Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Ohio manufacturers for their continued success in exporting products abroad. Early this year I took to the floor to note a World Trade magazine report that ranked Ohio No. 1 in the country in the number of businesses that export goods. Now comes a study from the Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research showing that in the first half of 1995 Ohio exports increased 18 percent to $12.1 billion through June. This dynamic performance was broad based, with sectors as diverse as electronics, agriculture, and industrial equipment logging impressive gains. Indeed, auto supplier Buckeye Rubber Products of Lima, OH, was among those cited for posting healthy increases. [[Page H 10050]] Mr. Speaker, as a long-time free trader I'm proud to see Ohio leading the way in the global marketplace. It's further proof that protrade policies are benefiting Ohio companies and Ohio workers.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me briefly say to my good friend from Pennsylvania that we are strongly supportive of the efforts on his behalf in regard to the fastener issue. Our committee, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, then chaired by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], had several hearings several Congresses ago about that issue. It actually passed legislation in that regard. This amendment tracks very carefully the patch that we set out in the Committee on Commerce. This is a positive amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman's amendment and this legislation. The Fastener Quality Act, the result of a 4-year long Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee investigation by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 O&I 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 H.R. 2405. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply restores the original intent of the Fastener Quality Act. The Committee on Commerce has no objection to this amendment and urges its adoption. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, we would like to take this opportunity to recognize the significant contributions made by Miami University in Oxford, OH. As one of us is a proud alumnus of this institution and the other has the privilege of representing it in Congress, we know firsthand that the rankings and honors are well deserved. We jointly submit our appreciation and acknowledgement of the efforts taken by the staff, students, and administration. Their combined work has earned them a top twenty rating by both The Fiske Guide to Colleges and Money magazine as one of the Nation's best educational values. Yet another accolade came this week with U.S. News and World Report ranking Miami University as the 9th most efficient school nationally. Considering the caliber of schools this fine institution competes with, one easily sees that all of Ohio benefits from such a productive and rewarding partnership. We feel that the quality of higher education is being vigorously upheld and improved upon by Miami University and all the other fine institutions recently listed among this Nation's best. We wholeheartedly wish them continued success.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the great work being done at Ohio Northern University by both the staff and students which has recently won the school an outstanding rating as one of the premier institutions in the Midwest. Ohio Northern was ranked fourth in the Midwest by U.S. News & World Report in its ninth annual ``America's Best Colleges.'' This has been the second straight year Ohio Northern has been ranked fourth in the Midwest. The ranking includes 144 similar institutions in 12 States. Institutions are evaluated through various statistical measures with a survey of academic reputation by 2,700 college presidents, deans and admissions directors. Data measure student selectivity, faculty resources, financial resources, retention rate and alumni satisfaction. Ohio Northern continues to have a talented student body, capable faculty, strong academic programs, and high standards. For example, 1 out of 10 ONU students is a high school valedictorian. This year, 262 valedictorians are enrolled at the university. Incredibly, it should not be overlooked that ONU has been operating with a balanced budget for more than 30 consecutive years. For these reasons and numerous others not mentioned, I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to this fine institution which really is an asset to the people and State of Ohio.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a recent column by Paul Taylor of The Washington Post to the attention of my colleagues. As we in Congress continue about our task of reducing the power, reach and expense of the Federal Government, we might do well also to lower some unrealistic expectations. In a free society, there are limits to what government can do to guarantee financial success for its citizens, prepare for their retirement, or preserve their families. The U.S. Government can not compel people to make intelligent career choices, invest wisely, or take their kids to the ball game. The Government can not make you go to church--it is in the Constitution. Our first goal should be to see to it that government interference does not restrain citizens from realizing their dreams. Beyond that, we should limit ourselves to those relatively few activities which are performed best by a National Government. To that end, it would be helpful if politicians, pundits and the press would take a break from over-indulging the malcontents (and searching for scapegoats) and instead focus on efficiently executing the basic functions of government. The at once sad and glorious truth is that much of what ails the people of the United States today is beyond the domain of government. Americanism is about individual initiative personal responsibility, private acts of charity, and above all else, freedom. With the freedom to pursue your ambitions comes the risk of falling short. With that in mind, I commend the following column by Paul Taylor to the attention of all interested parties. Makes Me Wanna Whine (By Paul Taylor) ``Politics,'' says Bill Bradley, ``is broken.'' His fix is to quit the Senate and ``focus on the lives of the people who are disconnected from the political process.'' And just maybe run for president. Three suggestions, senator. Start by telling all those disconnected people to stop whining. Then tell the politicians to stop pandering to the whining. Then tell the media to stop exploiting the whining. Can anyone really believe the problem with American politics is that the folks who claim to be alienated from it--most inclusively defined, the nearly three-quarters of [[Page E 1727]] Americans who now routinely tell pollsters they don't trust their government--aren't being hear? The problem is that they're running the show. They own the radio talk circuit, the catch-a-scoundrel television newsmagazines, the late-night comedy monologues, the prime- time sitcoms and the afternoon Oprah-and-Phil whine-alongs, to say nothing of Madison Avenue and Hollywood. Their grievances have become our national entertainment-- neatly packaged, voraciously consumed. Their everybody's-out- to-screw-me take on life is ground zero of the popular culture. The political press lavishes attention on their rumblings about the need for a third party or another independent presidential run by the likes of Ross Perot or Colin Powell, and never mind that the central truth about the ``radical middle'' of our political spectrum is that its members have no common ideology. Some are liberal, some conservative, some libertarian. What grieves them doesn't start with politics and, in the main, can't be fixed by politics. It is spiritual, social, moral and economic. That's why, at Perot's whinerama in Dallas earlier this month, the best audience responses went to empathetic speakers from distant poles of the ideological map--Jesse Jackson on the left and House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich on the right. Here's a radical notion: When the whiners insist the problem is rooted in politics, their delusions become self- fulfilling. Their media-stoked anger creates the dysfunctional foundation upon which the nation's political conversation is held, its candidates elected and its public policy made. They do at least as much damage to politics as politics does to them. In 1992, the whiners achieved the latest in a string of dubious political victories by electing a president who is forever reassuring them: ``I feel your pain.'' Naturally, this makes then whine even louder. But their impact on politics didn't begin with President Clinton. For a generation now, the angry middle class has systematically put into office politicians of both parties who over-indugle them, to everyone's eventual grief. What is the hated national debt but the cumulative choice by one cowed Congress and president after another to give the American people all the goodies they demand, then flinch at charging them at 100 cents on the dollar? When the angry populists get angrier still about the way this shell game has mortgaged their children's future, they scour the landscape for scapegoats. Is it the big money boys, the corporate lobbyists, the PAC men, the NAFTA brigade? Or is it the lily-livered politicians? Welfare cheats? Illegal immigrants? Single mothers? Blacks? Whites? Japanese? Mexicans? Detective Fuhrman? All the usual suspects get trashed, except of course the perps themselves, who just get more angry. Before I push this curmudgeonly screed any further, let me put my own suspect credentials on the table: I write with some complicity and, at least for another moment or two, some distance. I'm recently back from a three-year stint as The Post's correspondent in South Africa, where I covered the brave transformation from apartheid to democracy. Before that, I covered American politics for two decades. During the 1980s, I wrote my share of sympathetic articles about the set-upon, anxiety-prone, economically stagnant middle class. Perhaps I caught the virus. Eventually, like the subjects of these pieces, I grew jaded with American politics. I decided to cast my lot elsewhere. In South Africa, I had the chance to observe political leadership at its most sublime. Had Nelson Mandela and Frederik W. de Klerk been guided by the angry voices in their respective constituencies, South Africa probably would have been plunged into a race war. Instead, using moral suasion and pragmatic statesmanship, they persuaded nervous supporters to accept a scary racial compromise. Mandela and de Klerk each succeeded precisely to the degree that an element of their message to the people was: Stick you pain where the moon don't shine; one day you'll thank me. During those three years abroad I also kept half an eye trained homeward. From 8,000 miles away, American society looked impossibly rich, breathtakingly dynamic and pathologically whiny. Poor, bedraggled Africa probably isn't the clearest vantage point from which to observe anything in the First World. Nonetheless, here's what I saw from there: An America that had colonized the planet with democracy, language, currency, computers, movies, music, bluejeans and fast food. An America whose inflation and unemployment was low, whose stock market was booming. An America at peace. An America that had slain communism in the second half of the century, just as it had slain fascism in the first. Job well done! Let's party! Yet everyone in America I saw on CNN seemed to want to shoot, shout or sue. Plainly, some of this dyspepsia is a morning-after phenomenon. After wars, hot or cold, nations lose their sense of mission. And some is the stress on everyday lives caused by a shift in economic epochs, from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. And some is a winner-takes-all dynamic that keeps driving American income distribution toward more distant poles of inequality. And some is the frustrating wage stagnation of the middle class. And some is the confusing change in gender roles and relationships. Together, all of these forces have undermined the nuclear family, society's most reliable incubator of values and morals. Let's stipulate that life is tough. It's tough to live in the inner city; to lose a job to corporate ``downsizing''; to graduate from college suspecting you'll never live as well as your parents. But really! Can it be tougher to be a single mother working at McDonald's in 1995 than it was to be a immigrant wife working in a Chicago slaughterhouse in 1915? Tougher to be an insecure factory worker now than an Oklahoma farmer during the Dust Bowl years? A 22-year-old cab driver now than a 22- year old GI in 1917? Or 1943? Or 1952? Or 1969? Hey, we've got air conditioning, ESPN, Dove Bars and lots of other good stuff. But Americans still seem to have convinced themselves that life in the past few decades keeps getting worse. Part of the delusion is sustained by my craft. In a complex world, the culture of complaint makes journalism less difficult. There's a grievance, there's a victim, there's a bad guy. Whining (and O.J.) has become the touchstone that connects us all. It bridges our diversity. It moves product. Sometimes journalism can take all this to silly extremes. Last week's Time magazine cover story, ``20th Century Blues,'' turns to psychobabble in seeking to establish a ``mismatch between our genetic makeup and the modern world.'' The piece begins: ``There's a little bit of the Unabomber in most of us.'' Two weeks ago, a New Yorker essay started the same way. Memo to colleagues: That guy's a crackpot. Most Americans aren't. In fact, I've made an important discovery after returning from three years of worrying from afar about America's angst. I'm amazed by . . . how normal everybody is! In office elevators, at fast-food joints, in airport lobbies, the folks I encounter are the same busy, sensible, good-humored, can-do Americans I've always known. They don't look crazed; they don't even look stressed. At the hollow core of this culture of complaint, there's an element of hype--a kind of tacit conspiracy between the media and the whiners. The latter have grown savvy about which sound-bites will get them into the national conversation. The former, if they're so inclined, can extract a fuming quote from just about anyone. I've found that if you talk to most Americans long enough, they turn out to have nuanced, common- sense views (if not always quotable quotes) about almost everything, including their government. They may not be especially well-informed, but they're smart. They're certainly right that the political system isn't responsive to their anxieties. But they're wrong that their anxieties can be reduced to neat public policy solutions. Or that the sky is somehow falling. When all these people loudly proclaim that politics is broken, it reminds me of an observation sometimes made about academic politics: the smaller the stakes, the nastier the fights. Freed from cosmic worries, spared of wars or depressions, bereaved of global enemies, Americans in the 1990s are gazing at their navels and grousing about the lint. It's human nature. Both the politicians and the media have a professional interest in pretending the stakes are huge. So the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress gets blown up as a ``historic'' realignment, and already the '96 presidential contenders are talking about a ``once-in-a-lifetime'' chance to reconfigure the size and scope of government. The voters are pretty wise to this poppycock, but it feeds their frustration with politics. They keep hearing about all the upheavals that are supposed to be coming out of Washington; then they check their own lives and discover nothing's changed. They feel jerked around. They switch channels, or turn off the set altogether. The absence of big change from Washington can be seen another way: as a testament to a stable, non-ideological, centrist political system, where public policy is fought out between the 45-yard lines. That's not a bad thing. The problem is that the real source of what ails America lies beyond the reach of government. Nobody, for example, wants to live in a society where a third of all children are born out of wedlock and half grow up in homes without their biological father. Everyone understands how that tears apart the social fabric. Yet politicians indulge the conceit that they can change these behaviors. Right now they're debating welfare policy, a useful debate to have. But the personal behavior of the poor (or anyone else) is substantially beyond the reach of policy; always has been. New Jersey recently adopted a new welfare policy that cuts off additional benefits to welfare mothers if they have more kids. The preliminary findings? They keep right on having more kids. In matters of the heart and matters of the loins, government doesn't have enough carrots and it doesn't have enough sticks. If there was a little more honesty from on high about what government can do, maybe there'd be a little less anger from below about what it cannot. But maybe not. I often wondered these past three years how Mandela or de Klerk would have fared in the cynical pit of American politics. They're both gifted politicians, but part of their success was based on the respect that Africans have for their leaders [[Page E 1728]] and institutions. It is a continent full of willing followers (often too willing); in this instance they were served by exceptional leaders. In America at the moment, that relationship has gone awry. Our leaders won't lead and our followers won't follow. It's hard to imagine how the logjam gets broken from below. The laws of human nature can't be repealed. Cynicism begets cynicism. Still, each of us can make a start. I hereby vow as a returning political journalist not to report at face value all the whining I'm sure to hear between now and November 1996. But the real burden, I'm afraid, lies with politicians like you, Sen. Bradley. By all means, go out and listen to the voices of the disconnected. But not too long. What they really need is a good talking to.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, since the passage of the 1992 Cable Act, the PCC staff has increased some 30 percent, making it one of the largest growing Federal bureaucracies in Washington. Most of the growth is due to the creation of the Cable Services Bureau. Listen to this: When established, the Cable Service Bureau has a staff of 59. Since the passage of the Cable Act of 1992, it has increased and has quadrupled in size. The 1995 cable services budget stands at $186 million, a 35-percent increase from the Cable Act. We do not need more bureaucrats telling the American public what they can and cannot pay for MTV and other cable services. It seems to me that the potential is clearly there for more and more competition. If we get bureaucracy in the way of competition, the bureaucracy always wins. It is important to understand the negative effects of the Cable Act of 1992. This amendment would exacerbate the terrible things that have happened since 1992.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Conyers amendment. This bill in all of its forms does not repeal the Sherman Act. We have had the Sherman Act for over 100 years. It does not repeal the Clayton Act passed in 1914. Anticompetitive behavior will be reviewed by the Justice Department, whether it is the telecommunications industry or whether it is the trucking industry or any other kind of industry that we are talking about. The Justice Department is not going away. What we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman, or what the Conyers amendment seeks to do, is basically replace one court with another, except a different standard. This amendment guts the underlying concept of this bill, which is pure competition, and the idea to get Congress back into the decisionmaking process. How long do we have to have telecommunications policy made by an unelected Federal judge who has no accountability to anyone; when are we going to get back to providing the kind of responsible decisionmaking that we are elected to do? Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleagues that the underlying bill provides that kind of ability and accountability for the duly elected representatives of the people. This amendment creates needless bureaucracy by having not one, but two Federal agencies review the issue of Bell Co. entry into long distance. The purpose of this legislation is to create conditions for a competitive market and get the heavy hand of Government regulation out of the way. This Conyers amendment is inconsistent with that purpose. Mr. Chairman, this is a huge opportunity to provide competitive forces in the marketplace away from Government. If we believe that competition and not bureaucracy is the answer to modernizing our telecommunications policy, to providing more choice in the marketplace, to providing lower prices, to making America the most competitive telecommunications industry in the entire world, we will vote against the Conyers amendment and support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to the Conyers amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my firm support for the Communications Act of 1995 and the floor manager's amendment to it. The amendment improves the bill in a variety of areas, including some important refinements regarding foreign ownership. The amendment clarifies section 303 of the bill giving the Federal Communications Commission authority to review licenses with 25 percent or greater foreign ownership, after the initial grant of a license, due to changed circumstances pertaining to national security or law enforcement. The Commission is to defer to the recommendations of the President in such instances. In addition, I wish to clarify the committee report language on section 303 concerning how the Commission should determine the home market of an applicant. It is the committee's intention that in determining the home market of any applicant, the Commission should use the citizenship of the applicant--if the applicant is an individual or partnership--or the country under whose laws a corporate applicant is organized. Furthermore, it is our intent that in order to prevent abuse, if a corporation is controlled by entities--including individuals, other corporations or governments--in another country, the Commission may look beyond where it is organized to such other country. These clarifications are intended to protect U.S. interests, enhance the global competitiveness of American telecommunications firms, promote free trade, and benefit consumer everywhere. They have the support of the administration and the ranking members of the Committee on Commerce, and I ask all members for their support. [[Page H 8459]] On separate matter, I am aware that some of my colleagues who are from rural area, as I am, have concerns regarding the universal service provisions of H.R. 1555. I want them to know that I will work with them in conference to assure that rural consumers continue to receive the telephone service there have traditionally known. I am interested in working with my colleagues on perfecting the universal service language.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the Communications Act of 1995, I wish to express my support for the manager's amendment and the bill, and let me give credit to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and many others who have worked long and hard on this. We are not reinventing the Wheel here. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and I have introduced a bill involving cable/telco cross-ownership along with then Senator Gore and Conrad Burns from Montana, and before that there was a bill introduced by Al Swift from Washington, and Tom Tauke from New York. This has been an issue that has been with us a long time. The real question we ask ourselves is do we think it is necessary 10 years later to have an unelected, unresponsive Federal judge as a czar of telecommunications, or is it time we take that issue back for the people through their duly elected representatives? Make no mistake about it. This is the most deregulatory bill in American history. Some $30 billion to $50 billion in annual consumer business costs are benefited, 3\1/2\ million new jobs created. This is the largest jobs bill that will pass this Congress or any other Congress for a long time to come. It opens up all telecommunications markets to full competition including local telephone and cable. Now the cabel/telco provisions based on the bill I introduced with the gentleman from Virginia is part and parcel of this bill. It basically allows telephone companies into cable, cable into telephone, and provides the necessary competition that is going to benefit our consumers. I want to talk briefly about a provision that I was intimately involved in, and that is section 310(b) of the Communications Act. We felt it necessary to modernize that provision so that American companies would have better access to capital and at the same time would be more competitive in a global economy. I think, through the efforts of compromise with the Members on both sides of the aisle, we have reached that compromise, and I think that section 310(b), as we have amended it working with the administration as well as with the members of the committee, is clearly a much better section than it currently is in that it would encourage foreign governments, if left as it is now, to restrict market access for U.S. firms. Make no mistake about it. Countries all over the globe are liberalizing their policies in telecommunications and American companies are taking advantage of that more and more and more. It makes sense for us to be on that same path, and I think we will with the language we provided in section 310(b). We are at the point of passing historic legislation in this House. It has been a long time coming. I give credit to all those who have been involved. This is a worthy undertaking, and I ask support for the manager's amendment and the bill.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the folks who support the Markey amendment which was made in order, the gentlewoman from New York was talking about the concentration of media, she has an opportunity to support the Markey amendment. But we cannot do that unless the rule passes. Then the Members, the V chip that they had their amendment made in order stand here in the well of the House and complain about the rule. When I had my amendment offered to the Committee on Rules, it was rejected. So instead, the bunch of ingrates standing here complaining about the rule who had had their amendment in order, and here I stand, I got stiffed by the Committee on Rules and I am supporting the rule. What is wrong with this picture? I give up. I am here to support the rule and simply say that it is time that we break the chains of the modified final judgment and take once and for all the responsibility for telecommunications legislation back to the duly elected Representatives of the people and take it away from an unelected, unresponsive Federal court. Let us give back, let us give us the opportunity to make those kinds of decisions for the consumer. This is the most far-reaching, procompetitive, deregulatory piece of telecommunications legislation in over 60 years. This is a product that has not just come out of the woodwork. It is a product that has been worked on for at least 5 years. Members of our committee, members of the Committee on the Judiciary, Members who have been here a while have worked on this issue. I find it incredible that we would even consider not passing a rule that would get us one step closer to what we want in telecommunications in the modern marketplace. We have an opportunity here to pass the most far-reaching job- creating bill that any of us can imagine, a 3.5 million jobs bill. In 10 years that will catch us up with technology and take an antiquated 1934 statute and bring it up to the 21st century. I have a particular provision that I was proud to work on dealing with the foreign ownership restrictions. They are incredibly antiquated. They restrict the ability of American companies to raise capital and to compete in the worldwide market. This bill breaks those barriers. I am proud to support the rule and proud to support the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out, I had an amendment offered on the V chip that was not made in order. I am supporting the rule. I hope those Members who had their amendment made in order would have the courtesy to support the rule.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Let me point out, I pointed out in my response about that letter; I referenced the fact that Chairman Bliley, Chairman Shuster, and I sent a letter to the gentleman from California in my remarks and recognize that they have a job to do as well, and they recognize that the program as it is now constituted is simply not working. And so they said to us, ``Look, you get your act together, get a good bill passed, and we will reconsider the kind of money that will be available in the Superfund Program.'' I think that is entirely, entirely reasonable. As a matter of fact, the bill that the gentleman from Michigan referred to we all worked very hard on, did not pass.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan. As the chairman of the primary subcommittee in charge of reforming the Superfund program, I also wanted increased funding for Superfund. I, along with the gentleman from Virgina, Chairman Bliley, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Shuster, wrote to Chairman Lewis and requested funding for the Superfund program that reflected fiscal year 1995's appropriation. Unfortunately, the Appropriations Committee simply could not provide that level of funding. While that makes my job of reforming the Superfund program more difficult, the appropriators' rationale is a sound one--that we can no longer afford to waste money on a Superfund program which simply doesn't work. If you are under the impression that Superfund works well, we need only to look at the case of Southern Foundry Supply Co., a family-owned business located in Chattanooga, TN. As shown on this chart, EPA spent approximately $1.3 million studying the site. Southern Foundry was forced to spend an additional $500,000 in attorneys' fees and in conducting its own studies. Some 15 years and $2 million later, Southern Foundry escaped the Superfund web by spending $38,000 and 2 days scooping up nonhazardous dirt and shipping it offsite. It is a perfect example of how Superfund works--millions for lawyers and consultants but little for actual cleanup. It's no wonder that the Appropriations Committee doesn't think that this program should continue without significant reform. I think it is vitally important that we are clear about what the Appropriations Committee is doing in this bill. Realizing that we will have limited funds now and into the future, the appropriators have said that we can no longer afford to throw away money on ineffective cleanups and endless litigation. They have said that EPA should wait until Congress reforms this program before they go forward with any more flawed remedies or make the Federal Government responsible for any new sites. And, frankly, I agree. Superfund's track record speaks for itself: since the program was enacted in 1980, only 75 sites have been cleaned up at a cost to the Federal Government of more than $15 billion. What many of my colleagues fail to realize is that the appropriations bill before us actually spends more on cleanup than EPA has in the past. In this bill, nearly 65 percent of the funds are directed to cleanup. Even though EPA claims that as much as 70 percent of Superfund dollars are for cleanup, my subcommittee found that less than 50 percent of that money ends up being spent on Superfund sites. What is reduced in this bill is EPA bureaucrats and Justice Department lawyers. This appropriations bill is the natural predecessor to my subcommittee's reform effort. It redirects funds to cleanup, and imposed a deadline on the Congress and the administration for reforming the Superfund program. If we can't make this program work by the end of the year, then the American people are better off without it. If we leave the status quo intact, who wins? Not the environment; not the people who live near these sites; certainly not the American taxpayer. A little more money won't help this program clean up more sites or make Americans any safer, particularly when shifting that money from FEMA will leave our citizens more exposed to the ravages of disasters, both natural and manmade. The only thing that can make Superfund more effective in protecting our citizens' health is top to bottom reform, and the bill we are debating today is the first step in that effort. The authorizing committee will totally change the Superfund program for the better. The authorizing committee will take the next step this fall. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Dingell-Brown amendment and support the bill as is on final passage.

Mr. OXLEY. Right. If you recall, the last time I looked in the 103d Congress, the Democrats were in control. We were not able to kill anything. The fact is this bill will pass this year and will be a major reform of the Superfund Program. We will keep faith with the appropriators, keep faith with the American people, we will keep faith with the environment. I am entirely confident that will be the case.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman will yield further, EPA's regulatory impact analysis places the cost of this rule at somewhere between one- half billion dollars and three-quarters of a billion dollars each year. That is too steep a price to pay for wasteful and duplicative regulation when those resources could do so much more to protect human health and the environment if used elsewhere. Frankly, if the supermandate in H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act, were law, we would not be facing a rule which EPA, itself, believes is so extraordinarily wasteful.

Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct in his understanding. Section 2 of H.R. 2036 is designed to prevent the imposition of burdensome requirements on wastewater treatment systems and deep injection wells that already are thoroughly regulated and [[Page H 7913]] permitted by the States and EPA under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Essentially, my bill would authorize EPA to take the course of action that it originally chose. When the Agency first issued its LDR regulations, the Agency concluded that imposing treatment requirements on these types of nonhazardous waste management systems ``would not provide further protection to human health and the environment,'' and would cause ``considerable disruption at facilities that EPA generally considers safe.''

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker]. The energy efficiency standards which our committee so assiduously worked on and finally passed on a strong bipartisan basis is truly in danger if the Parker amendment passes. I want to give a lot of credit to the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for sticking to his principles on this issue. We have set a strong record. This is the kind of case where the industry came in, as the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Massachusetts talked about, into our committee and said, we need a national standard for these energy efficiency products. Virtually all of the industry that I am aware of signed off on this. Now when we have some industries that have had the foresight to actually follow the rules and regulations, they are going to be punished if the Parker amendment passes. That does not make a whole lot of sense. So my sense is, let us support the Committee on Appropriations who knew what they were doing when they passed this particular provision in the committee and certainly the Committee on Commerce that did such yeoman work in setting these standards.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Houghton amendment. I have had a great experience working on the Board at OTA. I have learned a lot. And what I have learned is this, that the information that we get as Members of Congress making policy is getting more and more technical and more and more difficult. And OTA has done yeoman's work in providing that kind of information. One example, we had a bill last year, if you will recall, dealing with wiretapping. We worked with the FBI, we worked with the telephone companies, to craft a bill that would allow the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to deal with the very real problem of using legal wiretaps on the new technology. We asked OTA to determine how that technology will result in either excessive or not excessive costs in implementing that program. It was a very important study. We just got the interim report back. We would expect the final report back relatively quickly. That will give us an idea about how that new technology will work and the ability of law enforcement to protect us from the kind of situation that occurred in Oklahoma City. I think it is important that OTA be made part of this proposal. I support the Houghton amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to restore funding for the Office of Technology Assessment. While I am a relative newcomer to OTA's operations, I have been impressed with what I have observed. In addition to being on OTA's governing board, I am also one of its clients as a member of two subcommittees of the House Commerce Committee. In September I asked the OTA to take on a complicated job for the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance--namely, to figure out the costs to the telecommunications industry of meeting law enforcement needs under the requirements of the Communications for Law Enforcement Act. The problem we had during the debate over the act, was that the telephone industry and [[Page H 6194]] the FBI had widely different ideas on costs. To understand these costs and whose numbers might be best, we quickly figured out that we needed to know a lot more about the technology than we did. And neither we nor our staffs has the time to do the necessary digging. So we turned to the OTA. What I discovered was a wealth of knowledge and insight related to the whole field of telecommunications. OTA, I found, has already completed numerous studies upon which we could draw and there was knowledgeable staff to quickly take on our task. I already have their preliminary results in hand and I expect the final report next month. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, I will be using OTA's expertise again. OTA's analysis of the Superfund Programs will be important as efforts begin in the Congress to completely revamp this program. Just last week, OTA provided important testimony before my subcommittee, and is continuing to produce analysis to help in rewriting Superfund legislation. I know that these limited experiences of mine are not unique. Countless other subcommittees and committees are continually tapping into OTA's knowledge base and expertise. At this time, when we are contemplating massive changes in the way this country is run, I think we need the best information and analysis available. With this in mind, I hope that my colleagues will carefully consider the OTA's irreplaceable expertise to Congress and support this amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following column by Cynthia Beltz from the Journal of Commerce to the attention of my colleagues. [The Journal of Commerce, May 25] Investors Make Lousy Crowbars (By Cynthia Beltz) The world's major industrialized nations this week launched two years of negotiations to reduce barriers to cross-border investment. Just last week, the United States threatened Japan with 100 percent tariffs on luxury auto imports unless its auto parts market is opened to U.S. companies. Unfortunately, such tit-for-tat tactics in the trade arena are now spreading like an infectious disease into the investment field, threatening to thwart the negotiations before they get off the ground. U.S. investment policy traditionally has rejected aggressive reciprocity tactics. Instead, Washington has maintained open-door policies at home while promoting them abroad. The strategy has paid off. The best companies in the world have flocked to the [[Page E1177]] United States, boosting productivity and economic welfare. New research from the Census Bureau shows, for example, that foreign-owned plants are more productive, more technology-intensive and pay higher wages than the average U.S.-owned plant. Developing countries are also moving at a record pace to emulate America's successful open-door investment policy. More than 40 nations moved in this direction in 1992 alone. Indeed, attitudes have shifted from deep suspicion of multinational investors to active solicitation. Foreign direct investment, or FDI, is now the most important source of external finance for developing countries, which attracted a record 40 percent of global FDI flows in 1994. A lack of modern infrastructure that threatens future growth is further driving FDI liberalization in areas still restricted in many nations. Countries such as India and Indonesia, for example, are breaking down telecommunication monopolies and encouraging increased foreign participation. The irony is that the United States is moving in the opposite direction. In contrast to the unilateral opening now occurring in developing countries, the United States has started to experiment with a new generation of laws and regulations that promote the discriminatory treatment of foreign investors. Since 1988 substantial machinery has been put in place to block FDI deals and to penalize foreign-owned firms for the offensive practices of their home-country governments. First popular in the area of research and development policy, these tit-for-tat tactics are now being used against foreign investors through the deregulation of U.S. financial services and communications sectors. In both cases, pending legislation would condition the access of foreign investors-- such as banks and telecommunication firms--on comparable market-opening measures in their home countries. U.S. negotiators have further indicated their intention to link the two during the investment negotiations, which are being held under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Caught in the cross-fire are deals like the proposal by Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom to buy a 20 percent stake in Sprint; rival AT&T wants the deal blocked until equal access is secured in the German and French markets. Also caught are proposals to unconditionally eliminate the existing 25 percent restriction on foreign ownership of media and telephone companies. These proposals don't have a chance until the tactic of using investors as a trade tool is rejected as economic nonsense. For starters this approach treats liberalization as a concession and discounts the intrinsic value of foreign investment to the U.S. economy. Opening financial services and telecommunications more to competition and foreign participation will generate benefits for the U.S. economy that do not depend on more open rules abroad. Sir James Graham, a 19th century British statesman, said it best: to create a link between the two is to ``make the folly of others the limit of our wisdom.'' As San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Robert T. Parry put it, the ``hammer of reciprocity'' is a crude policy tool that misses the fundamental point: Competition is America's secret economic weapon, not reciprocity. Take the case of the auto industry. Foreign-owned car plants in this country--so-called transplants--have brought key technology and management practices to the United States, strengthening the domestic industry and transforming the nation's Rust Belt into an export belt. By contrast, consider the sheltered telecommunications industry in Germany and the slow pace of deregulation, which have kept costs high and hurt firms within the industry as well as downstream users. Further, if the United States hopes to secure an investment agreement--either through the OECD or an expanded World Trade Organization--that is based on the principles of nondiscrimination, then approving the use of foreign investors as a crowbar is hardly an auspicious start. Is this really the precedent the United States wants to set for other countries, especially the dynamic developing economies? Just as the OECD is trying to narrow the scope of investment restrictions, Washington is carving out a new category of exceptions to the principle of nondiscrimination, with potentially damming consequences. The hazard of being a leader is that others watch and follow. The anti-dumping laws provide an unfortunate case in point. Initially promoted as a ``trade remedy,'' anti-dumping laws have spread around the world, to the detriment of U.S.- owned multinationals. More than 40 nations--half of them developing countries--have adopted anti-dumping laws. Indeed, there has been a sharp increase in cases since 1990, and U.S. exporters are now the target of these laws more often than any other country. What seemed to help in the short term instead has worked to reduce corporate flexibility and hurt the efficiency of the global economy. If other countries follow the U.S. lead in investment and use FDI as a trade tool, we will have created an administrative nightmare. We also will have squandered a rare opportunity to develop a comprehensive, nondiscriminatory investment regime. Rather than take this troubled path, the United States should lead by example and resist the tit-for-tat approach to investment challenges. Competing for, not restricting, investor dollars--domestic or foreign--drives the economy forward. Let's stick with the program that works. Cynthia Beltz, a research fellow at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is editor of the forthcoming, ``The Foreign Investment Debate'' (AEI, 1995).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an exemplary citizen from the Fourth District of Ohio, George Adams. George is retiring after serving as the principle of St. John High School in Delphos, OH, for 15 years. During his quarter century of service, over 1,750 students have graduated from St. John, benefiting from George's enthusiasm and commitment to the young people of his school and community. Among numerous other educational organizations, George has donated his time to the Ohio Association of School Administrators and the Ohio Education Association. His service extends beyond his work with the Delphos schools. As the father of four children, George provides a fine example of citizen combining service to his community with family life. Having served on the board of trustees of the St. John Parish Foundation, the Bishop's Education Council, and the Knights of Columbus, George has proven extraordinary benevolence to his church. I would like to thank George for his service to both St. John High School, and to the Delphos community. Through his earnest dedication, George serves as a role model for each citizen.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the House Republican fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. Our budget, as promised, outlines a clear path to the elimination of our national deficit by the year 2002. For too many years the Democrat leadership in the House has irresponsibly increased spending while putting the fiscal future of our children in jeopardy. This budget will ensure that the legacy we leave our children in debt free and full of opportunity, rather an ever increasing Federal deficit and a bloated, more intrusive Federal Government. On another level, our plan marks a shift in power away from Federal bureaucrats to families, States, and communities, who know what works best for them. Over the coming weeks we will hear many say that our budget calls for dramatic cuts in Medicare. This could not be further from the truth. Under our proposal Medicare spending will increase from an average of $4,700 per recipient to $6,300 per recipient by the year 2002. As a matter of fact, overall Federal spending grows by about 3 percent annually under the GOP budget plan. The simple truth is that the Medicare trust fund will go bankrupt in just 6 years. The Medicare board of trustees has verified this conclusion. In response to this announcement Republicans have designed a plan to save Medicare. By controlling the amount of growth of all Federal spending, including Medicare, we will put ourselves on track to a balanced budget, and at the same time save Medicare from certain insolvency. Let us pass this budget and bring fiscal sanity to this House for the first time in a generation. On another matter, note that this budget calls for the elimination of the Department of Commerce. While I recognize the significant savings that would result from this and other efforts to streamline and reduce Government bureaucracy, I would just like to state that the elimination of this Department will not be as easy as simply eliminating funding. The elimination of this agency will require the repealing of a number of underlying statutes and the spinning off of several vital responsibilities. As chairman of the Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, I will work closely with my Republican colleagues to address these concerns and put ourselves on track for a balanced budget in 2002.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, the creators of public broadcasting proposed funding it through a trust fund capitalized by various fees and taxes on commercial broadcasters. The proposal went nowhere. Like other government-funded agencies today, public broadcasting is being asked to [[Page E1072]] reinvent itself. The leaders of CPB, NPR, and PBS have been specifically challenged to come up with new sources of funding to replace tax dollars. Given the realities of the deficit, public broadcasters were strongly encouraged to be innovative and far- reaching in their thinking, to take full advantage of the tremendous changes now taking place in the telecommunications marketplace and the resulting opportunities to get public broadcasting off the Federal dole. And what have they come up with? PBS has proposed a trust fund capitalized in part by fees from commercial broadcasters and in part by allocations from the Government's sale and auction of spectrum, and CPB says that ``no combination of cost savings and new sources of revenue can fully `replace' the Federal subsidy.'' Anyway you look at them, the plans rely on Government funding, slightly repackaged and devoid of a marketplace solution. Where is the vision so desperately needed in order to reinvent public broadcasting for the 21st century? Where is the innovative thinking in proposing an idea that died 30 years ago? Why should commercial broadcasters subsidize public radio and television when they themselves are faced with an increasingly competitive marketplace? It is time for public broadcasting to reach beyond the tired proposals of bygone days and look for truly bold solutions for replacing Federal funding. It is time to look to the marketplace for ideas, alliances, and opportunities. Public broadcasting is a valuable network of local community institutions which has an intensely loyal audience. Surely this presents opportunities for more innovative solutions. I believe we can find a way to preserve the educational mission of public broadcasting in the context of today's telecommunications market without relying on Federal funding, whether is direct appropriations or redirecting Federal revenues into a trust fund. For public broadcasting to remain viable, its leaders must first recognize that the congress will cut the umbilical cord to the Federal Treasury.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. It allows us to protect our precious waterways in a cost-effective manner. I have a particular interest in the Great Lakes provisions in this bill. Lake Erie is a tremendous asset to my home State of Ohio. States like Ohio want to be able to protect this resource in a way that makes regulatory and financial sense. The language in this bill gives them the flexibility to do exactly that, and we will achieve more real progress than we would get if the EPA's Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative was imposed as a rigid, mandatory regulation. Municipalities in my district have been concerned about the costly provisions of the G-L-I. Wastewater treatment plants are being told to reduce the discharge of mercury to a level lower than what naturally occurs in rainwater. That amounts to spending millions of dollars to remove a substance that is put back into the Great Lakes every time it rains. Even if implemented as written, there is no guarantee that the G-L-I will lead to the lifting of a single fish advisory or the opening of an additional mile of shoreline for unrestricted use. Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill. Let us support it.