Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Speaker be authorized to postpone further proceedings on any question postponed under clause 8(a)(2) of rule XX considered on Wednesday, October 8, 2003, until Wednesday, October 15, 2003.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1474) to facilitate check truncation by authorizing substitute checks, to foster innovation in the check collection system without mandating receipt of checks in electronic form, and to improve the overall efficiency of the Nation's payments system, and for other purposes; and that all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration be waived.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, the House is considering H.R. 1276, the American Dream Downpayment Act. This important legislation, introduced by Reps. Katherine Harris and Mike Rogers, will help tens of thousands of low-income families to achieve the American dream of homeownership. The nation's overall homeownership rate is at an all time high of 68 percent. However, the homeownership rate for African-Americans, Hispanic and other non-Hispanic minorities is approximately 49 percent. We can and must do better than this; H.R. 1276 will go a long way in helping to close this homeownership gap. For many families, the biggest barrier to homeownership is their inability to afford the downpayment and closing costs. While they can afford the monthly mortgage payments, they are unable to save the funds necessary for the downpayment and closing costs needed to purchase their first home. H.R. 1276 addresses this barrier by providing communities across America with $200 million in grants, which is anticipated to help more than 40,000 first-time low-income families to purchase their first homes. H.R. 1276 will be administered as part of HUD's HOME Investment Partnership Program, an existing program that helps communities increase the availability of affordable housing for families most in need through grants to state and local governments. The American Dream Downpayment Act preserves the flexibility of the HOME program, so that states can tailor assistance to best meet the needs of local citizens. H.R. 1276 has received the endorsement of: HUD Secretary Mel Martinez; America's Community Bankers; Consumers Bankers Association; Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; Housing Assistance Council; Manufactured Housing Institute; Mortgage Bankers Association of America; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials; National Association of Mortgage Brokers; and National Association of Realtors. When families own their own home, they become stakeholders in their communities. H.R. 1276 will increase the ranks of stakeholders and bring stability and a new spirit of revitalization to our communities. By helping families purchase their own homes, we can give them the wealth-building opportunity that homeownership provides. Hard-working, low-income families across the country will finally have an opportunity to profit from both the community and economic benefits that come from owning your own home. In addition to the many benefits for low-income families, homeownership helps to fuel the economy. People who own their homes spend money for home improvements. In fact, the housing industry itself has been one of the few bright spots in the national economy over the last three years. Passage of the American Dream Downpayment Act represents an important step in closing the minority homeownership gap. I want to again commend Representatives Katherine Harris, Mike Rogers, Chairman Ney and Ranking Minority Maxine Waters for their hard work on this important measure and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to pay tribute to the late Steve Young, former National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. Today, Steve was posthumously inducted into the Labor Hall of Fame for his tireless, dedicated service on behalf of law enforcement officers throughout the country. Steve's 17 months as FOP president were the culmination of a distinguished career centered on protecting the rights of police officers and introducing new and innovative methods in law enforcement. Prior to his unanimous election as National President, Steve was FOP National Vice President for 4 years, and served as Ohio FOP President from 1988 to 1999. Steve died of pancreatic cancer on January 9. Under Steve's leadership, the FOP developed a close and beneficial working relationship with the Bush Administration, laying the foundation for the smooth transfer of various law enforcement agencies to the new Department of Homeland Security. He worked directly with Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to secure a $2 million grant for a scholarship program for the spouses of officers killed in the line of duty. President Bush named Steve to his Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2002. As a 26-year veteran of the Marion City Police Department in Marion, Ohio, Steve well understood the demands and responsibilities of law enforcement. He served the people of Marion with courage, honor, and distinction, earning the rank of lieutenant in 1997. He served as president of the Marion County FOP lodge in 1980 and 1981, and was honored with the title of President Emeritus in 2000. Steve's induction into the Labor Hall of Fame today is a fitting tribute to an effective, well-respected voice in the law enforcement community. He joins a renowned group of Americans whose contributions have improved conditions for their fellow workers for generations. While nothing can take away the pain of losing a loved one, Steve's wife, Denise, and his sons, Steven and Staten, can take tremendous pride in his inclusion among this select group.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that an issue as important as homeland security is written with such cogency and realism as the following column by Dorothy Rabinowitz, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. I recommend it to all of my colleagues. [From the OPINION, Sept. 22, 2003] A Demon for Our Times (By Dorothy Rabinowitz) Frenzy mounts uncontrolled over John Ashcroft, now considered--in those quarters touched by the delirium--enemy number one of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and all that Americans hold dear. What is the cause of these fevers? Is there a doctor in the house? We may exclude Dr. Howard Dean, running for the Democratic presidential nomination, who has already offered his findings, to wit: ``John Ashcroft is not a patriot. John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy.'' Sen. John Kerry, once properly--and eloquently--infuriated over the campaign of cretinous slanders mounted against John McCain in the last Republican presidential primary, has in turn offered his views on the attorney general. During the Democrats' debate in Baltimore, Candidate Kerry said he saw before him ``people of every creed, every color, every belief, every religion. This is indeed John Ashcroft's worst nightmare here.'' Richard Gephardt, eyes similarly on the prize, has let America know which of our great national concerns he considered most pressing--a good thing to know about a candidate. The national priority looming largest in his mind is, Mr. Gephardt has let it be known, to fire John Ashcroft in ``my first five seconds as president.'' On the subject of the attorney general, no candidate has waxed more passionate than John Edwards, who warned, ``we cannot allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights, our freedoms, and our liberties.'' And further: John Ashcroft and this administration can ``spin their wheels all they want about the Patriot Act . . . they, have rolled over our rights for the past two years,'' says Mr. Edwards, one of the most uncompromisingly staunch Senate supporters of the Patriot Bill when it was passed after September 11--a fact the candidate seems to have found little or no occasion to mention in the course of his current crusade. Also among those voting for the bill were Rep. Gephardt, and Sens. Kerry, Lieberman and Graham. It's hardly necessary by now to list all the charges and the alarms being raised about Mr. Ashcroft, by those portraying the attorney general as the menace to civil liberties that should haunt the dreams of all Americans who want to preserve our way of life. This is no exaggeration; the fever has spread wide, fed largely by the American Civil Liberties Union and allied sentinels of freedom, its signs clear in the ads calling on citizens to ``Save Our Constitution,'' in emergency rallies led by the ACLU, and such groups as ``Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow,'' and ``The New York Bill of Rights Defense Committee.'' The attorney general has declared the New York Civil Liberties Union, ``led a massive assault on our most basic rights.'' Indeed, to hear the aforementioned groups, John Ashcroft is a greater threat to our national life and our freedoms than that posed by terrorists--a view that itself speaks volumes about the character and disposition of the Constitution-protectors up in arms over Mr. Ashcroft. Then there is the issue of the facts--a scarce commodity in the oceans of oratory now spilling forth about our threatened Bill of Rights, and about agents spying on Americans' reading habits. In none of the descriptions of the out-of-control attorney general, and accompanying suggestions of incipient Fascism on the march, is there to be found any mention of the truth that the attorney general did not, of course, arrogate to himself the power to extend security measures: he went to the courts for permission. They were put in place only after scrutiny by judges. Likewise, current hair-tearing about secret investigations and library spies notwithstanding, it remains a fact that for decades now, in its pursuit of crimes like money-laundering, the government has been free to prohibit banks from informing clients they were under investigation--and has done so without any outcry from the ACLU about civil rights violations. The Patriot Act could be said to be imperfect in some areas, a dissident member of the ACLU recently informed me--but so dishonest was his organization's portrayal of it as a threat to our basic freedoms, he could hardly bring himself to join any argument against it. That ACLU dissidents harbor feelings of disgust at their leadership and its policies shouldn't come as news. For some 20 years now, control of the organization has rested securely in the hands of activists devoted to issues dear to the hearts of the left. No one was surprised when the ACLU of Southern California--home to the organization's most far-out activists--undertook the lawsuit to delay the state's recall vote. The ACLU was the first to charge, after Sept. 11, that the government's anti-terrorist measures and detention of terror suspects threatened civil liberties. Even as workers struggled to pull bodies from the mountain of rubble in downtown Manhattan, the ACLU and like-minded allies had begun issuing warnings that government efforts to prevent more terrorist assaults posed greater dangers to the nation--would destroy our Constitution and the America we have always known--than the terrorists could possibly do. The arguments found instant acceptance, not surprisingly, among faculty ideologues on the campuses. Who can forget the instantly organized teach-ins, where speakers argued, even as the nation mourned nearly 3,000 dead, that the United States had received just deserts for its policies? Efforts to protect ourselves with rational means of defense-- investigations and apprehension of likely suspects, increased security measures, profiling--all connected with the spirit of these arguments: We--not the terrorists so avid for our destruction--were the enemy that would cause the demise of our democracy. This was, and remains, claptrap of the rankest kind, which the great mass of sane Americans would never buy--and still, it cannot be ignored. It cannot be ignored, that is, that we are in a time never before seen in this country--a time produced in part by what remains of the politics and values of the 1960s, but only in part. For even in the '60s, we did not see what we do today--namely significant quarters of the culture, elite and popular, sympathetic to the views of those home and abroad most hostile to this nation. A time when talk of American ``swagger'' and ``bullying'' comes tripping from the tongue. For such times John Ashcroft was a target made to order. Devoutly religious, appointee of George Bush, he could scarcely have been a better fit for the bogeyman figure advanced as the greatest threat to our civil liberties--the perfect model to fire up the crowds at marches, and breast- beating festivals. Not for nothing do the Democratic presidential candidates out-do themselves denouncing the attorney general: they know, the candidates do, what has filtered down to their base, their main audience, after all. They all know, as John Kerry does, that he can say whatever he wants about John Ashcroft--that he views, as a nightmare, members of other races, creeds and religions; or anything else the Democratic candidate finds convenient--and it will all be understood, a mark of political virtue. Mr. Ashcroft's detractors were at no time more infuriated-- at least recently--than when he undertook his journey to various states, to speak up in defense of the USA Patriot Act. Indeed, Janet Reno, former attorney general, was sufficiently exercised by Mr. Ashcroft's journeys to come forward to join the denunciations of his policies. Ms. Reno, whose devotion to civil liberties was best exemplified in 1993, when she ordered tanks in to assault the Branch Davidian compound in Waco--which exercise resulted in the deaths of 19 children and 57 adults--has not been heard from for a while. But it is worth remembering that attorney general's notions of due process in a time of emergency. A dangerous situation was becoming more dangerous, Ms. Reno would later explain--there had been word that children had been sexually abused. In went the tanks and the flammable gas canisters. As far as one can tell, the ACLU launched no protests. The 19 children, were, it could be argued, certainly saved from molestation. Mr. Ashcroft's efforts as attorney general have, as far as anyone knows, resulted in no such mass casualties. Still the hot-eyed demonstrators keep rolling out to shout their denunciations and wave placards saying ``R.I.P. Civil Rights'' and ``Here Lies Your Freedom.'' Much has been invested in the demagoguery portraying John Ashcroft as the most serious threat to our liberties in memory: an investment that has enriched the ACLU's funding coffers, and delivered priceless publicity. No one should expect it to end any time soon.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Bob Ney for introducing this important legislation. This bill is a great example of common sense triumphing over bureaucratic impediments. The Federal Housing Administration has been helping Americans buy homes for nearly 70 years. This backing helps American families struggling with the costs of homeownership to obtain lower interest rates on their mortgages and for many, may be the difference between securing a home loan or not. Today we're here to ensure that these same benefits are available for hospitals across the country. In the 1970s, Congress enacted legislation to provide mortgage insurance to hospitals making capital improvements, provided they submitted an approved certificate of need from their state government. Too many hospitals are unable to take advantage of the significant benefits incurred by FHA insurance because their states no longer provide the certificates of need necessary to qualify for FHA-backed mortgages. This bill responds to the changes in state programs over the past twenty years. By allowing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to craft guidelines for qualifying hospitals without certificate of need programs, this bill will improve healthcare in communities across America. This legislation will build new maternity wards, modernize facilities and put hospitals in communities that do not have reasonable access to these services locally. With this bill, we can move toward ensuring that quality, affordable medical care is readily available in rural and urban communities where financing is most needed. I command Congressman Ney for his leadership and thank Committee and Subcommittee Ranking Members Congressman Frank and Congresswoman Waters for their help and support with this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to acknowledge the reopening of Bailey and Barclay Halls on the campus of Urbana University in Urbana, Ohio, after extensive renovations to both buildings. Founded in 1850 by the Swedenborgian Church, Urbana University is known for its strong liberal arts tradition and the solid moral education provided to its students. Bailey Hall is the university's oldest building, constructed in 1853 and named after Francis Bailey, who fought alongside George Washington at Valley Forge. Bailey also served as the official printer of the Continental Congress, and was a close colleague of his fellow printer Benjamin Franklin. Barclay Hall, completed in 1883, was the third building constructed at Urbana University. It was named for Hester Barclay, an orphan taken in by Francis Bailey. Both Bailey and Barclay Halls appear on the National Registry of Historic Places. Francis Bailey and Hester Barclay are considered to be the first male and female Swedenborgian converts in North America, and were themselves instrumental in the conversion of John Chapman, better known as Johnny Appleseed. Appleseed distributed Bailey's paper The True Christian Religion on his own missionary and apple-planting travels, and was a frequent visitor to the Urbana area. Bailey Hall houses the Johnny Appleseed Education Center and Museum, the largest known collection of the conservationist's memorabilia. The Center is devoted to promoting Chapman's vital role in helping to develop the Northwest Territory through spreading both apple seeds and his faith in God. The $1.8 million renovation to these two buildings provides needed improvements to the Appleseed Museum, as well as additional modern classroom space, meeting rooms, and faculty office space. These facilities will enhance the learning experience both of Urbana's students and visiting scholars to the Appleseed Center. I salute the hard work and dedication of everyone who has helped to make this project a success.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and this really strikes at the heart of what we are trying to do in this legislation to provide national uniformity of our credit system. The Lee amendment would destroy the national uniformity with respect of the ability of the financial institutions and others to share information among affiliated entities. The Lee amendment does not affect only Californians. Would that be the case, I would not be as particularly concerned, but by grandfathering the California law with respect to affiliate sharing, the Congress would actually abdicate its obligations by allowing California to set the national standard with respect to affiliate sharing. I suggest to my colleagues that that is the responsibility of the national legislature, indeed the Congress. In essence, many financial institutions will not be able to adhere to multiple sets of rules with respect to affiliate sharing. Then what happens? Some or many will simply adopt the California requirements as the national standard, and ultimately, it becomes California setting national standards, and while I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues from California and the Golden State, I do not think it is a responsible position for the Congress to abdicate that responsibility to the Golden State. So the question is not necessarily whether there will be a national standard but, in fact, who will set it, and ultimately, the Constitution provides the ability of the Congress to set those national standards. The Lee amendment also would allow any other State to adopt its own laws with respect to affiliate sharing. Therefore, financial institutions and consumers could find themselves attempting to understand dozens of State laws pertaining to affiliate sharing. The actions dealing with privacy in California should not impact the Federal debate on FCRA, and this is important to understand. The affiliate sharing provisions in the California law are preempted by the existing provisions of FCRA today. So they will be essentially null and void whether Congress reauthorizes the FCRA or whether it does not. The understanding among all parties in California was that the affiliate sharing provisions would be invalidated under the existing FCRA national standard. The negotiations on the California law and the shift of several companies positions in opposition to neutral was based on opposition to a State-wide referendum and was part of the negotiations that went on in the California legislature. That is not unusual in today's making of laws in any particular State. In short, grandfathering California law and future laws in other States guts our national uniform standards and harms consumers across the country, could cause an increase in interest rates, inability to get credit, precisely the opposite of what we are trying to do in this legislation. That is why this legislation passed 61 to 3 in the Committee on Financial Services. That is why we have a broad base of support for this legislation across the aisle, among all sections of the country, why we have had strong leadership from both sides of the aisle on this important legislation. We do not need at this point to get in a situation where we have a rush by other States to simply gut our national standards. That is not what we are about in this body, and all of us who have supported this legislation, who probably cosponsored and voted for it in committee and sent letters, Dear Colleagues, out supporting this legislation need to understand that this is a killer amendment to what we are trying to do in the underlying legislation, and that is why this amendment should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the following amendments, and any amendments thereto, be limited to the time specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent as follows: The amendments numbered 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10 in the Congressional Record shall be debatable for 10 minutes; The amendments numbered 1, 6, 11, 12, and 16 in the Congressional Record shall be debatable for 20 minutes; And the amendments numbered 15 and 4 in the Congressional Record shall be debatable for 30 minutes.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time left?

Mr. OXLEY. Number 15? I would give it 35 minutes. How is that for a compromise?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern and we have had some discussion about it. I would be pleased to work with him to explore what might be done to remedy these situations. It is certainly unfortunate that under our current system some situations like the ones you mentioned do arise preventing consumers, who are low credit risks, from obtaining credit quickly. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) to see if we can address the legitimate concerns he raises.

Mr. OXLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, first of all, was defeated on a bipartisan vote of 44 to 22 in the Committee on Financial Services. Chairman Greenspan has raised serious concerns about this amendment. Let me quote, if I may, from a letter from Chairman Greenspan to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) who had requested the response from the Fed, and specifically Chairman Greenspan, regarding the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont. He says in part, ``The information gathered by credit reporting companies on the borrowing and payment experiences of consumers is a cornerstone of the consumer credit system in this country. Experience indicates that access to the information assembled by these companies and credit evaluation systems based on that information have improved the overall quality and reduced the cost of credit decisions while expanding the availability of credit.'' He goes on to end in this way: ``In sum, in deciding whether to restrict the use of certain information in credit evaluations, the Congress should be aware that such restrictions are likely to diminish the effectiveness of statistical systems that have played a significant role in reducing the overall cost of credit and widening its availability.'' So what we have here is the chairman of the Fed saying that the Sanders amendment is going to have a chilling effect on the availability of credit, and could drive up the cost of credit at the same time, basically saying to those of us who are good credit risks, we will be asked to pay for those who are less responsible in paying back those credit card debts. Now, the committee did adopt an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that specifically addresses the issue raised by the gentleman from Vermont. It requires any preapproved credit card solicitation to disclose the credit card issuer's ability to adjust the interest rate for reasons other than delinquencies on the credit card account. The notice will educate the consumer and allow him or her to act accordingly. So in place of this rather draconian approach by the gentleman from Vermont, we have the gentlewoman from New York's amendment, which is part of this bill that we are debating now, adopted in the committee unanimously, that would provide more information, more notice to the consumer, to make certain that they are aware that, should a delinquency occur, it is a possibility that the interest rate could go up. Essentially, this is an overkill amendment, and the committee found by a two-to-one margin that indeed that was the case. Nothing has changed from the time that the committee adopted the bill to today on the floor. So the amendment would clearly increase the cost, and probably decrease the availability of credit for credit card borrowers. Lenders must have the ability to adjust the interest rate on a loan in order to adequately price for that borrower's risk. It seems obvious that those who are good credit risks are able to obtain credit at lower costs. That is how our system works. If someone who is a good credit risk suddenly imposes additional risk to the lender, the lender should be able to adjust for this increased risk. The amendment would prohibit a credit card issuer from doing this in many circumstances, and what the likely impact of this Sanders amendment would be lenders would be forced to offer credit card accounts at higher interest rates in order to buffer against any potential future risk that any borrower may present. Frankly, for those of us, the vast majority of us, those who pay their credit card bills monthly and are responsible, why should we be faced with a potential for higher interest rates and less available on that score? Adjusting the price of credit to match the level of risk imposed by the customer is not a bait-and-switch tactic, it is simply good, common sense, and such adjustments are already adequately addressed by existing law, particularly in regard to the Maloney amendment. To that extent, I oppose the Sanders amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Thirty minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the Sanders amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is fine with me.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I designate the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) to control the 10 minutes on this side.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in only 1 minute it will be difficult to thank everybody, but let me try. First, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who has shown enormous leadership, the main sponsor of this bill. He held over eight hearings with over 100 witnesses. The gentleman from North Carolina is right, everybody who wanted to be heard on this bill was heard, sometimes more than once. I would like to express thanks to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his leadership and direction and for helping us all along the way; to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), particularly on their efforts on identity theft; and to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her contributions as well. It is a real honor roll of members on our committee. Frankly, over the last 2\1/2\ years, our committee has established a pretty solid record of bipartisan cooperation and production, whether it was the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, or whether it was tourism risk insurance, and the list goes on. This, I think, is one more addition to that honor roll. For that I am extremely grateful to the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. We have been clearly blessed with a cooperation, and I think it will be reflected in the final vote.

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