Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Reclaiming my time, and the gentleman may want to respond. Let me just comment. There is an avenue, I would suggest to my friend from New York, to honor large groups. That would be the commemorative coin. It is somewhat ironic that after the reforms that were made by the gentleman from Delaware where we tightened the restrictions on commemorative coins, and for good reason, that we then had this increase in the gold medal. I think we can safely say that the gold medal traditionally supports the concept of honoring an individual for service to the country, and that the commemorative coin, which has been essentially put on the back burner, presents a very appropriate avenue for recognizing groups that heretofore have not been honored. I think that the reforms in the past and the ones that the gentleman from Delaware is now propounding in this bill makes excellent sense. I think once the Members understand the changes, that they are going to gravitate toward the concept of a commemorative coin as opposed to the gold medal. That is precisely what the gentleman from Delaware proposes in this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Let me, in closing, Mr. Chairman, indicate, first of all, my respect for the Members who have undertaken the responsibility of going out and getting 290 signatures. Virtually everyone I have talked to said, never again, because of the difficulty. I said, well, think of it this way. You get a chance to meet a lot of new friends. Every time you walk over or ride over for a vote, every time you see a Member in the dining room, wherever it may be, you are getting their support. But it is a difficult process. I think the gentleman from Delaware was right in raising that bar to where it is now, because it really does focus one's attention on how difficult that process is. It does make it, by definition, a bipartisan process. That is a fact of life that we deal with time and time again. The legislation before us, I think, does restore the medal to what it was envisioned to be way back in 1776. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment changes the effective date of the introduced version of the bill from after December 31, 2005 to instead make the new limitation on the number of congressional gold medals effective on enactment of the bill. The change will be made so that uniform guidelines governing the medal program will be in effect for the whole 109th Congress and beyond and not change in the middle of the Congress. If we were to pass the bill but leave the effective date until the end of the session there would be a land rush to enact bills on gold medals that would place Members in an awkward position. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is really in many ways contrary to the reforms that are already enacted, led by the gentleman from Delaware and the one that is now before us. The institution of two-thirds of the Members was very important, and the reforms in the Commemorative Coin Reform Act, which was adopted almost 10 years ago, instituted a two-coin-per-year maximum. The reforms in that program have worked perfectly. Congress has not passed more than two programs for issue in any year since the law passed in 1996. One year, in 2003, only one coin was issued. The reforms have restored the dignity of the commemorative coin program, which had spun out of control; and similar reforms will do the same for a Congressional Gold Medal. So it seems to me a natural progression in the reform process. And, indeed, the Founding Fathers found the need to award only 45 medals in the first 123 years of our country, but over the last decade Congresses have awarded nearly 10 times that many in just 10 years. I think those numbers are critical in understanding why the necessity for this reform effort, and for that I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do oppose the amendment. I have some empathy for the first amendment offered by the gentleman from New York, but certainly not this one. Clearly, if there is a bipartisan element to this whole idea of getting two-thirds of the people supporting it, it is the Congressional Gold Medal, and I think the gentleman somewhat undercuts his own argument by giving us the figures that he did because, in fact, I do not think most Members, when they are approached by a Member carrying that bill, really are concerned about whether it is a Republican sponsor or a Democrat sponsor. They are concerned about who that individual being honored is. And just by the definition of having two-thirds sponsor would indicate a strong bipartisan support and historically that has always been the case. And I think that the amendment would tend to compartmentalize the authors of these gold medal resolutions that would be difficult to enforce and perhaps would cause some kind of a rush to try to get the necessary signatures prematurely. So I think it is really difficult for the committee, for example. As the gentleman knows, who has served on my committee with great distinction, we pride ourselves on the bipartisanship of the committee and the leadership of the committee, and we have continued to do so. So I think this is superfluous at best and, as a result, would oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to close, and again in opposition, I think it is unfortunate and really not necessary to put Republican-Democrat in the statute. That is really what we are trying to do; that is what the gentleman from New York is trying to do. This is an issue that needs to be worked out at the leadership level, which traditionally has been the case. The last example that the gentleman mentioned, I do not know what all that had to do with, but I think it was above our pay grade. But at the same time, that is how it works, and to encase Republican and Democrat in the statute I think at this time would certainly not be in the best interests of the process, and that is why I continue to oppose my friend's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that this is a motion with instructions, so it does not go back to the Committee on Financial Services, it would automatically come back to the floor. Secondly, I want to applaud the gentleman from Delaware, who sponsored this legislation. The concept behind the gold medal, the highest award that the Congress can provide, has historically been given, historically, to an individual. The first individual was George Washington, even before the Declaration of Independence. Historically that was the case. In the first 123 years of the existence of our country, only 45 medals were given out, all of them to individuals. Since that time, we have had a tenfold increase in the next subsequent 100 years. And the gentleman from Delaware is right, we need to reform the system. There is bipartisanship in the existing system because it involves 290 cosponsors, so everybody gets an opportunity to weigh in on the importance of the medal. There is an opportunity now with commemorative coins to honor groups as opposed to the individual medal. So the gentleman from Delaware needs to be congratulated on forward-looking reforms, just as he did in the commemorative coin program. This is an effort, really, to gut these reforms, this so-called motion to recommit, and that is why I oppose it. We had extensive debate during general debate, as well as the two amendments offered by my friend from New York, and so I would ask that the motion to recommit be defeated; that we pass this legislation; and then get on to the work of defining two medals each year, a maximum of two medals each year, four for the Congress, to honor individuals who have had extraordinary contributions to our country. Let us go back to what the original intent of the Founding Fathers was in this gold medal. I think it is important to do so.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my good friend and colleague from Ohio. I am amazed at how many experts on Ohio election law we have in this Chamber. I had no idea that so many Members from all over the country would have such a working knowledge of the Ohio electoral process. My friend from Ohio and others have explained it quite well how we work very well on a bipartisan basis. Indeed, our election laws in Ohio are quite adequate to the task despite the fact that we had a huge number of voters, an unprecedented number of registrants, and some adjustments to the new voting system; but I think we, by everybody's estimation, did quite well. I know my friend from Michigan had a tough November with the Buckeyes beating the Wolverines and, of course, earlier in November with the loss of his Presidential candidate; but we should not try to overturn the presidential race any more than we should try to overturn the outcome of the Ohio State-Michigan game despite what my friend from Michigan might want. This is a time, as my friend from Ohio said, for reflection, for healing, for getting on with the business of the Nation. This exercise, unfortunately, has distracted our country from that worthy goal. For that, I am truly sorry.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in paying tribute to Congressman Bob Matsui of California. The American people will miss this outstanding public servant, and we in the House of Representatives will miss a skilled legislator who approached every issue with a fair mind. I've lost a friend. Bob and his wife Doris were friends of my wife Pat and me. Our son Chadd and their son, Brian, grew up together as congressional kids. For the past 2 years, Bob and I were hallmates. In fact, I moved into his old office on the third floor of the Rayburn building. He always had a smile and hello for anyone he passed in the hall, whether it was a fellow Member, a staffer, or a visitor. Bob Matsui was a courageous legislator. He showed great resolve in helping to win approval for the North American Free Trade Agreement. There isn't a tax or trade bill in the last 20 years that doesn't have his stamp on it. He was positively heroic when he had Congress squarely face the issue of the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Bob Matsui showed us the meaning of dignity and humility as he helped us to acknowledge a wrong. He and his parents were among those held in internment camps, but what was more important to him than his personal history was righting history for thousands of innocent Americans. Our thoughts and prayers are with Bob's family. As we start a new session of Congress, we should all look to the distinguished career of Bob Matsui as an example of how we can remain true to our ideals and beliefs while ultimately working together for the good of all Americans.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this historic bipartisan legislation and of all the work this House has done to bring it to the floor today. This was by no means an easy task we set out to achieve when we received the 9/11 Commission report this past summer and set to work holding hearings during the August recess. The Financial Services Committee's contributions to S. 2845 continues some of the most important work it, and the Congress, has ever done. Work that began in the tense hours and days after the tragic attacks on September 11, 2001, and continues today in the efforts on this House to synthesize the 9/11 Commission report into momentous legislation. It is a testament to the work of the Financial Services Committee that the 9/11 Commission report cited with approval Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act, and said that on anti-terror financing and anti-money laundering the various elements of the government are doing a good job. The Commission also urged Congress, law enforcement, and the intelligence community not to become complacent and to engage in ongoing and rigorous examinations of the financial system. I believe this legislation rises to meet that challenge. The Financial Services Committee has once again come together to create bipartisan legislation aimed at disrupting the financing of terrorism and strengthening the country's anti-money laundering laws. The package that the Committee assembled centers on four broad themes: (1) additional finding for the fight against terrorist financing; (2) new tools for the government to combat terrorist financing schemes; (3) improved international cooperation and coordination on anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing initiatives; and (4) enhanced preparedness of the financial services sector in case of another large-scale terrorist attack. Among the key provisions in S. 2845 that reflect the contributions by the Financial Services Committee are the following: Technical amendments to the anti-terror finance title of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was largely drafted in the Financial Services Committee; An authorization for additional funding for Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which serves as the Federal government's financial intelligence unit and plays a critical role in the collection and analysis of data on suspicious financial activity; A reauthorization of the national anti-money laundering strategy, along with grants to State and local law-enforcement agencies to investigate the financing of terror and other financial crimes; A provision that allows the SEC to take action in an ``emergency'' to maintain or restore fair and orderly securities markets, ensure ``prompt, accurate and safe'' transaction settlement, and prevent disruptions of markets or market activities. The Secretary of the Treasury is given comparable authority over markets for government securities; An authorization for the Secretary of the Treasury to produce currency and other security documents at the request of foreign governments; A directive to the Secretary of Treasury to prescribe regulations requiring the reporting to FINCEN of certain cross border transmittals of funds relevant to the Department of Treasury's anti money laundering and anti terrorist financing efforts; A restriction on federal examiners of financial institutions, for one year upon leaving the federal government, from accepting compensation for employment from a financial institution which the examiner had responsibility for examining; A requirement for better coordination and building of international coalitions; A Sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury should continue to promote the dissemination of international anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing; A requirement that the Secretary of Treasury convene an inter-agency council to develop policies to be pursued by the United States regarding the development of common international anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing standards; A provision that enhances the delegation authority for the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint a Fiscal Assistant Secretary in the absence or inability to serve of the current Fiscal Assistant Secretary; A Sense of Congress that insurance and credit rating firms should consider a firm's ``compliance with standards for private sector disaster and emergency preparedness'' when assessing the firm's insurability and creditworthiness. This is consistent with the 9/11 Commission Report, which made the identical recommendation. I want to especially thank the Members of the Financial Services Committee that were instrumental in bringing the success of this legislation. I would especially like to recognize Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bachus (AL), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairwoman Sue Kelly (NY), Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology Vice Chair Judy Biggert (IL), Ranking Member Barney Frank (MA), and Committee Member Luis Gutierrez. I also want to thank our counterparts in the other body for there help in resolving our issues quickly. In sum, Mr. Speaker the Financial Services Committee's contribution to S. 2845 makes needed changes that respond directly to the 9/11 Commission's call for a continuous examination of the U.S. financial system to identify loopholes capable of being exploited by al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and to close down those gaps.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3204, the Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin Act of 2004. I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his efforts on this bill's behalf and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for allowing us to move forward with this legislation. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means for his efforts in speeding consideration of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting at this point an exchange of correspondence between myself and the gentleman from California confirming our understanding regarding the jurisdiction of our two committees. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Congress of the United States, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 8, 2004. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oxley: I am writing concerning H.R. 3204, the ``Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin Act,'' which is scheduled for floor consideration today. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters that concern raising revenue. Section 7 of the bill establishes a surcharge for each sale of the commemorative coins that are minted under the bill, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 3204, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to commend Sidney Tool and Die on its 50th anniversary. Under the ownership of Sargeant and Bensman families, Sidney Tool and Die has been a distinguished corporate citizen in the Sidney community since 1954. It has demonstrated its commitment to its customers by developing state-of- the-art tooling and assembly equipment and speciality machines for rubber and plastic product manufacturers. It takes exceptional leadership to maintain a business that prides itself on high quality products, hardworking employees and superior customer service. Sidney Tool and Die has also given so much back to the community whose name it bears. Its owner, employees, retirees, and their families can be rightfully proud of this anniversary. Ohio is rightfully proud of its industrial base, and businesses like Sidney Tool and Die help to keep this tradition strong.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, we reach the close of the 108th Congress, I rise to note the retirement of Allen J. Weltmann after 39 years of service to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Allen is a Certified Public Accountant and joined the legacy firm of Coopers & Lybrand in 1965 after graduating from Penn State. Price Waterhouse and Coopers & Lybrand merged in 1998. Allen began his career as an auditor in Syracuse before moving on to Philadelphia and New York. He started the firm's first government affairs unit in 1978 and has been one of the accounting profession's principal spokespersons in the public policy arena for 20 years. In that role I have worked with him on several landmark pieces of securities legislation, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Allen has always been held in esteem by members of Congress and his colleagues in the private sector for his grasp of technical detail and professional demeanor. In addition to his work on accounting policy, Allen served as the Working Chair of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, a collaboration of US and EU businesses working to reduce trade barriers between countries. He also advises the Department of Commerce on accounting issues through his seat on the Industry Services Advisory Council. Allen belongs to the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Greater Washington Society of Certified Public Accountants. He and his wife, Judi, live in Chevy Chase, Maryland and have four children and eight grandchildren. He plans to remain in the Washington area and to serve as Chairman of the Libraries Development Advisory Board of Penn State.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise to address those provisions of H.R. 10 favorably reported by the Committee on Financial Services that have been included in the legislation that we are considering today. The committee's additions to H.R. 10 continue the work it, and Congress, began in the tense hours and days after the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001. During that unsettled time, the committee pulled together to produce comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that aimed to disrupt the financing of terrorism and to strengthen the country's anti-money laundering laws. That bill, H.R. 3004, later became title III, the anti-terror finance title of the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law less than 7 weeks after the attacks. It is a testament to that legislation that the 9/11 Commission report issued a month ago cited it with approval and said that on anti-terror finance and anti-money laundering issues, the various elements of the government generally are doing a good job. But we must not be complacent. The 9/11 Commission's final report states that ``vigorous efforts to track terrorist financing must remain front and center in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.'' The commission urged Congress and both the law enforcement and intelligence communities to engage in an ongoing and rigorous examination of the financial system for ``loopholes that al Qaeda can exploit, and to close them as they are uncovered.'' In response to this challenge, the Committee on Financial Services assembled a bipartisan legislative package that centers on four broad themes: one, additional funding for the fight against terrorist financing; two, new tools for the government to combat terrorist financing schemes; three, improved international cooperation and coordination on anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing initiatives; and, four, enhanced preparedness of the financial services sector in the event of another large-scale terrorist attack. Among the key provisions in H.R. 10 that reflect contributions by the Committee on Financial Services are the following: Technical amendments to the anti-terror finance title of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was largely drafted in the Committee on Financial Services; Authorization of additional funding for Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which serves as the Federal Government's financial intelligence unit and plays a critical role in the collection and analysis of data on suspicious financial activity; A reauthorization of the national anti-money laundering strategy, along with grants to State and local law enforcement agencies to investigate the financing of terror and other financial crimes; Additional enforcement tools to prevent the counterfeiting of U.S. currency; Enhanced authority for the SEC to respond to extraordinary market disruptions caused by terrorist attacks or other catastrophic events; and Codification of strong interagency cooperation and communication on international financial standard-setting matters related to anti- terrorist financing where the Treasury Department is in the lead. At the committee's markup last week, several thoughtful and largely noncontroversial amendments were adopted, including one offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) that seeks to address the vulnerability identified by the 9/11 Commission of the international funds-transfer system to terrorist financing; related amendments by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) to promote greater public-private coordination on preparedness issues relating to the financial services sector; an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) to strengthen interagency cooperation and clarify negotiating authorities between the State Department and the Treasury Department with respect to international financial institutions and other multilateral financial policymaking bodies; and a bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) to prohibit Federal bank examiners who serve a lead role in the supervision of an insured depository institution from accepting employment with that institution for 1 year after leaving the government. In sum, Mr. Chairman, the Financial Services Committee's contribution to H.R. 10 makes needed changes that respond directly to the 9/11 Commission's call for a continuous examination of the U.S. financial system to identify loopholes capable of being exploited by al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and to close those loopholes both at home and abroad. As for the larger body of legislation, I support H.R. 10 and urge its swift passage, a speedy conference, and quick adoption of the conference report. That will require a lot of work over the next several weeks, but it is work that is absolutely vital to the security of our Nation. Finally, I hope the conferees will be able to resist the suggestions of some that the final legislative package be limited strictly to reshuffling the intelligence community's architecture. There are very important pieces of anti-terror legislation in H.R. 10 from a number of committees of jurisdiction, and the fact that they do not deal precisely with who directs the course or funding of the intelligence community does not mean they are any less important, or that they can wait for another year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This section of the bill we are debating from the Committee on Financial Services was a great bipartisan effort. We had testimony from Lee Hamilton, our former colleague, who was praiseworthy of what our committee was able to do in the PATRIOT Act and moving forward and trying to deal with terrorist financing. I think this process has been pretty good. I think that, overall, I understand over 200 Members have been able to offer amendments in the committee process, with regular order in the committee process. Our committee was no exception. I think the product that we have come up with in H.R. 10 is positive.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.