Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the distinguished former chairman of the committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), a valued member of the committee. (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the lead sponsor of this important legislation. (Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor today H.R. 1375, bipartisan legislation making a number of changes to Federal banking, thrift, and credit union laws that will enable these sectors of the financial services industry to operate more productively and provide a higher level of service to their customers. I want to begin by recognizing the efforts of the principal sponsor of this legislation, a valued member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), as well as her primary democratic cosponsor, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). In putting together this legislation, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the committee consulted extensively with the Federal banking and credit union regulators, as well as affected private sector parties, to fashion a package that, by removing unneeded or outdated legal restrictions, helps to maintain the competitive standing of the U.S. banking and financial services system that has no equal in the world. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, President Bush and this Congress have called upon the financial services industry to play a major role in the effort to starve al Qaeda and like-minded organizations of the funds they need to inflict terror on the civilized world. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act enacted shortly after the September 11 attacks imposes a host of new mandates and due diligence requirements on financial institutions designed to identify and block the movement of terrorist funds through the global financial system. Committee on Financial Services has conducted extensive oversight on the implementation of title III, and I think I speak for many members of the committee in applauding the seriousness and sense of commitment with which the financial services industry has gone about fulfilling the front-line responsibilities it has been asked to assume in the financial war against terrorism. Shouldering these burdens is not without significant costs, of course. The changes made by the PATRIOT Act require banks and other depository institutions to devote significant compliance resources to monitoring and examining transactions, verifying the identities of new customers, and responding to inquiries by law enforcement authorities seeking to track terrorist finances through the U.S. banking system. Both as a way of offsetting these new expenses and freeing institutions to devote sufficient resources to PATRIOT Act compliance and serving their customers, the committee began during the last Congress to try to identify regulatory or statutory requirements that could have outlived their useful purpose and could be eliminated without any adverse affects on the safety and soundness of the banking system or on basic consumer protections. H.R. 1375 is the end result of that process. The legislation, which enjoyed bipartisan support in the Committee on Financial Services, reflects significant contributions from several members of the committee. For example, the bill incorporates legislation authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) which would permit credit unions to offer check-cashing and wire transfer services to individuals who are not members of the credit union, but are within its field of membership, thereby promoting alternative sources of banking services for many low- and moderate-income Americans. An important amendment offered in committee by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) would greatly improve coordination between home and host State supervisors of State-chartered banks that operate branches in multiple States. I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their hard work in crafting a compromise on an issue that was the subject of spirited debate in the committee: the extent to which certain commercially owned industrial loan companies, which are insured depository institutions chartered in a handful of States, should be permitted to exercise the new branching authority provided for in section 401 of the bill. I will offer a manager's amendment later today that incorporates the good work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the ranking member on this difficult issue. Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for quarterbacking this effort in his subcommittee and helping to shepherd it through the full committee. Thanks to hard work of the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ross) and many other members of our committee, the House will have an opportunity to vote later today on legislation that improves the productivity and efficiency of our financial services industry. A vote for this bill is a vote to allow banks, thrifts, and credit unions to channel their resources away from complying with unneeded regulatory mandates and toward making loans and providing other financial products and services to consumers and to their small business customers, which can only help fuel economic growth in local communities across this country. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are prepared to accept the amendment, and I say to the gentlewoman from California, good work on this issue.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola). (Mr. CHOCOLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to also recognize the leadership of the gentleman from Arkansas for being the lead Democrat sponsor on this legislation. We appreciate his hard work on this endeavor. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would simply say this has been a very good debate and, in fact, a great representation of the legislative process at work. We have had a lot of strong opinions, particularly on the ILC issue. But overall this is an attempt to provide regulatory relief to institutions who have undertaken a tremendous burden, particularly under the PATRIOT Act strictures. For that reason, this bill needs to go forward.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 1375, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

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 on H.R. 1375 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, like most Americans, I am deeply disturbed by the decline of basic decency on our public airwaves. A new low was probably reached during the half-time show of the recent Super Bowl. It's incredible that parents should have to monitor the content of a football game to protect their children. The groundswell for change has been gathering for some time now. In the last few months alone, I have received more than one thousand constituent letters expressing concern about profanity and indecency on the airwaves. The message has been received, loud and clear. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. The bill holds violating stations accountable for trashing our precious public airwaves and hits purveyors where it matters the most, in the wallet. Currently, an FCC indecency violation carries a maximum $27,500 fine, which hardly threatens a multi-million dollar station. This bill increases the fine to a more fitting $500,000. Repeat violators will find themselves on a very long and expensive trip. The FCC will also be given authority to hold hearings on stripping the licenses of repeat offenders. It's important that we act because even a small blow struck for decency makes a difference. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the Child Online Protection Act, which I helped to write. This is a law we approved to prevent kids from being exposed to Internet pornography. I have also been working with my Democrat colleague Charles Gonzalez on the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. It's long past time that attitudes about decency started changing in this country.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, during the lengthy debate over campaign finance reform, some of us warned that appearances can be deceiving. The McCain-Feingold bill was supposed to empower ordinary voters, who were evidently thought incapable of exercising their own reason during election campaigns. The power shift has actually been to the unelected media and unaccountable special interest groups, mostly liberal, who have concentrated their control over what voters see and hear. Other voices have been muzzled, which is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to strike down the law ``a sad day for freedom of speech.'' I commend to your attention this George Will column published in the Washington Post on February 22. Rendering Politics Speechless (By George F. Will) Two years ago President Bush, who had called it unconstitutional, signed the McCain-Feingold bill--furtively, at 8 a.m. in the Oval Office. The law expanded government restrictions on political speech, ostensibly to combat corruption or the ``appearance'' thereof. Bush probably signed it partly because the White House, thinking corruptly or appearing to do so, saw reelection advantage in this fiddling with the First Amendment. And partly because the nation's newspaper editorial writers nearly unanimous in praise of McCain-Feingold. The editorialists' advocacy of McCain-Feingold could appear corrupt: The bill increases the political influence of unregulated newspaper editorializing relative to increasingly restricted rival voices (parties, candidates and their financial supporters). Last December the Supreme Court found no serious constitutional infirmity in the law because, although the Constitution says Congress shall make ``no law'' abridging freedom of speech, Congress has broad latitude to combat corruption or its appearance. There is the appearance of corruption when a legislator's views attract contributions from like-minded people, and then he acts in accordance with his and their views. Today McCain-Feingold itself does not just appear to be corrupting. It is demonstrably and comprehensively so. Most campaign money is spent on speech--disseminating ideas, primarily by broadcasting. McCain-Feingold's stated premise was that there is ``too much'' money in politics-- hence, it follows, too much speech. McCain-Feingold's prudently unstated premise was that legislators know--and should legislate--the correct quantity of speech about themselves, the proper times for it and certain restrictions on the content of it. Such legislating may not be corrupt, but it might appear so. And appearances are the essence of ethics, as understood by Washington's ethics industry. Perhaps the White House embraced McCain-Feingold because it doubled to $2,000 the permissible ceiling on ``hard money'' contributions crucial to the president's reelection campaign. Also, Republican national committees do better than their Democratic counterparts at raising smaller hard-dollar contributions. Supposedly, the principal purpose of McCain-Feingold was to ban large ``soft money'' contributions to the parties ostensibly for ``party-building'' purposes. The delusional assumption of many McCain-Feingold enthusiasts was that when such contributions were banned, the people who had been eager to exert political influence by such contributions would say ``Oh, well'' and spend their money instead on high-definition televisions. Or something. Actually, McCain-Feingold was moral grandstanding by many liberals who had no intention of abiding by its spirit--or its letter, for that matter--any more than they had abided by existing campaign finance law. To compensate for Republican advantages in raising strictly limited hard dollars, Democrats quickly formed a slew of committees technically disconnected from the party but allowed to receive unlimited soft dollars. Allowed, that is, as long as the committees do not spend money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.'' Under McCain-Feingold, and for 30 years before it, entities that raise and spend money for that purpose are subject to hard-dollar limits. McCain-Feingold's ban on large soft-money contributions to political parties has spawned many groups, mostly liberal ones, to receive and spend such contributions as surrogates for the parties--groups such as America Coming Together. Ellen Malcolm, ACT's president, says her group aims to increase voter turnout in 17 states crucial to the presidential election in order ``to beat George Bush.'' It appears that she intends to influence a federal election. Nothing wrong with that. Citizens are supposed to do that. But liberals have been the prime movers in enacting laws against doing so with soft money, which organizations such as ACT exist to receive. ACT says it ``will coordinate with progressive organizations.'' But it had better not coordinate with the Democratic Party or candidates. There would be nothing morally wrong with such coordination. It should be a fundamental right--indeed, a civic virtue--for groups such as ACT to coordinate with like-minded political parties. But ``coordination'' is criminal under McCain-Feingold. House Republicans are now trying to subpoena records of these Democratic groups, clearly hoping to have a chilling effect on them. This is disgusting--but Democrats deserve it because they have entangled America's core liberty, political speech, in an ever-thickening web of regulations they now are evading. On Wednesday the Federal Election Commission, which is now in charge of deciding what speech is legal under McCain- Feingold and Supreme Court ambiguities, issued a ruling--many more to follow--of exquisite opacity. The chairman of the Republican National Committee said it ``effectively shuts down'' groups such as ACT and others. A spokesman for ACT cheerily said the group would continue ``to operate robustly and effectively.'' It is a constitutional obscenity that no one now knows--or, pending many more FEC and court rulings, can know--what political speech is legal in this nation where the First Amendment is no longer even pertinent to protecting such speech.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I want to help observe a landmark anniversary for an institution that sustains the jobs of thousands of Americans. February 12, 2004, marked the 70th anniversary of the Export-Import Bank, the official export credit agency of the United States. The Bank will have a celebration of this anniversary in the near future. The Export-Import Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that creates and sustains American jobs by providing direct loans to buyers of U.S. exports, guarantees to commercial loans to buyers of U.S. products, and insurance products which greatly benefit short-term small business sales. In an ideal world, export contracts would be won or lost on the basis of the cost and quality of the products being sold. However, as long as foreign export credit agencies provide concessionary financing to companies from their countries, the Export-Import Bank of the United States must ``level the playing field'' by protecting American exporters. The Export-Import Bank fills the necessary role of creating and sustaining American jobs here in the United States, where they are sorely needed. Since its founding in 1934, the Export-Import Bank has supported over $330 billion of U.S. exports from businesses large and small. In FY 2003, it supported $14.3 billion in exports. Currently, about 85 percent of Export-Import transactions directly benefit small businesses. This amounts to almost 20 percent of the Bank's financings. The Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act was signed into law on June 14, 2002 (Public Law No. 107-189). This Act reauthorized the Export-Import Bank through 2006 and made other appropriate changes to the charter of the Bank. The House Financial Services Committee continues to conduct oversight over the implementation of this Act. Again, I extend my congratulations to the Export-Import Bank on its 70th anniversary.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of S. 1920, and the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). As you know, the gentleman's amendment consists of the text of H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003. That bill was additionally referred to the Committee on Financial Services, which I chair, based on its jurisdiction over banks and banking, credit, and securities and exchanges. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is vitally important to the Nation. In particular, those provisions addressing the ``netting'' of financial contracts are an important part of ensuring that our economic recovery continues, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Alan Greenspan, has said time and time again. Accordingly, I wholeheartedly support any effort to move this legislation forward to enactment. For the record, I am submitting an exchange of letters between the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and myself regarding H.R. 975. I appreciate his willingness to work constructively with the Committee on Financial Services and look forward to working with him to achieve enactment of these important reforms. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, March 14, 2003. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC. Dear Jim: On March 12, 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered reported H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003. As you know, the Committee on Financial Services was granted an additional referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives over banks and banking, credit, and securities and exchanges. Because of your willingness to consult with the Committee on Financial Services regarding this matter, your continuing support for our requested changes, and the need to move this legislation expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Financial Services Committee. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Financial Services Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 975. In addition, the Committee on Financial Services reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within the Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Financial Services for conferees on H.R. 975 or related legislation. I request that you include this letter and your response as part of your committee's report on the bill and the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Michael G. Oxley, Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for the work Congress has done to pass H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. H.R. 2622 includes numerous consumer protection measures designed to combat the growing crime of identity theft and to improve the accuracy of the credit reporting system. This landmark legislation will also ensure the continued vibrancy of our national credit markets. Given the complexity of H.R. 2622, it is both appropriate and important to submit for the record a section-by-section summary of the legislation in order to help provide an understanding of the legislation and its impact on the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The legislation provides significant measures to help consumers, financial institutions and consumer reporting agencies prevent and mitigate identity theft. For example, the legislation establishes requirements for the placement of fraud alerts on consumer credit files, investigation of changes of address, truncation of credit card and debit card account numbers on receipts, and the manner in which information identified as having resulted from identity theft is blocked. In addition, the legislation establishes requirements for verifying the accuracy of consumer information and preventing the reporting of consumer information that results from identity theft. Financial institutions must also take certain steps before establishing new loans and credit accounts for consumers who have fraud alerts on their credit files. Lastly, the legislation includes provisions entitling consumers to obtain free credit reports and access to their credit scores. This provision will likely do more for financial literacy and consumer education than any legislation in decades. I am submitting this section-by-section analysis on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the Chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, who introduced H.R. 2622 and presided over a series of hearings over the past year that laid the groundwork for this landmark legislation. Section by Section Analysis of the Legislation Section 1. Short title; table of contents This section establishes the short title of the bill, the ``Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003'' (the FACT Act). Section 2. Definitions This section adds a number of definitions for use in provisions of the Act that are not amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Section 3. Effective dates This section specifies effective dates for the legislation. Several sections are given specific effective dates. For sections adding new provisions or standards where no effective date is provided, this section provides a general rule providing for the Federal Reserve Board (the Board) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) within 2 months to jointly determine the appropriate effective dates for the remaining provisions, not to exceed 10 months from making their determination.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1680, the Defense Production Act Reauthorization of 2003, and urge its adoption. The bill before the House is largely the same as H.R. 1280, and passed last spring by the Committee on Financial Services, and is the result of broad bipartisan and bicameral efforts to reauthorize and update this important Act. Mr. Speaker, when the House acts today to send the bill to the President, it will be completing Congressional action that should have taken place no later than the end of September. The authorities in this Act are too important for the Nation to have been without them for the nine weeks. That said, Mr. Speaker, what is before the House today is a very good product. First and foremost, it reauthorizes the Defense Production Act for five years. This is important for two reasons: Firstly, as the nation faces the uncertain times ahead, it will be important for the President to have the authorities in the Act, and secondly, because it will give Congress an opportunity to consider some much-needed modernization of the DPA decoupled from reauthorization cycle. It is my intent to ask the President to take the next year to ponder what sorts of modernization of the DPA is necessary, with the idea that any action on those or other recommendations would take place in the first session of the next Congress. The bill we are considering today also adds as a specific goal of the DPA the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure. Given the increasing dependence of the nation's defense, financial services and in fact the fabric of our daily lives on our critical infrastructure, I believe this addition is both wise and important. Finally, in addition to some other minor additions, the bill before us increases on a one-time basis the funding ceiling for a program to enhance the nation's ability to produce radiation-hardened electronics for use in, for example, defense satellites. This program is an example of one of the most important aspects of the DPA: creating a U.S. defense production capability where none now exists. Most important of all of these, Mr. Speaker, is the reauthorization itself. The DPA is the tool that the President uses to meet a specific national security need--protective gear for our troops overseas, or specialized communications equipment--should we have a shortfall in supplies. The DPA is also one of the President's prime tools should there be another terrorist attack, and can be important in the case of natural disasters. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can undertake any needed reforms of the Act at the beginning of the first session of the next Congress, and then extend the authorization beyond 2008 at that point, so that these important authorities remain available to protect America, Americans and, and American interests, uninterrupted. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the excellent and diligent work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, the gentlelady from New York, (Mrs. Maloney), and the ranking member of the full Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their assistance in passing this important bill. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and urge immediate passage of S. 1680.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting for the Record an exchange of correspondence between myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, regarding his committee's jurisdictional interest in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, November 19, 2003. Hon. Mike Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oxley: In recognition of the desire to expedite conference consideration of H.R. 2622, the ``Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003,'' I will not request that Members of the Committee on the Judiciary be appointed as additional conferees. However, certain of the provisions contained in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2622 do fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these provisions is in no way diminished or altered. Section 115 of the Senate version of H.R. 2622 makes some minor amendments to 18 U.S.C. 1028, the existing identity theft provision in the criminal code. These amendments add possession of false identification documents to the criminal prohibition and increase the penalty from the 3 to 5 years. Section 151 of the Senate version of H.R. 2622 adds new provisions to Sec. 609 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that provide for a new right to consumer victims of identity theft to obtain records from businesses of fraudulent transactions conducted in their name. The right is only enforceable by the public agencies under existing law. However, new Sec. 609(e)(9) provides for a new affirmative defense for the businesses so that they can show they have searched for the records and do not have any. Section 156 of the Senate version of H.R. 2622 amends the current statute of limitations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Under current law, the statute allows the claim to be brought until the later of two years from the date on which the liability arises or two years from the date of discovery if there has been willful misrepresentation. The bill would change this to the earlier of two years from the date of discovery, irrespective of misrepresentation, or five years from the date on which the liability arises. I understand that our staffs have worked out a mutually acceptable resolution of these provisions that will be included in the conference report. I appreciate your willingness to work together on these provisions. I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the conference report on H.R. 2622 on the House floor. I appreciate your attention to these matters. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I have the right to close, is that correct, Mr. Speaker?