved a bipartisan bill through the Congress to protect these organizations against the securities allegations raised in that lawsuit. That legislation, H.R. 2519, which was supported by the Securities and Exchange Commission, codified and clarified existing administrative exemptions that applied to charitable gift annuities and similar products, which were never intended to fall within the scope of the Federal securities laws as charged by the plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit. That bill passed unanimously in the Commerce Committee and received a resounding vote of 421 to 0 in this body, whereupon it was passed by the Senate on a voice vote and, shortly thereafter, signed into law by the President. Concurrent with our efforts in the Commerce Committee, the Judiciary Committee passed companion legislation to address the antitrust aspects of the Texas litigation. Unfortunately, despite our success in the last Congress, the threat that this litigation presents to charitable and other organizations that use charitable gift annuities and similar products to raise funds has not gone away. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the 1995 antitrust legislation was not broad enough to prevent the plaintiffs from continuing their litigation in this area. Thus, Chairman Hyde and his colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have introduced legislation that will clarify Congress' intention and, we hope, end the litigation threat to charitable organizations across the country. I am pleased to continue to support efforts to preserve the ability of America's charities, universities, and other organizations to use charitable gift annuities and similar products to raise needed funds, and urge the President to sign H.R. 1902 so that the needless threat to these organizations can be laid to rest once and for all.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency for the apprehension of a suspect in the murder of two CIA employees and the wounding of three other individuals near Langley 4 years ago. According to reports, FBI agents took the confessed killer into custody in a covert operation near the Afghan-Pakistani border with intelligence support from the CIA, ending a 4-year international manhunt. The dawn raid was executed without incident. This case demonstrates the vital importance of maintaining a strong U.S. intelligence community. It also reminds us of the value of perseverance in the pursuit of justice. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work done by the FBI and the CIA last week. All America thanks them.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a productive engagement with China, support of American jobs, in support of the people of Hong Kong, in support of human rights, in support of religious freedom, and against the resolution disapproval. I have had an opportunity to visit China on three different occasions. And as my learned friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], had said earlier, China has changed dramatically, has changed dramatically much more than any of us could have anticipated in so many ways. I remember having a discussion with a young lady who was working in this case for an American company in China on our most recent visit. She had been educated here in the United States at a rather prestigious university and then went back to China and began working for an American company based there. She told me that about 20,000 Chinese students are educated in the United States, a total now of over 250,000 of the bright, elite people in China, the people who are the future of China, and that they have been educated in the United States, have gone back to their home country, and have participated in changing China in so many ways. And I thought to myself as I spoke to this young lady that she really represented the future of China, that China is changing dramatically and continues to change in a positive way. And the fact that these students are going back and working for American companies based in China providing modern telecommunications, modern pharmaceuticals, and the like, I think was a real eye opener for all of us who were part of that delegation. It would be a mistake, a huge mistake, if we are going to think somehow that by revoking normal trade relations with China, the same relations we have with everybody else, if we reject MFN, that we in fact have made a huge mistake in our trading relationships with the largest country in the world.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Did the budget negotiators specifically contemplate that such legislation would be a comprehensive Superfund reform bill?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. As I read the budget resolution and the conference report, together with some additional documents that the Committee on the Budget and the administration have issued, there are three separate items concerning Superfund. The bipartisan budget agreement establishes a reserve fund to provide $200 million per year in mandatory spending for so-called orphan share spending for the Superfund program; is that correct?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my further understanding that in order to obtain the additional funding from the reserve fund, the budget resolution requires Congress to pass legislation providing for that additional mandatory spending; is that correct?

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman. And did the negotiators also specifically contemplate a comprehensive Superfund reform bill when they wrote, in the addendum to the budget agreement, that ``Superfund appropriations will be at the President's level if policies can be worked out?''

Mr. OXLEY. We in the Committee on Commerce interpret that as the need for a comprehensive reform bill. Finally, the addendum states that the Superfund tax shall not be used as a revenue offset. Does that reflect an agreement among the negotiators that the Superfund taxes will not be used to pay for tax relief?

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber for two votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' to approve the Journal and ``yea'' on H.R. 956, of which I am cosponsor.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, in April the national unemployment rate reached a 24-year low of 4.9 percent. Ohio's unemployment rate was 4.8 percent for April, according to Ohio Bureau of Employment Services statistics released last Friday. Unemployment fell in every one of the counties of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District. Clearly, the Ohio economy is very strong, with a robust labor market. For the national unemployment rate to crack the 5 percent floor for the first time since the Nixon administration signals a fundamental change in the labor market. The accepted economic thinking has been that even a full-employment economy had a natural unemployment rate of 5 percent or so. That is, that even during times of prosperity and growth you would have structural and short-term unemployment due to the normal function of the labor market, and that the figure was between 5 and 6 percent. The parameters have changed, and it is the result of actions taken by the Republican Congress. Welfare reform probably had the largest single impact. As the States implement the legislation enacted by Congress, individuals are being weaned off welfare and into paying jobs. Over 1.3 million people left the welfare rolls in 1996, more than 650,000 of them in just the last 4 months of the year. When you reform social programs that discourage work, you are bound to get more wage earners. Then there's immigration reform. With the tightening of restrictions on illegal immigration and the termination of benefits like unemployment insurance for illegal immigrants, jobs are moving out of the underground economy and are being filled by legal residents. In addition, efforts made by Congress to deregulate businesses, promote competition, and cut government spending are all contributing to economic growth. The telecommunications and securities reform legislation passed during the 104th Congress are two prime examples where deregulation is eliminating redtape, expanding industries, and putting capital investment to more efficient use to create jobs. Another factor contributing to the sustained economic expansion has been the increase in international trade. Fully half of U.S. economic growth during the past 5 years has been export growth. Free trade policymaking in Washington and a global perspective in Columbus have accrued to the advantage of the Buckeye State, where Governor Voinovich has worked to make Ohio one of the top exporting States in the Nation. International competition benefits the U.S. economy in another important way, by working to keep prices down. We truly are part of a global economy, one result of which is that tight labor markets do not necessarily mean higher prices. What we are experiencing now is record employment without accompanying inflationary pressures. With the exception of a few sectors requiring special skills in short supply, you have full employment without worker shortages. The old notion of what constitutes natural unemployment rates needs to be rethought. The Federal Reserve Board was correct not to raise interest rates yesterday, and it should not do so until such time as there is real evidence of inflationary pressure. Finally, because the balanced budget agreement negotiated by GOP congressional leaders calls for tax cuts for families, capital gains tax relief, and reduced government spending, we can count on lower interest rates, continued job growth, and more money in the pockets of Americans--more of whom are working than at any time in history.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my best wishes and support to the Lima-Allen County, OH, branch of the NAACP, as its members make their final preparations for their annual radiothon. The event, planned for May 24 at the Bradfield Community Center in Lima, will join the Lima-Allen County branch with other branches of the NAACP from across the Nation in an effort to attract new members from the Lima-Allen County community, as well as to inspire old members to renew their commitment. The chapter president, Rev. Robert Curtis, and my friend, Malcolm McCoy, deserve special recognition for their work with the organization. I wish them success in their upcoming radiothon and particularly commend their positive influence on the young people of Lima-Allen County.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support for H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act. As a cosponsor of this important legislation I believe that it will go a long way toward reforming our current public housing system. I am particularly enthusiastic about Title IV, the Home Rule Flexible Grant Option, portion of the overall legislation. The provisions included in Title IV would provide local government leaders with the flexibility to implement new locally developed proposals for meeting the specific housing needs of their communities. Whereas under our current system Public Housing Authorities administer all aspects of sometimes highly regulated Federal housing programs, this new grant would give interested localities the flexibility to implement new innovative programs targeted to meet the housing needs of their own citizens. In the city of Lima, a town in my district, a situation has developed recently that has divided local housing authorities and local government leaders. The situation began when the city's Public Housing Authority went forward with plans to build 28 scattered-site low-income public housing units. With city officials contending that these units are not scattered, and in fact concentrated in one particular area of the city, they filed suit contending that the Public Housing Authority broke Ohio law by not presenting the project to the Lima Planning Commission before going ahead with construction. In an effort to bring both sides together and resolve their differences, at my request, a meeting was set up between HUD officials and officials from the Lima City Council. In fact, a public meeting was also held on this issue, again with HUD officials being present. While HUD officials soon agreed with city officials that indeed they had some legitimate concerns on the 28 scattered-site housing units being congested in one area, ultimately no concrete resolutions came out of these meetings. Unfortunately, the situation worsened. With no resolution from the meetings, and with the city proceeding with the lawsuit, city officials soon found themselves receiving a letter of warning from HUD. The letter stated that as a result of the city's lawsuit against the Public Housing Authority, the department would therefore be withholding funds for both the city's Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. Clearly this situation should never have developed to the point where HUD bureaucrats would feel the need to threaten to withhold funds for programs that have absolutely nothing to do with the city's initial lawsuit. In fact, had all sides sat down and actually addressed each others concerns in the first place, all of this could have possibly been resolved. It is this exact situation that Title IV of H.R. 2 aims to address. By encouraging city officials and Public Housing Authorities to work together to meet the housing needs of their community, conflicts such as the one taking place in Lima today can be averted. While both sides in this dispute clearly have the best interests of community in mind, it is the current housing program framework itself that has pitted both sides against one another. It is clear to me that the Home Rule Flexible Grant Option provisions in this bill would help to encourage greater cooperation between Public Housing Authorities and local elected officials. As one who has witnessed first-hand the negative consequences of having local Public Housing Authorities and local government leaders work at odds with each other, it is clear to me that this new approach is needed. For these reasons I urge all Members to support passage of the Housing Opportunity and Responsibility Act.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my best wishes and support to the Lima-Allen County, OH, branch of the NAACP, as its members make their final preparations for their annual radiothon. The event, planned for May 24 at the Bradfield Community Center in Lima, will join the Lima-Allen County branch with other branches of the NAACP from across the Nation in an effort to attract new members from the Lima-Allen County community, as well as to inspire old members to renew their commitment. The chapter president, Rev. Robert Curtis, and my friend Malcolm McCoy, deserve special recognition for their work with the organization. I wish them success in their upcoming radiothon and particularly commend their positive influence on the young people of Lima and Allen County.