Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New Jersey will proceed, then I will be glad to close.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have been blessed by the chairman of the Committee on Resources who has been drawn to this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, given all of the work that was done on this battery bill, the fact that we heard testimony from the EPA. Much of the testimony at the time when it was taking place in our subject committee, was criticized by the gentleman from New Jersey as being unrealistic and rather nitpicking, I think was the term he used. But despite that, we worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to put together a good piece of legislation, a bill that passed unanimously in the Senate. It had a great deal of momentum, that was supported by industry, as a matter of fact encouraged by industry, supported by virtually every environmental group. To bring it to the floor and end up with some kind of a dog and pony show orchestrated by the gentleman from New Jersey and his cohort from California is really, I think, unfortunate in this situation. When we start dealing with bills like Superfund, I am assuming the gentleman from California and I know my friend from New Jersey are very supportive of getting a good Superfund reform bill out there. Everybody assumes, everybody knows that the existing Superfund law is badly flawed and needs fixing. That is what we have been working on. I would hate to think, Mr. Speaker, that somehow if we brought a bipartisan Superfund bill to this floor, which is our goal, that we would have the kind of cheap shots that are taking place on the floor of this House on a very important issue. So I am very disappointed today. If the gentleman wants to vote against the battery bill, then go ahead and yell ``no'' as loud as you want to. But I would suggest if you are serious about environmental protection, instead of making slogans and little cutouts for television, you would by very supportive of this strong bipartisan bill that will get a lot of mercury and cadmium out of the system and help clean up the environment. You can have it one or two ways, but you cannot have it both ways.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be on the House floor today with broad bipartisan support for pro-environmental legislation that originated in the subcommittee I chair. H.R. 2024, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, is the second bipartisan environmental bill we have brought to the floor from the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, the first being the Land Disposal Flexibility Act, which has been signed into law. Any discussion of this Congress' environmental record needs to acknowledge the good bipartisan work we are doing. This battery bill proves an important point: we can improve the environment by reducing government regulations, and by reducing burdens on industry. This bill reduces regulations, and the result will be less cadmium in our ground water and our air. Right now, cadmium is classified as a hazardous waste, so spent nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries are hazardous wastes too. Hazardous wastes are subject to all sorts of disposal, handling, storage, and transportation regulations, like disposal in specially permitted subtitle C landfills, recordkeeping, reporting, manifesting and so on. If your nickel-cadmium battery at home ran out of power, you could just throw it in the trash and not be subject to the hazardous waste regulations, because the law exempts household waste. But if you took the battery back to the store to recycle it, all of a sudden it would be subject to the hazardous waste regulations. We want consumers to take rechargeable batteries back to the store and have them recycled. But retail stores don't want to touch used batteries under the current hazardous waste requirements, because it would cost them an arm and a leg, and subject them to fines and penalties if they don't comply. This bill solves the problem by exempting rechargeable batteries from hazardous waste regulations so we can recycle. Retailers collecting these batteries for recycling will only need comply with the Universal Waste Rule, which does away with most of the onerous hazardous waste regulations. The reduced regulation doesn't pose an environmental threat. After all, the batteries are in the same condition when you throw them away as they are when you buy them. They don't become more hazardous in between. This bill also requires battery labeling so consumers know the batteries can be recycled, and it bans mercury in several battery types, which will reduce mercury in our air and ground water. We made two minor changes since this bill passed the Commerce Committee by voice vote. First, we changed the effective date of the mercury ban to the date of enactment. Second, we clarified the enforcement provision so importers who have knowledge of the contents of the batteries they import can be enforced against if the batteries violate the mercury ban. I want to thank the bill's sponsor, Congressman Klug, for his efforts, as well as the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Pallone. I would also like to thank the chairman of the full committee for his leadership on this issue in bringing the bill to the floor in a timely fashion. 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 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. 2024, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that section 6 of this legislation does not in any way alter the determination and use of natural resource damages collected pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Natural Marine Sanctuaries Act, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, is that correct?

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, some have raised the issue that section 6 could be used to facilitate the development and use of regional restoration plans. Is it your understanding that under this legislation, NOAA would have no authority to create regional restoration plans?

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I cannot resist responding to my friend from California because it is really how he defines these votes, that somehow, if we happen to vote against his particular position, that happens to be allegedly a vote against the environment or some of his left friends who define it that way. The fact is that all of us share this same goal of environmental protection, but we find that there are different ways to get there, sometimes more effective ways, if we used the power of the market, for example, to do that. We did that in the clean air bill. My friend from California will remember when we provided SO2 emissions allowances that are now being traded by companies in Chicago. It is a very effective way to delay with air pollution. I think there is a different way to do it, and I think a better way and a more effective way and a more efficient way. We differ on that. We do not differ on our goals, and I think that is where the gentleman is in error.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. So let me understand that unless every Member votes the liberal line on every environmental issue, then he is not----

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I support the rule and I will support the conference report. I think there are a lot of positive things that are in the conference report, including mandatory victims' restitution, a bill that I have introduced in several Congresses and hope will finally get a signature for that particular provision, habeas corpus reform, which I have also supported, and particularly the FBI counterterrorism center and funds available for that counterterrorism center. I think that the conference committee overall did an excellent job in crafting this legislation. I have to agree, however, with my good friend from New York, Mr. Schumer, on one particular provision that was left out of the conference report, and that is the multipoint wiretap provision. I can see no reason why that particular provision, which was requested specifically by the FBI and by Director Freeh, would be left out of the conference report. All of the safeguards that are currently in the law regarding wiretaps would be contained in that provision. Wiretaps are an important tool of law enforcement to try to determine, before these kinds of tragedies exist and before they happen, to be able to catch the particular individuals involved. That is what law enforcement is all about. Let us understand one thing here. The FBI and law enforcement is not the enemy. The enemy is the terrorists and people who would take advantage of our open system to further their political goals through the use of violence. Our best protection against that kind of violence is the ability of law enforcement to ferret out beforehand those kinds of individuals, and use lawful techniques to investigate those perpetrators or those potential perpetrators. So let us give, hopefully, the benefit of the doubt to our judicial system and to our law enforcement officials to make those kinds of determinations. Mr. Speaker, those of us who in the past have done this for a living understand how important wiretap evidence is. I am sorry it was not part of this conference report, but we ought to get to that later and I would suggest we do so.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this chance to recognize Daniel Riedl, the Ohio State winner of the Voice of Democracy broadcast contest. This competition is sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary. Mr. Riedl exemplifies the civic and patriotic strength of much of today's youth. Mr. Riedl recounts the story of his immigrant grandfather who came to this country and worked his way through our educational system to earn his doctorate. His grandfather also defended this country in World War II. The United States is the land of freedom, but it is also a land where determined individuals use this blessing for a greater good. Mr. Riedl's grandfather did this and Mr. Riedl continues this responsibility today. America is the land of opportunity, but it would not be so if there were no people like the Riedls, who are willing to defend its ideals. I congratulate Daniel Riedl and his stirring account of freedom, responsibility, and sacrifice.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. For almost two decades now, the House Committee on Commerce has grappled with the issue of product liability reform. After developing an extensive record on the subject of product liability law, the committee concluded that the present system places an enormous burden on interstate commerce, inflates prices, stifles innovation, and subjects manufacturers and sellers to a capricious lottery where sanctions can exceed any found in criminal law. Last year, we worked with the Judiciary Committee to draft a joint legal reform bill to bring some common sense back into our legal system. We then worked with our Senate counterparts to help them move this critical legislation forward. While the final conference agreement falls somewhat short of the reforms passed in the House, it still represents a great achievement and far more than anyone might have hoped for just 2 years ago. For the first time in our Nation's history, we will enjoy the protections of proportionality requirements for punitive damage awards. Damage awards for speculative noneconomic injuries will now be based directly on someone's actual responsibility for the harm, not on the depth of a defendant's financial pockets. Plaintiffs who harm themselves primarily through their own excessive use of drugs and alcohol will no longer be able to transfer the costs of their addiction to third parties, and frivolous claims against innocent product sellers and biomaterials suppliers will no longer be allowed. These reforms will play a critical role in increasing the long-term competitiveness of American industry and thereby protecting American jobs. And they will create a renewed emphasis on fairness and accountability in our legal system, without undercutting the basic rights to restitution for consumers. I recognize that the President has promised to veto this pro-jobs, pro-fairness bill. This is unfortunate. As Governor, President Clinton twice supported resolutions drafted and unanimously approved by the National Governors Association calling for Federal product liability reform. Throughout the last year we have been working with Senator Rockefeller's staff in the Senate to communicate with the President and modify the bill accordingly, deleting numerous stronger House reforms and adopting an extended additur provision for punitive damages which his own Cabinet helped to write. The administration's last minute bait- and-switch was subsequently decried by Senator Rockefeller, who noted that ``Special interests and raw political considerations in the White House have overridden sound policy judgment.'' This sort of trial lawyer protectionism and turnstile politics, revealed earlier on securities litigation reform, is beginning to ring very hollow. Part of the premise of the Contract With America was to put an end to politics as usual in Washington. This legislation is a consensus solution, built on decades of bipartisan efforts by my Democratic colleagues and fellow Republicans, for bringing some balance and reasonableness back into our legal system. I ask your support in helping us bring this commonsense reform back into our legal system. Let us pass this with an overwhelming vote and send it to the President and hope he changes his mind.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act of 1996. This bill includes provisions I have long supported on paperwork reduction. I am pleased to see that today, the House will have the opportunity to vote on these and other needed reforms. Legislation aimed at making health insurance more available and affordable while reducing administrative paperwork is long overdue. While President George Bush introduced similar legislation in 1992, the then Democrat-controlled Congress blocked its consideration. It was not until the defeat of President Clinton's nationalized health care system that a consensus coalesced around these market-based reforms. Currently, excessive paperwork, redtape, and duplicative administrative costs add nearly 10 cents to every health care dollar spent in the United States. In response to this concern I introduced legislation during the 102d Congress, along with our former colleague, Alex McMillan, to reduce these unnecessary costs through the establishment of uniform health claims and electronic billing standards. Following this first ever free-standing bill on billing simplification, my Ohio colleague, Dave Hobson, took up the cause, improving upon our efforts. Congressman Hobson's work has been integral in the promotion of the benefits of a uniform electronic billing system. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of the Health Care Coverage Availability and Affordability Act. American working families need and deserve the flexibility and cost-saving measures this bill provides.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barr amendment. In the wake of the World Trade Center bombing and Oklahoma City, it is unbelievable to me that we could be standing here today debating an amendment that would weaken the ability of law enforcement officials throughout the United States to protect us from this ever-growing menace in our country. Mr. Chairman, I had a recent conversation with the FBI Director. The FBI is recognized worldwide as the most effective law enforcement agency in the world. Their efforts in the World Trade Center bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing can stand as an example of effective law enforcement, but they need the tools to do that. My concern is that the Barr amendment limits those tools that they use. Mr. Chairman, let us have some faith in our judicial system and our law enforcement capabilities in this Chamber. If we pass the Barr amendment, the antiterrorism bill, as it is labeled, will not be worthy of the name. Let us reject this amendment and pass a good bill.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2972) To authorize appropriations for the Securities and Exchange Commission, to reduce the fees collected under the Federal securities laws, and for other purposes, 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, as an original cosponsor of the bill, I rise in support of this reauthorization. I'm pleased to be considering it on today's suspension calendar. This bipartisan measure is a credit to its author, Chairman Tom Bliley, and the subcommittee chairman, Jack Fields. It brings coherence and stability to the issue of Securities and Exchange Commission funding, while at the same time providing well-deserved tax relief to investors. It has the support of SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt. Currently, the SEC has a budget of approximately $300 million, but it collects nearly twice that in fees annually. These are filing fees paid by pension funds, start-up companies, and individual investors. The excess fees amount to a tax on capital formation. This reauthorization puts the Commission on-budget and phases out the surplus fees, saving investors more than $750 million over the next 5 years. In so doing, it will promote investment, capital formation, and job creation. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back 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 include extraneous material.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2972, the SEC Reauthorization Act of 1996. This legislation provides a long-term mechanism for funding the SEC. In addition, it reduces the fees charged by the SEC by over $751 million dollars through 2002. Members of both parties have expressed concern with the amount of fee revenue collected by the SEC, which currently is more than double the cost of running the agency. Currently the SEC takes in over $600 million in fees annually, and costs approximately $300 million to run. This surplus in fee revenue over the cost of running the agency amounts to a tax on capital paid by all investors--including small investors investing in individual retirement accounts for their retirement. Members of both parties are rightly concerned with promoting savings and growth, and this tax on capital represents an impediment to that growth. With the cooperation of Chairman Rogers of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Archer of the Ways and Means Committee, we have been able to work out a sensible plan to reduce these fees. We also have agreed on a procedure for more orderly and certain funding of the SEC. I am pleased that the legislation has the support and cosponsorship of my friends, John Dingell, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and Ed Markey, ranking member of the Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. Additionally, I have received a letter from Chairman Levitt of the SEC endorsing the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this letter from Chairman Levitt, and letters addressed to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, February 27, 1996. Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Tom: I write to offer my support and endorsement of the ``Securities and Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1996.'' Thank you for your strong leadership and the support of Chairman Fields, Rogers and Archer in designing a creative approach to the SEC's funding both on a short-term and long term basis. Your proposed resolution to the perennial problem of SEC funding and fees is perhaps the most important aspect of the ``Securities and Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1996.'' The funding mechanism for the SEC would reduce Section 6(b) fees over a five-year period and expand existing securities transaction fees to the over-the-counter market, recognizing that the Commission also oversees those markets. Under your proposal, the SEC also has agreed to act to eliminate fees that it collects pursuant to the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (``IOAA fees''), which include a fee of $250 that must be paid in connection with filings of annual reports and certain periodic filings. Finally, the SEC would gradually move from reliance on increased offsetting fees towards full appropriation status. The Commission believes that adoption of this approach provides a long-term solution to the SEC's funding problems. Finally, the premier aspects of the SEC Authorization Bill is that it enables us to maintain our vigorous programs to both protect investors and ensure that the capital formation system in the U.S. markets is efficient. This legislation will help the agency avoid the funding problems it has had in the past, and enable the SEC to be funded entirely through appropriations by the year 2001. David Cavicke has been extremely helpful in this important initiative. We look forward to working with you and your staff toward final passage of this authorization legislation. Sincerely, Arthur Levitt.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I also want to pay special tribute to Chairman Levitt for his leadership on this very important issue. Without his help and guidance, Mr. Speaker, we would not be here today with this I think very historic legislation. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to this legislation, SEC fees are reduced by $751 million between fiscal years 1997 to 2002. Thereafter, SEC fees will be at least $256 million lower per annum than they would be under current law. Of equal importance is the fact that Chairman Rogers has agreed to work with us to provide a more stable funding mechanism for the SEC, so the Commission can focus on doing its important work rather than devoting time to the problems of funding its operations. As SEC fees are reduced, the SEC will be increasingly funded by an appropriation. By 2002, the SEC will be entirely funded by means of an appropriation. Fees collected by the SEC will approximately equal the cost of running the agency, and will be deposited in the Treasury as general revenue. This legislation will begin to solve the problems associated with funding the SEC. It will also eliminate the surplus in SEC fees which constitutes a tax on our capital markets. I urge its support by the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2972, the bill just passed.