Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2036) to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to make certain adjustments in the land disposal program to provide needed flexibility, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, as the gentlewoman is aware, the bill as passed by the House addresses two rulemakings in which EPA tried to use principles of sound risk management but were prevented by the courts from doing so. Unfortunately, the current law, as interpreted by the courts, does not allow EPA to develop a reasonable set of regulations. Two weeks ago, the other body adopted, by voice vote, several amendments to the bill. The Senate amendments add underground injections wells to the 5-year study agreed to during the Commerce Committee's markup of the bill. The Senate amendments also address ground water monitoring concerns in Alaskan Native villages. Senator Chafee, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has asked me to place into the Record a point of clarification consistent with the language of the House-passed bill. Specifically, it should be clear that the legislation does not modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the application or authority of any other Federal law or the standards applicable under any other Federal law, including the Clean Water Act. I would like to submit this letter for the Record. I am pleased to say H.R. 2036 has the strong support of the administration, the Ground Water Protection Council, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and representatives of the industrial community. I commend Chairman Bliley for his leadership on this issue and the bipartisan cooperation from Mr. Dingell, Mrs. Lincoln, and the administration. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, March 5, 1996. Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Chaffee: Thank you for your letter of this date clarifying the scope of H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Flexibility Act of 1996. Your letter correctly indicates that this legislation only modifies provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, a statutory program wholly within the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Commerce. The legislation does not modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the authority of any other Federal law or the standards applicable under any other Federal law, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The language which was included in the House bill, but inadvertently deleted by the Senate amendments, was intended to make clear that the bill does not amend any statute other than the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Thank you again for your clarification. Sincerely, Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman. U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC, March 5, 1996. Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bliley: It has come to my attention that in amending H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996, the Senate did not incorporate a House provision that was inserted during your Committee's consideration of this legislation. The provision stated that ``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed to modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the application or authority of any other Federal law or the standards applicable under any other Federal law.'' The exclusion of this language from the Senate passed bill should not be viewed as implying a contrary policy on this issue. The legislation passed by the Senate does not modify, supplement, or otherwise affect the application or authority of any other Federal law or the standards applicable under any other Federal law, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I understand this clarification is important to both you and the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. H.R. 2036 and its Senate companion, S. 1497, provide a model for moving targeted, commonsense legislation that maintains protection of human health and the environment while removing duplicative or overlapping layers of regulation. It has been a pleasure to work with you and your colleagues in the House to move this legislation expeditiously. Sincerely, John H. Chafee.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2036, the bill just considered.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct. Rarely have we been treated on this floor to such protectionist verbiage, perhaps not since the mercifully failed textile protectionist bill that worked its way through this Chamber on more than one occasion and was mercifully vetoed first by President Reagan and then President Bush. Those vetoes were sustained. This provision in the bill dealing with a very real issue of product liability, all of a sudden we are inserting this debate and language dealing with the so-called evil foreigners and all of the terrible things they are going to do to the American consumers. Let us make one thing very clear: The provision in the bill provides for adequate service on any foreign manufacturer that sells products in the United States. That is not in question. There is the ability to provide service and bring those defendants to a court of law. There was no provision at all dealing with this issue in the Senate. The other body somehow has lurched into the truth for a change, and we ought to recognize that they were wise in what they did. The issue really is this: Do we want an effective product liability bill passed into law for the first time in I do not know how long, or do we want to try to obfuscate the issue by waving the bloody shirt of protectionism dealing with a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with trade but has a lot to do with changing the legal system in our country? That is really the question. The gentleman from Michigan, the former chairman of the Committee on Commerce, did yoeman work in working through a product liability bill a couple of Congresses ago. We marked that thing up for 10 long days. The gentleman from Michigan, my good friend, showed great leadership in providing the kind of legislation that really, I think, led us to where we are today, and that is on the verge of getting a sound product liability bill passed. But, Mr. Speaker, there are those who would seek to try to derail this bill, both outside and inside this Chamber, who have a different agenda than passing a good, fair product liability bill, and anything we can do to obscure that is apparently all right with them. This simply discriminates against foreign corporations and manufacturers, and invites retaliation by those very same folks against American firms. Now, do we really want to set up this kind of statute in the United States whereby American companies then, who would manufacture and sell products all over the world, would be subject to the same kinds of legal ramifications that are provided in this bill? I think not. This simply raises the cost of litigation, has the opposite effect of what we are trying to do with the underlying legislation, and that is, invites more litigation and invites more retaliation. Mr. Speaker, I would call this anti-jobs provision the fat cat lawyers act. It feeds trial lawyers at the expense of American businesses and consumers. It is not in the best interests of American businesses and consumers. Despite the rhetoric coming from the far left and the far right, the principal point of American manufacturers is to sell their products abroad. The provision, as espoused by both gentleman from Michigan, would have the opposite effect, would have a negative effect on our ability to create and protect markets overseas. I would ask that this motion be defeated and that we get on with the conference report that will send a strong bill to the President for the first time in a long, long time, dealing with a strong product liability legislation that all of us can be proud of.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to talk about section 275 of the telecommunications conference report concerning alarm monitoring services. Section 275 generally restricts Bell operating companies and their affiliates from providing alarm monitoring services for 5 years from the date of enactment. It does, however, allow BOC's that were lawfully engaged in the alarm monitoring business on or before November 30, 1995, to continue to provide such services. There are no prohibitions under current law barring Bell operating companies from providing alarm monitoring, and those companies that have chosen to enter this business in reliance on current law should not be unduly penalized after such lawful entry. Moreover, such companies should be permitted to operate and expand their business just like any other company in our free market system. Restrictions on growth deny consumers the benefits that additional competition will bring. The only restriction on grandfathered BOC's contained in the conference report is that such companies may not acquire any equity interest in or obtain financial control of an unaffiliated alarm monitoring company. Let me be perfectly clear, as is the language of the conference report: This restriction does not encompass customer or asset acquisitions. There is no restriction on acquisitions of customer accounts or the assets of unaffiliated alarm companies by a Bell operating company that was offering alarm monitoring services on or before November 30, 1995. After 5 years, the limited restriction on acquiring an equity interest or obtaining financial control will be lifted and there will be no entry, equity, or financial control restrictions whatsoever on Bell operating company provision of alarm monitoring services.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, during the 104th Congress, the Commerce Committee has been highlighting the problem of inflexible or inappropriate statutory requirements. These requirements can prevent EPA from issuing regulations or facility cleanups that address realistic and significant risks in a cost-effective and cost-reasonable manner. H.R. 2036 embodies the position of the EPA in final rules that were later struck down by the courts. In each case, EPA did a regulatory impact analysis which found that the costs of a given option were exceedingly high and the benefits very low. In each case, EPA sought a more flexible and balanced approach but was ultimately directed by the Courts to the most counterproductive result. In their March 2, 1995, summary of the Proposed Rule EPA wrote, ``the Agency is required to set treatment standards for these relatively low- risk waste and disposal practices, although there are other actions and projects with which the Agency could provide greater protection of human health and the environment.'' In this particular case, EPA estimates suggest over half a billion dollars will be spent with little if any improvement to human health. Indeed, the Agency states that less safe alternatives may be chosen over more safe alternatives. That is unacceptable. In their letter endorsing H.R. 2036 the administration wrote,'' the bill would eliminate a mandate that the EPA promulgate stringent and costly treatment requirements for certain low-risk wastes that already are regulated in Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act units.'' H.R. 2036 is also endorsed by organizations representing State environmental programs such as the Groundwater Protection Council, and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials as well as the National Association of Counties. I appreciate the bipartisan efforts of Ms. Lincoln and the administration, including the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Kathleen McGinty, and her staff, in support of H.R. 2036. It is important to move forward with legislation that injects common sense into current statutory law and H.R. 2036 is just such an infection. This is time-critical legislation and I hope that it can proceed swiftly through the process. I should note, however, that these issues--while important for many--are the tip of the iceberg. We must make fundamental reform to ensure that our regulatory programs address realistic and significant risks through cost-effective and cost- reasonable means. There is much work to be done. I urge all the Members to vote for swift passage of H.R. 2036 to prevent EPA from being forced to use unnecessary and costly regulations.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. Years ago, seems like longer than it was, but in 1991 the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and I introduced legislation to eliminate the cable-telco cross-ownership language, to encourage competition between cable and telephone and allow them into each other's businesses, neither one of them particularly happy with that prospect at the time, and now we have come to this day. In looking back, when Al Swift and Tom Tauke introduced a bill to eliminate the modified final judgment, we worked very hard on that issue, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman, and I want to express my sincere appreciation to them for their hard work in the past and what has brought us here today. The same kind of thing for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman, who has shown enormous leadership, and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], who unfortunately will be retiring but has just put in hours and hours of work and leadership to get us where we are today. I think all of us in this House owe Jack Fields a great deal of gratitude for where we are today. The heart of this bill is to eliminate monopolies and to encourage this great competitive marketplace that we have going for us. Our answer is, let the competition begin. Today, we make history, the first major rewrite of telecommunications legislation in this country in over 60 years. Driven by good public policy and an explosion of new technology, we stand at the threshold of the 21st century in communications with America as the undisputed leader. Mr. Speaker, in many ways it is a relief to be approaching the end of this protracted process. This conference report has been a long time coming--62 years, in fact--and while the bill falls a bit short of my expectations, there can be no doubt that it represents landmark reform of the Nation's telecommunications law. This legislation is ambitious in its vision and breadth. It is a vision of deregulation and head-to-head competition. It opens up all communications markets to competition, including the local telephone and cable television industries. The measure's provisions allowing telephone companies and cable companies to compete in each other's markets are based on legislation I introduced in 1991 with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher]. Our measure envisioned the convergence of these technologies, and our initiative constitutes the heart of this reform effort, if I may say so myself. The bill is antiregulatory and antibureaucratic in philosophy. Where there are regulations or mandates, they exist in most cases for the express purpose of promoting competition and ensuring the unencumbered operation of market forces. As is the case with politics, open business competition is not always a pretty process. There will be dislocations and miscalculations. Certainly, there are those who would prefer the old way of sheltered monopolies and intense Government regulations. But in the end, the more efficient markets, and innovations that protected incumbents would never undertake. As an aide, Mr. Speaker, there are some important issues which have been left somewhat vague in the conference report, in order to allow the FCC the latitude to implement them effectively. Some specifics have been outlined, however. In the case of the joint marketing provisions, for example, it is my understanding that the offering of local and long distance service under the same brand name would be permissible, so long as they are fully separate and those services are not jointly advertised. In the case of local marketing agreements, I note that the language allows LMA's to continue. It is important that broadcasters are granted the flexibility that these innovative agreements make possible. They help ensure the continuation of free, over-the-air local broadcasting. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the conference report could have been even more deregulatory than it is. It is not the revolutionary measure originally introduced in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance. Unfortunately, the regulators and the protectionists left their imprint on this bill, as well. However, considering that we have a regulation-minded administration at the White House and rather narrow Republican majorities in Congress, it is an excellent step in the right direction. And in those areas where we did not meet expectations, there will be future opportunities to address shortcomings. Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation will mean more choices, lower prices, and better services for all telecommunications consumers. It will mean more economic growth, more jobs, and a more competitive U.S. economy. I urge the support of all Members.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I appreciate the problems of Medina County. My home county has a similar kind of situation where they actually save the money to develop a landfill and then use that to initiate flow control. They did it very responsibly. They are unfortunately not covered under this particular version, and that is why it is important for us to get to conference on this issue so that we can vent these issues and have them determined. I am on the gentleman's side on this issue, and I understand where he is coming from, but we cannot get this problem solved unless we get to conference, and that is what this procedure is all about.

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

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the issues of flow control and interstate waste have vexed this Congress for the last several years. I believe that it has been proper all along to consider these issues in tandem, because they both speak to how responsibly we, as a society, manage the disposal of solid waste. Some communities find themselves in desperate financial condition because of the Supreme Court's Carbone decision that struck down flow control. These communities sold bonds to investors in good faith, and are relying on limited flow-control power to pay them back. There is a need for Congress to act with dispatch in order to provide legitimate relief. Not everyone will agree with the bill in front of us today. Some people wanted a broader bill, others, no bill at all. But this bill sends a clear signal that obligations will be honored. A great controversy has arisen over the last few days over the decision to move this flow bill before the House arrived at a position on interstate waste legislation, which is equally as important to importing States like Ohio. Frankly, I was prepared to oppose the decision to divorce the two titles, especially since they were approved by my subcommittee on a voice vote. Adding to the anxiety of importing States were recent statements that the move to split the two bills would have killed any interstate legislation this year. I have received assurances, however, that in approving this flow- control bill that we will be able to conference interstate waste with the Senate. I had a productive discussion with Rules Chairman Jerry Solomon this morning. I would expect that the concerns of importing States will be adequately and forcefully represented in conference. Meantime, I have encouraged the Governors of the affected States to meet and to try to reach an agreement on the issues. We need to have direct participation by all Governors with an interest in this. The National Governors Association meeting coming up soon will allow the Governors to have face-to-face discussions on this issue. Again, I will give support to this flow-control bill only having been assured by key players in the debate that interstate waste legislation will be addressed and that the concerns of importing States, which have fallen on deaf ears in recent years, will be resolved. I want to pay special thanks to the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for providing an opportunity for those States who are importing States to actually get to conference on this important issue. I think all of us share the goal of getting to a conference and getting to agreement on this important issue, involving the Governors and all of the Members from the affected States. Please remember that 23 Governors have signed a letter in support of the legislation that passed out of my subcommittee on a unanimous voice vote. There is strong support out there for reasonable interstate waste provisions in the statute, coupled with flow control. I ask the Members to support this important move forward as we get into a conference committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Please remember on the separate issue we have a letter from 23 Governors supporting interstate language. There is no way in the world that a conference committee will come back with anything less than a bill that will deal with interstate commerce.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, during the 104th Congress, the Commerce Committee has been highlighting the problem of inflexible or inappropriate statutory requirements. These requirements can prevent EPA from issuing regulations or facility cleanups that address realistic and significant risks in a cost-effective and cost-reasonable manner. H.R. 2036 embodies the position of the EPA in final rules that were later struck down by the courts. In each case, EPA did a regulatory impact analysis which found that the costs of a given option were exceedingly high and the benefits very low. In each case, EPA sought a more flexible and balanced approach but was ultimately directed by the courts to the most counterproductive result. In their March 2, 1995, summary of the proposed rule EPA wrote-- [t]he Agency is required to set treatment standards for these relatively low risk waste and disposal practices * * * although there are other actions and projects with which the Agency could provide greater protection of human health and the environment. In this particular case, EPA estimates suggest over half a billion dollars will be spent with little if any improvement to human health. Indeed, the Agency states that less safe alternatives may be chosen over more safe alternatives. That is unacceptable. In their letter endorsing H.R. 2036 the administration wrote-- [t]he bill would eliminate a mandate that the EPA promulgate stringent and costly treatment requirements for certain low-risk wastes that already are regulated in Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act units. Understand, they are covered in the Clean Water Act, so in that sense it is duplicative. H.R. 2036 is also endorsed by organizations representing State environmental programs such as the Groundwater Protection Council, and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials as well as the National Association of Counties. I appreciate the bipartisan efforts of Mrs. Lincoln and the administration in support of H.R. 2036. It is important to move forward with legislation that injects common sense into current statutory law and H.R. 2036 is just such an injection. This is time-critical legislation and I hope that it can proceed swiftly through the process. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the process. We had hearings on this legislation. The administration came in very effectively supporting this legislation. The majority made changes in the legislation at the request of the minority. This bill passed out of our subcommittee on a unanimous vote with the support of the gentleman from Massachusetts and all the other Members on the other side of the aisle that he mentioned. It then passed out of the full committee, Mr. Bliley's committee, again on a unanimous vote, with all members present voting in favor of the legislation. This is probably the best example you can imagine of good, bipartisan cooperation with the administration, getting rid of unworkable regulations that are costly and ineffective. So it is time critical we move swiftly through the process. I should note, however, these issues, while important for many, are simply the tip of the iceberg. We must make fundamental reform to ensure that our regulatory programs address realistic and significant risk through cost effective and cost reasonable means. There is much work to be done. I urge all Members to vote for swift passage of 2036, to prevent EPA from being forced to use unnecessary and costly regulations. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me quote a letter to the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, from the administration and EPA in support of our efforts. The Committee on Commerce's willingness to work with the administration and the minority in a bipartisan spirit and the consequent development of a narrowly tailored and balanced approach to this issue commends this legislation for prompt action by the full House on the suspension calendar. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be clearer than the strong support of the EPA and the Clinton administration for this legislation. I applaud the bipartisanship on the part of the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] and others. Let us get this bill passed. Let us provide some relief and some common sense to the process.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to share some joyous news with you and all my colleagues. Our good friend, Jack Fields of Texas, recently welcomed a new addition to his family--a daughter, Emily Alexa, born in Houston on Thursday, January 18. I know you and all my colleagues join me in congratulating Jack and his lovely wife, Lynn, on Emily's birth. Emily was born at 3:01 p.m. CST on Thursday at Methodist Hospital in Houston, and, thankfully, both Lynn and Emily are feeling fine. Emily weighed 8 pounds, 12 ounces and was 20 inches in length. As you know, Jack announced last month that this will be his last term in Congress. In his retirement announcement, Jack made clear his desire to spend more time with his family--Lynn, Josh, Jordan, and now, Emily. I know you join with me, Mr. Speaker, in extending to the Fields family our congratulations and our very best wishes on this joyous news.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of securities litigation reform and the veto override attempt. As Members know, and the White House must know, legislation to curb abusive securities-fraud lawsuits was approved by veto-proof margins by both Houses of Congress earlier in the year. I think this is a case where the Congress needs to act to save the President from himself. The legislation before us takes a moderate approach to the problem of frivolous securities class-action lawsuits. There is a collection of class-action lawyers out there who are filing meritless fraud suits against publicly traded companies, especially high-technology firms, whenever their stock prices fall. They have used the securities laws to win billions from corporations and their accountants. Meanwhile, defrauded mom-and-pop investors recover only 7 cents for every dollar lost in the market. This legislation will return the focus of securities laws to their original purpose--protecting investors and helping actual victims of fraud. This legislation has been described as a boon for securities firms, accounting firms, and public companies. I might add that it is a boon for employees of those companies, as well as anyone who invests in them in the hope that their stock will go up, not down. These reforms are long overdue, the President's veto message notwithstanding. They're good for American business, they're good for American competitiveness, and they're good for American investors.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of environmental matters in this year's DOD authorization bill that fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, and for which Chairman Bliley and I served as conferees. The first issue related to reforms of so-called restoration advisory boards, which are community involvement organizations developed by the Department of Defense to ensure citizen participation in decisionmaking on environmental cleanups of DOD facilities. The Commerce Committee is very concerned that the bill's provisions may ultimately have the effect of putting an inappropriate burden on the Superfund trust fund, and I understand that an exchange of letters between Chairmen Bliley and Spence will be included in the record of this debate. I simply rise to emphasize the point, and to assure may colleagues that, as the Commerce Committee considers its Superfund reform legislation in 1996, we will be keeping a close eye on this issue. The second matter of importance to the Committee was a direct amendment to Superfund relating to DOD's ability to lease parcels of its property. We worked closely with the Senator from New Hampshire in the other body to make commonsense reforms in this area. Nevertheless, the Commerce Committee clearly retains jurisdiction over these provisions, and In intend to review them as our Superfund reform bill progresses.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the amendments to the Fastener Quality Act which are in H.R. 2196. The Fastener Quality Act is the result of a 4-year-long study by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce. The statute requires testing and labeling procedures for certain grades of bolts and fasteners subject to high degrees of stress, such as in military and aerospace applications. The requirements of the Fastener Quality Act were designed to prevent the use of substandard bolts in applications where, if they were to fail, death or injury could occur. The Commerce Committee and the Science Committee have a long history of working together on this act. After the Commerce Committee Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee investigation, our committees worked together to secure passage of this legislation in the 101st Congress and the amendments to the Fastener Act contained in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Fastener Quality Act included in this legislation are almost identical to those passed by the House in H.R. 2405 earlier this year. These amendments simply restore the original intent of the Fastener Quality Act. Additionally, they provide for notice and comment on the appropriate threshold standard to assess a significant alteration with respect to the electroplating of fasteners. The Committee on Commerce has no objection to these amendments and urges their adoption.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on securities litigation reform. Legislation to curb abusive securities-fraud lawsuits was approved by veto-proof margins by both Houses of Congress earlier in the year. The conference report before us takes a moderate approach to the problem of frivolous securities class-action lawsuits, also known as strike suits. I would not suggest for a moment that all shareholder lawsuits are frivolous. Certainly, real cases of fraud do occur. However, there is a collection of class-action lawyers out there who are filing meritless fraud suits against publicly traded companies, especially high-technology firms, whenever their stock prices fall. A relatively small group of lawyers is responsible for the bulk of these suits, characterized by professional plaintiffs and victims on retainer. They have used the securities laws to win billions from corporations and their accountants. Strike suits force American companies large and small to squander time and money defending unsubstantiated allegations. Even through 93 percent of these cases never go on trial, each lawsuit cost an average of 1,000 hours of management time and almost $700,000 in legal defense fees. The average settlement costs a company $8.6 million. Meanwhile, defrauded mom and pop investors recover only 7 cents for every dollar lost in the market. The reforms under consideration will return the focus of securities laws to their original purpose--protecting investors and and helping actual victims of fraud. This legislation has been described as a boom for securities firms, accounting firms, and public companies. I might add that it is a boon for employees of those companies, as well as anyone who invests in them in the hope that their stock will go up, not down. These reforms are long overdue. They're good for American business, they're good for American competitiveness, and they're good for American investors.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Burton substitute. Those of us who have been criticized for going to events whether they are charity balls or dinners or golf events or tennis events, whatever it is, on behalf of charity I think have really taken a bum rap. When you talk about perception, the perception is not reality. I remember one of the events I had an opportunity several years ago to participate in out in Idaho was the charity event where we raised money for cancer research. Those of you who are worried that I was going to be playing with some well-heeled lobbyist, I ended up playing with the head of the Mormon Church. I can say with all honesty that, while it was a wonderful experience, he had very little influence over me other than perhaps some of my language, if I might have missed a put. The fact is that this effort by the Members is a very honorable one. The gentleman from Indiana, gentleman from Oklahoma, others have participated in these events. I am proud of it. I am proud of the fact that I have had an opportunity to help raise money for charity. I see nothing wrong with it as long as you report it. The gentleman's efforts to tighten the disclosure and the requirements are perfectly applicable. I do not think anybody should take advantage of this. Understand all of these are reportable. All of these rate public scrutiny, and ultimately our responsibility is to the people who elect us. Those are the people who really count. That is really what it is all about. That is full disclosure under the Burton approach and allow us then to go and explain it to our constituents. Those are the people that elect us. We are not responsible to other members. We are not responsible to the media. We are responsible to people who sent us here. That is what the Burton proposal does. It is full disclosure, gives us an opportunity to represent our constituents the way we think they ought to be represented. If they think that we are representing them well, they will return us to office. If they are offended by that, they will kick us out. Support the Burton amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a recent column by Richard Harwood of the Washington Post regarding the media to the attention of my colleagues. The reality is that journalists have real power in America. To a degree, this is as it should be, since a free and independent press is critical to the health of any democracy. With this power, however, come certain responsibilities. Accuracy is one. Objectivity is another. Now, as Mr. Harwood points out, a measure of good judgment would be welcome. As more and more of the fourth estate descends into tabloid-quality reporting, the question arises as to the motives behind the trend. Increased circulation--or ratings, as the case may be--certainly tops the list. Sadly, sex, scandal, and negativism sell. Add to this a seemingly innate cynicism among reporters and an institutional bias against conservative tastes and ideas, and you have the makings of the current state of affairs. This is not to say that reporters should avoid matters of controversy. Rather, it is to suggest that an attempt be made to run stories of real substance on matters of genuine consequence, rather than exploiting every topic for its gratuitous shock value. The media elite like to make themselves out as selfless servants of the public good, standing up for the little guy against the establishment. The truth is that the press is one of the most entrenched, unaccountable institutions in Washington. The next time a group of news editors gets together to wring their hands over the tawdry state of their industry, they need look no further than their own daily decisions for responsibility. With that, Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column to the attention of all interested parties. The `Character' Conundrum (By Richard Harwood) James David Barber of Duke University is the author of the proposition that our fate as a society is more dependent than we may realize on the quality of our journalism. As the political parties have sunk into a state of virtual irrelevance, journalists have become the new bosses of presidential politics. They are the power brokers and character cops who dominate the process of ``identifying, winnowing, advancing and publicizing'' the people who would lead the nation. The task of the journalist, Barber tells us, is to illuminate the ``question of character. . . . The problem is to get behind the mask to the man, to the permanent basics of the personality that bear on Presidential performance.'' The key is ``the life story, the biography. . . . For people sense that all our theoretical constructs and elaborate fantasies take their human meaning from their incarnation in the flesh and blood of persons. . . . Biography brings theory down to earth, history to focus, fantasy to reality.'' The late Theodore White made a start on this kind of journalism with his book ``The Making of the President 1960.'' ``The idea,'' he wrote, ``was to follow the campaign from beginning to end. It would be written as a novel is written, with anticipated surprises as, one by one, early contenders vanish in the primaries until only two jousters struggle for the prize in November. . . . It should be written as a story of a man in trouble, of the leader under the pressures of circumstance. The leader--and the circumstances. That was where the story lay.'' The book was an enormous success. Other journalists followed his lead, including Richard Ben Cramer, whose thousand-page volume on the 1988 campaign--``What It takes''--is recognized as a masterpiece. The problem with these great studies of character and action is that the information they contained was not available to voters until after the elections had long since been decided. Cramer's book involved six years of work and was not published until 1992. Barber concedes the problem: ``Journalism will continue to be history in a hurry. That is the main stumbling block.'' A fellow political scientist, Thomas Patterson of Syracuse University, insists it will always be so because that is the nature of the news business. ``A party,'' Patterson argues, ``is driven by the steady force of its traditions and constituent interests. . . . [It] has the incentive--the possibility of acquiring political power--to give order and voice to society . . . to articulate interests and to forge them into a winning coalition. The press has no such incentive and no such purpose. Its objective is the discovery and development of good stories.'' And ``good stories,'' he writes, increasingly are defined as ``negative'' stories, stories that ``expose'' some trivial gaffe or misbehavior on the superficial assumption that they tell us something important about the ``character'' and ``fitness'' of candidates. More often, he argues, stories of this kind tell us more about reporters' cynicism and contempt for politics than about the character of the people they write about. Richard Ben Cramer observed this in the baby boomers of the press corps and was appalled and driven to hyperbole as they worked over Gary Hart and his ``character flaws'' in 1988. These were the people of whom it could be said that in their salad days ``if sex were money, they all would have been rich.'' But now ``the salient fact about this boom generation had nothing to do with its love-and-drug-addled idealism when it--when they--were the hope and heritors of the world. ``By 1987, they still felt the world was theirs . . . and ought, by all rights, to dance to their tune. . . . But the salient fact at this point in their lives was . . . they were turning forty. They were worried about their gums. They were experts on soy formula. They were working seriously on their (late or second) marriages. They were livid about saturated fats in the airline food. . . . They did not drink, they did not smoke, drugs were a sniggering memory. . . . And they certainly, God knows, did not mess around. Sex! It was tacky. It was dangerous. It was (sniff!) . . . not serious. ``And . . . no one else was going to get away with sex either. Or drugs. Or ill health. Or fouling their air.'' They not only nailed Hart with charges of infidelity but nailed Douglas Ginsberg, a Supreme Court nominee, for smoking pot years earlier. They nailed Clarence Thomas for alleged lasciviousness, Bill Clinton for sex and experimentation with a joint, and tried to nail George Bush for an alleged affair with a co-worker. John Kennedy didn't live long enough to get the treatment. Must presidential candidates--or journalists or bankers-- come to marriage as virgins to prove their ``character'' and ``fitness'' for office? Must journalists, on those terms, be questioned on their fitness to judge others? Does an adulterous act, the sometime ingestion of a proscribed substance, too-slow dancing or the recitation of an ethnic joke now get you a permanent sentence in the political wilderness? Does having an abortion get you a disqualifying Scarlet Letter? The columnist Mary McGrory asked some questions recently about Bill Clinton, who is now 2\1/2\ years into his first term as president; ``Is his character not yet jelled--is he a 14-year-old who might still grow up? Or is this a permanent pattern of oscillation between mature grown-up and sniveling teenager?'' All the journalistic energies spend in 1992 on Gennifer Flowers and similar matters did not get to or have any obvious relevance to the character and fitness questions that still puzzle McGrory and countless other journalists and citizens. One thing is certain. When Prof. Barber exhorted us to examine and illuminate character, he was not talking about the insubstantial trash that we too often pass off as wisdom and insight into who these people are who want to lead the country. ``As far as I can see,'' he wrote, ``all of us are more or [[Page E 2176]] less neurotic, damned, healthy, saved, debased and great. That does not mean you send the grocer to fix your your plumbing. . . . [You] try to reach beyond characterization to political impact.'' A subsidiary industry of the news business is the post- election conference or seminar on how we went wrong in our work. Why did we commit so much ``tabloid journalsim''? Why was coverage of the ``real issues'' so lously? Why didn't we better understand the candidates, their characters, their personalities? When all this psycho-babble is over and the next campaign comes around, we tend to repeat the same scenario because we can't help ourselves, because the habits of journalism are too hard to kick, because our history is too hurried, because truth and news are not the same.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by James Glassman from the Washington Post to the attention of my colleagues. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 14, 1995] Dole's Moment (By James K. Glassman) For two good reasons, Bob Dole's campaign people liked having Colin Powell around. First, Powell took the spotlight off Dole, letting him avoid the scrutiny that often destroys early front-runners. Second, Powell took the spotlight off the other candidates, depriving them of the publicity they needed to raise money and get traction. Now Powell is gone, and the predictable stories have begun. The front page of The Post yesterday carried the headline: ``Out in Front, but Losing Ground. Polls Expose Dole's Potential Vulnerabilities as Presidential Challenger.'' The New York Times opted for a piece on how ``Moderates could pass up Dole and hold out for an independent.'' Etc. etc. The hyperactive press demands novelty. It will never heed Pascal's famous warning ``that all human evil comes from . . . man's being unable to sit still in a room.'' And, certainly, cynicism about politicians is nothing new. Thumbing through some issues of the New Yorker in its heyday, I found an article by Richard Rovere from June 1968 that described the intense dissatisfaction of voters with the presidential field at the time. What a field! Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Richard Nixon, George Wallace and Nelson Rockefeller. But what about Bob? I suspect that 14 months from now, at age 73, he'll be sworn in as president. He has a giant lead in New Hampshire. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), who was supposed to give him a tough race, is in single digits. And his other top foes have never won an election--a reactionary pundit and a rich supply-sider who inherited a magazine from his famous dad. In the general election, polls show Dole and President Clinton about even. But answers to two questions are ominous for the president. A Time/CNN survey found 41 percent would ``definitely'' vote against him. A Post survey asked, ``Which party better represents your views on national issues.'' Republicans got 55 percent, Democrats 25 percent. The White House, meanwhile, has adopted a weird reelection strategy. Harold Ickes, the lead official on the campaign, says that ``the overall issue is going to be leadership. . . . People will make their judgments based [[Page E 2182]] on what they know about the person, what they think about his character.'' Bill Clinton running on character? Certainly, the lesson of the Powell infatuation is that the nation desperately wants a leader, but it's hard to see the current president as that man--or Dole, right now. Still, if you look beyond the next few messy weeks (in which Speaker Newt Gingrich, far more than Dole, is taking the heat on the budget), you can catch a glimpse of Dole's own story emerging. It is a powerful one, and most Americans don't know it yet. I didn't know it myself until I read ``What It Takes,'' Richard Ben Cramer's brilliant but unwieldy book on the 1988 presidential campaign. Now Cramer has collated all the bits about Dole and put them into a single volume, ``Bob Dole,'' recently out in paperback from Vintage. The story is the wound, suffered 50 years ago when, as a 21-year-old Army lieutenant, Dole's upper body was torn apart by German gunfire on a hill in Italy. ``Whatever hit Dole had ripped into everything,'' writes Cramer, ``You could see into Dole through the jacket, through the shoulder, like a gouged fruit. See down to the core.'' Dole was sent back home, nearly died a few times, but hung on, fighting against what Cramer calls ``his private vision of hell. . . . Sometimes, he could actually see himself on Main Street, Russell, in a wheelchair, with a cup.'' In 1947, a Chicago surgeon named Hampar Kelikian, an Armenian immigrant who had come to America with $20 in his pocket, put Dole back together. Dr. K. refused to be paid, but Dole had to get to Chicago, and the folks in Russell chipped in, putting their dollar bills in a cigar box. Three years later, Dole was elected to the Kansas state house, then county attorney, then U.S. representative, then, in 1968, U.S. senator; in 1976, vice presidential nominee; in 1984, majority leader; in 1994, leader again. The trouble with this great American success story is that Dole himself is reluctant to tell it. As Cramer shows, he feels embarrassed about not being ``whole''--as if his handicap should be hidden: ``If [Dole] ever let himself rest, that [right] arm would hang straight down, visibly shorter than his left arm, with the palm of his right hand twisted toward the back. But Dole never, lets anybody see that--his `problem.' He keep a plastic pen in his crooked right fist to round its shape. ``If he ever let that pen go, the hand would splay, with the forefinger pointing and the others cramped in toward the palm. . . . No matter how that fist aches or spasms, Dole holds on--against his problem.'' So what about Bob? He has few core beliefs, other than balancing the budget (as Cramer writes: ``Bobby Joe Dole grew up in Russell, Kansas. He saw people die from debt.''). He may be uncomfortable with Gingrich and his passionate conservative cohorts, but that doesn't mean he'll betray them. As president, he'll be a moderating force, but in the end, he'll sign, not veto. Up to now, he's been ignored and underestimated. That's starting to change. Dole has to get through the Florida straw poll later this week with a good showing and get through the fight over the budget without serious damage. Then, it will be time to tell his story and show his stuff. Will Americans take to him as leader, as the last member of the heroic World War II generation to lead this country? Don't bet against it.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Seven- Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. As the name implies, this package of reforms outlines a clear path to a balanced budget in the year 2002. We promised the American people that [[Page E 2066]] we would bring the budget to balance in 7 years, and today we plan to deliver on that promise. While balancing the budget in itself is an admirable and worthwhile goal, our bill does much more. These provisions, taken as a whole, mark a clear shift in power from Federal bureaucrats to families, States, and communities, who know what works best for them. I had the opportunity myself to vote in Committee on many of the provisions included in the bill, and I commend my colleagues for their fine work in constructing the other reforms included in this bill. I would like to outline some of the major items included in our bill. As many already know, the Medicare trustees reported last April that unless Congress takes ``prompt, effective and decisive action,'' Medicare will go bankrupt in 2002. Consequently, House Republicans have passed the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, which has been included in this bill. This legislation will bring Medicare back onto solid financial ground by infusing it with the innovation and efficiency found in many private health plans. By giving seniors a wide choice of options, while maintaining traditional Medicare as one option, and by cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse, we can ensure a strong Medicare Program well into the future. Another major highlight of this legislation is the $245 billion tax cut for American families. As included in the Contract With America, our bill includes a $500 per-child tax credit, a reduction in the capital gains tax, and a repeal of President Clinton's 1993 tax on Social Security benefits. While President Clinton promised tax relief for the middle-class, and subsequently delivered the largest tax increase in American history, our bill delivers on our promise of needed tax cuts. This package also incorporates the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995, as passed by the House earlier this year. Simply stated, welfare has become a way of life for far too many recipients. By making it easier to collect a handout than to work, the current system has destroyed individual initiative and actually perpetuated poverty. A Contract With America priority, this pro-work, pro-family bill will reform our welfare system by providing a helping hand, not a handout, to the millions of Americans caught in this dead-end trap. As some may know, the cost of Medicaid has been growing at the uncontrollable rate of nearly 10 percent a year, and eating up one- fifth of State budgets. Our bill includes Medicaid reform that will provide more money, fewer bureaucrats, and greater protections against fraud and abuse. With the help of our Nation's Governors, Republicans have developed a plan to block grant Medicaid funds to States in the form of new MediGrants. Given this new flexibility States will be able to design innovative, cost-effective programs targeted toward their specific needs and populations. In our continuing effort to make Government both smaller and more efficient our bill includes language, which I personally shepherded through the Commerce Committee, to abolish the Department of Commerce. While our bill will maintain the Department's legitimate functions, such as the census and statistical recordkeeping functions, we eliminate the unnecessary and duplicative functions for an estimated $7 billion in savings. Another issue that I was personally involved with was the spectrum auction. Our bill will expand the auction to raise an additional $15.3 billion over 7 years. Having been an early proponent of the spectrum auction, I am pleased that revenue raised by auctioning radio spectrum, which was previously given away for free, will now be used to balance the budget. Other meaningful reforms included in our bill include: The creation of tax deductible personal medical savings accounts, the closing of corporate tax loopholes, public housing reforms to eliminate duplicative programs, terminating the overly bureaucratic and costly Direct Student Loan Program, and the adoption of a taxpayers' bill of rights. I believe that it is time for these reforms, because the American people deserve more than higher taxes and a bigger, more bureaucratic Federal Government. This bill represents much more than your average yearly spending reconciliation plan, it represents a blueprint for the future. Under our plan Americans will have more in the family budget, greater control over the workings of their Government, and the peace of mind that their children and grandchildren will live in a debt-free America full of opportunity.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the reconciliation package. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. As the name implies, this package of reforms outlines a clear path to a balanced budget in the year 2002. We promised the American people that we would bring the budget to balance in 7 years and tomorrow we plan to deliver on that promise. While balancing the budget in itself is an admirable goal, our bill does much more, including: reforming our broken welfare system, providing needed tax relief for American families, saving Medicare from certain bankruptcy, restructuring Medicaid so States can meet their own specific needs, and many other reforms that ensure that the legacy we leave our children is debt free and full of opportunity, rather an ever increasing Federal deficit and a bloated, more intrusive Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the various committee's that worked diligently to complete this package of long needed reforms. I look forward to a productive debate that will show the American people that their elected representatives can act in a responsible manner for the future of our country.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, we have heard today about many of the improvements that this bill makes to the Medicare Program. Foremost among these is what we call the seamless web. Today, millions of retirees are forced by rigid and antiquated Medicare rules to disenroll from their employer's health plan--even if the coverage they receive was better than that provided by Medicare. Just because you retire shouldn't mean that you have to give up the coverage you're used to-- but today, that's the case. Under the bill, your 65th birthday doesn't have to be the day you give up your association or employer coverage. This bill frees retirees from this unreasonable and counterproductive requirement. Under our plan, retirees can remain in their preretirement health plan, so long as it meets important Medicare standards. In fact, this bill allows members of associations and labor unions to maintain their current coverage even after they retire. Why do we feel it is so important to create this seamless web? Because Medicare should create opportunities--not obstacles--to better health care coverage and greater senior satisfaction.