Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry, and clearly the committee on the point that she mentioned did not have hearings on the amendment offered, but I think it may be ripe for further exploration by the committee because the gentlewoman raises some interesting issues regarding foreign travel, particularly as it relates to life insurance policies. I thank the gentlewoman for her interest and expertise.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 467) to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman has my assurances. I know we had some discussions in the committee, in the markup. Going forward, we have not been able to close that circle yet, but I see the gentlewoman from Florida there nodding, and the gentleman has my assurances, as do all the other members of the committee, that we will address that issue. I think there were some drafting issues and the like that we will certainly take care of before the conference is concluded.

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for his support.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds). (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his kind words, and all the members on the committee who worked so hard on this, particularly Mr. Kanjorski and Mr. Frank on that side, and many, many others. Mr. Speaker, when we had the hearing on this legislation with the Treasury Secretary after the Treasury report came out, I made the comment it would be irresponsible on the part of this Congress if we did not address the issue of terrorism risk insurance. It was far too important to ignore; it had too many implications for our economy going forward. And Mr. Frank was right when he said this is not about the insurers. It is about the insured, the people out there creating jobs and making our economy work. And it is also a recognition that an act of terrorism is almost impossible to try to get actuarial information on to be able to set rates. It is virtually impossible. Anybody that knows anything about insurance knows that it is virtually impossible to work that in to any kind of an insurance scheme in which they would charge premiums. So that is why we needed this bottom-up, and that is why we need to continue this bottom-up. And the idea is to transition during that period to a market-based solution, creating the incentive for insurance companies to create a pool, not unlike what the Brits have, the pool-rate concept, so you have this pool that could guard against losses. It is something that hopefully over the next year, as we finish this Congress, we can set the stage for that transition that will enable our economy to continue to grow and provide a robust insurance protection for those activities at the same time. This is, in my estimate, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out, the legislative process at its best and I am very proud of the committee and the job that we have done. I ask for support of the legislation.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendment to the Senate bill (S. 467) to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my good friend and ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his support on this. This is critically important for the folks down in the gulf region that they get compensated under their insurance program that they paid premiums into FEMA for. This is an obligation by the Federal Government to make sure that those people are paid. FEMA is out of money as I speak. We need to get this done. I would ask the House's cooperation in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to consider a motion to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4133) to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur therein, and that the motion be debatable for not to exceed 20 minutes, equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4133, a bill that would temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program. This bill was introduced by our friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) in response to the terrible destruction that has resulted from Hurricane Katrina. The original version of this bill increased the borrowing authority of the National Flood Insurance Program from $3.5 billion to $8.5 billion. However, the extra $5 billion would have only allowed FEMA to make claims and payments through next week. The Senate amended the bill to increase the borrowing authority to $18.5 billion and designate the funds as emergency spending. That amended version is now before us for consideration. FEMA has run out of money to pay claims arising from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and has directed the insurance companies to stop paying the estimated 225,000 Katrina and Rita policyholders who have already filed a claim. These homeowners who have a contract with the NFIP to cover flood events could initiate legal action against FEMA and the U.S. Government if we do not act now. I remain committed to seeing the National Flood Insurance Program implement the reforms begun last year when we passed the Bunning- Bereuter-Blumenauer Act, and I look forward to working during the coming months to ensure greater accountability of the flood insurance program. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's rollcall votes on H.R. 2419, the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water Development appropriations conference report; H.R. 2862, the Fiscal Year 2006 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations conference report; and S. 1894, the Fair Access Foster Care Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of each of those measures.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1953, the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act,'' introduced by the gentlelady from California, and urge its immediate passage. It is often said that coins tell the history of a country, and of the world. If this is so, Mr. Speaker, mint facilities tell the history of coins, from the most modern mass-production mints such as the United States Mint plants in Denver and Philadelphia, back to the earliest mint, thought to be in the Kingdom of Lydia, which is modern-day Turkey. Greeks living there began using a system of weights for trade in 2,500 B.C. But in 700 B.C. merchants started making punch marks on lumps of metal so they could trade without weighing the metal for each transaction. Mr. Speaker, if you were to pick one mint to focus on to understand the history of coins in this country, it would probably be the San Francisco Old Mint. The Old Mint at San Francisco, known as the Granite Lady, has seen 130 years of this country's history, from the day it opened in 1874 until its official closing as a production mint in 1937, and subsequently as offices for the United States Mint. More recently during a roughly 20-year span it was a Treasury-operated coinage museum--starting with a Nixon-era renovation and ending in the mid-'90s because of cost concerns mostly related to upgrades that would be needed to withstand earthquakes. Mr. Speaker, this is the second U.S. Mint production facility built in San Francisco, the first having been built in 1852, right after the great California gold rush of '49, and the third being the one that operates there today. The Old Mint, known as the Granite Lady, was designed by the architect A.B. Mullett, who also designed the Treasury Department's headquarters and the Old Executive Office Building here in Washington. At one point, the building made half of the circulating coins produced in the U.S., and held a third of the Treasury's gold reserves. But perhaps the most notable point in its history and one to which many of us can relate today, came after the Great San Francisco Earthquake of April 18, 1906, and the fires that followed. The Granite Lady was saved from the raging fire by Treasury Department employees and the U.S. Army with a single, one-inch hose, saving the equipment and $200 million worth of gold inside. With all of the city's banks destroyed, the Mint building became the city's financial center. The building became the holder and disburser of the relief fund formed for the city, was the only point of payment to and from the city, and made all of the payments into the city. With memories of the recent hurricanes on our mind, I'm sure we can all imagine how important the Granite Lady was to the rebuilding of San Francisco. The commemorative coins that would be issued under this legislation would be available next year, in suitable recognition of the 100th anniversary of that event. The history of the building since it ceased being a Mint facility is less glorious. While operating as a museum, it was damaged by at least one earthquake, in 1989, and was said to be too expensive an operation for Treasury to keep open. It finally closed in 1995, with its exhibits sent off to other museums or back to those who had lent them. Now, a new project to earthquake-proof the building, renovate it and open museums--on San Francisco and on the Gold Rush, as well as a numismatic museum--has gained momentum, and the surcharges on the sales of gold and silver commemorative coins authorized in this legislation will add millions to that important project. I will note that while Greeks were the first producers of coins, Romans were the first to collect them. Romans initially prized Greek coins, especially the older issues, but they later collected their own coins. Now, many Americans, while collecting foreign coins, are proud to collect U.S. coinage, from the early days down through the 50-State quarters and, I hope soon, the Presidential dollars. A coinage museum in this grand old building would be a boon to collectors, teachers, and students. Mr. Speaker, this proposal is an excellent idea for a commemorative coin. It has received the required two-thirds co-sponsorship of House members, and if enacted will proceed at no cost to the taxpayer. I urge its immediate passage. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, October 25, 2005. Hon. William M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas: I am writing concerning H.R. 1953, the ``San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Act,'' which was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Financial Services on April 28, 2005. It is my expectation that this bill will be scheduled for floor consideration in the near future. As you know, Section 7 of the bill establishes a surcharge for the sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the bill. I acknowledge your committee's jurisdictional interest in such surcharges as revenue matters. However, I request that your committee forego action on H.R. 1953 in order to allow the bill to come to the floor expeditiously. I appreciate your cooperation in so doing, and agree that your decision to forego further action on this bill will not prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would support your request for conferees on those provisions within your jurisdiction should this bill be the subject of a House-Senate conference. I will include a copy of this letter and your response in the Congressional Record when this bill is considered by the House. Thank you again for your assistance. Yours truly, Michael G. Oxley, Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was attending events in my congressional district during today's rollcall votes on H.R. 3548, the Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr., Post Office Building Designation Act, and H.R. 3989, the Albert Harold Quie Post Office Designation Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both bills.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of House Joint Resolution 65, disapproving the recommendations of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. This will be my first vote against a BRAC list, and it is not a vote I take lightly. I support the BRAC process as a whole as a reasonable and apolitical method for evaluating our Nation's defense infrastructure needs, and recognize the necessity of this first BRAC round in a decade. But while I salute the hard work of the BRAC Commission members in their deliberations and recognize the difficulty of their task, this BRAC round took place in the context of flawed methodology as regarded Air National Guard bases. It was my expectation that the Department of Defense would solicit input from all relevant sources in evaluating our Air National Guard requirements--most importantly, the adjutant general of each State. But at no time in the Pentagon's development of its Air Force BRAC recommendations did it ask the Adjutant General of Ohio or any of the other 53 adjutants general for input. I find this shocking, considering that the Army consulted the adjutants general when crafting its recommendations--and considering that 37 of the 42 Air Force BRAC proposals involved Air National Guard units. For the past 24 years, I have had the privilege of representing the guardsmen of one of those units: the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard, located at Mansfield Lahm Airport. The 179th has been a vital part of Mansfield and Richland County since 1948, with an annual economic impact of roughly $70 million. Members of the airlift wing have served more than 195,000 days just since 9/11 in support of homeland defense and the global war on terror. More recently, the guardsmen of the 179th have flown sorties to the gulf coast region, delivering much-needed supplies and transporting hundreds of troops to assist those affected by Hurricane Katrina. Relief missions such as this are nothing new for the men and women of the 179th, who have answered the call during past hurricane relief missions in Florida and other States, and have assisted with vital defense operations in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere. I was disappointed, therefore, at the inclusion of the 179th on the Pentagon's proposed closure list in May. As I said in a letter to President Bush last month in support of the 179th, the unit has always stood ready to accept any flying assignment, and represents a wealth of expertise and professionalism that Ohio and the Nation can ill afford to lose. Contrary to national trends, the 179th has consistently excelled in recruiting and retention, currently standing at 105 percent of assigned strength. Mansfield draws from a rich recruiting base, boasting the best personnel strength figures of any Air National Guard C-130 unit. The men and women of the 179th are highly experienced, with an average of more than 12 years of service; Mansfield's aircrews have an average of 16 years of military aviation experience. In just the last few years, all Mansfield aircrew members have flown combat sorties in the Middle East and Asia, and have received 116 air medals for their bravery, courage, and skill. In its final deliberations, the BRAC Commission found that closing Mansfield was ``not supportable'' and recommended instead that a ``contiguous enclave'' be established at Mansfield Lahm. The commission further acknowledged that the Air Force did not adequately consult with governors and State adjutants general with respect to its Air Guard recommendations. Had there been consultation, better decisions could have been made about Air Guard infrastructure in view of our national defense and homeland security needs. In short, the Air Force would have done well to follow the Army's BRAC model, which stood as an example of good consultation among parties. When the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center--located in Lima in my congressional district--was placed on the BRAC list with a recommendation to reduce manufacturing space by 27 percent, top Army officials working on the BRAC staff made themselves available to meet with representatives of JSMC and the community. The JSMC delegation explained that such a reduction would impede operations at the plant, resulting in a higher cost to the government for the weapons systems the plant produces. As a result of these discussions, the BRAC staff recommended that the commission remove the JSMC proposal from its final list, which it did. The Army's deliberations on JSMC were an ideal example of how the BRAC process works well: when information is shared and all relevant parties are consulted. Even with the commission's decision to reverse the JSMC proposal--and even with the partial reversal of the Mansfield decision and the encouraging possibilities for obtaining a new mission for the more than 1,000 guardsmen of the 179th--I will vote for this resolution of disapproval. By statute, the purpose of BRAC is to reduce excess infrastructure. The current BRAC round, though, is being used to implement operational policies and transfer Mansfield's C-130s from the Guard to the Active and Reserve Forces. Such complex issues should not be handled within the BRAC procedure. Although I strongly oppose the transfer of Mansfield's planes, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Department of Defense and State officials to obtain a new mission for Mansfield, should the BRAC recommendations be upheld. In just the last 8 years, more than $20 million has been invested in the 179th's facilities at Mansfield Lahm. Thanks to the efforts of Mansfield Mayor Lydia Reid and other local officials, the city has made 163 acres adjacent to the airport available for Guard expansion or joint service activities. This significant investment and possibility for expansion should make Mansfield an even more attractive site for locating a new air-based mission. Nonetheless, given Mansfield's solid track record as a C-130 unit and its many contributions to our Nation and world, I oppose the transfer of its planes. At a time when our troops are already stressed by operational tempos, and when our national recruiting and retention rates are reaching record lows, I fear any disruption to our well- equipped and well-manned Guard units. Our planes are only as good as the people who maintain and fly them, and our country cannot afford to lose their skills.

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. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. This legislation creates a world- class regulator for the housing Government-Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal home loan banks. Last May, the Committee on Financial Services overwhelmingly approved H.R. 1461 by a vote of 65 to 5. We have worked a long time on GSE regulatory reform. Since the 106th Congress, we have had over 20 hearings and received testimony from more than 100 witnesses on GSE-related matters. Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Baker has worked hard on these issues for many, many years. He should be commended for his many efforts. I also want to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Ney for taking a leadership role in developing the housing goals and Affordable Housing Fund sections of the bill, as well as our ranking member, Mr. Frank, for his constructive input on many of the bill's key provisions. The GSEs are among the largest financial institutions, with $2.5 trillion in assets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own or guarantee nearly half of the residential mortgage market. Eight thousand banks, thrifts, and credit unions have $550 billion in loans from the 12 Federal home loan banks. For decades the GSEs have served the housing finance system well. We have heard from some that Congress should be cautious in creating a GSE regulator and mindful not to harm the housing market. However, we are here today largely because we have learned over the past 2 years about multiple accounting violations and widespread corporate mismanagement by the GSEs, resulting in billion-dollar earnings restatements. This has brought to light the fact that current GSE regulators lack many of the supervisory and enforcement powers bank regulators currently have. H.R. 1461 will remedy this troublesome situation by consolidating GSE regulation and providing all of the tools needed to oversee these huge, complex institutions. It is time for a new GSE regulator who can prevent problems from developing and take swift action if the problems arise, thus ensuring that the housing market and financial system remains strong. Some believe that the GSEs should be more tightly controlled. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has called for a mandatory reduction in their $1.5 trillion in mortgage portfolio holdings. He is concerned about the systemic risk posed by the GSEs, based on investor perception that GSE debtholders are backed by the Federal Government. I do not take this concern lightly, nor the potential for any taxpayer financial liability. Today OFHEO can reduce a GSE's portfolio only if the company is already seriously undercapitalized. H.R. 1461 gives a new regulator broad discretionary authority to require portfolio adjustments depending on the circumstances at the time, even if the GSE meets minimum capital standards. Such action must be consistent with the GSE's safe and sound operations or mission, relying on the regulator's expertise. H.R. 1461 strikes the right balance by fully empowering the GSE regulator, while at the same time allowing the GSEs to pursue their mission in the housing market. Specifically, the bill merges OFHEO, FHFB, and part of HUD into a new independent regulatory agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to oversee the GSEs. It is funded by annual assessments on the GSEs, not subject to the congressional appropriations process. The agency is headed by a director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 5-year term. There are three deputy directors for divisions of enterprise regulation, Federal Home Loan bank regulation, and housing. A housing finance oversight board advises the agency on overall strategies and policies, but has no executive authority. The board is comprised of the Secretaries of the Treasury and HUD, two appointed members and the director as chairman. The agency's director is authorized to determine minimum and risk- based capital standards, review and adjust portfolio holdings, approve new programs and business activities, establish credential management and operation standards, take prompt corrective and enforcement actions, put a critically undercapitalized GSE into receivership, require corporate governance improvements, and hire examination and accounting experts. H.R. 1461 also greatly expands the affordable housing role of Fannie and Freddie. By charter, they must assist in providing mortgages for low- and moderate-income families. The bill includes new single-family and multi-family housing goals, duty to serve lower income markets and a new affordable housing fund with contributions from the enterprises. The bill establishes a fund to finance construction of houses for underserved people. It is modeled after the successful Affordable Housing Program of the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will manage programs funded by a percentage of their after- tax earnings, initially 3.5 percent, then 5 percent, or $450 to $650 million annually combined. In comparison, CBO estimated that in 2003, GSE status provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a $20 billion Federal subsidy, one-third of which was retained by stockholders and management, not passed through to borrowers. Twenty-five percent of the GSEs' contributions will go to the Treasury Department to help pay off REFCorp, that is the old S&L bonds, with the remainder going to the fund. Funds will be awarded through a competitive, transparent application process to for-profit builders, State, and local housing agencies and nonprofit organizations. This should result in Fannie and Freddie leading the market rather than lagging behind private sector lenders as HUD has found in promoting affordable housing for underserved communities. Moreover, a greater amount of the GSE subsidy will go where Congress intended. I intend to offer a manager's amendment that includes a number of important changes to the fund, which I will specify at that time. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1461 is of great importance to the safety and soundness of the housing mission of the GSEs, as well as to the stability of this Nation's housing and financial system. I urge Members to support its passage. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).