Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would only correct the previous speaker, my good friend from California, in one respect. He said he represented a district like everybody else's. The Monterrey Peninsula is a lot different from some of the other districts, and a wonderful place that the gentleman should be quite proud of and one that I am sure attracts tourists from all over the world, a great place in the world to be from, and his remarks were right on point.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 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 insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 2579.

Mr. OXLEY

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. Schaefer], the author of the legislation who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation improves the Underground Storage Tank program, a program under which States are already well protecting human health and environment from petroleum and other tank leaks. With Federal financial assistance, States have secured cleanup of about 140,000 sites. In 1986, Congress created the leaking underground storage tank trust fund, paid for with a one-tenth of 1 cent tax on gasoline. The fund is used to enforce cleanup requirements; conduct cleanups when there is no solvent responsible party, when there is an emergency, or when the responsible party refuses to cooperate; and take cost recovery actions. Only 36 percent of the funds collected since 1987--$600 million out of $1.7 billion--have been spent for the program. EPA gives most of its appropriation to States under cooperative agreements, which spell out exactly what the States will use the money for each year. H.R. 3391 does two key things. First, it requires EPA to give at least 85 percent of its appropriation to the States each year. Requiring EPA to give States 85 percent of its appropriation will ensure that the money is going where the tanks are, and where the cleanup work is actually done. EPA already gives an average of 86 percent per year to the States, so 85 percent is no stretch. Second, the bill authorizes three new uses of the fund, which gives the States more flexibility to make their programs more effective. It allows States to put the money into their financial assurance funds, where they would be used for tank cleanups in cases of financial hardship. It allows the States to use the money to enforce Federal requirements that underground tanks be brought up to minimum leak detection and prevention standards by 1998. And it allows States to use the Federal money to administer their State assurance funds. Up to 75 percent of tank owners and operators have not yet come into compliance, even though the regs are 8 years old. We need to help the States meet the financial burdens of the potentially huge enforcement task that is coming down the pike in the next 2 years. The bill also requires EPA to keep using its current formula for allocating LUST dollars among the States, and prohibits EPA from cost recovering from owners and operators any money given to States for corrective actions under State assurance programs. Finally, it prohibits States from using the money to help someone comply with the 1998 tank requirements, so tax dollars won't be used to put people who have already complied at a competitive disadvantage. This bill will help make the underground storage tank program even more effective and will help the environment by guaranteeing money will get out to the States, and by giving the States the flexibility to put the money to use in new ways. I want to add that the requirement that 85 percent of the money be given to the States may help make the case with the appropriators that more money should be spent from the trust fund over the next couple of years to help meet the rising enforcement needs. If we assure that more money means more environmental protection, not more money spent on administrative overhead, there is a better case for increased funding, and I think the 85 percent provision helps make that case. This legislation is supported by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America, the National Association of Convenience Stores, and the National Coalition of Petroleum Retailers. I would like to thank all of these groups for their input. I want to congratulate Chairman Schaefer for authoring the bill and thank members for making this a bipartisan success, passing by voice vote at the subcommittee and the full committee. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton], my ranking member, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], for their leadership on this very important issue. 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. 3391) 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. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] for his strong work in this area for a number of years, working to get a bill passed. I think we are just about there. We would not have been there without the efforts of the gentleman from Montana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4167) to provide for the safety of journeymen boxers, and for other purposes.

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 rise in support of H.R. 4167, the Professional Boxing Safety Act. This bill represents months of bipartisan, bi-committee, and bicameral negotiations. Its primary purpose is to establish a State and privately run system for licensing professional boxers. H.R. 4167 is identical to H.R. 1186, which was marked up by the Committee on Commerce on September 18, and reported to the full House on September 24, 1996. Since the provisions of the bills are identical, it is the intent of the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities that the Committee on Commerce report on H.R. 1186 should serve as the legislative history governing the interpretation of H.R. 4167. I include for the Record a memorandum of understanding between Chairman Bliley and Chairman Goodling on this point. The memorandum referred to is as follows: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 25, 1996. Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: We are writing regarding the jurisdiction and legislative history of H.R. 4167, the Professional Boxing Safety Act, which has been introduced today by Rep. Pat Williams and Rep. Michael G. Oxley and referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and in addition to the Committee on Commerce and H.R. 1186, the Professional Boxing Safety Act, which was referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. After negotiations between the two Committees, H.R. 1186 was favorably reported from the Committee on Commerce and agreed to be considered under suspension of the House Rules. Subsequently and in honor of the retirement of Rep. Pat Williams, our friend and colleague, Rep. Williams introduced H.R. 4167, Professional Boxing Safety Act, which is identical to the Commerce Committee reported bill to H.R. 1186 and we have agreed to consider this bill in lieu of consideration of H.R. 1186. We now agree that the legislative history of H.R. 1186 should be deemed part of the legislative history of H.R. 4167, Professional Boxing Safety Act and that the jurisdiction of the two Committees should not be prejudiced by any of these events. Sincerely, Bill Goodling, Chairman, Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Thomas J. Bliley, Chairman, Committee on Commerce. Mr. Speaker, when people think of professional boxing they imagine the multi-million dollar fight with Mike Tyson or George Foreman or Tim Witherspoon in the corner. But the vast majority of professional matches are between two little known boxers, fighting for less than $100 per round, who are often intentionally mismatched to provide the crowd with a spectacle of gore. Unlike every other major American sport, there is no merit system in boxing for advancing to a title. Sanctioning bodies are controlled by promoters with their own agendas. Even the officials who regulate boxing through the State commissions often have personal financial interest and involvement in their own pet fighters. With fraud and corruption allowed to run rampant in boxing, it's no wonder that we've had so many boxers left penniless, with severe medical injuries, forced to depend for health care and survival on the backs of the Federal taxpayers. Boxing needs reform, and it needs it now. This bill is not something dreamed up by Washington bureaucrats to be imposed on the States. Rather, these reforms have been specifically requested and actively supported by State boxing commissions around the country. Commissioner after commissioner has complained to us that State suspensions are flouted by boxers who hop from town to town fighting under different names, ignoring failed drug tests and medical injuries, ultimately leaving Federal health care and welfare programs to pick up the tab after their bodies have broken down. So long as there are no uniform licensing procedures for reviewing, honoring, and appealing commission authorized suspensions, States will remain powerless to enforce their own health and safety regulations, with the taxpayers losing out as the result. This bill requires that no professional boxing match be held without the approval of a State authorized commission. The commission may be public or private, and no State is required under this bill to establish a commission. If a State chooses not to get involved in regulating boxing, then the promoter of a fight is allowed to contract with an authorized boxing commission of any other State to come in and supervise a fight. This bill is not a cure-all for every problem that boxing faces. But it is a huge step in the right direction. It enacts strict conflict of interest provisions, establishes minimum protections for boxers, and empowers States to enforce their own suspensions. I recognize that many of my colleagues believe that this compromise goes too far, while others feel it does not go far enough to involve the Federal Government in helping the States regulate professional boxing. But after decades of legislative neglect, professional boxing needs uniform State-supervision before it can clean up its act. This is a good bill, a good compromise, and a much needed reform. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me just again thank the gentleman from Montana for his leadership. As all of you know, this is Pat Williams' last term, he is retiring, will be leaving Congress after a distinguished number of years here. This is in many ways a tribute to Pat Williams and his dedicated service here in the Congress. I wanted to point that out to the Members and for the record. Also, to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manton, my ranking member; also the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, the chairman; the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, as well, the ranking member; Senator McCain who had worked so feverishly on this bill; and last, the gentleman from New Mexico, Bill Richardson, who has had an interest in this issue and was one of those I had mentioned that wanted to go further with this legislation but was kind enough to work on a compromise with an understanding that we would work together in the next Congress on some other legislation dealing with the boxing issue. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a favorable consideration of the bill, and I yield back 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 on H.R. 4167 and H.R. 3391, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would commend to my colleagues the following article of September 2, 1996, authored by Mr. Jim Nichols of the Cleveland Plain Dealer. The article summarizes new scientific findings that discredit the theory that the Midwest is responsible for the air pollution findings of the Northeast. This further confirms the findings of the Government-funded NAPA report, which was completed a number of years ago. This research should be considered in setting Federal policies in a number of areas. [From the Plain Dealer, Sept. 2, 1996] Findings Cloud Pollution Theories--Midwest Smog May Not Drift to the Northeast (By Jim Nichols) As the summer cools down, the politics and economics of air pollution are heating up. The early results from highly advanced computer modeling are casting a haze of doubt over a persistent claim from Atlantic Seaboard states that Ohio and the Midwest are the culprits in the Northeast's smog problems. The modeling results, released at a multistate air-quality planning meeting in July, show that certain key air pollutants don't drift as far across state borders as previously believed, experts familiar with the models say. The computer simulations, though incomplete, indicate key windborne pollutants that are components of smog are likely to blow no more than 200 miles, not many hundreds or even thousands of miles, as researchers previously believed. The results weaken theories that are especially popular among Northeastern states--that coal- and oil-fired power plants in the Midwest and Southeast are to blame for smog in Boston, New York and Maine. Though much more modeling remains to be done, many air- quality experts say the early implications are huge. The results, some believe, could weaken the Atlantic Seaboard region's argument that Ohio and other upwind states should spend billions of dollars on new smog controls to help clean the Northeast's air. Regulators and scientists studying seaboard-state smog, for instance, are contemplating advanced pollution controls on Midwestern and Southern power plants that are as strict as those in place in the high-smog region. Utility and coal interests have estimated the cost of such controls to Midwestern and Southeastern electrical customers at $18 billion to $27 billion annually. Centerior Energy Corp. pegs the cost between $200 million and $500 million annually here. fearful of costs The findings seem to reinforce the theory that local and regional air pollution programs in the Northeast are the only significant way to solve the region's perennial failure to meet federal clean-air standards. Officials in the problem states have long feared that the higher cost of living and doing business resulting from stricter emission controls on power plants and factories has put the region at a competitive disadvantage. Some Northeastern states have scrapped their versions of E- check auto-emissions testing amid public outcry, saying such political hot potatoes are meaningless if the air drifting in from afar is so foul. ``Clearly, this is not what the 13 states in the [Northeast] want to hear,'' said Ray Evans, environmental- affairs manager for Centerior Energy Corp. ``The East Coast utilities have flat out said that we in the Midwest are the problem and our ratepayers are going to have to pay.'' Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Donald Schregardus said, ``It's kind of what we thought. * * * It says to those states, `You fix your cars, and then we [in the Midwest] will talk about spending $5 billion to fix our power plants.'' Schregardus and his air-quality division chief, Robert Hodanbosi, said the computer simulations show that even on days when Northeastern smog was at its worst, the drift from faraway states downwind made no more than a few percentage points' difference. Evans and other officials familiar with the modeling results confirmed that. ``I was surprised at the limited impacts,'' Hodanbosi said. The early findings do not necessarily mean Ohioans and other Midwesterners will forever and completely avoid the costly new smog controls, said Schregardus and experts conducting the modeling. The results, after all, show those proposed reduction strategies will help achieve cleaner air in the Midwest. If models show that the advanced pollution controls would be needed for certain Midwestern areas to meet federal clean-air targets, certain parts of the Midwest could still implement controls as stringent as those already imposed on power plants and factories in the Northeast. Further, the federal EPA is expected to tighten air- pollution limits nationwide significantly later this year. The limits have not been determined yet, but Ohio EPA officials predict that no major metro area in the state--and few in the nation--will comply without significant emission reductions from cars and smokestacks. But for now, at least, ``It's conceivable that with the information on the table, the Midwest could make an argument that they don't have that much impact on the Northeast,'' said Danny Herrin, an executive with the Atlanta-based Southern Corp, an electric utility following the modeling closely. the ozone mix The subject of the computer modeling is ozone, a gas that occurs both naturally and as a result of man-made pollution. Where it forms by natural processes in the upper atmosphere, ozone reflects harmful ultraviolet radiation away from Earth. But when it builds up near the ground, it is a powerful respiratory irritant that apparently can trigger asthma attacks and debilitating breathing problems, especially among people with lung disease, the elderly, children and people who work outdoors. In high concentrations, ozone also has been linked to permanent lung damage and can harm trees and crops. Ozone forms when fumes called hydrocarbons react in hot summer sunlight with other airborne pollutants called nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons come from auto emissions and other combustion processes, and from evaporating gasoline, solvents and paints. The principal source of nitrogen oxides are fossil-fuel power plants. Atmospheric and environmental scientists began concluding in the late 1980s that nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons are capable of drifting on air currents until they encounter the right conditions to interreact and form ozone. When Congress revised the Clean Air Act's ozone limits in 1990, it identified dozens of metropolitan areas in states from Maine to Virginia as chronic violators of the act's ozone limit of 125 parts of ozone per billion parts of air. The law recognized that the states' balance levels of ozone were so high that only a regional approach to cuts would allow individual cities to comply with the law. States in the Atlantic Seaboard region agreed in writing three years ago to adopt their own strict new limits on nitrous oxide output from power plants, in addition to measures ordered by Congress and the federal EPA. But they also enlisted the EPA to run computer simulations to determine whether the so-called ozone-transport phenomenon would rule out regional controls. The early EPA modeling in 1993 proved controversial, showing the Northwest's baseline levels were high not just because of the heavily populated region's contributions but because of dirty air blowing in from the Midwest and South. While critics in downwind states--especially utilities and coal interests--attacked the model as inaccurate, the Northeastern states began pressuring the EPA for a ``super- regional'' approach that would require similar control measures for upwind states. States in the South and Midwest resisted initially but agreed to study the issue. A national organization of state environmental officials formed the Ozone Transport Assessment Group, comprising 37 states--all those east of the Mississippi and those along its western banks. The group now includes more than 500 environmental regulators, technical experts and representatives of environmental groups, industry and utilities--all studying ozone transport and its effects. The assessment group was formed for two reasons. One was to develop a far more sophisticated computer simulation of ozone transport. The other was to develop pollution-control policies for all 37 states to impose, voluntarily, to reduce ozone in the Northeast. As a first step, states conducted far-reaching ``inventories'' of all major and minor sources of ozone- forming pollutants, including estimates of emissions from cars, factories, evaporating paint, gasoline stations and other sources. An assessment group committee of atmospheric and environmental scientists and computer experts developed a computer program that applies that emissions data to know wind and weather patterns. It simulates drift and compares predicted ozone levels at hundreds of locations to those actually measured. Another committee compared particularly bad spells in the summers of 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1994. When the assessment group began running the computer program this spring, results from the simulations proved remarkably similar to the real conditions, said Michael Koerber, who chairs the group's modeling committee. ``We're convinced that the model works and is giving us the right results for the right reasons,'' said Koerber, director of a consortium of air-quality officials from states around Lake Michigan. Then the modeling experts began running what Koerber calls `'what-ifs.'' They asked the computer what changes would result if lower emissions from certain control measures were applied across the 37-state ``super-region''--if power plants were forced to change their operations, for instance, or cleaner-burning cars were mandated. Many more simulations remain to be run--at a cost of more than $1 million each--to measure the effects of changing emissions variables in smaller and smaller parts of the super-region. However, the theory of long-range ozone drift has already begun to break down. The simulations showed that drift existed. But while Chicago may suffer from St. Louis' emissions, or Cleveland from Columbus', there was little evidence that those cities were having major impacts on the Northeast. ``It's really something we're just starting to get some information on, and we really need to investigate further,'' Koerber said. But, he added: ``The 1,000-mile distance seems to be a bit of a stretch from a transport standpoint.'' competitiveness is issue Some participants in the assessment group are worried that the new data may strain the group's cooperative spirit and lead to a return of finger-pointing. If utilities in the Northeast face higher costs than those in the Midwest, for instance, they would be at a competitive, disadvantage in the coming environment of deregulation. The federal government is moving toward a system in which industrial customers will be able to choose their power company without regard to its geographic location. ``Clearly, this is a competitive issue between East Coast utilities and Midwest utilities,'' said Centerior's Evans. Hodanbosi and other participants said pressure is mounting from some Northeastern participants not to run more detailed models that could further solidify the case that the Midwest's effects there are minimal. ``Anytime you have those kinds of conflicts, you can expect it to be contentious,'' said Illinois EPA Director Mary Gade, who chairs the committee that will ultimately recommend pollution-control policies that will apply across the membership of the assessment group. ``I think we're going to be in for some heated policy decisions in the next several months. ``The nice thing is that the process to this point has been a very open and collaborative process. We'll see if we can hold onto that.''

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 447.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 447) to establish a toll free number in the Department of Commerce to assist consumers in determining if products are American- made, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 447, a bill to establish a toll free number in the Department of Commerce to assist consumers in determining if products are American-made. This bill, introduced by my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Traficant, was passed unanimously by the House during the 103d Congress, but unfortunately was never passed by the Senate. The legislation reflects the bipartisan consensus reached in the 103d Congress that a toll free number which would provide consumers with information on products ``made in America'' would be a significant benefit, but that any such program should be funded by manufacturers and not taxpayers. Thus, the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to canvass industry to determine the level of interest in establishing this kind of toll free number. If the Secretary determines that there is interest among manufacturers of domestic products sufficient to provide private sector funding, then the Secretary is directed to contract out the operation of the line to an organization that would charge a fee for listing products as ``made in America'' and providing this information to consumers. This legislation protects the American taxpayer from the threat of another program which drains the Treasury with limited benefit to the taxpayers. If there is sufficient interest on the part of manufacturers who would pay the operating costs, the program goes forward; if not, then it doesn't. Either way, the taxpayer is no worse off than before. As some of my colleagues may be aware, the Federal Trade Commission is the agency charged with enforcing unfair or deceptive advertising of products as ``made in America.'' About 1 year ago, the FTC began an effort to reexamine its decades-old standard of what constituted ``made in America.'' The Commission is currently awaiting a staff recommendation on what changes--if any--are necessary in the FTC's ``made in American'' standard. When Mr. Traficant appeared before my subcommittee 2 months ago, he testified that he had no objection to ensuring that the definition of ``made in America'' used in the bill reflected the extensive work that the Federal Trade Commission has completed on this subject. The subcommittee later approved an amendment to ensure that the definition of ``made in America'' used for purposes of this toll free number is consistent with the definition used by the FTC, both now and in the future. This is part of an ongoing effort of the Commerce Committee to simplify definitions and statutes within its jurisdiction, in order to better allow average citizens to understand the law. This legislation would establish an important service for consumers paid for by the manufacturers that it benefits. This is legislation which is simultaneously pro-consumer and pro-industry. But most importantly, it is 100 percent pro-American. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to bring this legislation to the floor, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, for his hard work on the program access issue. As many know, that was a very hotly debated issue back in 1992 during the cable reregulation legislation, and one of the provisions that made the most sense in an otherwise rather flawed bill. Clearly, that issue is incredibly important to our rural constituents as well. I commend him for his consistent work on this for a number of years.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3553, the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1996, is a straight 2-year reauthorization of the agency. This legislation, cosponsored by my distinguished subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Manton, authorizes appropriations of $107 million in fiscal year 1997 and $111 million in fiscal year 1998 for the operations of the Federal Trade Commission. These amounts reflect a current services budget for the agency and include no funding for an expansion of activities or personnel. Mr. Speaker, I have often taken to this floor to defend the modern FTC. Shortly before the recess, my subcommittee spent several hours with the Federal Trade Commission discussing their performance over the past few years and their plans for the future. I am pleased to say that under the leadership of FTC Chairman Pitofsky, and former Chairwoman Steiger, this agency has come a long way toward rehabilitating its tarnished image and I feel justified in coming to its defense. The agency today is one which is constantly reviewing old orders, rules, and guidance in an effort to eliminate confusing and outdated regulations. The agency is about half the size it was during the late 1970's, but now is effectively reviewing an unprecedented number of mergers. In short, this agency is doing more with less, and doing it smarter. Further, the agency has continued to protect consumers from the fraudulent activities of criminals who masquerade as legitimate businessmen. For instance, the FTC, working with other Federal, State and local law enforcement officials, has spearheaded the effort to eliminate telemarketing fraud that the House began when it passed the Telemarketing Fraud Act in the 103d Congress. The agency has played an instrumental role in a number of sweeps conducted by law enforcement officials, including the recent ``Operation Senior Sentinel'' sweep which shut down a number of fraudulent telemarketing operations aimed at our senior citizens and resulted in numerous arrests across the county. This agency should serve as a model to other Federal regulatory agencies in terms of how to accomplish their fundamental missions in an era of dwindling resources. I urge my colleagues to support this agency by casting a ``yes'' vote for this simple, straightforward legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3553) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission.