Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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 thereon.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The rules will ban joint management by the same individual but not the same firm, both the registered investment company and other unregistered investment vehicles. Those rules will address the conflicts of interest that are presented by such an arrangement, including the conflicts raised by the gentleman.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2420) to improve transparency relating to the fees and costs that mutual fund investors incur and to improve corporate governance of mutual funds, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was returning from an official delegation trip to Iraq on Monday evening, and was absent from the House floor during the rollcall votes on S.J. Res. 22, recognizing the Agricultural Research Service, S.J. Res. 18, commending the service of Inspectors General; and H. Con. Res. 299, honoring Sargent Shriver. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these resolutions.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple motion to get us into conference with the Senate on H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which the Senate passed yesterday. We have a lot of work to do in a short amount of time. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Financial Services and pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII of the rules of the House of Representatives for the 108th Congress, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2622) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to prevent identity theft, improve resolution of consumer disputes, improve the accuracy of consumer records, make improvements in the use of, and consumer access to, credit information, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. OXLEY. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend that this is a bill that passed this House a few weeks ago with, I think, 392 votes and had strong bipartisan support because of the work that the committee did in working with all sectors of the committee on this important issue. All of us know that we need to reauthorize the Fair Credit Reporting Act by the end of this year, and so time is of the essence. I am prepared to not only associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts but also to support his motion to instruct.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to go to conference and the motion to instruct on the bill, H.R. 2622, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues the following column by the distinguished commentator Morton M. Kondracke in the November 6 edition of Roll Call. Mr. Kondracke has eloquently stated the stakes facing all of us in Iraq. His incisive and knowledgeable commentary should be read by all. [From Roll Call, Nov. 6, 2003] Iraq Reconstruction Is a Noble Cause That Mustn't Fail (By Morton M. Kondracke) In January 1946, seven months after V-E Day, the eminent novelist John DosPassos wrote after a trip to Europe that U.S. servicemen were telling him, ``We've lost the peace. We can't make it stick.'' In an article in Life magazine, he wrote that ``A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe . . . is a mighty sobering experience. Europeans, friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. ``They cite the evolution of the word `liberation.' Before the Normandy landings, it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the' civilians for one thing: looting.'' If this sounds familiar in the aftermath of the Iraq war, it goes on: ``Instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction, we came in full of evasions and apologies. . . . We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.'' It was another year after this article was written before Secretary of State George Marshall delivered his celebrated speech at Harvard University launching the Marshall Plan for European relief. By contrast, Congress gave final approval this week, six months after the Iraq war, to the contemporary version of the Marshall Plan: the $20 billion downpayment on Iraqi reconstruction. At that, reconstruction was already under way. We succeeded grandly in Europe in one of the most generous and idealistic--and also pragmatic--undertakings in American history. Prior to America's making the effort, DosPassos noted, Winston Churchill made a speech in which he warned Americans, ``You must be prepared for further efforts of mind and body and further sacrifices to great causes, if you are not to fall back into the rut of inertia, the confusion of aim and the craven fear of being great.'' It's sad that we don't have a Churchill around to affirm the morality of what America is doing in Iraq: We have toppled a monstrous dictator and we are trying to rebuild his shattered country, turn it into a democracy and make it an example to a region that knows only authoritarianism and despotism. It is a noble cause that President Bush has undertaken. His adversaries at home and abroad say that he got us into it by deception, but what could possibly have been his motive? The ``war for oil'' charge is simply laughable. The ``war for politics'' charge--that it was done to help Republicans-- is outrageous. The ``war for ideology'' analysis makes more sense--i.e., that ``neo-conservatives'' in Bush's administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein from Day One. But why did they want to do so, if they didn't think he represented a menace to U.S. security? Bush's Democratic foes are charging that Bush trumped up evidence of Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the fact is that every intelligence service in the world believed he had them--how else could Bush have won a unanimous vote at the U.N. Security Council to give Hussein one final chance to account for them? How and why the United States got into the war in the first place will be hashed out for the rest of this presidential campaign and beyond, but the important thing now is to win the peace. Whatever their differences on whether the war should have been fought or how the peace is being won, even Bush's harshest foes ought to admit that what he's undertaking is an idealistic enterprise. If Democrats are proud of America's intervention in Kosovo and remorseful of our failure to intervene to prevent genocide in Rwanda, how can they not support an effort to establish democracy in Iraq? Moreover, what Bush is doing is not only Wilsonian, it's also pragmatic. In 1946, the danger was that if America failed in Europe, Russia would take over. In 2003, if the United States fails, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden succeed. There's no question that the effort is going to be difficult--or even that Bush miscalculated the difficulties and didn't plan well enough for them. But contrary to the charge that he ``has no plan,'' he plainly does now. As stated by U.S. Iraq Administrator Paul Bremer, it is to (1) ``establish a secure environment by taking direct action against terrorists . . . and restore urgent and essential services to the country, (2) expand international cooperation in the security and reconstruction and (3) accelerate the orderly transition to self-government by the Iraqis.'' Can this be brought off? The jury is very much out. Our forces and Iraqis who side with us are under constant attack, at least in Sunni-dominated areas of the country. The international community--ever so solicitous of Iraqi citizens' welfare under economic sanctions--either wants us to fail or has been scared off by bombings. The vast majority of Iraqis clearly want stability and self-rule. For our sake and for theirs, it's imperative that we stay the course and do this right--and not allow vicious killers to force us out too early. It would be a catastrophe, both for the Iraqis who are working with us and for our standing in the world, if this effort were to fail. Fortunately, polls indicate that most Americans want to stay the course. It's time for Bush's critics to quit just carping and contribute constructive ideas on how to make this effort succeed. If it does, all of us will be very proud.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's rollcall votes on H. Con. Res. 176, supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Planning Week, and H. Con. Res. 94, the Direct Support Professional Recognition Resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both resolutions.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend to the attention of my colleagues the following article by former General Electric Chairman and CEO Jack Welch. Jack Welch provides an important lesson in corporate management to those who don't understand what makes an economy grow. Growth comes from businesses that are constantly striving to make themselves more competitive in a global marketplace. As the article points out, many in the media believe a story isn't complete unless there is some bad news. Sometimes I think if the modern media had existed in biblical times, it would have written, ``Moses laid down the Ten Commandments today, Five of which were immediately denounced by civil rights and environmental activists.'' Jack Welch's article makes for instructive reading about why our economy just posted one of its strongest performances in recent memory. The `But' Economy (By Jack Welch) Guess what? There is an economic recovery under way, but you never would have known it last week when earnings reports came out. Even though many companies from battered sectors-- including some companies left for dead just two or three years ago--recorded positive results, their successes were almost universally reported with the word ``BUT'' prominently featured. The stories in the papers and on TV went something like this: Sales were up--but analysts warned that cost cutting explained most of the gains. Earnings were up--but the mood of optimism was tempered by concerns about global competitiveness. Cash flow was up--but the company still faces harsh tests in coming months. Now, I am not claiming that the economy is fixed. It's not. And there are, obviously, challenges ahead if a full recovery is going to occur. It's undeniable, however, that most companies are posting significantly improved results. Not only can millions of hard-working people celebrate--they should. They've earned the right. That's why we can't rain all over the their efforts--their motivation and innovative spirit and can-do attitudes. Those good feelings, as any economist will tell you, are key drivers of company productivity and consumer confidence. The fact is a recovery will be a lot harder if we keep saying ``but'' about damn good news. Two particularly glaring ``but'' stories from last week come to mind--Xerox and Lucent. Xerox has been through the ringer. It's had accounting difficulties. It's paid millions of dollars in fines. It has experienced market-share erosion from product misses and noncompetitive costs, and its employees and shareholders have suffered. Two grueling years later, however, Anne Mulcahy and her team appear to be turning the ship around. The company reported that its earnings grew 18% in the third quarter. From the reporting on it, though, you would have thought the company was still taking on water. The good results, it was reported, mainly came from cost cutting. Of course they did! While innovation is the lifeblood of business, cost competitiveness is a given if you want to win in the global economy. Lucent is an even more dramatic case. For the first time since March 2000--that's 10 quarters--the company actually posted a profit, thanks to the persistence and creativity of Pat Russo, her top team, and tens of thousands of employees. It was time for a party. But Lucent's turnaround was spray- painted with ``but'' this and ``but'' that. The company's good results were subjected to the usual harangue about telecom industry spending and attributed mainly to cost- cutting. Oh no--not that again. The good news out of other sectors got much the same treatment. Time Warner, which has angered its shareholders for a couple of years now, reported increased revenues and operating income in the third quarter. That news was pretty much lost in commentaries about the continuing saga of the company's Internet activities. Meanwhile, Citicorp and a slew of other banking industry giants were showing sensational results. What did you hear? Reserve provisions for bad loans were down. This ``but'' could have actually been cast as ``because.'' For instance, ``Earnings were sensational because, among other factors, reserve provisions are down as a result of improved risk management and a stronger economy.'' Of course, you have to wonder--why all the grumpiness? Why has every cloud got a dingy gray lining? There are probably many reasons but two come right to my mind. Go back to 1999, the last year that positive results were routinely reported. There was no ``but'' economy grousing then. And that's exactly the problem. The media (and pretty much everyone else) believed that trees did indeed grow to the sky. Very few asked, ``How solid are these results? How long can they last? Will these markets grow forever?'' When the bubble burst, a lot of people got burned--and not just shareholders. Many people in the media had hyped companies that flamed out because they were based on unrealistic business models or turned out to be rotten to the core. They felt burned too. Today, when the media reports good news, it feels safer to stick ``but'' in every sentence. The other reason is political. Back in the days of Clinton- bashing, the ideological divide in the country seemed like it couldn't get wider. Well, it has. Bush-hating has pushed it to new levels. Never before have Democrats and Republicans been more vitriolic in their disdain for each other; it feels like war. And frankly, what would be worse for the Democrats right now than an economic recovery? That's an awful big battle to lose as the election approaches. Now, I'm not suggesting ``irrational exuberance'' again. First of all, it's not warranted (yet) and giddiness about the economy didn't really help last time. And I'm also not asking that people forget what happened during the boom. Some companies and executives absolutely earned the right to get nothing but disrespect and doubt. If we are ever to get competitive again, though, we can't indiscriminately put a negative spin on what is legitimately good news. We live in a global economy; India and China get stronger and better every single day. To have a fighting chance, companies need to get every employee, with every idea in their heads and every morsel of energy in their bodies, into the game. The facts are, companies are not bricks and mortar, but people, with blood and sweat and tears. People are the reason for the recent recovery, and people are the reason it will continue--if it does. That's why we need to tell the people who have earned it not ``but,'' but ``Bravo.''

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H. Res. 414, a resolution which I am co-sponsoring and which encourages China to move to a more flexible exchange rate. As Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over domestic and international monetary policy as well as economic growth and stabilization, I believe that this is an important measure which deserves the support of the House. I commend Mr. English for his leadership in introducing this important resolution, which seeks to encourage China to continue taking concrete steps to reform its economy and move towards a more flexible exchange rate mechanism. I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the United Steelworkers of America, and the American Iron and Steel Institute all support this resolution. I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) who chairs the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology, which held the first House hearing on this subject. I support this resolution because it helps signal to the Chinese government that this House is monitoring closely the efforts of both the Chinese and U.S. governments to position China to develop a more appropriate exchange rate and infrastructure to support that exchange rate. The goal is to ensure that serious progress continues to be made. For some time now, our own dynamic economy has been undergoing a dramatic shift towards services sector jobs. It is unclear how the Chinese exchange rate regime contributes to, or accelerates, this trend. However, the trend should not be confused with the notion that the U.S. economy will someday outsource all production of physical goods. The manufacturing sector in this country is a significant source of innovation, patent development and, therefore, economic growth. We cannot permit potentially unfair competition to undercut this important activity. We should not accept that possibly unfair competition will require hard-working Americans doing a good job to be unemployed. China is the world's most populous country. It is becoming one of the United States' most important trading partners. It has recently served as a source of strength in Asia, as well as an engine of economic growth globally. U.S. companies and consumers benefit from a strong and growing China, but only if that growth is based on a fair system. China's economic growth and potential should lead it to adopt 21st Century exchange rate policies as well. If China is going to be serious about its WTO commitments, it must also recognize that fair competition requires market-determined exchange rates in addition to opening its markets to foreign companies. It is true that such large changes cannot occur overnight, especially in a command economy. It is also true that a financial system must be strong and resilient in order to absorb the kind of capital market volatility that accompanies floating exchange rates. Finally, it is true that China's fragile banking system needs to be strengthened if a floating rate system is to be launched successfully. Change is needed for the good of China's own economy. Mr. Speaker, these facts should underscore the importance of China moving clearly and unambiguously towards banking sector reform. They cannot serve as an excuse for delaying these necessary reforms. I urge all of my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2535, the Economic Development Administration Reauthorization Act, offered by my colleague from the great state of Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, and urge its immediate passage. As you know, the Committee on Financial Services has jurisdiction over aid to commerce and industry, and based on that jurisdiction received an additional referral of the bill. Mr. Speaker, while the country experienced record growth during the 1990s, there continued to be pockets of the country that did not enjoy that bounty. An economic downturn of the sort we have had over the past couple of years hits these area especially hard. Now, as the economy is turning up again, even as we tend to the economic wounds suffered by the rest of the country, we must remember that these areas were even harder-hit, and for this reason I salute Mr. LaTourette's diligent work on this matter. Operating out of six regional offices as widely spread as Seattle and Philadelphia, the EDA provides community and regional grants on a cost- share basis for economic adjustment assistance, public works, development facilities, and planning and technical assistance, all aimed at leveraging public and private sector investments, creating or retaining long-term private-sector jobs and generating industrial and commercial development in both urban and rural areas. Importantly, Mr. Speaker, the EDA is focused not only on reversing or mitigating the effects of long-term economic distress, but also on dealing with sudden economic impact brought on by the closing of, say, a military base or a large manufacturer or group of manufacturers in a particular industry. As the United States economy experiences the loss of some manufacturing jobs due to increased foreign competition, it is imperative for us to find or stimulate new jobs for displaced workers, and the EDA is an important tool in this effort. David A. Sampson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, is fond of saying that President Bush is committed to increasing the productivity and wealth of the American economy, and then noting that the President is firmly committed to ensuring that ``all regions, States and communities share in economic opportunity.'' Mr. Speaker, I echo the President and Secretary Sampson. I am sure that the President's goal is the goal of each and every one of us, regardless of which state or which party we represent. I commend Mr. LaTourette for his creativity in this area, and note that the reauthorization of the EDA contains a number of new and exciting programs, including the securitization of some economic development loans in a way that will give us even more bang for our economic buck in these areas. This is a forward-looking bill that seeks to help some of America's hardest-hit economic areas. I commend it, and seek its immediate passage.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report for H.R. 1474, the Check Truncation for the 21st Century Act, or Check 21, as it has come to be known. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for guiding this bill through the House, and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) for their substantive input into this process. Also, I would like to thank Chairman Shelby for a smooth conference process. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, domestic flights were suspended, preventing millions of checks from physically moving through the payment system. The Federal Reserve was forced to take emergency action to continue the movement of checks around the country. The Committee on Financial Services responded to the terrorist attacks with legislation aimed at shutting off terrorist financing, getting our financial markets open and operating and providing businesses with protection from future losses from terrorist attacks. Check 21 is another important effort by our committee to protect the payment system in times of national emergency by ensuring that checks will continue to be processed through the payment system with limited interruption. We must ensure that our banking system operates as efficiently as possible, while preserving safety and soundness. Check 21 achieves these goals by improving our payment system and encouraging the electronic movement of checks across the country. At the same time, this measure benefits consumers by maintaining current protections in the payment system and ensuring that consumers have the ability to retrieve improperly debited funds and are given information on the operation of this new system. Check 21 grants banks useful tools to improve the delivery of services to their customers and expedite the flow of funds through the system. Finally, I want to point out that the conferees included provisions in this conference report which will address concerns of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department relating to currency collateralization and compensating balances. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill that deserves the support of all of my colleagues, and I urge everyone to cast an ``aye'' vote on the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the author of the legislation, along with the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just in closing, let me say, this is indeed I think a classic example of how the legislative process ought to work around here. This was an interesting exercise because it was in this case the recognition that the technology was out there to make our banking system far more efficient instead of flying all of these checks all around. Unfortunately, it was the terrible incident of 9-11 that really made us realize how fragile that system is and how we can change it for the better. I had an opportunity to visit NCR, one of our fine Ohio corporations, a couple of years ago to actually see that technology and see how it could work; and that became really the germ behind the bill that we have before us today. It was some of the newer Members, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who really took the bull by the horns and moved this legislation through. I owe a great deal of thanks to them for their hard work and tenacity in putting this bill together. Somebody once said that when a great athlete is recognized as great, he makes things look easy. I am not referring to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), by the way. But when a great athlete like Sammy Sosa or somebody, they say they make it look easy and indeed, these folks made it look easy; and we are now on the verge of passing this legislation and sending it to the President. I think it is a proud day for the committee and those who were involved; the staff, who have been adequately thanked for their work, as well as the Members. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered. The conference report was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

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 the conference report to accompany H.R. 1474.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of October 7, 2003, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1474) to facilitate check truncation by authorizing substitute checks, to foster innovation in the check collection system without mandating receipt of checks in electronic form, and to improve the overall efficiency of the Nation's payments system, and for other purposes.