Michael Oxley

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3553.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act. Among other things, this legislation implements the Declaration of Panama, agreed to by a dozen different nations, including the United States. As a strong proponent of free and fair trade, I think this represents a good example of how we can work together with out trading partners to achieve our shared goal of preserving the Earth's precious resources. H.R. 2823 includes several provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. H.R. 2823 provides for implementation of the declaration in an effort to increase international participation in activities to reduce the number of dolphins and other marine mammals that die each year as a result of tuna fishing techniques. This bill would also modify the definition of ``dolphin safe'' for the purpose of labeling tuna products sold in the United States, and alter current regulations on the importation of tuna products. Also, the bill would make misuse of the ``dolphin safe'' label an unfair and deceptive trade practice under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. In short, this legislation will help the United States achieve its environmental goals by implementing a reasonable agreement reached by the United States and its trading partners. It is supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, some environmental groups, and the Clinton administration. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for his support and willingness to work with the Commerce Committee to expedite consideration of this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the significant contributions made by Ohio Northern University of Ada, OH. In commending Ohio Northern University for 125 years of prominent service to higher education, I know the rankings are well deserved. As a child I grew up near Ohio northern's campus. My father even graduated from ONU's College of Law. From personal experience, I know ONU is a great contributor to our community. I submit my appreciation and acknowledgment of the efforts taken by the staff, students, and administration. Their combined work has distinguished ONU as one of the best universities in the Midwest according to ``US News and World Report.'' ONU can boast such excellence with a student-faculty ratio of 13:1 and an incoming class in which 1 in 11 is either a valedictorian or salutatorian. Other accolades include recognition in Peterson's ``Competitive College Guide'' and in Barron's ``Profiles of American Colleges'' as a very competitive university. Considering the caliber of schools this fine institution competes with, one easily sees that all of Ohio benefits from such a productive and rewarding partnership. I feel that the tradition of quality higher education is being upheld and improved upon by ONU and all the other fine institutions recently listed among this Nation's best. I sincerely wish them continued success.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], the author of this important legislation.

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 rise in strong support of H.R. 3431, the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Improvement Act. All we need to do is watch the evening news to be aware of the problems faced by the Nation's law enforcement and security personnel. We live in increasingly dangerous times where a badge is a target, and the lives of people wearing those badges are placed in grave danger on a daily basis. Those who guard armored cars are no exception. During fiscal year 1995, the violent crime section of the FBI investigated 68 robberies or attempted robberies of armored vehicles. My subcommittee received testimony that there were well over 100 such incidents during the 1995 calendar year. Over the past several years, just one of the major armored car companies has had five armored car crewmembers killed in the line of duty, four of whom were slain here in the Washington, DC area. There is no question that there is a strong need for these individuals to be armed. When this committee reported the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act in the 103d Congress, it recognized that fact. However, it also recognized that we need to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the untrained. While most States require substantial training in the safe and legal use of their weapons before they issue crewmembers weapons permits, we reiterated that sentiment when we required regular training and criminal background checks before a State's weapons permit would be entitled to reciprocity. Mr. Whitfield's legislation, H.R. 3431, the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Improvement Act of 1996, simply makes some technical changes in the original statute to better conform its requirements to the procedures in place in the majority of States today. It still requires regular training and criminal background checks for armored car crewmembers, but allows States the necessary flexibility to issue permits according to their own procedures and their own timetable. It is a little known fact that the single largest interstate customer of the armored car industry is the Federal Government. Private companies annually transport billions of dollars in currency, coin, food stamps, and other negotiable documents. Because we entrust these companies with the Nation's valuables, we have an obligation to ensure that their job in protecting those valuables is as easy as possible. That is why we need to enact H.R. 3431. Mr. Whitfield should be commended for his hard work in seeing this bill through. I would also like to thank my distinguished ranking member for all of his support in bringing this legislation to the floor. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3431, to amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of 1993 to clarify certain requirements and to improve the flow of interstate commerce.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3431.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of engagement with China, in support of China MFN, and against the resolution of disapproval. As I have said on this floor on other occasions, Ohio is one of America's top exporters of manufactured goods. China is not only the world's most populous country, but also one of the world's most rapidly expanding marketplaces. In fact, Ohio Governor George Voinovich has established a permanent office in Beijing to support the State's commercial interests there. Ohio's farmers, especially the corn and soybean farmers found in my district, are exporting to China and hope to increase their presence in this burgeoning market. Ohio employers such as Whirlpool, the Limited and Harris Corp. have contacted me in support of MFN treatment. Indeed, numerous United States companies have joint ventures in China and are using cooperative efforts to gain access to China and other Asian markets. Mr. Speaker, MFN merely gives China the same trade status possessed by the vast majority of nations. Frankly, the phrase ``most-favored'' is something of a misnomer, which opponents of engagement use to distort the nature of our trading relationship with the People's Republic of China. Ending normal trade relations with China would undermine United States economic interests in China and the rest of Asia. It would cost American jobs and sacrifice a great opportunity for American business interests. If United States farmers and United States companies are denied the chance to do business with China, other countries--many with a weaker commitment to human rights and democracy--will gladly fill the void. A great deal will be lost, and nothing, in my view, will be gained. The subcommittee I chair held a hearing on May 9 in which we heard testimony regarding the importance for our economy and our citizens of opening the world's markets to international telecommunications services. It is critical that we bring China into this process. Failing to grant MFN status will send China an inconsistent signal in terms of our dedication to opening markets and breaking down tariff and nontariff barriers in international telecommunications. China is a critical market for American telecommunications companies. There are over a billion Chinese, but relatively few have telephones. This is the world's largest potential market for telecommunications equipment, line construction and services. The United States is a leader in telecommunications technology. We cannot afford to miss out on the hundreds of thousands of high-tech, high-pay telecommunications jobs the construction of the Chinese information infrastructure will create. I urge all my colleagues to support American workers and U.S. interests in Asia and oppose the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the engagement with China and against the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who I have a great deal of respect for, and he is usually right on most issues, but let me remind him about the last Congress when I think the gentleman in the well was the chairman of the committee, and we had Democrats chairing the committee.

Mr. OXLEY. As a minority I am truly honored. I did not realize I was that good, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me be very brief. This Markey amendment basically sets the whole process on its head. Why would anybody want to enter into a consent decree if they could not get reimbursed for their cost? That does not really make a whole lot of sense in this process, and I would say to my friend from Massachusetts, if you really want to slow down this process even more than it already is, I would suggest that the Members vote for the Markey amendment. This is very clear in its attempt to bring small businesses under this incredible yoke of the Superfund liability program. Let me read from the inspector general of the EPA in his semiannual report to the Congress, findings on the Superfund program. He says, ``In general, lengthy remedial investigation feasibility study and enforcement negotiations delayed actual cleanup of sites.'' Actually delayed the cleanup of sites. So I suggest to Members that the Markey amendment is the wrong way to go, and let me also point out that this is going to be an NFIB key vote. The National Federation of Independent Businesses that represents over 600,000 small businesses in all of our districts is opposed to the Markey amendment, will make this a key vote. I want to make that very clear to the Members.

Mr. OXLEY. I am amazed, I must say, at being in the minority for all the time that I was in the Congress for the first 14 years, and then to be honored with apparently the title of being able to kill the Superfund bill----

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let us get one thing straight first of all. The taxpayers that I know the gentleman from Massachusetts is so fond of and wants to protect, the taxpayers who pay into the Superfund and the very polluters that he is talking about. He would allow the impression out there that somehow these taxpayers, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack, are paying, are going to pay for these cleanups. And we simply cannot allow that argument to stand. It makes no sense. The Superfund program is basically funded to the tune of $1.6 billion a year until, of course, the President vetoed those taxes that go into the Superfund, $1.6 billion a year that come from the oil companies, the chemical companies, from chemical feedstocks, and the environmental income tax, that is really what funds the program. So my friend from Massachusetts, who I know is a great friend of the taxpayers, has received a lot of awards for his stand on lower taxes and protecting the taxpayer, I am appalled, frankly, that my friend from Massachusetts would make the argument here on the floor of the House of Representatives that somehow the taxpayer is going to bail out these evil corporate polluters when, in fact, they are paying the taxes in the first place. They are not getting their money's worth, folks. All you have to do is look at the program, 15 years of failure, about 5 percent of the sites on the national priorities list cleaned up. We have spent $30 billion in public and private moneys to clean up these sites. And what do we have to show for it? the average site rests on the NPL for 10 to 12 years. The average cost of a site to be cleaned up is between $25 and $30 million. And guess what? Only about half of that really goes to actual cleanup. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my colleagues that a vote for the Markey amendment is basically a vote for the status quo. Now, if my colleagues like the idea of a Superfund program that fits all the qualifications that I just mentioned in terms of abject failure, then they want to support the Markey amendment because the Markey amendment essentially is an SOS amendment, ``some old stuff,'' and we are going to continue with the same process that we had before, and I have got to think we are better than that. I think we can learn from the mistakes of past Democrat Congresses that foisted this program on us, first of all, in a lame-duck session, signed by a lame-duck President, in overreaction to a couple of situations in New York State and Missouri, and then in 1986 we compounded that felony by voting for a reauthorization of the program that made it even worse, and some of the architects behind the original bill and the 1986 reauthorization are the same people who are opposing meaningful reform in this program. And I say shame on them and shame on their memory of what they have accomplished in the last 15 years, which is practically nothing. And so it gives us an opportunity finally, under a Republican Congress, to really deal with the problem at hand and to clean these sites up, and I would suggest to my colleagues that that is our goal and that is what we are trying to accomplish with our bill that we have introduced [ROSA] Refund of Superfund Act. Make it very clear that the Markey amendment stands for the status quo. This is clearly the most egregious environmental program that anybody could have ever invented, and I do not understand why my friend from Massachusetts would want to sustain that for another several years. I had an opportunity the other day to find a rather interesting piece of reading material. It is a coloring book that is put out by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is called the ``Superfund Team, Mother Mouse,'' and instead of protecting children from contamination by cleaning up Superfund sites, the EPA apparently is indoctrinating them with a Superfund Man and Mother Mouse routine.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have no time constraints on this particular amendment; is that correct?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the coloring book, and let me quote from the book where Mother Mouse meets the U.S. EPA remediation workers: She was smiling and humming when all of a sudden she heard someone coming. She saw a strange sight. ``Oh my. What a fright!'' Two people wore white suits with hoods on their heads and gloves on their hands. ``They're creatures from Mars,'' she screamed. ``Quick. Get in the house. Pull tight the laces. Don't make a sound. Stay in your places.'' ``But we know them--they're keen!'' the children cried out. ``They're the Superfund Team! The Superfund Team!'' the kids said with a shout. This is actually a publication of the government of the United States of America. We have established a special hazardous waste cleanup program with its own taxes to pay for the self-promotion of the Environmental Protection Agency. The sad part is that in real life the men in white suits do not show up for years while mother and the children still live by the contamination. Let us not waste time on coloring books, outrageous delays, endless lawsuits and bureaucratic bickering. Let us clean up the pollution for a change. Contaminated sites are still sitting around as giant festering sores on the landscape primarily because of the contentiousness Superfund's liability system causes. One can be held a hundred percent liable for the entire cost of cleanup at a site which could stretch into hundreds of millions of dollars even if they did not cause any of the contamination, even if they were not even alive when the contamination occurred, and even if they acted completely legally at the time, or even if they were ordered to put contamination at the site by the Federal Government or some local government. Does that strike my colleagues as a reasonable Federal statute? I do not think so, and that is why the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Business, who represent over 600,000 small businesses in this country today, along with local governments, school boards and other local organizations oppose the Markey amendment. As a matter of fact, the NFIB has made this a key vote. I want to stress to my colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle this is the NFIB key vote on the Superfund bill this session, and let us understand exactly where they are coming from. They understand what a disaster this Superfund statute really is. Let us make certain for a change that we will deal with real cleanups this time instead of spending it on coloring books, on lawyers, on bureaucracies, and get this job done once and for all.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act as amended. The Committee on Appropriations filed a subcommittee allocation for fiscal year 1997 on June 17, 1996 (H. Rept. 104-624). This amendment would provide a new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee allocation and is not permitted under section 302(f) of the act. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.