Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I am prepared to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during rollcall votes 316, 317, and 318 taken on June 22. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on No. 316 (the motion to recommit H.R. 4890), ``aye'' on No. 317 (final passage of H.R. 4890), and ``aye'' on No. 318 (final passage of H. Res. 323).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I bring to my colleagues' attention the following column written by Michael Barone. As Mr. Barone shows, the joint efforts of the so-called mainstream media and the political Left to examine current events through the prism of Vietnam and Watergate are--once again--sadly off base. [From the Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2006] Vietnam, Watergate and Rove (By Michael Barone) It has been a tough 10 days for those who see current events through the prisms of Vietnam and Watergate. First, the Democrats failed to win a breakthrough victory in the California 50th District special election--breakthrough that would have summoned up memories of Democrats winning Gerald Ford's old congressional district in a special election in 1974. Instead the Democratic nominee got 45% of the vote, just 1% more than John Kerry did in the district in 2004. Second, U.S. forces with a precision air strike killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on the same day that Iraqis finished forming a government. Zarqawi will not be available to gloat over American setbacks or our allies' defeat, as the leaders of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam did. Third, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced that he would not seek an indictment of Karl Rove. The leftward blogosphere had Mr. Rove pegged for the role of Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. Theories were spun about plea bargains that would implicate Vice President Dick Cheney. Talk of impeachment was in the air. But it turns out that history doesn't repeat itself. George W. Bush, whether you like it or not, is not a second Richard Nixon. It is hard in retrospect to understand why the left put so much psychic energy into the notion that Mr. Rove would be indicted. He certainly was an important target. No one in American history has been as powerful an aide to a president, both on politics and on public policy, as Karl Rove. Only Robert Kennedy in his brother's administration and Hamilton Jordan in Jimmy Carter's come close, and neither was as involved in electoral politics as Mr. Rove has been. Still, it was clear early on that the likelihood that Mr. Rove violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was near zero. Under the law, the agent whose name was disclosed would have had to have served overseas within the preceding five years (Valerie Plame, according to her husband's book, had been stationed in the U.S. since 1997), and Mr. Rove would have had to know that she was undercover (not very likely). The left enjoyed raising an issue on which, for once, it could charge that a Republican administration had undermined national security. But that rang hollow when the left gleefully seized on the New York Times' disclosure of NSA surveillance of phone calls from suspected al Qaeda operatives abroad to persons in the U.S. In all this a key role was played by the press. Cries went up early for the appointment of a special prosecutor: Patrick Fitzgerald would be another Archibald Cox or Leon Jaworski. Eager to bring down another Republican administration, the editorialists of the New York Times evidently failed to realize that the case could not be pursued without asking reporters to reveal the names of sources who had been promised confidentiality. America's newsrooms are populated largely by liberals who regard the Vietnam and Watergate stories as the great achievements of their profession. The peak of their ambition is to achieve the fame and wealth of great reporters like David Halberstam and Bob Woodward. But this time it was not Republican administration officials who went to prison. It was Judith Miller, then of the New York Times itself. Interestingly, Bob Woodward himself contradicted Mr. Fitzgerald's statement, made the day that he announced the one indictment he has obtained, of former vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby, that Mr. Libby was the first to disclose Ms. Plame's name to a reporter. The press reaction was to turn on Mr. Woodward, who has been covering this administration as a new story rather than as a reprise of Vietnam and Watergate. Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office. That belief has its perils for journalism, as the Fitzgerald investigation has shown. The peril that the press may find itself in the hot seat, but even more the peril that it will get the story wrong. The visible slavering over the prospect of a Rove indictment is just another item in the list of reasons why the credibility of the ``mainstream media'' has been plunging. There's also a peril for the political left. Vietnam and Watergate were arguably triumphs for honest reporting. But they were also defeats for America--and for millions of freedom-loving people in the world. They ushered in an era when the political opposition and much of the press have sought not just to defeat administrations but to delegitimize them. The pursuit of Karl Rove by the left and the press has been just the latest episode in the attempted criminalization of political differences. Is there any hope that it might turn out to be the last?

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 861, expressing our continued dedication to the global war on terror and the brave men and women serving on the front lines in that war. Alongside their counterparts from across the world, they have worked on our behalf to confront terrorist elements and foster freedom in the name of peace and stability. I want to focus my remarks on the extraordinary efforts of the Bush administration to improve our Nation's intelligence-gathering capabilities and prevent future terrorist attacks. Armed with the new tools Congress provided in the Use of Force Resolution, the USA PATRIOT Act, and other intelligence laws, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities have scored many successes in the last 4 years. Their efforts to track terrorist networks and decipher their plans have broken up sinister plots here at home and around the world. An FBI supervisor has confirmed that the PATRIOT Act led to the breakup of an al Qaeda cell in suburban Buffalo, NY. And just a few days ago, months of painstaking information gathering by U.S., Iraqi, Jordanian, and other sources resulted in the killing of the terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. For all the well-earned kudos that have been heaped upon the military and intelligence communities for their successful mission against Zarqawi, most of their successes aren't widely known and can't be publicly broadcast. The intelligence community can't take credit for them for fear of giving away secrets about their modes and methods of gathering this valuable information. Which is why the revelation in the media last year of the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program was an outrageous breach of national security. This leak--timed to coincide with Congress's debate on reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act--let al Qaeda and other terrorist groups know that the NSA had been intercepting the international communications of individuals with links to their groups. Then-CIA Director Porter Goss confirmed before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the damage caused by the leak has been ``very severe,'' leading to the loss or disruption of some sources and methods--not to mention the damage caused to our relationships with our intelligence counterparts in other countries. This program has provided valuable intelligence on terrorist activities. CIA Director Michael Hayden, who oversaw this program at the NSA, stated ``unequivocally'' that we have obtained information through the terrorist surveillance program that would not otherwise have been available. It's also consistent with Congress's direction that the President use ``all necessary and appropriate force'' against nations, groups, and individuals found to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We have tracked and intercepted calls in cases where we have reason to believe that at least one party in the conversation is a member of al Qaeda. The program is also fully compliant with existing law, and has been reviewed by the Justice Department and White House counsel roughly every 45 days. Congress has been briefed regularly on its provisions, consistent with the National Security Act of 1947. Chairman Pete Hoekstra has confirmed that congressional leadership, along with the leaders of the two intelligence committees, had numerous opportunities to express concerns about the program. Sadly, rather than giving the administration credit for working to gather intelligence and ``connect the dots,'' the outrage of some in this Congress has been directed not at those who leaked information about the program, but at the NSA and the White House. Unbelievably, four of our colleagues in the other body even introduced a resolution to censure the President over this program--a program that, had it been in place before 9/11, could have led the NSA to locate and identify two of the 9/11 hijackers who settled in San Diego in 2000. It's simply irresponsible to claim that this program is outside the administration's authority, since leaders of both parties have had every opportunity to express misgivings over the last 4\1/2\ years. Frankly, it smacks of political grandstanding that criticisms were raised only after the program's existence was leaked to the New York Times. Some have tried to minimize the significance of this leak, saying that terrorists obviously know that we're spying on them. But the truth is that terrorist cells need to communicate, and they'll keep using methods of communication that they know to work--and stop using methods that have been compromised. You can guarantee they'll move on to other modes of communication, now that details of the terrorist surveillance program have been publicized. It also defies logic to suggest that the privacy of communications with known terrorists is constitutionally protected. Just like in every military conflict our Nation has fought, the interception of enemy communications has been a fundamental part of the war on terror. The day after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications into and out of the United States. That act was necessary and lawful--as is this more focused interception of al Qaeda communications, given the nature of the enemy we face. Future al Qaeda attacks on our homeland are likely to be conducted by operatives who are already here. Identifying and tracking them is a sizable challenge, and it's preposterous to suggest that our intelligence professionals will cast such a wide net that they threaten the privacy of ordinary American citizens in doing this work. They don't want useless information that takes them off the trail of criminals and terrorists; they have neither the time nor the resources to waste. They're constantly working against the clock to counter terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who are preparing to attack when and where they can. As a special agent of the FBI, I conducted wiretaps. They're wrapped in layers of legal protections and never done without probable cause. The NSA's actions simply give intelligence services the same wiretap authorities that have been available to those fighting organized crime and drug lords. Americans not in contact with al Qaeda can be assured that their rights have not been violated. Even as we debate this legislation, terrorist groups are plotting to kill Americans. If the NSA tracks a call from a known terrorist in Afghanistan to a phone number somewhere in the U.S., it's in our best interest to know who's on the other end of that call and what they're talking about. This is no time to let our guard down or publicize details of our clandestine intelligence work. The fact that we have not had a major terrorist attack in this Nation since 9/11 is no accident. The focused efforts of our intelligence officials have helped detect and prevent attacks, and we as a nation are safer as a result. They deserve our gratitude, as do all of our service men and women serving on our behalf on all fronts in the global war on terror.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during yesterday's rollcall votes on final passage of H. Res. 794, H. Res. 804, H. Res. 608, and H. Con. Res. 338; and on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 857. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these measures.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during Friday's rollcall votes on 5 amendments to H.R. 5522, the Fiscal Year 2007 Foreign Operations appropriations measure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcalls 245, 246, 247, 248, and 249. I would have voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 5522.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems like old times debating a telecommunications bill. It has been a while since I had that opportunity, and I see some familiar faces on both sides. I first want to congratulate my good friend from Michigan for his concerted efforts on this legislation as well as Chairman Barton and other members who have worked on this legislation. This is a good solid follow-up of the 1996 Act. It recognizes market forces, it gets government out of picking winners and losers. I chair the Financial Service Committee now, and there have been some arguments about whether the net neutrality issue that the gentleman from Massachusetts will be offering will be a boon for the financial services industry. I am here to say that the financial services industry understands competition, they understand choice, they understand how markets work, and the folks that are represented in that financial services community will benefit by this legislation without the Markey amendment, and that is what is important to keep in mind. This has been a great effort. I congratulate again all those who have put this bill on the floor today. I rise in strong support of H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. I've been a believer in the power of competition in telecommunications since I came to Congress 25 years ago. The move from government regulation to market competition has totally changed the telecommunications landscape, and the consumer has been the big winner. There are more products, services, and choices than ever before. I remember people looking at Congressman Rick Boucher and me like we were nuts when we first introduced a bill to allow telephone and cable companies to compete with each other. Since then, satellite TV and the Internet have joined the act and we have more channels than we know what to do with. Some saw the spectrum auctions as a heretical idea. But they helped give birth to the cell phone industry, and now there's a kiosk in every mall begging for your business. Along the way, those auctions brought in billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and our own budgeters. I was on the conference committee for the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, and the law has done a lot to promote private investment and consumer choice. But I'm not sure we ever fully broke the regulatory mindset at the bureaucratic level. Ten years later, we're at the point where we need to see more investment in the advanced telecommunications systems vital to our international competitiveness. We trail some of our hungriest competitors in broadband deployment. And by next year, China may have more broadband subscribers than the United States. There are still too many regulatory impediments holding back competition. H.R. 5252 does a good job of removing them, so we can unleash private capital on this national need. Historically, video entrants--primarily cable companies--have been required to negotiate contracts, called franchises, with local governments before offering video service. With some 33,000 municipalities, this negotiating process is time consuming and costly, serving as a barrier to market access. H.R. 5252 streamlines this process by creating a single, national approval process. This will open the door for telephone companies to enter the video services market and build out extensive new fiber-optic networks to compete with the cable industry whose network is already well established. The bottom line is a national franchise will open the door for more choices, better services and lower bills. I am concerned about some of the potential amendments that, under the guise of ``fairness,'' would just defeat the purpose of the bill. The first is mandatory build-out requirements, which are nothing less than the government telling a business how to run itself. Requiring a new entry in a competitive market to deploy broadband everywhere at once, even when it's not economical, guarantees that nothing will be built. Market demand will make the case for broadband expansion soon enough. Next, there seem to be new efforts to regulate the ``last frontier,'' the Internet. I think the Internet has experienced explosive growth because for the most part, the government has kept its hands off by not taxing and regulating it to death. But in the name of something called ``net neutrality,'' some would have the government effectively impose free carriage requirements on the Internet and Internet backbone providers. Supporters claim that in order to ``keep the internet as we know it'' we must regulate the service providers. Regulating Internet Service Providers will stall investment, curbing the growth and innovation the Internet has fostered in the last decade. Again, this is something best left to the market to figure out. And at this point, it seems to be a solution in search of an actual problem. We are again at a pivotal point in telecommunications policy. At one time, telecom was one of the drivers of our economy and we need a full comeback. This bill will promote investment in the advanced networks that will keep the U.S. economy competitive in a fierce global marketplace. Let's again unleash the innovation of our telecom, cable, satellite, and Internet companies because when the rules are right, there are none in the world who are better.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. I've been a believer in the power of competition in telecommunications since I came to Congress 25 years ago. The move from government regulation to market competition has totally changed the telecommunications landscape, and the consumer has been the big winner. There are more products, services, and choices than ever before. I remember people looking at Congressman Rick Boucher and me like we were nuts when we first introduced a bill to allow telephone and cable companies to compete with each other. Since then, satellite TV and the Internet have joined the act and we have more channels than we know what to do with! Some saw the spectrum auctions as a heretical idea. But they helped give birth to the cell phone industry, and now there's a kiosk in every mall begging for your business. Along the way, those auctions brought in billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury and our own budgeters. I was on the conference committee for the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996, and the law has done a lot to promote private investment and consumer choice. But I'm not sure we ever fully broke the regulatory mindset at the bureaucratic level. Ten years later, we're at the point where we need to see more investment in the advanced telecommunications systems vital to our international competitiveness. We trail some of our hungriest competitors in broadband deployment. And by next year, China may have more broadband subscribers than the United States. There are still too many regulatory impediments holding back competition. H.R. 5252 does a good job of removing them, so we can unleash private capital on this national need. Historically, video entrants--primarily cable companies--have been required to negotiate contracts, called franchises, with local governments before offering video service. With some 33,000 municipalities, this negotiating process is time consuming and costly, serving as a barrier to market access. H.R. 5252 streamlines this process by creating a single, national approval process. This will open the door for telephone companies to enter the video services market and build out extensive new fiber-optic networks to compete with the cable industry whose network is already well established. The bottom line is a national franchise will open the door for more choices, better services and lower bills. I am concerned about some of the potential amendments that, under the guise of ``fairness'', would just defeat the purpose of the bill. The first is mandatory build-out requirements, which are nothing less than the government telling a business how to run itself. Requiring a new entry in a competitive market to deploy broadband everywhere at once, even when it's not economical, guarantees that nothing will be built. Market demand will make the case for broadband expansion soon enough. Next, there seem to be new efforts to regulate the ``last frontier'', the Internet. I think the Internet has experienced explosive growth because for the most part, the government has kept its hands off by not taxing and regulating it to death. But in the name of something called ``net neutrality'', some would have the government effectively impose free carriage requirements on the Internet and Internet backbone providers. Supporters claim that in order to ``keep the internet as we know it'' we must regulate the service providers. Regulating Internet Service Providers will stall investment, curbing the growth and innovation the Internet has fostered in the last decade. Again, this is something best left to the market to figure out. And at this point, it seems to be a solution in search of an actual problem. We are again at a pivotal point in telecommunications policy. At one time, telecom was one of the drivers of our economy and we need a full comeback. This bill will promote investment in the advanced networks that will keep the U.S. economy competitive in a fierce global marketplace. Let's again unleash the innovation of our telecom, cable, satellite, and Internet companies because when the rules are right, there are none in the world who are better.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during yesterday's rollcall votes on S. 1235, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, and H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both bills.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during Friday's rollcall votes on H.R. 5385, the 2007 Military Construction, Military Quality of Life, and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted against the Blumenauer Amendment (rollcall No. 175) and in favor of final passage (rollcall No. 176).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the efforts being undertaken by the National Security agency to monitor and track terrorists, I commend to the attention of my colleagues the excellent piece by Mort Kondracke in today's Roll Call. Mr. Kondracke rightly notes that the NSA's interception of international terrorist communications is both legitimate and vital to the Global War on Terror. [From the Roll Call, May 18, 2006] Ideological Conflict Menaces U.S. Ability to Fight Terrorism (By Morton M. Kondracke) Enough already! It's harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now, it's threatening our national survival. I do not exaggerate. Bush-hatred has reached such intensity that CIA officers and other bureaucrats are leaking major secrets about anti-terrorism policy and communications intelligence that undermine our ability to fight Islamic extremism. Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures. In Congress and in much of the media, the immediate reaction to news that the National Security Agency was intercepting international terrorist communications was not to say, ``Good work--and how can we help?'' Rather, it was to scream about a ``domestic spying'' scandal, as though Richard Nixon were back in the White House and tapping the telephone of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. And the reaction has been much the same to USA Today's story last week that the NSA ``has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans'' in a program that ``reaches into the homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Arericans.'' Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, reacted by asserting that ``these are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything but we're just going to collect their phone information for the heck of it. Where does it stop?'' Similarly, Newsweek's cover this week blares ``Spying On Your Calls''--no question mark used--and implies that the Bush White House could be tapping everyone's telephones. In fact, what seems to be happening, though the details are secret, is that most long-distance phone companies have given the NSA their billing records identifying what numbers are calling what other nmbers, when and for how long. Names are not included. And the NSA--not for the heck of it but to protect us from attack--is using the records to track terrorist networks and calling patterns. If a known terrorist in Pakistan calls a number in Los Angeles, I want the government to know what numbers that person calls. Don't you? Certainly, the government will find out the names of people in a terrorist calling chain. If it wants to tap a domestic phone, it needs a warrant and, unless officials are lying through their teeth, it is asking for them. The NSA call logs also apparently are being mined to establish patterns of terrorist-related communication--the use of pay phones, duration of calls, times of communication, etc. But all this scarcely constitutes ``reaching into homes and businesses across the nation.'' If the government is snooping into the business of anyone except terrorists (or drug dealers, Mafiosi and child pornographers, whose names and numbers also can be easily obtained with a subpoena), it is wasting its time and our money. The phone companies that are cooperating with the government ought to be congratulated for participating in the war on terrorism--as they would have been in WWII. Instead, they are being hauled before the Senate Judiciary Committee as though they were criminals. And trial lawyers are circling like vultures to make them pay zillions for alleged privacy violations. As for myself, I'm sticking with AT&T as a long-distance carrier because (according to news reports), it did cooperate. If I had Qwest, which reportedly refused, I'd cancel. Is there a potential for abuse in the NSA spying program? There is. For instance, it would be all too easy for officials to ask the NSA to trace the phone records of the winners of those odious Pulitzers--James Risen of The New York Times and Dana Priest of The Washington Post--in an effort to uncover their sources in the name of ``protecting secrets'' and ``fighting terrorism.'' The Senate Intelligence Committee, when it quizzes former NSA Director Michael Hayden in his CIA confirmation hearings Friday, should establish that the terrorist surveillance programs have not been abused, although there is no evidence of it. To the extent he can do so without giving away secrets, Hayden also should tell the committee and the country why these programs are so essential and what the legal basis for them is. If the administration believes, as officials often have said, that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is obsolete in the age of super-computers and terrorism, it ought to work with Congress to rewrite the law. Skirting it won't work anymore. But the fundamental problem infecting much of Congress, the media and the political class especially those, left of center--is that they are consumed with loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe. Yes, Republicans tried to destroy former President Bill Clinton over sex and politics. But now Democrats what to destroy Bush so badly that they are willing to undercut national security. Everyone in Congress (and the CIA) should see the movie ``United 93'' as a reminder of what we are up against, Muslim fanatics will not only try to destroy the Capitol, but also explode a nuclear bomb, if they can. And, people also should heed the warning delivered by Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis, one of the nation's foremost scholars of Islam, before the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life here last month. Lewis, now 90, cast the struggle with Islamic extremism in WWII terms--it is 1938, he said, and ``we seem to be more in the mode of Chamberlain at Munich rather than of Churchill.'' Osama bin Laden and other would-be Hitlers, he said, consider the United States ``an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance.'' It's part of the pattern that we fight among ourselves as much as against our enemies. This is more than serious. It's dire.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, authored by the gentleman from Texas. It's no secret that I enjoy the game of golf, and it's no secret that I admire the achievements of the greats of the game, and Byron Nelson certainly is one of those greats. In fact, he's something of a legend of the game. Much noted for his unprecedented winning streak in 1945, for his five victories at major tournaments, and for his overall 54 career victories, it is not an overstatement to call Byron Nelson one of the greatest players the game has ever seen. He was twice named ``Male Athlete of the Year'' by the Associated Press, a feat only accomplished by one other golfer, Tiger Woods. Additionally, Byron Nelson was selected for the Ryder Cup four times, leading the United States team as Captain to victory over Great Britain in 1965. He is also the only PGA professional golfer to have a PGA tour named in his honor: the EDS Byron Nelson Championship. The World Golf Hall of Fame honored Byron Nelson in 2004 by featuring an exhibit entitled ``Byron Nelson: A Champion . . . A Gentleman.'' Byron Nelson's accomplishments as a professional golfer are as impressive as his golf swing, and an inspiration to us all. Just as impressive are his achievements off the links. They already have been well-detailed here, but suffice it to say that Byron Nelson is the perfect example of the unselfish sports hero, the sort of hero that I and a lot of others wish there were more of, in every sport. With that, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I support this legislation, and that I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of three distinguished Ohioans being honored by the North Central Ohio Entrepreneurial Hall of Fame on May 5. Shirley Monica began her career with the McDonald's organization in 1978, when she and her husband invested in three stores in the Mansfield area. In 1980, despite a dismal economy, Shirley listened to her instincts and opened a store on her own--silencing her detractors a year later when the store was named the highest-volume store in the United States. Today, Shirley and her family own nine McDonald's franchises in north central Ohio. Her stores have repeatedly been recognized for their service speed, quality, and overall operational excellence. Shirley has made her career about more than simply developing restaurants. Her coworkers and employees speak of Shirley fondly as a leader, mentor, and friend. Her drive for perfection and faith in people make Shirley truly worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame. Also being inducted is Bill Burgett, a longtime friend who founded the Kokosing Construction Company in 1950. Based in Fredericktown, Kokosing is a regional leader in the construction of industrial plants, road bridges, and underground utility systems. Last year, the company ranked 67th in a listing of the top 400 national contractors. Employing more than 2,500 Ohio workers, Kokosing operates five divisions and five subsidiary companies. Bill has conducted his entire career with dedication to integrity and excellence. All five of his children have voluntarily joined the company, which says even more about Bill's character than the numerous community awards he has garnered over the years. His hard work and entrepreneurial spirit make him an obvious choice for induction. This year, the Hall of Fame is also paying tribute to a 2005 inductee: Michael M. Vucelic of Ideal Electric in Mansfield. Ideal employs nearly 500 people at its Mansfield and Minneapolis facilities. Mike acquired a passion for engineering while flying gliders during his youth in Yugoslavia. This fascination with mechanics led him to Germany--where he served as a design engineer for Mercedes-Benz and the Ford Motor Company--and then to the United States, where he worked for Cessna. By the age of 30, Mike was in charge of overseeing 300 NASA engineers on the Apollo program; Mike himself was at the control panel for both the Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 missions. Mike left NASA in 1975 for a 20- year career at Rockwell International, where he rose from engineering manager to corporate vice president. In 1986, Mike purchased the nearly bankrupt Ideal Electric Company, quickly transforming it into the industry leader for diesel engines and medium-power generators. His ingenuity and selfless labor make him worthy of this recognition. I know my colleagues join me in honoring these three exceptional business leaders as they are recognized by the North Central Ohio Entrepreneurial Hall of Fame.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, a son of Massachusetts celebrated his 80th birthday in March. Bob Crane, who won 11 statewide elections and held elective office for 34 years, is being feted by friends and family for a lifetime of public service and his unbeatable joy of life and politics. Bob began his service to his country over 60 years ago when he enlisted in the Marine Corps at age 18 during World War II. Bob is a decorated war hero and fought in the bloodiest battle of World War II in Okinawa. This son of Irish immigrants returned after the war to Boston where he attended Boston College, married his lovely Mary, had five great children and began a memorable career in politics. First elected to the state legislature, Bob served an unprecedented 26 years as State Treasurer. Bob left office in 1991 but, as is often the case with extraordinary people, the best was yet to come. Bob entered the business world to become the CEO of the Nation's largest food brokerage firm, but continued his lifelong habit of being a volunteer entertainer at homes for the elderly, children and the needy in the Boston area with his wonderful group, the Treasury Notes. Some of his most ardent admirers are people who no longer see the caring hand of friendship and support in their lives. Bob Crane has been called an equal opportunity schmoozer and is known as a bipartisan charmer. He answers his critics with a warm grin and a confidence that any negatives directed at him will bounce off like water on the back of the ducks in the Boston Common. He has won the admiration of both Republicans and Democrats at the State and national levels and his fans include this Ohioan who has joined him in singing the Findlay Ohio classic, ``Down by the Old Mill Stream'' to the delight of various political crowds. A Boston Globe columnist once wrote, Crane is a full-plumage specimen of an endangered species: the warm-blooded, pre-Watergate politician who attends wakes, sings with a robust Irish tenor at weddings and nursing homes, and charms even his enemies with generosity and a smile as big as the Ritz. Although Bob Crane is a Democrat and I am a Republican, and he loves the Red Sox while I am a Tiger fan, we share a mutual pleasure in golf; I agree with Mike Barnicle, the well-known columnist who wrote that Bob is one politician ``who can still smile, who still thinks that politics means people, and one who takes his business but not himself that seriously.'' Bob has been called the ``Johnny Carson of Massachusetts politics,'' and having seen how he wins over even his toughest critics, I have to agree. Happy Birthday, Bob. Here's to 80 more years of razzle-dazzle.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during rollcall votes 74, 75, and 76, taken last week. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 74, the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4297; ``yes'' on rollcall 75, final passage of H. Res. 742; and ``yes'' on rollcall 76, the motion to table H. Res. 746).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce the results of the basketball game last night between the Republicans and the Democrats at Gallaudet University: 35-26, the Republicans prevailed. Try to curb your enthusiasm. It was a wonderful game in the tradition. This is the 12th game in the series. I want to thank our players, particularly Shimkus, Ferguson, LoBiondo, Hulshof, Wamp, Fossella, Stearns, Flake, Dent, Ensign. Mr. Speaker, we actually had two Senators, Ensign and Thune. The good news was, of course, they are former House Members and they were trained the right way in basketball. Gallaudet University is a great university, of course, the only school for the deaf in the entire country. We want to thank the NBA for helping sponsor this wonderful event. I want to thank my counterpart, Ron Kind, the captain of the Democratic team for their efforts. It was all for a good cause, and we are proud to display the trophy for this day on our side. Thank you very much.

Mr OXLEY

Mr OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to salute the outstanding service of Dr I. King Jordan to Gallaudet University. Through his personal and professional accomplishments and contributions to the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, he has become a role model for all. After serving in the Navy from 1962 to 1966, Dr. Jordan graduated with a B.A. in psychology from Gallaudet in 1970. He received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Tennessee in 1973. Afterward, he returned to Gallaudet and served as chairman of the Psychology Department and later as Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Science. Tapped as Gallaudet's first deaf president in 1988, Dr. Jordan became the first deaf president of any institution of higher education in the country. Over the past 18 years, Dr. Jordan has forged a strong relationship between Gallaudet and Congress to improve the quality of life for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals and those with disabilities. He is known and respected by his colleagues as an amiable and admired leader. Because of his passion for Gallaudet's mission, Dr. Jordan has always gone above and beyond his official duties to help others. I've come to know and admire Dr. Jordan through the Gallaudet University Congressional Basketball Classic, a biennial event pitting Republicans against Democrats in our own version of ``March Madness.'' The game celebrates Gallaudet's years of service to the deaf and hard- of-hearing, with proceeds from the game going to support the invaluable programs offered at the school. I'm proud to note that Republican members hold a 6-5 advantage in the Classic, which dates back to 1987-- but clearly the students of Gallaudet are the real winners. Tonight's 12th biennial Congressional Classic will be my last, as it will be Dr. Jordan's last as president of Gallaudet University. He has been a stalwart supporter of the game over the years and a tireless advocate of Gallaudet's mission in his outreach efforts to the nation at large. I join my teammates and the whole House in honoring this dedicated and exceptional man as he concludes nearly 19 years of distinguished service at Gallaudet's helm.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I understand the sentiments and the security concerns of the Members here today on this ports issue, I feel strongly that free trade is a core American value that is worth fighting for. I look forward to making the case for free trade and for economic engagement with our moderate Arab allies here today. But first, let's consider what we are and are not voting on today. The U.S. Congress cannot stop this sale, as this provision would seek to do. We simply do not have jurisdiction beyond our shores. In fact, the sale has already happened and the shareholders will be paid over the next couple of weeks. While I appreciate the desire of Members to stop the sale, the fact is that this language does nothing of the sort. I'm not sure what the goal is. The language certainly does not stop the purchase by Dubai Ports World, and--even more important--does nothing to improve the security of our ports. I would argue that this provision does not improve our security but will damage us economically, militarily, and diplomatically. It seems as if we are operating in a fact-free zone here. The facts are that companies based in many other countries are already managing most of the Nation's ports. Will we be seeking to overturn these contracts next? The fact is that no American company chose to bid on Peninsular and Oriental. There is only one American company large enough to take on this kind of contract, and my understanding is that firm is already at capacity. Would we simply wish an American ports management company into creation? Let's talk a little about port security. We know that no matter who manages port operations, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs Service, and U.S. longshoremen continue to be responsible for port security, the checking of cargo, and the handling of cargo. Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified before Congress: ``We need to know what's in the box more than we need to know who is moving them around a container yard.'' So if our concern truly is port security, why are we not focusing on supporting that overall effort? The fact is that Dubai Ports World is of course involved with the Jebel Ali port, one of the largest and among the most advanced ports in the world. According to The New York Times, it is the world's 11th largest port and annually handles more than 7.5 million containers, many of them going directly to and from the United States. On a number of issues, they have cooperated with the U.S. government to allow for our inspections. Robert C. Bonner, formerly with Customs, was quoted in The New York Times: ``Dubai has acknowledged the absolute importance of securing cargo against terrorists.'' On cargo security, we ought to be concerned about what's being onloaded in foreign ports just as much as we are concerned about what's being offloaded on our shores. Once a dangerous ship arrives, it's far too late for concern. So if we trust Dubai Ports World on the first crucial half of a cargo transaction--the loading--why would we not trust the company to be involved in U.S. cargo operations in a strictly management capacity? Nonetheless, the company has moved forward to sell the operations to a U.S. buyer. DPW announced yesterday it has retained credible, well- known legal and financial firms to handle this transaction. The company has agreed to abide by a voluntary commitment to hold U.S. ports separate until the sale is complete. And still, it seems that it's not enough. I would ask: What more would we have DPW do? When will this be dead enough to satisfy the U.S. Congress? The action, I am sad to say, sends exactly the wrong message to the world about the climate for international businesses in the United States. It sends the wrong message about our willingness to engage in transactions that create growth and jobs here at home. It tells the world that we are an unreliable trading partner. While we are sometimes obsessed with the so-called ``outsourcing'' of American jobs abroad, why are we not similarly concerned about our ability to ``insource'' jobs through foreign direct investment? Moving to the military aspect of our relationship with Dubai, today we may blatantly insult a moderate Arab ally that has generously allowed the use of its port and airfield facilities for our military. General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the U.S. military relationship with the UAE ``superb.'' Dubai provides servicing and port security that is good enough for the U.S. Navy. I worry how that relationship will proceed in the future, and I believe that this entire affair will end up as diplomatic disaster for the United States throughout the moderate Middle East. Lawrence Lindsey recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal: ``The UAE isn't any old Arab country. It sits astride the Strait of Hormuz through which a fifth of world oil passes. Iran sits on the other side. . . . From a global perspective, efforts by the U.S. Congress to alienate the UAE at this time look about as sensible as Russian roulette.'' There are many other respected voices who have spoken to the economic, security, and global issues raised in this controversy. Robert Samuelson, the renowned economist, wrote recently in The Washington Post about how this action will damage American interests. In addition to the damage done to our relationship with the UAE and other allies in the Middle East, Samuelson holds the view that it has weakened worldwide confidence in the dollar. Samuelson concludes, ``Every country has the right to protect its security interests. But those interests must be defined coherently and not simply as the random expression of political expediency.'' James Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute testified before a Financial Services subcommittee: ``Our ties through trade, in fact, have made us more safe as our trading partners become more prosperous, open and democratic. But our politicians and pundits should know that we can't pick and choose. If we decide to deny firms from developing nations--Arab, Asian or otherwise--from investing in the United States, those firms will go elsewhere. And we will pay the price--in higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher inflation, lower stock prices, less participation in a world [that is] growing more and more creative and exciting.'' Since World War II, the United States has enjoyed economic growth and an increase in economic standard of living that has never before been achieved in world history. This has gone hand-in-hand with our values of democracy and freedom of thought. We have watched other nations fail because they were too closed, either economically or politically or both. One of the critical factors in our stunning success has been free trade and the free movement of capital throughout the world. I can't say it any better than Thomas Friedman, who wrote: ``People across the world still look to our example of pluralism, which is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of pitchfork- wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.'' ``There is a poison loose today, and America--America at its best--is the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our principles of free trade and welcome the world to do business in our land, as long as there is no security threat.'' This is a feel-good vote in the heat of the moment that I think the House will live to regret. It's time for us to decide whether we are going to continually respond to 9/11 with a reactive fear, or whether we're going to move forward and engage the world with confidence. Today, I will vote for the latter.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the legislation just passed.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3505) to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the House will consider H.R. 3505, the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2005. H.R. 3505 is intended to alter or eliminate statutory banking provisions to lessen the growing regulatory burden on insured depository institutions as well as make technical corrections to current law. The bill contains a broad range of constructive provisions that, taken as a whole, will allow banks, thrifts, and credit unions to devote more resources to the business of providing financial services and less to compliance with outdated and unneeded regulations. While effective regulation of the financial services industry is central to the preservation of public trust, this legislation will benefit consumers and the economy by lowering costs and improving productivity. I want to congratulate Mr. Hensarling, the lead author of the legislation, along with Mr. Moore, who both introduced H.R. 3505 last July. The bill included virtually all of H.R. 1375, which passed the House in 2004 by a vote of 392-25, plus a new title addressing Bank Secrecy Act issues and over 20 other new sections. Mrs. Capito also deserves recognition for her longstanding support of regulatory relief legislation. Indeed, it was her legislation that passed in 2004. Following H.R. 3505's introduction, Chairman Bachus held 2 days of legislative hearings by the Financial Institution Subcommittee, with witnesses from both Federal and State regulatory authorities, the banking thrift and credit union industries, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Last November, the Committee on Financial Services approved H.R. 3505 by a vote of 67-0. The bill was sequentially referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which approved it last month by a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, the financial services industry is laboring under an enormous regulatory burden. While many of the regulations are necessary to protect consumers and meet other worthy public policy objectives, a number are clearly burdensome. For this reason, shortly after I assumed the chairmanship of the committee, I asked the financial regulators and industry trade groups to give us their best advice on how we could ease regulatory requirements faced by insured depositories. The goal was to free depository institutions from unduly burdensome regulations so they can better serve their customers and communities. It was clear then, as it is today, that there also needs to be a counterbalance to the significant compliance responsibilities placed on depository institutions by the USA PATRIOT Act as well as other government efforts to counterterrorist financing. Excessive regulation affects all sectors of the financial services industry and presents the greatest burden for smaller institutions. For small banks to continue to serve their historic role as a financial lifeline for local communities, they must be free to operate in a regulatory environment that does not constrain them with arduous requirements. H.R. 3505, for instance, includes the following provisions: national banks could more easily operate as subchapter S corporations to avoid double tax on a bank's earnings, as well as choose among different forms of business organizations. Thrift institutions are given some of the same investment, lending and business organization flexibility available to banks. Credit unions would have wider options for investments, lending, mergers and conversions. Regulators are given more latitude in scheduling exams, sharing data, retaining records, and streamlining reports of condition. And clerical and technical amendments are made to several banking statutes. The bill's title VII, Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Burden Reduction, addresses financial institutions' concerns that some of the work they are being asked to do in the fight against financial crimes is unnecessary or duplicative. I would like to thank former FinCEN Director Fox, Mr. Hensarling, and Chairman Bachus, as well as Mr. Frank and Mr. Gutierrez, for their efforts in creating this title which balances law enforcement's needs with the industry's very real concerns about excessive burdens. The first section of title VII focuses on reducing the number of currency transaction reports, or CTRs, that must be filed by institutions on transactions involving large sums of cash, reports that can be extraordinarily useful to law enforcement but which often are filed on obviously unremarkable transactions, such as a deposit by a large discount store. It streamlines the process for exempting institutions from reporting such transactions. Other sections of title VII seek to eliminate inconsistencies or duplicative requirements in conjunction with the filing of suspicious activity reports, or SARS. Mr. Speaker, the financial services industry spends a great deal of money every year complying with outdated and ineffective regulations. That is money that could instead be lent for new homes, new cars, and new projects, fueling job growth in local communities. The sooner we enact this legislation, the sooner we will provide needed relief to depository institutions and increase financial opportunities for both consumers and businesses. So I urge Members to support passage of H.R. 3505. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the chairwoman of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the author of this legislation. (Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)