Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the estimable Yogi Berra said, ``It's like deja vu all over again.'' H.R. 688 is the same Leaking Underground Storage Tank bill we passed by a voice vote on the floor just 7 months ago in the last Congress. Except for a couple of technical, completely nonsubstantive changes, everything is the same except the number. The LUST program cleans up leaking underground storage tanks and requires tank owners to put in new tanks meeting tough Federal standards by the end of next year. The program is funded by a dedicated trust fund. Owners of cars pay taxes into the LUST trust fund. On every gallon of gas we pay a one-tenth of a cent tax for the LUST program. This tax went into effect in 1987 and expired at the end of 1995, but only 40 percent of the money we have paid has been spent out on the program. We have spent only $655 million on LUST since 1987 out of $1.7 billion collected. Before we give the taxes another ride, we ought to look carefully at using what we have already collected. Congress did not create the trust fund for the sake of having another trust fund; it was created to fund this particular program. In contrast with some other environmental programs, we taxpayers seem to have gotten an effective program for our LUST money. With financial assistance from EPA cooperative agreements, States have secured cleanup of 140,000 sites since 1987. Contrast this with Superfund. Taxpayers spent $17 billion through the EPA alone in 17 years and only 130 sites or so were taken off the list of the country's worst sites. States should have a bigger role in running Superfund. While I am on the subject, I want Members to know we are working on Superfund reform in my subcommittee on a bipartisan basis with the administration, and I hope our efforts will result in a bill with bipartisan support from our full committee. Back to LUST, H.R. 688 improves the LUST program in two ways: First, it requires EPA to give at least 85 percent of its appropriation to the States each year. This puts the money where the tanks are and where the cleanup work is done. Second, the bill authorizes three new uses of the Federal funding, giving States flexibility to make their programs more effective by, one, putting the money into their financial assurance funds for tank cleanup in cases of financial hardship; two, enforcing requirements that underground tanks meet minimum leak detection and prevention standards by 1998; and, three, administering their State assurance funds. Less than 30 percent of tank owners have come into compliance with the EPA tank requirements that all tank owners will have to meet in 1998. We need to help States meet the financial burdens of the huge enforcement task that is coming down the pike next year. The bill also prohibits States from using the money to help someone comply with the 1998 tank requirements so tax dollars will not be used to put people who have already complied with the law at a competitive disadvantage. This is another good bill for the environment from the Committee on Commerce, and I encourage Members to support this bill as they did just 7 months ago on the floor. I congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer, the sponsor of the bill, for his work, as well as the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bart Stupak, the chief Democrat cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 688) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require at least 85 percent of funds appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to be distributed to States for cooperative agreements for undertaking corrective action and for enforcement of subtitle I of such act, as amended.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Dan Schaefer. (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 on H.R. 688.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will be unavoidably absent from the House Chamber during today's proceedings. If I were present, I would vote ``yea'' on both H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, and House Resolution 91, a resolution providing amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the Congress.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide an extension of 90 days to the effective date of title III of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. The extension of the effective date, which was requested by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt, will help ensure the orderly implementation of the important changes that will be effected by the Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act, which is title III of the Improvement Act. I strongly support this responsible request. The Institute of Certified Financial Planners, which represents many of the investment advisers who will be affected by the Improvement Act, also supports the extension of the effective date of title III. I include for the Record copies of Chairman Levitt's letter to Chairman Bliley, as well as a letter from the Institute of Certified Financial Planners to myself offering their support for this legislation. In addition, I wish to clarify the intent of a provision in title III of the Improvement Act that provides for the establishment of a telephonic or other communication means to provide information about investment advisers' backgrounds. The act directs the Commission to ``provide for the establishment and maintenance'' of this information service. I wish to make it clear that it is entirely within the Commission's authority and consistent with the intention of this provision for the Commission to delegate the responsibility to establish and maintain this service to a third party, as the Commission has done for purposes of the information service provided pursuant to section 15A(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It is also consistent with the purposes of title III that such a third party be able to charge reasonable fees of commercial users of the information service. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, February 12, 1997. Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bliley: I am writing to request that Congress extend the effective date of Title III of the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 for 90 days, from April 9 to July 8, 1997. Title III reallocates regulatory responsibilities over investment advisers between the states and the Commission. The Commission has made substantial progress in completing the many rulemaking directives given to the Commission in the Improvement Act. In October, the Commission proposed a rule providing a safe harbor to allow journalists access to off- shore press conferences. In December, we proposed rules implementing new exemptions from the Investment Company Act for pools sold only to qualified investors. The Commission also proposed, on December 18, 1996, rules to implement Title

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I served 10 years on the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, and having dealt with this issue for a number of years, I truly come to the floor today with mixed emotions. One of the things I learned, I think, long ago when I came to this body was to listen to the folks who are closest to the problem. When I listen to my colleagues from Texas, from Arizona, from southern California, and they explain to me the difficulties of the decertification process, and what it is going to mean to our relations with our neighbors to the South, I think it behooves us to listen to those arguments. This is not a partisan issue. While I agree with all of the failed antidrug policy indictments in this resolution with this administration, that is really beside the point. The point is how do we solve the problem of drugs coming in through our borders from Mexico. I am not certain that the approach we take today, whether it is the Hastert approach or the approach from the committee, really gets that job done. If I had a problem in the Great Lakes region, I would hope that other Members from other parts of the country would listen to my particular problem and pay me some heed, because I might know what I am talking about. I think we ought to really take a look at the arguments being made by our friends on the southern border, and take that into account before we cast this important vote.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Common Cents Stock Pricing Act of 1997, a bill to modernize the way stock prices are quoted in today's securities markets. I am especially pleased to be joined by the ranking member of the Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection subcommittee, Ed Markey, Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, and my colleagues Paul Gillmor, Mike Crapo, Elizabeth Furse, Steve Largent, Greg Ganske, and Rick Boucher in this important initiative. I am proud to continue the tradition in the Commerce Committee of working together with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation that significantly improves the way our securities markets are regulated, as we did last year with the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and the National Securities Markets Improvement Act. The Common Cents Stock Pricing Act will eliminate regulatory obstacles that stand in the way of competitive forces. It will also make stock prices easier to understand for the average investor. The current rules of self regulatory organizations, like stock exchanges, require that stocks trade in fractions. These rules stem from practices from the 17th century, when the colonies used Spanish dollars as their currency. These ancient coins were called ``pieces of eight'' because they could be chiseled into eight pieces, with each piece called a ``bit.'' When organized stock trading began in New York in 1792, stock prices were quoted in bits, or eighths. We don't use Spanish coins today--but the tradition of pricing stocks based on these coins is still with us, in the form of SRO rules. This pricing system based on ancient coins is not just anachronistic. It makes stock prices difficult for average investors to understand. At least one newspaper has recognized this fact--the San Francisco Chronicle recently began printing its stock tables in dollars and cents, instead of fractions. And fractionalized pricing is not simply more difficult to understand than prices in dollars and cents. The rules of Self Regulatory Organizations that impose fractionalized pricing effectively mandate a minimum spread between a stock's buy and sell price of an eighth of a dollar. To the rest of us, that means 12\1/2\ cents. That means that floor traders capture a minimum of 12\1/2\ cents from investors on every trade. SRO rules make it impossible for competition to further narrow the spread for the average investor. Large institutions can get better deals on their trades by negotiating prices on block trades--but regular investors have to pay full freight. Fractionalized stock pricing is out of step with the rest of the world. The United States is the only major market that uses the pieces- of-eight system to price stocks--every other major market in the world uses decimal pricing. The advancement of telecommunications technology is making it increasingly easy to trade stock on exchanges around the world, simply by pressing a computer key. If we are to maintain our position in the United States as the home of the most successful capital markets in the world, we must keep pace--and fractionalized pricing is a thing of the past, not the future. Securities and Exchange Commissioner Steve Wallman has been an outspoken advocate of the need to modernize the pricing rules that apply to U.S. stocks, and provided us with informative testimony at the hearing last week before the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials. Commissioner Wallman estimated that fractionalized stock prices cost retail investors about $1.5 billion a year. Investors could save that money if we converted our stock pricing system to the system we use for virtually everything else we buy--dollars and cents. I have read with interest observations of the Toronto Stock Exchange's recent conversion to decimal pricing. On the Toronto Stock Exchange, there is no longer a minimum spread of 12\1/2\ cents--and, as a result, the spreads that floor traders from public investors has narrowed. I look forward to learning more about that exchange's experience as we proceed with hearings on decimal pricing. I also look forward to learning about how a change to decimal pricing would impact the participants in our markets. In this regard, I intend to hold hearings at which we will hear testimony from experts in securities markets, security firms, stock exchanges, and investors. I welcome the views and comments of all parties that will be affected by this initiative, to ensure that we implement this modernization with practicality and efficiency. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cosponsorship of this important initiative, and encourage all of the Members of the House to support this effort to bring common sense to stock prices in the U.S. markets.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as usual, the columnist Robert J. Samuelson has written very clearly and concisely about the scandals and the so- called attack culture that we find ourselves in today. I recommend the following column to my colleagues: The Attack Culture (By Robert J. Samuelson) ``Scandal'' is the latest word to lose its meaning. The threshold for scandal has moved so low that Washington is almost never without one. The newest is the ``campaign finance'' scandal, but we are still dealing with the Whitewater scandal and the Gingrich scandal. We have a permanent apparatus of investigators, partisans and reporters working full time to discover and publicize alleged wrongdoing--and calling everything they examine a scandal or potential scandal. Growing outrage is expressed over offenses that seem ever more obscure or trivial. Of course, there are genuine scandals, and the behavior of our highest (or lowest) officials must be open to scrutiny. Government and the people who run it can be accountable only if their activities can be inspected. But the process has become twisted into a parody. At last week's press conference, President Clinton was asked 18 questions; 15 concerned campaign fund-raising. Was that the only important matter? What we're seeing is the attack culture. By attack culture, I mean a mind-set and set of practices that go beyond ordinary partisanship, criticism, debate and investigation. What defines the attack culture is that its animating spirit--unexpressed, but obvious--is to destroy and bring down. Does anyone doubt that the assorted Whitewater investigations aim to destroy President Clinton and the first lady? Does anyone doubt that the charges against House Speaker Gingrich were motivated less by ethical sensitivities than the desire to annihilate him politically? Investigation, always a political weapon, is now more so than ever. In a 1990 book (``Politics by Other Means''), political scientists Benjamin Ginsberg and Martin Shefter correctly observed: ``American politics has recently undergone a fundamental transformation. . . . [C]ontending forces are increasingly relying on such institutional weapons of political struggle as legislative investigations, media revelations, and judicial proceedings to weaken their political rivals and gain power for themselves.'' The attack culture originated with Watergate, and Nixon-- destroyed and forced to resign--remains the standard of success. The mimicking of Watergate is increasingly undemocratic and breeds disrespect for the law, politics and (if anyone cares) the press. Most Americans sense that the process is out of control, because no one--no one, that is, who doesn't study these scandals for countless hours--can understand what they're about. What was Gingrich's great offense? Well, he taught a college course (a sin?). Then, some videotapes of the course were used for political promotion (gee, a politician acting political). But wait: The course was financed by tax- deductible charitable donations, which aren't allowed for politics. Therefore, Gingrich committed a no-no and compounded it by providing false information to Congress (an innocent mistake, he claims; a willful deception, say his foes). Clinton may be guilty of a crime in Whitewater, but three investigations--costing more than $24 million--have yet to disclose what it is. I am no fan of Clinton's or Gingrich's; nor am I defending their behavior and certainly wouldn't offer it as a model to my children. But we have elections for voters to decide whether, all things considered, they want to retain their elected leaders. Except in rare cases, that job shouldn't be hijacked by courts, prosecutors or the press with investigations that are increasingly inquisitional. They aim to prejudice people against their target, even if no serious charges are ultimately sustained. The process is abused, because the investigations are selective (often triggered by the target's prominence) and aim (by adverse publicity) to convict and punish the target. The attack culture subsists on personal ambition and various political agendas. Reports want a big story; prosecutors seek convictions; partisans crave power. And the mere act of investigation creates pressures for results. Resources have been committed; reputations are at stake. Hardly anyone wants to say: ``Sorry, nothing here'' or ``It's trivial.'' Every mistake, error or personal excess is elevated to a great evil. Sinister motives are alleged or implied. If it's not a scandal, why bother? It's also guilty until proven innocent. Some investigations are self-fulfilling. There are so many laws and regulations that anyone who is investigated exhaustively may be found to have violated something. And some targets, flustered or embarrassed, blunder into criminal coverups. Nor are the targets only prominent officials. The federal Office of Research Integrity recently cleared an experienced scientist of misconduct. But for three years, he was subject to congressional hearings and had his research branded fraudulent. Those years, he said, ``have been holy hell. They took away my position, my reputation, my work.'' People are smeared because the attack culture is heavy- handed and single-minded. The current furor over campaign financing fits the pattern. It is driven by a coalition of Clinton haters, campaign-finance reformers and the press. The story surely seems compelling: the president (apparently) brokering the Lincoln bedroom for contributions; a host of seedy characters schmoozing at the White House; Al gore dialing for dollars from his office. What's missing is perspective. The $2.96 million returned by the Democratic National Committee constitutes only 1.3 percent of all DNC contributions. Questionable gifts didn't affect the election's outcome, and there's no evidence that donations changed any major policy. Much fund-raising is sleazy. But no one should forget that giving money to a candidate or party is a form of political speech. Donations can't easily be limited without compromising free speech. The present hysteria--nurtured by self-proclaimed reformers-- intentionally obscures this point. All the crusading doesn't reassure the public. Just the opposite. Because most people grasp that the process has been corrupted--being moved by ambition and politics--they put the attackers and the accused increasingly on the same moral plane. A plague on everyone. We become desensitized to genuine scandal because the artificial variety is so common. All democracies need to examine their officials; an enduring dilemma is how to prevent legitimate inquiry from sliding into sanctioned tyranny. When everything's a scandal, we're losing the proper balance.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 5 regarding the appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as U.S. Trade Representative. I had the opportunity to work closely with the Ambassador and Deputy Trade Representative Jeff Lang during negotiations on the WTO Telecommunications Agreement, and I must say that I was pleased with her determination to consult regularly with Congress during these talks, and I do mean regularly. They were most helpful. Perhaps more to the point, I was deeply impressed by what was achieved in Geneva. The agreement covers 95 percent of rural telecom revenue, giving United States firms unprecedented access to markets in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and covers some 70 countries in its sweep. In my opinion, the agreement is proof that Charlene Barshefsky's reputation as a tough, stalwart negotiator is well-deserved, and I would certainly support the waiver. I am just sorry that we really have to have a waiver because I think the provision in current law is too xenophobic and unrealistic. On a related matter I want to correct a continued misperception that was repeated on the floor of the other body during debate on this measure. The gentleman from South Carolina took a statement from the Record made by the chairman of the House Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and inferred from it that the administration, by inference USTR, asked this Member to amend section 310(b) of the Communications Act on their behalf. This is simply not so. The statement alluded to our efforts during debate on the Telecommunications Act to satisfy the concerns of the executive branch regarding international investment in U.S. telecommunications firms. However, the chief changes made were in the area of national security, and we worked very closely with the FBI and National Security Agency and the CIA, and the effect was to tighten the law, not the loosen it. The input we received from the executive branch came at the request of the cosponsor, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the advice we received came primarily from the security agencies, as I recall, not from the Office of the Trade Representative. Of course, I did consult with USTR on the effect my language would have on their negotiations, as any responsible legislator would, but these consultations came at my request, not the other way around, and I wanted to point that out for the record.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to quote the great Yogi Berra and point out that consideration of this bill feels like deja vu all over again. It was just last year that I stood on the floor, managed legislation virtually identical to the bill before us today. That is why I am pleased to join our friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton] again as cosponsor of H.R. 624, the Armored Car Reciprocity Amendments of 1997, and thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] for his leadership in this issue. Armored car crew members have a very dangerous job. They transport billions of dollars' worth of valuables every year, which makes them an increasingly ripe target for attack by everyone from militias to drug gangs to common criminals. In fiscal year 1995, the FBI investigated nearly 70 armored car robberies. In the first 6 months of 1996, they investigated more than 30 new cases of robbery attempts against armored cars and their crews, and I know that it comes as no surprise that there were injuries and fatalities in a number of these cases, as pointed out by previous speakers. Armored car crews are trained professionals who need to be able to protect themselves and their cargo against attack. This bill simply makes it easier for these companies and employees to operate safely and legally and safely in interstate commerce, and that is why I have supported this legislation in the past, why I continue to support it today. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the passing of our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Frank Tejeda. Congressman Tejeda's spirit, his patriotism, his sense of duty, and his service to the Nation and his fellow veterans set an example for all Americans, particularly the youth of San Antonio. The House of Representatives, certainly, is poorer for his loss. I wish to extend my sympathies to his family and friends. Que Dios lo tenga en su Gloria.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Alvin R. Bell a constituent of mine who participated in CIVITAS@Bosnia-Herzegovina, an intensive program to train local teachers in education for democracy. Mr. Bell was part of a team of 18 American educators and 15 teachers from the Council of Europe who were assigned last July to key cities throughout the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The summer training program was developed by the Center for Civil Education as part of a major civic education initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The goals of the program are to help prepare students and their communities for competent and responsible participation in elections and other opportunities 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 and Project Citizen programs that have been very successful in may congressional district. Initial reports evaluating the summer program indicate the materials and teaching methods were enthusiastically received and can be adapted for use in classrooms throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Alvin Bell is a teacher at Findlay High School in my hometown of Findlay, OH. Over the years Mr. Bell has brought five different teams of students to Washington, DC to compete in the We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution national finals, an academic competition involving simulated Congressional hearing to test the knowledge of your youth in 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-Herzegovina summer training program. His work, is helping to achieve the overall objective to building support for democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding to me. Let me also heap praise on him and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. Other than the fact that both gentlemen have funny accents, they have very little in common, except for their efforts to craft legislation that will last for a long, long time. In both the telecommunications legislation, the first major telecommunications legislation in 62 years, and now the Securities Act, both gentlemen have shown terrific leadership on both these very important issues. Indeed, your legacy, Jack, will be with these two major pieces of legislation. For that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] is to be congratulated by all of the Members.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2579) to establish the National Tourism Board and the National Tourism Organization to promote international travel and tourism in the United States, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2579 establishes a new, privately funded, and privately managed tourism organization to represent and promote international travel and tourism to the United States. I would note that in 1993, Ohio benefited from $443 million in travel and tourism receipts, ranking 18th among the States. This bill is about less government and better government--by the people and for the people. It repeals the statutory language authorizing the largely ineffective U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, and privatizes its tourism functions as much as possible into a nationwide private organization--the U.S. National Tourism Organization, or USNTO. My first concern when I first reviewed this legislation, is why the Federal Government needed to be involved at all in establishing a private tourism organization. This legislation is important because it allows the Government to play the role of honest broker in establishing a balanced and unbiased organization. Operating in a highly competitive marketplace, there is currently just not enough trust among individual travel and tourism interests to allow any single group to initiate an industry-wide tourism promotion association. Companies are still too dubious about each others' motives to be willing to participate and fund this new startup. Thus, the Federal Government is acting, at no cost to the taxpayers, just to bypass the normal negotiation, paperwork, and antitrust concerns among industries--creating an incorporated, nonprofit organization, and allowing them full use of a reserved trademark and emblem without processing fees, in order to raise funds and carry out their business. This is the model successfully used when Congress created the U.S. Olympic Committee many years ago. This legislation is also necessary to provide the USNTO a special role in formulating a coordinated national travel and tourism strategy for our country. One of the reasons the USTTA was disbanded is because the travel and tourism industries believed that their concerns were not being sufficiently addressed by the current and previous administrations--that they were butting up against a brick wall of beltway bureaucracy. H.R. 2579 directs the various Federal agencies which affect the travel and tourism industry to give priority consideration to the USNTO's recommendations, and to report to Congress on their travel and tourism related activities. While the agencies are not necessarily required to follow all of the USNTO's recommendations, the bill signals the intent of Congress that the USNTO is the federally sanctioned and primary spokesman for the travel and tourism industry, and that current and future administrations must pay attention to their concerns. Furthermore, the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, a Federal committee tasked with coordinating trade policy across Federal agencies, is now required to make their reports reflect, to the degree considered appropriate, the recommendations of the USNTO. The Tourism Policy Council, a similar body dedicated solely to the promotion of travel and tourism, is slimmed down by the bill, with fewer regulations, more flexibility, and with the former role of the now disbanded USTTA privatized and transferred to the USNTO. This bill thus gives the Federal Government an important and valuable role in jump-starting this USNTO private tourism promotion organization, giving it a federally sanctioned role as a priority spokesman for the industries. It involves no Federal expenditures, but does tell the Executive branch to wake up and listen to the newly coordinated private sector. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Queens, NY, Mr. Manton, as well as my good friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth, from the Committee on International Relations. I would say that Toby Roth's middle initial ought to be ``I''; it ought to be Toby ``I'' Roth, and the ``I'' is for ``indefatigable''. He has worked so hard and so well on crafting this legislation. Certainly their hard work, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], has gone a long way towards bringing this important bill forward. I urge my colleagues' support for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the aforementioned gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. Mr. ROTH Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for America's travel and tourist industry, the second largest industry in America and the most dynamic industry in America. It is also a great day for the 307 members of the Travel and Tourist Caucus, the largest caucus in Congress, and as chairman of the caucus and as a lead sponsor of the bill, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their help in making this day possible. First I want to thank, of course, the chairman of the full Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]; I only had to ask him once in the gym to bring this bill up; and I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], my neighbor, for all of his help and his leadership in refining this bill and bringing this bill to the floor today. Mike, I want to say, Thanks for your help; this is very important to the people who work in the travel and tourist industry, and 1 out of every 10 people in America works in the travel and tourist industry. And I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton], the ranking member, for all the help and all the advice he has given me with this legislation. So I want to thank them for their help, and let me thank the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the Gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], for expediting the consideration of this measure. And also, of course, I want to thank the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], for his cooperation in bringing up this bill. Finally, let me thank the 262 Members of the House who cosponsored this bill, a solid and bipartisan majority of the House. Today we are successfully completing an initiative that began a year ago when the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism took place. We had more than 1,700 CEO's and other people in the travel and tourism industry come to Washington and help craft this legislation. We do have a problem in travel and tourism, and that is how are we going to reverse the decline in America's share of the $300 billion global market, the market that will double in size in the next decade. To show my colleagues how important travel and tourism is, when the futurists come here to Capitol Hill, for example, before my committee, they said there are three pillars in the 21st century that jobs will come from: telecommunications, information technology, and travel and tourism. So today we are working on one of the three great pillars for jobs in the 21st century. This bill was the No. 1 recommendation of the White House conference on Travel and Tourism. The core of the bill, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] pointed out, is to harness the marketing expertise and the resources of the private sector and devise new and more effective ways to promote the United States as a travel destination for the international traveller. Why is this so important? Well, the reason this is so important is not only because 1 out of every 10 jobs in America is in the travel and tourist industry, and worldwide travel and tourism is the largest industry in the world, but we are losing ground, America, in a growing market. Two years ago we had 18 percent of the world's travel market; now we are down to 16 percent, 2 million fewer visitors this year than we had 2 years ago. Two million, that is a huge decline. We lost some $3 billion in revenue, and 177,000 jobs could have gone to the Americans but instead today are going to other countries. What is worse, under current projections our market share will keep declining to less than 14 percent by the year 2000. That is only 4 years from now. We clearly need a new initiative to turn the situation around. In the travel business, marketing is key. In the travel business, promotion today translates into increased visitor volume. Our major competitors understand this, which is why they are pouring money into tourist promotion. Today the U.S. is outclassed and outgunned in the global market. In fact, we rank 33d in the world in resources devoted to national tourism marketing. Other countries are outspending us 10 to 1. Now this bill will help redress the imbalance. But as has been pointed out, instead of more government, we provide a new entity for the private sector to take more of an initiative and more emphasis in this role. The U.S. National Travel and Tourism Organization and the National Tourism Board will devise a national strategy to recapture the global market. Congress, the President and the key Federal trade-related agencies will receive recommendations from the best experts in the national tourism industry. As a result, we will strengthen the future of the Nation's travel and tourism industry and the 13 million Americans who work in this great industry. The future growth of American travel and tourism is vitally dependent on international visitors. Already one-fifth or $80 billion of our $400 billion national industry comes from overseas visitors. The money spent here by international visitors contributes to 11 percent of our total export volume. This bill will help our industry grow. It will create new jobs and it will strengthen our trade balance. That is why some of us in Congress are dedicated to helping our travel and tourist industry. It is why we have worked closely with the leaders of this industry to build support for this bill. Today everyone involved in this effort can be proud of what we have accomplished. In this bill Congress takes a big step toward a brighter future for the millions of Americans who have made the travel and tourist industry the most dynamic in America and, quite frankly, around the world. Let me close by saying again that in the 21st century the three great areas of jobs, according to the futurists, are telecommunication, information technology, travel and tourism. So I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. Mr. Dingell has given me some good advice in my 18 years in Congress, and I want to thank him for his advice on this piece of legislation because he made it possible. Of course I also want to thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton] for their advice and their good work. The people whoring in the 21st century are going to thank them for this legislation, as are the people that are working the travel and tourist industry here in America today and around the world.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say, with friends like the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who needs enemies? But I know Don Quixote from Detroit will put himself down as undecided, and move on. We appreciate his remarks. Mr. Speaker, let me just point out, before recognizing the minority side, that this legislation was carefully crafted to be a bill that tracked the creation of the U.S. Olympic Committee. I do not think anybody can really make an argument that creation of the U.S. Olympic Committee was not a huge success, both commercially and as a way of getting our best athletes on the field. So we were very careful, and I credit the gentleman from Wisconsin for doing exactly that, understanding how effective that legislation creating the U.S. Olympic Committee was. I know my friend, the gentleman from Detroit, has some problems with it, but I have to say that 270, now, cosponsors of the bill think otherwise. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a recent column by Robert J. Samuelson to the attention of my colleagues. The subject is media coverage of the economy. I am dismayed by the inferior quality of reporting on economic issues presented by the national news media. Whether the topic is the minimum wage, foreign investment, tax policy, or international trade, the American public is fed a steady diet of conjecture and cliche in the guise of hard economic reporting. What we have is journalism based on emotion and ideology rather than fact or economic principle. We have business page editors more interested in financial scandal than financial growth, and features editors obsessed with fiscal misfortune. Negativism, sensationalism, and economic illiteracy rule the airwaves and the news page. The complexities of the domestic and global economies are frequently ignored in favor of melodramatic stories and conclusions unsupported by common experience or economic fact. Tax and trade issues are taken out of context or selectively reported in a manner promoting protectionist demagoguery and economic resentments. Ultimately, culpability for this state of affairs rests with senior editors seemingly unfamiliar with accepted economic theory. Frozen in a Keynesian, New Deal mentality, they seem wedded to redistributionist, big-government solutions to every economic trepidation, real or imagined. The result of decades of decision-making by liberal-leaning editors is an institutional bias against conservative economic theory and a brand of reporting infused with prejudice against conservative policies. Republican initiatives are panned or ignored, while the studies of every left-wing think tank in Washington, DC are dutifully reported without dissent or criticism. Again Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Robert Samuelson to the attention of all interested parties. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 1996] Junk Journalism 101 (By Robert J. Samuelson) The Philadelphia Inquirer began a 10-part series last week titled ``America: Who Stole the Dream?'' that will attract attention. The thesis is simple: Big Government and Big Businesses are relentlessly reducing living standards and job security for most Americans. The series, by Donald Barlett and James Steele, portrays living in America as a constant hell for all but the super-wealthy. This seems overdrawn, because it is. It's junk journalism, and the intriguing question is why a reputable newspaper publishes it. I call it ``junk,'' because it fails the basic test of journalistic integrity and competence: It does not strive for truthfulness, however impossible that ideal is to attain. It does not seek a balanced picture of the economy--strengths as well as shortcomings--or an accurate profile of living standards. Instead it offers endless stories of people who have suffered setbacks. Their troubles are supposed to speak for (and to) everyone. They don't. Statistics implying lower living standards are contradicted by what people buy or own. Home ownership (65 percent of households) is near a record. In 1980, 11 percent of households owned a microwave oven, 37 percent a dishwasher and 56 percent a dryer; by 1993, those figures were 78 percent, 50 percent and 68 percent. People buy more because their incomes are higher. (Statistics understate incomes by overstating inflation's effect on ``real'' wages and salaries.) As for anxiety, it exists--and always will. But America is not clinically depressed. The Gallup poll reports that 66 percent of Americans expect their financial situation to improve in the next year. The Inquirer's twisted portrait of the economy is not, unfortunately, unique. Earlier this year, the New York Times ran a distorted series (which I criticized) on corporate ``downsizing.'' A recent ``CBS Reports'' called ``Who's Getting Rich? and Why Aren't You?'' is another example. Explanations for this sort of shoddy journalism fall into three classes: (1) sensationalism--it sells; (2) ideology-- journalists detest the profit motive; and (3) ignorance--they don't know better. Sensationalism and anti-business bias are old hat, but the larger problem, I think, is ignorance or something akin to it. Journalism copes awkwardly with the ambiguities of many economic stories. We're most comfortable with scandals, trials, politics, sports and wars. The conflicts are obvious, moral judgments often can be made, and stories have clean endings. The economy defies such simple theater. The process by which wealth is created is unending and complex. Costs and benefits are comingled. What's bad today may be good tomorrow. What hurts some may help many others. Low inflation is good, but ending high inflation may require something bad: a harsh recession. The capacity of journalist to recognize such distinctions has grown since 1969, when I first began reporting on the economy. Daily economic stories have improved in quality. But there's one glaring exception to the progress: the nation's top editors. Outside the business press (for example, the Wall Street Journal), the people who run newspapers, magazines and TV news divisions don't know much about the economy--and seem unbothered by their ignorance. The assumption is that most economic stories are done by specialized reports and aimed at specialized audiences. While this assumption holds, editorial ignorance doesn't matter much. Little damage occurs if know-nothing editors don't do much. But on big projects--newspaper series, magazine cover stories, TV documentaries--the assumption collapses. Editorial control shifts upward, and there's a scramble for familiar news formulas. Editors want villains and heroes, victims and predators. Reporters who promise simple morality tales can sell their stories. The frequent result is journalistic trash. The Inquirer series blames the ``global economy'' and ``free trade'' policies for lowering wages and destroying jobs. What it doesn't say is that the trade balance and employment are hardly connected. Barlett and Steele deplore the fact that the last U.S. trade surplus was in 1975, but they don't tell readers that the unemployment rate in 1975 was 8.5 percent. They note that other countries run trade surpluses. Between 1980 and 1995, Germany had 16, the Netherlands 14 and Sweden 13. But they don't say that the unemployment rates for their countries are 9 percent for Germany, 6 percent of the Netherlands and 9 percent for Sweden. By contrast, the U.S. rate is 5.1 percent. Trade doesn't determine unemployment, because trade mainly affects a small part of the job base: manufacturing. In 1995, its share of all U.S. jobs was 16 percent. Trade creates some jobs and destroys others, but total employment depends mainly on the economy's overall vitality. The United States runs regular trade deficits in part because the rest of the world wants dollars to finance global commerce or substitute for weak local currencies. As a result, we don't have to sell as much abroad as we buy; the difference is made up by the dollars other countries keep. All those extra imports raise-- not lower--U.S. living standards. If Barlett and Steele wanted to inform readers, they'd explain all this. But they're mainly interested in condemning. Everything they discuss (trade policies, growing income inequality, executive compensation) is the legitimate stuff of journalism. What's illegitimate is to report matters so selectively--with so little attention to conflicting evidence or any larger context--that ordinary readers are misled. The press can do better. The Los Angeles Times recently ran a good series on the gains that economic change creates as well as trauma it inflicts. The real fault here lies with the top editors (at the Inquirer, the Times and other media giants) who commission or approve these distortions. There's no excuse for their ineptness. The ``economic story'' is no longer new. It is central to the American condition and, therefore, a permanent concern of journalism. If editors don't understand the economy, they can't exercise good judgment. The present sanctioned stupidity leads to junk journalism.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday September 24, 1996, I was unavoidably absent from the House Chamber during rollcall vote Nos. 425 to 429. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' in all cases.