Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2143, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York makes an excellent point. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. I think, indeed, the avenue that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Franks) mentioned would be the most appropriate, as opposed to this check truncation bill. So I appreciate the gentleman's withholding the amendment until we have an opportunity to find out where it fits. Indeed, as the regulatory relief bill works its way through the process, the gentleman would have adequate opportunity to work his amendment in that particular venue. So I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and look forward to working with him.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation. I want to particularly pay my highest regards and admiration to the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Bachus) for working so well in a bipartisan way on this legislation; to our good friend, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart); my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), for being the lead Democrat to sponsor on this legislation; and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson). This is a very important piece of legislation that modernizes the system. Just think about it. We are in many ways operating in kind of a Pony Express system today in moving checks around. Admittedly, instead of ponies, we do it by airplane. We have found in our hearings, in our deliberations on this legislation, that the 4 days after 9/11/01 were 4 days in which nobody was flying. The checks were piling up. We process 42 billion checks in this economy every year, and the system was badly in need of modernization. I think that 4-day period pointed that out so well. So this is really recognizing the technology that is out there. I had an opportunity to visit NCR headquarters in Dayton, just south of my congressional district, last year. I got an eyewitness look at the new technology that is out there that allows this bill to come to fruition. It allows us to move a step forward in the check-clearing process and at the same time making us more efficient as we proceed. That is an amazing effort that can bring about a great deal of change. So I want to encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is long overdue. I again thank the leaders, particularly the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his assistance in bringing this important measure to the floor. I am inserting for the Record an exchange of correspondence regarding his committee's jurisdiction over the measure. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 22, 2003. Hon. Michael Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Oxley: In recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1474, the ``Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act,'' the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. Certain provisions of the bill relating to the litigation of claims relating to check clearing fall within the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. However, given the need to expedite this legislation, I will not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion. 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. I would appreciate your including this letter in your committee report on H.R. 1474 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1474 on the House floor. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.J. Res. 4, which calls for a constitutional amendment permitting Congress to protect our Nation's flag. As the vast majority of our constituents all know, Old Glory is far more than a piece of cloth. Especially in this post-September 11 era, it is the most visible symbol of our Nation and the freedoms we have too often taken for granted. It is a unifying sign in times of peace and war, instilling pride in our great country and continued hope for our future. Americans from across the political spectrum and from every walk of life support the passage of this amendment. Since the Supreme Court in 1989 invalidated state-passed flag protection laws, the legislatures in each of the 50 states have passed resolutions petitioning Congress to propose this amendment. I am proud that the House is taking this important step toward a constitutional amendment today. Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is well known for its civic pride and spirited celebration on Flag Day. The annual display of many thousands of flags on houses and businesses throughout Findlay earned the community the designation ``Flag City USA.'' Arlington, Ohio, which I am also privileged to represent, has been named ``Flag Village USA'' for the patriotism inherent in its citizens. The letters, phone calls, and e-mails I have received from Findlay, Arlington, and throughout my congressional district in recent weeks express strong support for the protection of Old Glory. I am proud again this year to be cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's joint resolution, and recognize him for his unwaverly leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and vote in favor of sending this amendment to the states for ratification.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was absent from the House floor during rollcall vote 208 through rollcall vote 219. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes numbered 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218, and 219. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 215 and 216.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. This legislation affirms our commitment to stop the spread of these diseases which have ravaged much of the world. The President has made this a priority for the administration, and it is an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate our commitment to leadership on this issue. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation that will not only authorize our contribution to the Global AIDS Fund, promote transparency and accountability in the expenditure of these funds; it will also work to reduce the debt burdens of countries facing public health crisis. The House Financial Services Committee has a key role in crafting U.S. policy in the international financial institutions, and this Committee has been examining the role of these institutions in preventing AIDS and reducing debt burdens. I would like to thank Representatives Leach and Biggert of the Financial Services Committee for their leadership on U.S. global AIDS policy. They have been instrumental in ensuring that the World Bank remains the trustee of the Global AIDS Fund and in encouraging private contributions to the Global AIDS Fund. Additionally, Subcommittee Chairman Spencer Bauchus has been a strong supporter of common sense debt relief policy over the years. It is his leadership that has brought the issue of debt relief to the attention of Congress. Today we consider the House legislation with an amendment added by the Senate. This amendment encourages the Secretary of the Treasury to pursue debt relief initiatives in the international financial institutions. I have agreed to accept this amendment added by the Senate in order to ensure that the President can have this legislation on his desk this week and we can begin working to stop HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and demonstrate the U.S. Commitment to eliminating HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the investigation into the horrible bombing in Riyadh continues, I would commend to my colleagues' attention a column in the Wall Street Journal written by former FBI Director Louis Freeh about the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia. It contains valuable lessons that should be applied to the probe of this latest attack. Cooperation between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia will be essential, as will the resolve that we have seen on the part of President Bush to bring terrorists to justice. As the article also demonstrates, the FBI needs our support for its critical mission of investigating and preventing terrorism in the U.S. and around the world. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2003] American Justice for Our Khobar Heroes (By Louis J. Freeh) Responding to last week's terrorist attacks in Riyadh, President Bush declared that ``the United States will find the killers, and they will learn the meaning of American justice.'' This is a president who is serious about fighting and winning the war on terrorism. The liberation of Iraq and the continued effort to bring al Qaeda to justice are all the proof anyone should need. On May 1, our commander in chief stood on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln--where he rightly should stand-- and reiterated the Bush doctrine: ``Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.'' As if in response, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the leader of Iran's powerful Guardian Council, had this to say in a sermon the next day: ``The Iraqi people have reached the conclusion that they have no option but to launch an uprising and resort to martyrdom operations to expel the United States from Iraq.'' Impervious to the new order against terrorism are the terrorists who maintain their regime in Tehran. While the horrific bombing scenes were still smoldering and littered with their victims in Riyadh, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami received a rousing welcome in Beirut, where he vowed to support ``resistance'' against Israel and called the U.S. occupation of Iraq a ``great mistake'' and a ``dangerous game.'' Meanwhile, Mr. Khatami's atomic-energy chief denied that Iran had a nuclear weapons program but told the U.N. that his country was not willing to submit to tougher inspections. Make no mistake, Iran's terrorist leaders are well versed in ``martyrdom operations'' against Americans. Hezbollah, the exclusive terrorist agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has killed more Americans than any other group besides al Qaeda. In 1982, Hezbollah carried out the suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines. In 1985, Hezbollah brutally murdered a young U.S. Navy diver aboard their hijacked TWA Flight 847 in Lebanon and dumped his body on the tarmac. Into the 1990s Hezbollah terrorists kidnapped, tortured and murdered several American military and civilian officers as well as other Westerners. On June 25, 1996, Iran again attacked America at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, exploding a huge truck bomb that devastated Khobar Towers and murdered 19 U.S. airmen as they rested in their dormitory. These young heroes spent every day risking their lives enforcing the no-fly zone over southern Iraq; that is, protecting Iraqi Shiites from their own murderous tyrant. When I visited this horrific scene soon after the attack, I watched dozens of dedicated FBI agents combing through the wreckage in 120-degree heat, reverently handling the human remains of our brave young men. More than 400 of our Air Force men and women were wounded in this well-planned attack, and I was humbled by their courage and spirit. I later met with the families of our lost Khobar heroes and promised that we would do whatever was necessary to bring these terrorists to American justice. The courage and dignity these wonderful families have consistently exemplified has been one of the most powerful experiences of my 26 years of public service. The FBI's investigation of the Khobar attack was extraordinarily persistent, indeed relentless. Our fallen heroes and their families deserve nothing less. Working in close cooperation with the White House, State Department, CIA and Department of Defense, I made a series of trips to Saudi Arabia beginning in 1996. FBI agents opened an office in Riyadh and aligned themselves closely with the Mabaheth, the kingdom's antiterrorist police. Over the course of our investigation the evidence became clear that while the attack was staged by Saudi Hezbollah members, the entire operation was planned, funded and coordinated by Iran's security services, the IRGC and MOIS, acting on orders from the highest levels of the regime in Tehran. In order to return an indictment and bring these terrorists to American justice, it became essential that FBI agents be permitted to interview several of the participating Hezbollah terrorists who were detained in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of the interviews was to confirm--with usable, co-conspirator testimonial evidence--the Iranian complicity that Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan and the Mabaheth had already relayed to us. (For the record, the FBI's investigation only succeeded because of the real cooperation provided by Prince Bandar and our colleagues in the Mabaheth.) FBI agents had never before been permitted to interview first-hand Saudis detained in the kingdom. Unfortunately, the White House was unable or unwilling to help the FBI gain access to these critical witnesses. The only direction from the Clinton administration regarding Iran was to order the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting official Iranian delegations entering the U.S. because it was adversely impacting our ``relationship'' with Tehran. We had argued that the MOIS was using these groups to infiltrate its agents into the U.S. After months of inaction, I finally turned to the former President Bush, who immediately interceded with Crown Prince Abdullah on the FBI's behalf. Mr. Bush personally asked the Saudis to let the FBI do one-on-one interviews of the detained Khobar bombers. The Saudis immediately acceded. After Mr. Bush's Saturday meeting with the Crown Prince in Washington, Ambassador Wyche Fowler, Dale Watson, the FBI's excellent counterterrorism chief, and I were summoned to a Monday meeting where the crown prince directed that the FBI be given direct access to the Saudi detainees. This was the investigative breakthrough for which we had been waiting for several years. Mr. Bush typically disclaimed any credit for his critical intervention but he earned the gratitude of many FBI agents and the Khobar families. I quickly dispatched the FBI case agents back to Saudi Arabia, where they interviewed, one-on- one, six of the Hezbollah members who actually carried out the attack. All of them directly implicated the IRGC, MOIS and senior Iranian government officials in the planning and execution of this attack. Armed with this evidence, the FBI recommended a criminal indictment that would identify Iran as the sponsor of the Khobar bombing. Finding a problem for every solution, the Clinton administration refused to support a prosecution. The prosecution and criminal indictment for these murders had to wait for a new administration. In February 2001, working with exactly the same evidence but with a talented new prosecutor, James B. Comey Jr. (now U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York), Attorney General John Ashcroft's personal intervention, and White House support, the case was presented to a grand jury. On June 21, 2001, only four days before some of the terrorist charges would have become barred by the five-year statute of limitations, the grand jury indicted 13 Hezbollah terrorists for the Khobar attack and identified Iran as the sponsor. Nonetheless, the terrorists who murdered 19 U.S. airmen and wounded hundreds more have yet to be brought to American justice. Whenever U.S. diplomats hold talks with representatives of Iran's Islamic government, Khobar Towers should be the top item on their agenda. The arrest and turnover to U.S. authorities of Ahman Ibrahim Al-Mughassil and Ali Saed bin Ali Al-Houri, two of the indicted Hezbollah leaders of the Khobar attack believed to be in Iran, should be part of any ``normalization'' discussion. Furthermore, access and accountability by IRGC, MOIS and other senior Iranian government leaders for their complicity in the attack should be nonnegotiable. Before his appointment as the top U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, which studied the Khobar attack. The commission concluded that ``Iran remains the most active state supporter of terrorism. . . . The IRBC and MOIS have continued to be involved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts. They also provide funding, training, weapons, logistical resources, and guidance to a variety of terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, and PFLP-GC.'' The commission noted that ``in October 1999, President Clinton officially requested cooperation [a letter delivered through a third-party government] from Iran in the investigation [of the Khobar bombing]. Thus far, Iran has not responded. International pressure in the Pan Am 103 case ultimately succeeded in getting some degree of cooperation from Libya. The United States government has not sought similar multilateral action to bring pressure on Iran to cooperate in the Khobar Towers bombing investigation.'' One of my last official acts as FBI director was to attend a memorial service at Arlington National Cemetery with the 19 stoic Air Force families with whom I had become very close. They all came to my office to thank the FBI for keeping faith with them and presented me with a signed plaque. It will always be for me the most cherished honor of my public service. Yesterday the White House reiterated Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recent statement that al Qaeda leaders are now conducting their operations from Iran. The time to bring that pressure to bear is right now, with Ambassador Bremer and our armed forces bringing democracy and justice to the Iraqi people next door. This time the United States should not just send Tehran a letter. American justice for our 19 Khobar heroes is long overdue.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate Chairman Hunter and the Armed Services Committee on their work on the Defense authorization. This authorization better prepares the United States to face the new threats to our world. I am pleased the committee has recognized that after playing a dominant role in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Abrams battle tank proved that it will continue to play a central role in the defense of our Nation in the years to come. With the 129 Abrams System Enhancement Program upgrades the committee has provided for, the armored cavalry regiment, the ``eyes and ears'' of the Army's Counter Attack Corps, will join the 4th Infantry Division as the most advanced in the world. As the Army begins transforming itself for future combat situations, heavy armor will continue to play an important role. We should take the lessons we learned in Iraq, and use those in the future. As the centerpiece of the Operation, the Abrams not only proved it's mettle in the desert, it also dominated in urban areas. The tank provided cover for infantrymen and offered precision fire helicopters and planes were not able to. Acting as a battering ram, the Abrams is the safest vehicle in our arsenal, not having suffered one combat-related casualty. Whether it be the Sherman tank in World War II or the Abrams in the gulf war and Operation Iraqi Freedom, tanks have been critical to military success. The Abrams tank has proven that the tank will continue to play a prominent role in the defense of America well into the 21st century.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6--the ``Energy Policy Act of 2003.'' This bill contains several provisions that are under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee and are identical to agreements between the House and Senate Conferees last year when considering the energy bill before the 107th Congress-- H.R. 4. These provisions are non-controversial and reflect last year's bipartisan and bicameral support. Division G, sections 70001 through 70010 include measures that will enhance energy efficiency in the housing arena as well as promote the idea that our country's representatives on the Board of Directors of the North American Development Bank encourage energy efficiency and conservations. Specifically, the housing provisions would allow funding to non- profit organizations, including community development corporations and local cooperative associations, to promote activities relating to energy efficient, affordable housing and residential energy conservation measures that benefit low-income families. Other measures include increasing the public services cap by ten percent to allow eligible communities and states to use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to pursue energy conservation and efficiency. Currently, the law limits, to fifteen percent, the amount of CDBG funds that can be used for public services associated with employment, crime prevention, child care, health care, drug abuse, education energy conservation, welfare or recreations needs. In the real estate/housing market, the provisions would amend Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs to provide for an increase in loan limits up to thirty percent where the potential homeowner installs either a solar energy system or residential energy conservation measures. Under assisted housing, the provisions would update the model energy codes of the Council of American Building Officials and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers with the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code by September 30, 2004. Moreover, other assisted housing programs at HUD, such as public housing and HOPE VI have similar provisions to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances, fixtures and building materials.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 127, to designate a ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month.'' To ensure the strength and resiliency of our nation's economy, it is vital that we instill in our next generation of consumers an understanding of today's increasingly complex financial world. In a recent survey of our high school seniors' financial knowledge by the Jumpstart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, over half received a failing grade, a percentage that has grown not only in the past five years, but in the five years before that as well. Yet the number of students using credit cards and ATM cards has gone up--45 percent of college students have credit card debt averaging $3066. As this trend grows, we need to make sure they understand the implications and responsibility of credit. Currently, fewer than 30 percent of young Americans are even given the opportunity to take money management or personal finance classes in high school. This needs to change. There are as many as 10 federal departments and agencies that today offer a wide variety of educational programs and resources along with a growing number of states and private programs. Just last May, the Treasury established an Office of Financial Education. We need to ensure that schools nationwide are aware of these programs and encouraged to utilize them. With America's youth spending about $150 billion annually and more and more marketing campaigns targeting youth, it is important to give them the tools they need to make smart financial decisions. In the 1990s, personal bankruptcies rose by 69 percent, and we need to combat this trend. Educating the next generation early and well will help to contribute to the nation's economic vitality. They need to understand that there are serious consequences to mismanaging one's finances. They need to know that there are investing options other than putting your money in a savings account. They need to understand the importance of starting to prepare for retirement early. They need to understand that the long-term pain of mismanaged personal debt is not worth the short-term gain. The need to understand that responsible use of today's financial tools can help them to maximize their purchasing power. In conclusion, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for recognizing this vital need and I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a revised cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 21, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. This revised estimate, dated April 2, 2003, describes the private-sector mandate that would be imposed by the legislation. The CBO's estimate of its impact on the Federal budget and on State and local governments is unchanged. The original estimate was included in the Committee's report on H.R. 21 (H. Rept. 108-51, Part I) and was dated March 27, 2003. April 2, 2003. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for H.R. 21, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. This cost estimate supersedes the previous estimate. The cost estimate provided to the committee on March 27, 2003, did not identify or describe the private-sector mandate that would be imposed by H.R. 21. Our estimate of the bill's impact on the federal budget and on state and local governments is unchanged. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley (for federal costs), and Cecil McPherson (for the impact on the private sector. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director. Enclosure. H.R. 21--Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act Summary: H.R. 21 would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting credit cards, checks, or other bank instruments from gamblers who illegally bet over the Internet. The bill also would require financial institutions to take steps to identify and block gambling- related transactions that are transmitted through their payment systems. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) would enforce the provisions of H.R. 21 as they apply to financial institutions. CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would result in no significant cost to the federal government. The bill could affect direct spending and revenues, but CBO estimates that any impact on direct spending and revenues would not be significant. H.R. 21 would create no new intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The bill would impose a private-sector mandate, but CBO estimates that the direct costs of the mandate would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the next five years. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates that the government would incur no significant costs under H.R. 21. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 21 would increase administrative costs of the Department of Justice, but any such costs would be negligible. The bill also would have a small effect on the operating costs of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve System. Finally, the bill would have a negligible effect on the collection and spending of criminal penalties. Basis of estimate The bill would have only minor budgetary effects, as described below. Spending subject to appropriation Because H.R. 21 would establish new federal crimes relating to Internet gambling, the federal government would be able to pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. CBO expects, however, that most cases would be pursued under existing state laws. Therefore, we estimate that any increase in federal costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any such additional costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. H.R. 21 would require the Department of the Treasury to submit an annual report on deliberations with other countries on issues related to Internet gambling. CBO estimates that preparing and completing the report would cost less than $100,000 a year, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Direct spending and revenues The NCUA, the OTS, and the OCC charge fees to cover all their administrative costs; therefore, any additional spending by those agencies to implement the bill would have no net budgetary effect. That is not the case with the FDIC, however, which uses deposit insurance premiums paid by banks to cover the expenses it incurs to supervise state-chartered institutions. (Under current law, CBO estimates that the vast majority of thrift institutions insured by the FDIC would not pay any premiums for most of the 2004-2013 period.) The bill would cause a small increase in FDIC spending but would not affect its premium income. In total, CBO estimates that H.R. 21 would increase direct spending and offsetting receipts of the NCUA, OTS, OCC, and FDIC by less than $500,000 a year over the 2002-2006 period. Budgetary effects on the Federal Reserve are recorded as changes in revenues (governmental receipts). Based on information from the Federal Reserve, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 21 would reduce such revenues by less than $500,000 a year. Because those prosecuted and convicted under the bill could be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of such fines are recorded in the budget as governmental receipts (i.e., revenues), which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and spent in subsequent years. Any additional collections are likely to be negligible because of the small number of cases involved. Because any increase in direct spending would equal the amount of fines collected (with a lag of one year or more), the additional direct spending also would be negligible. Estimated impact on state and local governments: Although H.R. 21 would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting credit card payments and other bank instruments from gamblers who bet illegally over the Internet, the bill would not create a new intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. Under current federal and state law, gambling businesses are generally prohibited from accepting bets or wagers over the Internet. Thus, H.R. 21 does not contain a new mandate relative to current law and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 21 would impose a new federal mandate on the private sector. The bill would require designated payment systems to establish policies and procedures designed to identify and prevent transactions in connection with unlawful Internet gambling. Designated payment systems are defined in the bill to include any system utilized by businesses such as creditors, credit card issuers, or financial institutions to effect a credit transaction, an electronic fund transfer, or other transfer of funds. Information provided by representatives of the financial services industry indicates that such transactions can currently be identified through the use of codes. Most financial institutions are currently able to identify and block restricted transactions by using the coding system. Thus, CBO estimates that the private sector's cost to comply with the mandate would be small. There also could be direct savings to those entities subject to the mandate as the bill limits their liability arising from their compliance with the requirement. CBO estimates that the total direct costs for private-sector mandates in this bill would fall well below the annual threshold ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation) established in UMRA. Although section 3 would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting credit card payments and other bank instruments from gamblers who bet illegally over the Internet, those provisions would not create a new private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA. Under current federal and state law, gambling businesses are generally prohibited from accepting bets or wagers over the Internet. Thus, those provisions do not contain a new mandate relative to current law. Previous estimate: The cost estimate for H.R. 21 transmitted to the House Committee on Financial Services on March 27, 2003, did not identify or describe the private- sector mandate that would be imposed by the bill. This cost estimate supersedes that previous estimate. The estimate of the bill's impact on the federal budget and on state and local governments is unchanged. Estimate prepared by: Federal spending: Ken Johnson and Mark Hadley; federal revenues: Mark Booth; impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Victoria Heid Hall; impact on the private sector: Cecil McPherson. Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. Our country has the largest, most complex, most stable banking system in the world. Deposit insurance is one of the major reasons for this stability. And today we will strengthen this system so that it continues to serve as a model for the rest of the world. Depositors, taxpayers, and depository institutions would be well- served by this legislation which will modernize the Federal deposit insurance system. Federal deposit insurance was created by the Congress in 1934 and it has successfully served the American people for almost 70 years. Public confidence has been maintained, and the stability of the Nation's banking system has been preserved during periods of financial uncertainty. The deposit insurance system has been significantly modified only twice since 1934, both times in response to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and 1990s. During this crisis the Federal Government resolved 2,363 failures of insured institutions involving more than $700 billion in assets. As FDIC Chairman Powell has stated, ``There were no bank runs, no panics, no disruptions to financial markets, and no debilitating impact on overall economic activity.'' The existence of the Federal deposit insurance was a critical factor in maintaining public confidence in the banking system during these troubled times. H.R. 522, though technical in nature, seeks to apply the experience of the last decade to today's banking marketplace. It is the 21st century legislation for a 21st century banking industry, and this is it. And while the purpose of deposit insurance remains the same, industry growth, bank expansion from new powers, and the integration of banking and securities activities require that the scope and coverage of deposit insurance evolve so as to reflect the realities of a modern financial services industry. Moreover, the presence of Federal deposit insurance continues to be a key consideration for consumers in their decisions about where they do their banking and what level of deposit risk they are willing to assume. Mr. Chairman, there is broad consensus in this body, the Bush administration, the Federal banking and thrift regulators, and business and consumer groups in favor of improving and strengthening the deposit insurance system and making it more responsive to the cyclical nature of banking activities and the post-Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial and economic environment. This legislation fulfills our commitment to the American public. Indeed, H.R. 522 was reported out of committee on a voice vote, a testimony to its responsiveness and timeliness. Substantially similar legislation passed this body just last year with over 400 votes. This legislation is based on the recognition that depositors, savers, and investors have integrated financial needs and that the deposit insurance system must be stronger, more flexible, and adaptable to changing depositor behaviors in real times. The bill provides the FDIC with the necessary supervisory tools to manage the deposit insurance fund in a way that balances all affected interests and allocates the benefits and costs of the system evenly and fairly. I want to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for taking on this challenging, highly technical legislative process and for engaging all the major stakeholders in developing a bipartisan piece of well-balanced, highly effective legislation. I also want to thank all of the bipartisan co-sponsors of this important legislation, particularly our distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their good work in this effort. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and by doing so we ensure the public continues to maintain its confidence in the U.S. financial services industry, by far the most stable in the world. Mr. Chairman, in scoring last year's deposit insurance reform legislation, the CBO concluded that the bill would decrease net Federal spending by $700 million. This year, presented with a substantially similar piece of legislation reforming the deposit insurance system, the CBO applied a different set of assumptions in performing its analysis of H.R. 522, and concluded that this year's bill would increase net Federal spending by some $1.9 billion. This large swing between last year's estimate and this year's is attributable in large measure to a change in CBO's calculation of how much premiums the FDIC will be able to collect from insured depository institutions under the two bills. In making this calculation, CBO acknowledged the speculative nature of its analysis, stating that ``it is possible that the FDIC could use its broad discretion [under the legislation] differently than we have assumed and that could result in either fewer or greater premium collections than CBO has estimated.'' The CBO's analysis is grounded in an arbitrary assumption that the FDIC Board will choose not to exercise its authority in a revenue neutral way. This assumption is directly contrary to the consistent congressional testimony of the FDIC that a central goal of deposit insurance reform is revenue neutrality. In fact, in a letter that the Committee received on March 31, 2003, from the Chairman of the FDIC, the Honorable Don Powell, Chairman Powell stated the FDIC's position that H.R. 522 gives the agency ``appropriate tools and incentives to manage the deposit insurance system such that it will not result in increased net government spending.'' Chairman Powell's letter, which conclusively rebuts the notion that H.R. 522 will have an adverse affect on Federal spending, goes on to state: H.R. 522 provides the FDIC with the tools to achieve revenue neutrality in the management of the deposit insurance system. Because any analysis that determines H.R. 522 will result in an increase in net government spending must necessarily rely on assumptions regarding how the FDIC Board will exercise the discretion provided in the legislation, I can assure Congress that the leadership of the FDIC has no intention of managing the deposit insurance system in a way that increases the costs to the government or increases the burden on insured institutions. The costs of the deposit insurance system will continue to be borne by the banking industry, but in a manner that establishes a strong risk- based premium system and avoids the procyclical risks inherent in current law. The Committee shares the view of the FDIC, the agency that has had responsibility for administering the deposit insurance program since its inception more than 70 years ago, and believes that the CBO analysis of the potential budgetary impact of H.R. 522 is fundamentally flawed. For the Record, I am including a copy of the CBO estimate and the FDIC's response. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, March 28, 2003. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Hadley and Ken Johnson (for federal costs), and Judith Ruud (for the private-sector impact). Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson for Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director. Enclosure. H.R. 522--Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003 Summary: H.R. 522 would amend provisions of banking and credit union law to reform the deposit insurance system. Specifically, the bill would increase insurance coverage for insured accounts from $100,000 per account to $130,000 for most accounts (with higher levels of coverage for retirement accounts and municipal deposits). Over time, the coverage limit for insured deposits would increase to account for inflation. Those provisions of the bill would affect deposits held by banks and thrifts, which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as well as those held by credit unions, which are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). In addition, the bill would merge the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) to create a new Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) to pay the claims of depositors of failed banks and thrifts. Finally, H.R. 522 would amend the conditions under which banks and thrifts would pay insurance premiums to the FDIC, which administers the funds. CBO estimates that H.R. 522 would increase the net cost of resolving failed financial institutions by $2.1 billion over the next 10 years. Under the bill, the FDIC and NCUA would offset some of that cost through increased insurance premiums paid by financial institutions. Because H.R. 522 would allow institutions to pay FDIC premiums with credits in lieu of cash, the additional cost of resolving failed financial institutions under the bill would exceed the cash receipts from additional premiums. Consequently, we estimate that the FDIC would bear nearly all of the increased costs of resolving failed institutions during the next five years, when most of the credits would be used. As a result, CBO estimates that a would increase net direct spending by $1.9 billion over the 2004-2013 period. H.R. 522 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates that the mandate would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments and, therefore, that it costs would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($59 million 2003, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains private-sector mandates as defined by UMRA, primarily because it would necessitate the payment of increased deposit insurance premiums. CBO estimates that the direct cost of those mandates would be below the annual threshold specified in UMRA ($117 million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation) during the first five years after enactment because the bill would provide credits to certain institutions that would largely offset their insurance premium assessments over the 2004-2008 period. We do not have sufficient information to provide a precise estimate of the aggregate cost of all the mandates in the bill. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 522 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and housing credit). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in billions of dollars--

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute today to Mr. Andrew Shepard, a lifelong California resident and dedicated community banker. Last fall, Andrew Shepard retired after more than 53 years with Exchange Bank and Doyle Trust in Santa Rosa, California. In 1949, he joined Exchange Bank as a teller, receiving continual promotions through years of dedication and hard work. He served as Chief Executive Officer from 1969 until 1991, presiding over tremendous growth at the Bank and increasing its asset size more than 800 percent. In 1991, Mr. Shepard was named Chairman of the Board. In addition to his duties at Exchange Bank and Doyle Trust, Mr. Shepard has been an active leader in the banking industry. He served as President of the California Bankers Association and has held many positions with the American Bankers Association, including service on the Board of Directors and as Treasurer. Mr. Shepard is also a Past Chairman of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors Advisory Board. He has received many honors in recognition of his leadership. In 1999, he was inducted into the Pacific Coast Banking School Hall of Fame, an elite group of 18 graduates of the School. In 1999, he received the California Human Development Corporation Aztec Award. For 3 years in a row (1986, 1987, and 1988), he was recognized by his peers and awarded the CEO--A Best Managed Independent Bank in Northern California honor. One of Mr. Shepard's proudest achievements has been the support of Santa Rosa Junior College students. Since 1969, Exchange Bank and Doyle Trust have sponsored the education of countless students with donations of approximately $47 million in scholarship funds. In 1993, Santa Rosa Junior College recognized Mr. Shepard's dedication to the school and presented him with the President's Medallion. Mr. Shepard has also served as the Chairman of the Santa Rosa United Way, a member of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce Economic Advisory Committee, and a founding member of the Sonoma County Community Foundation. An enthusiastic outdoorsman, he has served as the CEO of Elktrout, Inc., for more than 2 decades and is the Past Chairman of the Ladies Professional Golf Association. Any tribute to Mr. Shepard would be incomplete without mentioning his service to our country. During World War II, Mr. Shepard enlisted in the U.S. Army and served with the 100th Infantry Division from 1943 to 1946. As a First Mortar Gunner, he saw combat in Europe and was awarded the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Upon his discharge, Mr. Shepard began his education at Stanford University, receiving a B.A. with Distinction in Economics in 1949. Later he graduated from the Pacific Coast Banking School and the Advanced Management College at Stanford University. Throughout his career, Andrew Shepard has been a dedicated advocate for his company, the banking industry at large, and his community. I thank him for his service, and send my best wishes on a wonderful retirement to him and his lovely wife, Mardi.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let me first recognize and pay tribute to the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) tenacity in this area. If indeed the gentleman from New York indicated that this is a fresh start for the Members of the House, this is, I guess, our seventh fresh start as we work our way through reform of the Bankruptcy Code. I had an opportunity to practice law for 9 years, and part of that practice included bankruptcy law, and I was involved in a number of bankruptcy cases, both business bankruptcies and personal bankruptcies, and all of my colleagues are well aware that the Bankruptcy Code that we operate under now was passed in the late 1960s, early 1970s, and which we are now acting under. Anybody who says that the status quo regarding the Bankruptcy Code is acceptable to the American people, to practitioners, to petitioners, to the courts, to our system simply does not understand what a critical situation we are in in regard to the Bankruptcy Code. So I salute the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the Committee on the Judiciary for the hard work that they have done. It may be like deja vu all over again, but it is a worthy cause, and I salute my colleagues for what they have done in putting together a balanced approach that recognizes the rights of the consumer, but at the same time recognizes that abuse of the Bankruptcy Code is rampant, and Congress needs to change that. I want to pay particular attention to the financial netting provisions of the bill which would reduce risk, especially systemic risk associated with activities in the derivatives market. Derivatives, as many of my colleagues know, has become one of the fundamental management tools that protect mortgages, loans and the full range of savings and investment products. H.R. 975 brings our bankruptcy laws up to date, thereby making sure that these instruments fully protect our markets from systemic risks and in the event that an entity fails. This provision has been recommended by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets and was indeed our committee's addition to this legislation. Alan Greenspan, the Treasury Department and all of America's financial regulators are unanimous in their support of these provisions. Chairman Greenspan, on numerous occasions, has stressed the importance of the financial contract netting provisions. Recently, Chairman Greenspan has stated, ``I have repeatedly stated my support for these netting provisions. U.S. businesses have come to rely heavily on derivatives for managing price risk, and netting and collateral agreements are widely used to mitigate the counterparty credit risks that might otherwise limit the effectiveness of derivatives for this purpose. Passage of the netting provisions would address lingering concerns about the enforceability of netting and collateral agreements vis-a-vis an insolvent counterparty.'' I would harken the committee's attention to the Enron situation, for example, or the WorldCom situation in which in many cases we have a lot of these derivative contracts that are now in the bankruptcy courts that will allow the bankruptcy judge to use this netting technique to facilitate not only the carrying out of the bankruptcy laws, but also protecting creditors at the same time. It is critically important that the House adopt this legislation. I also want to indicate my support for the Toomey amendment that will be offered later when the committee goes into the amending process that provides parity for credit unions on the netting provisions. Mr. Chairman, this is an important piece of legislation. I would ask that the House pass this as we have so many times before.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, medical malpractice lawsuits are increasingly being used to enrich lawyers at the expense of patients and doctors. We would never close the doors of our legal system to people who have legitimately suffered. But the abuse of the system is threatening the quality of care delivered by our doctors and hospitals. According to the Ohio State Medical Association, 76 percent of Ohio doctors say insurance costs have affected their willingness to perform high-risk procedures. I've met with doctors in my district who say these high costs might force them to retire. My rural district cannot afford to lose quality physicians. This is clearly an issue of tort reform, not insurance regulation. State insurance commissioners strictly regulate liability insurers. Companies are not permitted to raise their premiums to make up for past losses. Malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing because over the last decade there has been an explosion in the number of lawsuits and particularly large awards, some reaching lottery proportions. That's something the market will reflect. Reasonable limits on non-economic damages are a sensible way to make sure that malpractice lawsuit awards address actual damages. They work, without compromising legal rights or physician vigilance. Ohio is a case in point. When my state placed caps on these awards in 1975, insurance premiums dropped. When this cap was overturned, lawsuits . . . and therefore, costs . . . went up almost immediately. What changed was the behavior of lawyers, not doctors. H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, is a surgical solution to a crisis that spans from the operating room to the court room. I urge its adoption.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 659, the Hospital Mortgage Insurance Act of 2003 and urge my colleagues support. The Committee on Financial Services unanimously approved this legislation on February 13, 2003. H.R. 659 amends Section 242 of the National Housing Act to ensure that every state will be eligible for FHA insured financing to build new hospitals or renovation and updates existing hospitals. The version we are considering today includes an amendment that will make this legislation effective immediately. Back in 1968, Congress enacted Section 242 in recognition that hospitals were in need of low cost financing in order to fund capital improvements such as additions and renovations to existing buildings, and in some cases to build new hospitals. In order to be eligible for the financing, the 1968 law required the hospital to obtain a certificate of need or to perform a feasibility study. However, over the years, as part of the effort to encourage deregulation, certificate of needs authority has sunset in some states. H.R. 659 recognizes the fact that many states no longer have certificate of needs authority or the mechanisms in place for feasibility studies. It sets up a more simplified process for states to be eligible for the low-cost FHA insured financing. H.R. 659 will help to assure that quality, affordable health care is more accessible to rural and urban American communities where conventional financing may not be readily available. According to the Congressional Budget Office, enacting this legislation would result in $2 million to $3 million of additional collections each year, which will offset any additional costs associated with this change in the program. I want to thank Housing Subcommittee Chair Bob Ney and Ranking Member Maxine Waters for their leadership on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and I urge member's support.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to join my Buckeye colleagues in celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Great State of Ohio. My thanks to the dean of our delegation, Mr. Regula, for introducing this resolution. It's my great privilege to represent Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, a widespread and diverse region steeped in tradition that has contributed much to the rich history of our state. Some three decades ago, my hometown of Findlay in Hancock County was honored by Congress with the designation ``Flag City, USA.'' Nearby Arlington, Ohio, enjoys the title of ``Flag Village, USA.'' The discovery of oil in 1886 contributed tremendously to the county's growth; Findlay is home to the headquarters of Marathon Ashland Petroleum, an oil refining and marketing leader to this day. It was about the Blanchard River--than called Mill Stream--that Handcock County's Tell Taylor reminisced in his 1908 song ``Down by the Old Mill Stream.'' Hardin County is known as the home of Jacob Parrot, the nation's first Congressional Medal of Honor winner in 1863. Employees at Ada's Wilson Football Factory hand-make well over one million footballs per year, providing the NFL's official game balls since 1941. The Lima Army Tank Plant in Allen County has played a vital role in our nation's defense since the Second World War, when its forerunner, the Lima Tank Depot, processed more than 100,000 combat vehicles for shipment overseas. The tank plant's contributions continue in this new century, with ongoing work on the new Stryker light armored vehicle and a new $32 million Abrams tank upgrade program. Logan County is famous not only for the nation's shortest street (20- foot-long McKinley Street), but also the first concrete street in America. George Wells Bartholomew, Jr., constructed this street in 1891, posting a personal bond of $5,000 to guarantee that the pavement would last for five years. That street carries local traffic to this day, and was declared a National Historical Civil Engineering Landmark in 1976. Wyandot County's Old Mission Church is the oldest Methodist mission in the United States. Completed in 1824, the Church sits on the grounds of the Wyandotte Cemetery, a burial ground for the last Native American tribe in Ohio. The Basilica, and National Shrine of Our Lady of Consolation in Carey draws hundreds of thousands of pilgrims on a yearly basis. Marion County is the site of the Warren G. Harding Home and Memorial, honoring our nation's 29th president. Marion, home of the Popcorn Festival and the Wyandot Popcorn Museum, also contains one of four branch campuses of The Ohio State University, 2003's national football champions. I am privileged to represent a total of three of OSU's branches. Citizens of Shelby County take great pride in their magnificent 120- year-old county courthouse, which was recently added to the list of ``Great American Public Places.'' Sidney, the county seat, developed a reputation as a railroad and canal center early in our state's history. Residents of Mount Gilead in Morrow County rightfully take pride in the ``victory shaft'' that dominates the village's North Square. This stone monument was a 1919 gift from the federal government in recognition of Morrow County's support of World War I--its citizens purchased more war bonds per capita than any other county in the U.S. Auglaize County is the birthplace of space pioneer Neil Armstrong and home to the Neil Armstrong Air and Space Museum. The county seat of Wapakoneta is a focal point of Native American history, serving as capital of the Shawnee nation in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Chief Blackhoof organized the migration of the Shawnee to Kansas in 1826, and afterward returned to Wapakoneta, where he died in 1831. The Mansfield Blockhouse in Richland County is the county's oldest structure, built in the public square to protect early settlers from Indian attacks during the War of 1812. The medieval castle design of the Ohio State Reformatory, constructed in the late 1880s, landed it on the National Register of Historic Places in 1987, and has been featured in three major motion pictures. Mansfield was also the home of John Sherman, longtime House and Senate member from Ohio, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Republican presidential candidate, and father of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Malabar Farm in Lucas is the former home and workshop of Pulitzer Prize winner Louis Bromfield, drawing thousands of visitors each year. A bronze statue in the town square in Urbana memorializes the 3,235 Champaign County men who fought in the Civil War, 578 of whom did not survive the fighting. Urbana University's Johnny Appleseed Educational Center houses the largest collection of Johnny Appleseed memorabilia and information known to exist. St. Paris, in western Champaign County, was a leading carriage-making center for much of the late Nineteenth Century. Madam Speaker, I'm proud that citizens in each of the 11 counties I'm honored to represent are taking an active role in celebrating not only our state's bicentennial, but also the rich and vibrant histories of their own communities. Their dedication and devotion ensure that our state's future remains bright for the next 200 years and beyond. I salute the efforts of all who have made this bicentennial year a great one for our great state.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 254, an important piece of legislation which makes changes to the operation of the North American Development Bank. These changes were negotiated by the United States and Mexico after President Bush and Mexican President Fox met to discuss ways to improve border conditions between our countries. The NADBank has been in operation for nearly 10 years, and is equally capitalized by both the U.S. and Mexico. However, in this time period the NADBank has made only a few loans while having over $450 million in paid-in capital and a total lending capacity of $2.7 billion. I would like to commend my colleague, Mr. Bereuter, for crafting this bill with input from both sides of the aisle and from Members representing each of the Border States. H.R. 254 contains the key changes requested by the Administration which will result in more NADBank programs without any increased costs to the taxpayers. The changes will allow the NADBank to finance projects further into Mexico from the U.S. border and will permit below-market rate loans and grants to be used for projects on either side of the border. Additionally, the bill contains a requirement for the Treasury Department to report annually to Congress on the operations and disbursements of the NADBank. Several sections express the sense of Congress as to what types of projects the NADBank should pursue. These include water conservation, coastal conservation and air pollution projects. This bill is identical to H.R. 5400 which was approved by the House in the 107th Congress. The NADBank is an important tool for financing environmental infrastructure projects on the border between the U.S. and Mexico. The changes we consider today will increase the ability of the NADBank to fulfill its mission and improve the environmental conditions along the border region while making it a stronger and more effective institution. It is critical that the U.S. and Mexico work in close cooperation to improve environmental conditions along the border region. This institution and the changes we consider today will do just that. This bill has been requested by the President, negotiated by the Administration, and approved by voice vote in the Financial Services Committee. I strongly urge my colleagues to support these changes to the NADBank and join me in voting to approve H.R. 524.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I am reporting that the Committee on Financial Services adopted the following rules for the 108th Congress on February 5, 2003 in open session, a quorum being present, and submit those rules for publication in the Congressional Record:

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4--the ``Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2003.'' The Committee on Financial Services approves H.R. 4's State flexibility authority that would cut across jurisdictional lines, both statutory and regulatory, to allow States and/or local governments to conduct demonstration projects to integrate Federal programs and funds. Under the plan, entities, such as the public housing authority, and the local and State governments would petition a Federal review board for this broadened waiver, with the appropriate Secretary exercising veto authority over the plan. An example of this waiver could be a child-care center and a local public housing agency jointly petitioning the Federal Review Board to waive the regulations and requirements of their applicable programs to achieve a certain purpose. H.R. 4 will knock down firewalls and bureaucratic obstacles that many housing organizations complain about when attempting to blend programs from different agencies. This proposal is an opportunity to allow some demonstration programs to see different ways of tackling the problem of service delivery, poverty, and a permanent underclass that should have the opportunity to move beyond public housing and homeless shelters to fully integrate in the private sector through rental and homeownership opportunities. We have heard time and time again that we need to blend more of the programs from HHS and HUD, for example, to tackle homelessness. H.R. 4 gives us that opportunity. Moreover, to ensure that residents in public housing have an opportunity to comment and participate in the development's strategic plan, H.R. 4 requires that the concerns of the residents be incorporated into not only the annual strategic plan submitted by the Public Housing Authority, but also the application for State flexibility. This will provide a significant opportunity for collaboration between the public housing authority management, residents and the administrators of other entities to craft demonstrations that will achieve meaningful results, as opposed to a dictate from top-management only. I can't underscore the importance of resident/tenant participation to the eventual success of these applications and demonstrations. For that purpose, H.R. 4 is noteworthy. One of the reasons the '96 welfare reforms were so successful is that States had the flexibility and leeway to shape their welfare programs in innovative ways. This bill enhances that flexibility, offering ``flexibility'' to allow States to integrate funding to improve services. As Health & Human Services Secretary and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said, flexibility is ``what the governors need and that's what the governors will have.'' This new flexibility will help States create broad, comprehensive assistance programs for needy families--as long as they achieve the purpose of the underlying program and continue to target those in need. This new flexibility will help States design fully integrated assistance programs that could revolutionize service delivery. The exemptions included in H.R. 4 should alleviate any concerns that fundamental rights and protections are jeopardized. Those exemptions are: (1) civil rights; (2) purposes or goals of any program; (3) maintenance of effort requirements; (4) health and safety; (5) labor standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or (6) environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's rollcall votes on H. Res. 25, saluting National Mentoring Month, and H. Res. 26, supporting the goals of Catholic Schools Week. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both resolutions.

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 this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today we consider a bill I have introduced to reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program, which expired on December 31. Joining me in cosponsoring this legislation are 31 other Members of Congress, almost equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I have been in contact with our counterparts in the Senate, who are in agreement with us on the need for immediate reauthorization of this important program. This is an important, noncontroversial, bipartisan bill that demands our attention so Americans will be protected from disaster and flood losses. Despite last minute efforts to remedy the situation, authorization for the NFIP expired at the end of last year. The current continuing resolution, which extends fiscal year 2002 baseline funding through January 3, 2003, does not extend the NFIP authorization. Until the NFIP authority is reauthorized, FEMA cannot issue or renew flood insurance policies and cannot borrow funds to cover claims that may arise. Realtors, homebuilders, mortgage bankers, and other real estate professionals in every one of the 20,000 communities covered by the NFIP are deeply and rightly concerned by the fact that real estate contracts cannot go to closing until this program is reauthorized. Countless small businesses, as well as current and prospective homeowners, are gravely concerned. I have been in touch with the regulators and asked that they oversee loans during this period to make sure no profiteering takes place as a result of a 1-week lag in the program. We need to make sure that consumers are protected during this period. By including language in this bill to make the reauthorization retroactive to January 1, 2003, we intend for there to be no gap in this authority, and for all program activity to occur in a seamless manner. Further, it is our intent that any actions taken to renew or enter into new policies would be treated as if the authority were in effect, and that the NFIP pay any claims that may have arisen during this time, or any policies renewed or made effective during this period. Though there are some who had wanted us to pass a 5-year authorization of the NFIP, our bill opts to reauthorize the program for 1 year only. This is in deference to those Members who have sought to make changes to the flood insurance program in order to prevent costly repetitive loss claims. With approximately $200 million being spent on an annual basis on repetitive flood loss properties, it is important that we in the Congress work with the administration to promote greater fiscal responsibility for the program. The Committee on Financial Services held a valuable hearing on this issue during the last Congress, and I expect we will revisit the subject with another hearing this year. I want to thank our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), as well as our counterparts in the other body and the FEMA staff, for their leadership on this issue. The NFIP is an important program that protects 4.4 million property owners with $623 billion in insurance coverage. It is critical that we reauthorize the program without further delay. I urge my colleagues to support this important measure so we can get it to the President this week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.