Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. That is precisely correct.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a tribute to Bill Emerson that we are here in going on now 2\1/2\ hours eulogizing him and remembering him. He was a Member of my class, the 97th class, even though I caught up with him about 7 months later because I came in a special election in 1981. Bill was one of the first people to come over and extend a hand and help me with this great transition from the State legislature to the Congress. Recently I had an opportunity to participate in a congressional study group on Germany meeting in Bill's district in Cape Girardeau and, unfortunately, Bill was unable to attend because he was having treatment back here at Georgetown. As a result, some of the Members that were out there listened to Bill call in, and we were there with members of the German Bundestag, and it was so evident what pride Bill took in his district and his constituency. He even gave us a book from Mark Twain that had a specific part of the book marked where Mark Twain talks about Cape Girardeau and that area, and the German members of the Bunderstag were so impressed with Bill's commitment and his strong feeling about German-American relationships and the strong number of German-Americans that were in his district. He was a person who everybody in this House could look up to and yet feel that they were a friend on an equal basis. We will miss his great honesty, his humor. We wish the very best to his family and Jo Ann, his wife, for someone we will miss greatly, a real leader in this House and one who loved this House of Representatives, Bill Emerson.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and congratulate the gentleman from California, [Mr. Lewis], the chairman of the committee, and the chairman and members of the Committee on Rules for putting together a very effective rule. Let me answer my friend from Massachusetts, who was so concerned about the reform of Superfund becoming the ``Nightmare on Elm Street.'' I would say the ``Nightmare on Elm Street'' has been running for the last 15 years, and it is called the existing Superfund law that has fostered litigation to the point where we are spending half of the money on lawyers and we have only cleaned up about 5 percent of the sites. Anybody who knows anything about the Superfund Program knows what a disaster it has been. Whether they are the most green of green environmentalists or whether they are an evil corporate polluter, they know that the Superfund Program as exists today is not working. We are trying to change that program. Now, the gentleman from Michigan talked about scams. Let me show my colleagues what a scam is. I have a program there that shows how the cleanup of the Superfund sites takes place under today's program. Now, that is probably the lead-in to the ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' and it may be the cartoon, but look at all the hoops one has to jump through. And meanwhile, meanwhile, the program has cost some $30 billion. That is billion with a ``B.'' We are here to change the program and make a lousy program work. I am disappointed with my friend from Massachusetts and others who apparently want to stay in a position where they are defending the status quo. I do not think that is defensible. I see my friend from California, the chairman of the committee, and I would like to ask him a question. If, in fact, we pass a Superfund reform bill, I want to know what is going to happen to the funding of the Superfund Program under the rule that we are debating today.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] because I think this puts it into light in terms of the budget caps and the flexibility therein. The gentleman knows a lot more about it than I do.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and I think that is really the point here. This is a big carrot out for the members to work in a bipartisan way to get a reauthorization of the Superfund Program so that that extra money is available and we can take that money, instead of giving it to the lawyers, and we can put it into cleanup. That is really what the essence of this is all about. I am just disappointed with my friend from Massachusetts, who will be offering an amendment, as I understand during the title III of this bill, that apparently just says, hey, the status quo is fine. We can just continue on our merry way and pour money down a rat hole instead of really solving the problem. That is why I say I am disappointed with my friend.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise today in support of H.R. 2803, the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996. When the Congress enacted the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, the Commerce Committee and Judiciary Committee worked as partners to craft legislation which addressed the continuing problem of car theft from a number of angles. One provision set up an information system to track information about vehicle titles and stolen parts. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, implementation of this information system has been delayed thus far. H.R. 2803 addresses a number of issues which have been identified as possible bottlenecks in implementing this information system. A lack of resources at the Department of Transportation, combined with some ambiguities in the original act, led to a situation where a tool which had obvious value to law enforcement officials in the States and Federal Government could not be set up. H.R. 2803 paves the way for full implementation of the information system. The Department of Transportation has already begun a pilot program, which will serve as the model for nationwide implementation. It provides a specific authorization for appropriations, and transfers authority for overseeing the project from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Justice. With these changes, I believe that we can finally realize the potential provided by this kind of information system. As I mentioned earlier, the Commerce Committee and Judiciary Committee have a long record of working together on these issues, stretching back to the early 1980's and before. Because the Judiciary Committee addressed a number of our substantive concerns in the legislation before us, the Commerce Committee has waived its right to a sequential referral of H.R. 2803 in order to expedite its consideration. Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], for his leadership on this legislation in providing the kind of help for our committee as well as the full House in enacting this legislation. I would like to confirm with the gentleman from Florida that he would support the Committee on Commerce's request for an appropriate number of conferees should this bill become the subject of a House-Senate conference.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his commitment and hard work on this legislation. The Committee on Commerce has no objection to the legislation. As a matter of fact, we support it strongly. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, never in our wildest dreams could we imagine we would be on the floor today on a suspension calendar to pass H.R. 3005, the securities amendments of 1996. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Fields, for his great leadership, as well as the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, along with our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ed Markey, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for their hard work, and also to Chairman Levitt for providing the kind of leadership at the SEC that we have come to expect from that fine gentleman. This bill is a product of the work that all of the aforementioned gentlemen put in on this very important bill. Times are changing and the way Americans invest are changing. The laws regarding securities and mutual fund policies must change as well. According to the Fed, in 1980 the average American household had one- third of its liquid assets in securities. By 1995 it had two-thirds of its liquid assets in securities. For once, Congress is taking positive action in the area of securities law and not reacting to a crisis or to a scandal. The bill is designated to promote capital formation, efficiency and competition, without compromising the integrity of our confidence in the financial marketplace. The bill repeals or amends sections of the Securities Act of 1933, the SEC Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940. The bill creates a national system of securities regulation, eliminating duplication in State and Federal regulation for exchange listed securities, securities offerings to qualified investors, and mutual funds. This will lower the administrative and regulatory costs to investors across the country and increase returns to mutual funds and other savings vehicles. On the issue of institutional suitability, let me say during our hearings we heard from three former SEC commissioners, the Public Securities Administration, the PSA, and others in the private sector on the need for reform. We plan to pursue that issue in the next Congress.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice for the peaceful resolution reached last Thursday in the armed standoff involving the so-called Montana Freemen who are charged with threatening public officials and other crimes. The potential for violence was high throughout this confrontation. The fact that the suspects surrendered without a shot being fired speaks well of FBI negotiations and the reforms instituted at DOJ for dealing with such crisis situations. I particularly note FBI Director Louis Freeh's personal oversight of the case and his determination to see the lessons of past standoffs institutionalized at the Bureau. Federal law enforcement is the target of a great deal of second-guessing when tragedies occur. They deserve recognition for their professionalism when a tense situation is resolved peacefully. Mr. Speaker, not every warrant can be executed without incident. That goes with the turf. All the more reason to commend the FBI for a job well done.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to express my support for H.R. 2579, legislation to promote international travel and tourism in the United States. This measure privatizes the functions of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration, an agency which costs taxpayers $16.7 million in 1995. The Congress correctly decided to zero out the USTTA. However, there is a role for a federally chartered, privately funded organization to promote travel to the United States. I am an original cosponsor of the bill, and our Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, which I chair, recently marked it up, where it was approved by voice vote. It will be taken up by the full Committee on Commerce in the very near future. Travel and tourism is the Nation's leading export industry. As one example, in 1993, foreign visitors spent $443 million in my home State of Ohio, which ranked 18th among the States. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular tribute to our friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Toby Roth, who has led this effort on behalf of the travel and tourism industry and all Americans for this critical legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to the markup in the full Committee on Commerce.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, I am pleased to introduce, along with my distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Manton, the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 1996. This bill simply reauthorizes the agency for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 at a current services level. At the moment, we see no need for major changes to the FTC's authorizing statutes. The Commerce Committee completed the first major reauthorization of the agency in the 103d Congress, the first reauthorization of the agency since 1980. In that legislation, we made major changes to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the operations of the FTC, so as to improve its ability to meet its mission of protecting consumers from deceptive trade practices and unfair methods of competition. The changes we made earlier are only just being implemented and need to be evaluated before going forward with more legislative changes. The FTC is a regulatory agency which fulfills its mission with a minimal burden on the taxpayer. More than half of its annual budget is raised in fees from the corporations that it regulates. Under the leadership of FTC Chairman Pitofsky, the agency has begun a program of evaluating old rules and regulations and discarding those which are no longer needed. It is looking at old rules--such as the Made in America rule--and considering whether they need to be updated to reflect our modern global economy. This is the kind of forward thinking that is important for modern regulators to engage in, and I am pleased to see that the FTC has undertaken many of these initiatives of its own accord. Certainly the FTC is not perfect. Particularly during the 1970's and 1980's, numerous decisions made by the FTC reflected the extreme viewpoints of a handful of commission members and staff, and detracted from the majority of the good work done by the agency. Today, however, such incidents are far fewer in number and less severe in nature. As part of the reauthorization process, the Commerce Subcommittee will look closely at the continuing operations of the FTC, and carefully evaluate their effectiveness. By looking at issues like enforcement versus rulemaking, modernization of rules, and other issues, we can fulfill our oversight obligations within the context of this reauthorization. I hope that all of my colleagues will join Mr. Manton and me in supporting this bipartisan legislation when we bring it to the floor.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, the bodies keep piling up on the porch of the White House. Yesterday, three more people were convicted in the Arkansas savings and loan scandal that has threatened to envelop more and more people. This is just one more example of what has happened with the White House's mishandling of this terrible incident. Something stinks in Arkansas, and that stench is stretching all the way to the White House. Whitewater and the White House, something in common staying together, and yesterday was one more example of that fact.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution for the fiscal year 1997, brought to the floor under the leadership of Chairman Kasich and the Budget Committee, continues our payments on a balanced budget by the year 2002. It is an important step forward for the Congress and for the American people, and one I wholeheartedly support. In the report to accompany the budget resolution, the Budget Committee makes a number of specific suggestions on cuts in both discretionary and mandatory spending. Their suggestions look both at the fundamental purpose of American Government, and to areas where-- when there is a legitimate governmental function--we can eliminate waste, bureaucracy, and duplication. While I generally agree with most of the suggestions made by the Budget Committee in its report, as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Federal Trade Commission, I was disappointed to see that they targeted this agency for elimination. My subcommittee will be taking up reauthorizing legislation for the agency within the next month or two, and while the subcommittee will continue to review the FTC's operations with a critical eye, I believe that this is an important agency and one which should continue to be funded. The FTC has often demonstrated its commitment and competence in protecting American consumers. Both in its recent rejection of the Rite-Aid/Revco merger and the ``Senior Sentinel'' sweep designed to root out telemarketing fraud, the agency has acquitted itself admirably in meeting its mission. While we realize that this agency had a number of problems in the 1970's and early 1980's, it has put many of those problems behind it and manages to accomplish its goals with a minimum of public resources. Further, the FTC provides a good return on the public's investment. The agency is nearly 70 percent funded by fees generated from corporate mergers. It regularly reviews old rules and discards those that are obsolete or no longer necessary to prevent fraud or unfair trade practices. When I look at the FTC, I believe that it is the model of what a regulatory agency should be, efficient, fair, and flexible. My subcommittee will be looking closely at the FTC over the next few months and we will look for areas where the agency can be even more efficient and meet its statutory duties at a lower cost. However, eliminating the FTC would, in the end, wind up costing Americans far more in increased commercial fraud and bureaucratic waste than would be saved. I believe that this agency should continue to perform its mission and I will support efforts to see that it is able to do so.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to override the President's unfortunate veto of this very moderate approach to product liability. Let me say to my good friend from Michigan, who I have worked with for so many years on legal reform and specifically on product liability reform, that I am perhaps as frustrated with the process as he is. That is, the obvious concern that all of us had in the conference that the Senate made it very clear that the best we could get out of this conference on legal reform was a product liability bill, and that became the fait accompli. So the stultifying meetings that we had, that the gentleman and I participated in, were as frustrating to me as to the gentleman because we would have done more, I think, had we been given the opportunity. I know the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Virginia, the two chairmen, share my concerns about that. But be that as it may, we have before us a pretty moderate approach to product liability, a bill that we worked on in our committee under the great leadership of the gentleman from Michigan, the now infamous ``tort class from hell'' that went on for 10 days, in which we produced, I think, a pretty good product, not dissimilar to the product that we have before us today that the President chose to veto. I would say to those folks, including the gentleman from Massachusetts and others on the floor today who worked on that bill, this really is that product. It is a moderate approach. It does not deny people their ability to recover damages for lost wages for pain and suffering, for medical damages. It does put some limits on punitive damages that have gone out of control. As a matter of fact economist Paul Rubin at Emory University says that $82 billion of the $132 billion spent on tort liability has been pure waste, and that was just for 1 year, in 1990. That works out to $900 per household of wasted money, meaning more cost to the consumer in insurance costs and the like. That works out to $900 per U.S. household paid in higher prices for goods, services, and insurance premiums. That is a very expensive proposition. Not only are we closing down some companies and putting people out of work, but at the same time we are costing the average consumer, the average household, $900 a year more than they would have had to pay otherwise because of many of these frivolous lawsuits. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, this very moderate approach to product liability, which is the first time this Congress has really faced up to that very serious issue, deserves our vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2024) to phase out the use of mercury in batteries and provide for the efficient and cost-effective collection and recycling or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium batteries, small sealed lead-acid batteries, and certain other batteries, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist responding to what I guess is a predictable response from the far left. Here we are, trying to craft a bipartisan environmental bill dealing with rechargeable batteries and recycling. It is unfortunate we have to already in the early part of the day resort to political palaver about the environmental issues. It is unfortunate, but I guess predictable. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], the sponsor of the battery bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], 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, it is always good to hear from the far left, even if it is just 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it appears the other side does not have a whole lot of substantive arguments in favor of this legislation, which is unfortunate. Our good friend from New Mexico and good friend from New Jersey are carrying a lot of water for some other folks. It is nice they drafted somebody from the other committee to come in and be a designated hitter, and I do mean hitter. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal].

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.