Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, there have been many memorable pitching performances in the history of major league baseball. But no pitcher was ever better for as long a time in a single game than Harvey Haddix the night he pitched 12 perfect innings. His legacy will be celebrated in his native Champaign County on September 18 with the dedication of an Ohio Historical Marker in Westville, where he played his first organized ball. Harvey Haddix was a consummate baseball professional. He was a three-time All-Star and Gold Glove winner who played for five teams in a career that lasted from 1952-1965. He was later a successful pitching coach. Harvey will forever be known in baseball lore for the game he pitched for the Pittsburgh Pirates against the Milwaukee Braves on May 26, 1959. Batter by batter, he shut down a powerful Braves team that boasted hitters like Hank Aaron, Eddie Mathews, and Joe Adcock. 27 batters came up, 27 made out--a virtuoso accomplishment that would have set off a great celebration in any other game. But the Pirates couldn't score either, so Harvey was forced to extend his masterpiece into the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth innings. It finally came to an end in the thirteenth inning when the Braves scored a single run to win the game, 1-0. The story in the sports pages the next day was that a pitcher had ``lost'' a perfect game. But the real story of Harvey Haddix's amazing game has to do with the lesson that he taught all of us about the joy of competition. When you give your personal best, long past the point when it may seem you've given all you can, you'll always be respected as a winner. Indeed, just one season later, this ``hard luck'' pitcher won two games, including Game 7, in the 1960 World Series as his Pirates improbably defeated the favored New York Yankees. That was probably just baseball's way of evening things out. Harvey Haddix was born in Medway and resided in Springfield at the time of his death in 1994. As a fellow Ohioan and manager of the Republican Congressional Baseball team, I am especially proud of the honor that Harvey Haddix brought to baseball and our part of the state. The dedication of a historical marker on what would have been his 80th birthday is a fitting tribute to a ballplayer whose name will always be part of the storied history of our national pastime.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3669, a bill that would temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program. This bill was introduced by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Ney, in response to the terrible destruction that has resulted from Hurricane Katrina. Communities across the Gulf Coast from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have been wiped out. Massive numbers of people are virtual refugees in their own country. And though it will take weeks to determine the full extent of this tragedy, it is likely that thousands of our fellow citizens lost their lives. For those who survive, the task has turned towards recovery. One of the first things many will be thinking about is whether or not their homes and possessions will be covered by insurance. Though standard homeowners insurance policies do not cover flood damage, many residents of the areas affected by Katrina were required to purchase flood insurance because their homes were located on a floodplain. As a result, FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, will soon begin the difficult task of assessing damages and paying claims. Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, FEMA has the authority to borrow up to $1.5 billion from the Treasury in order to pay flood claims. FEMA has exercised its borrowing privileges in the past and has always repaid the Treasury in full. This $1.5 billion will be used to ensure that the program has sufficient funding on a cash basis in the short term. Clearly, this will not be enough. H.R. 3669 will allow the National Flood Insurance Program to borrow an additional $2 billion, if necessary, to make payments on initial claims while the full extent of the damage is assessed. This borrowing authority is temporary. Like all other such funds requested by the NFIP from Treasury, this money will be paid back in full once the NFIP has had time to recover from the hurricane. In the meantime, the Financial Services Committee will continue our oversight of the NFIP and work to address any changes that may be necessary in light of Katrina. We in the Congress have put in a great deal of work over the past several years to ensure the viability of the program, culminating in the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This Act expanded the use of mitigation grants and requires homeowners to participate in flood mitigation programs to prevent frequent flood losses. We are now faced with a situation that will surely test the NFIP's ability to quickly verify policies, assess damages, and pay claims. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Mr. Ney and Mr. Baker, to ensure that Americans continue to have access to affordable and effective flood insurance. I urge my colleagues to join me in assisting Hurricane Katrina victims by supporting final passage of H.R. 3669.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the floor during rollcall 424 through rollcall 431 taken yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 424 (the Kind Amendment to H.R. 525); ``no'' on rollcall 425 (the George Miller motion to recommit H.R. 525); ``aye'' on rollcall 426 (final passage of H.R. 525); ``aye'' on rollcall 427 (final passage of H.R. 2894); ``no'' on rollcall 428 (the Pence Amendment to H.R. 22); ``no'' on rollcall 429 (the Flake Amendment to H.R. 22); ``aye'' on rollcall 430 (final passage of H.R. 22); and ``aye'' on rollcall 431 (final passage of H.R. 3339).

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this trade agreement. This has enormous upside potential for financial services. As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, we have studied this issue at great length. The opportunity for American financial services companies to provide services in the DR-CAFTA region is truly a unique opportunity for those companies. We would be foolhardy if we were to ignore the opportunity for a two-way street in providing those financial services. Let us review the bidding. The Caribbean Basin Initiative essentially was a one-way street. That is going to expire. This is an opportunity for American companies, financial services, manufacturers, farmers, to be able to introduce their products to these markets. Currently over 80 percent of the exports that come in from the Caribbean countries come in duty free in this country, unlike some of the rules that restrict our ability to do that in that region. This is a huge opportunity for my home State of Ohio, whether it be manufacturing or whether it be agriculture. It is easy to talk about job losses, but the idea is to actually improve the opportunity to expand exports into these countries. This Congress time and time again has approved free trade agreements, with Australia, with Chile, with Morocco and other countries, on a large bipartisan majority. Why would we ignore the opportunity in our own backyard to improve the markets and to improve the ability of our exporters to penetrate those markets when we are doing the same for other countries throughout the globe? This is an incredibly important statement. Let us support this free trade agreement and move on.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, anyone who was serving in Congress on September 11, 2001, will never forget the day. We watched television in horror as the World Trade Center collapsed, and then were rushed out of the U.S. Capitol when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. President Bush immediately challenged us to provide U.S. citizens with protections against the new threat of worldwide terrorism, and within weeks we responded with the USA PATRIOT Act. As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I was proud to help author the antiterrorist financing provisions in the Act. My committee has held numerous oversight hearings on the implementation of the provisions since then. I can report progress. More than $147 million in assets have been frozen and roughly $65 million seized since 9/11. The U.S. has broken up suspected terrorist financing networks, including one in my home state of Ohio. Our terrorist financing tools were further augmented by the intelligence reform act approved in the wake of the 9/11 Commission report. As a former FBI agent, I have found other parts of the PATRIOT Act just as vital in the defense of our freedoms. As we have been reminded by the two rounds of bombings in London, the reality of terrorism remains very much with us. The toll that these attacks take is so terrible that the only acceptable approach is to prevent them in the first place. To that end, today we are working to make permanent 14 of the 16 expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I would note that one of the two provisions being extended for only ten years rather than permanently concerns the use of ``roving wiretaps.'' As one of the only Members of Congress who has conducted undercover surveillance, I can tell you now that the need for this authority will not go away. Tying intercept authority to an individual rather than a particular communication device is simply common sense in this era of throwaway cell phones and e-mail. Sunsetting this authority sends the wrong message to our law enforcement agencies: it indicates that our trust in them is incomplete at a time when their services have never proven more important. They should have our full support and every reasonable tool we can give them to help fight the Global War on Terror. The PATRIOT Act has been a success and we are safer for it. The law has come under misguided criticism from some quarters, and I am constantly answering questions from my congressional district in response to myths surrounding the Act. There is absolutely no evidence that the PATRIOT Act has been used to violate Americans' civil liberties. Congress recognizes the delicate balance between deterring terrorists and preserving our precious freedoms. I feel confident in saying that terrorists make no such distinction. I support the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and hope that we can continue to work on remaining issues--including making the roving wiretap provision permanent.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am particularly concerned about the burdens the amendment would place on two law enforcement entities within the jurisdiction of Committee on Financial Services. Under this amendment, both the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen), which are components of the Treasury Department that are on the front lines of our country's efforts to detect and combat terrorist financing, would be required to divert already scarce resources away from law enforcement in order to comply with the amendment's overly broad and unrealistic reporting requirements. Instead of monitoring suspicious financial activity and following money trails that can lead investigators to terrorist plots like the ones we have seen in recent days in London, OFAC and FinCen would need to interpret undefined and ambiguous terms used in the amendment such as ``specific individual's personal identifiers'' or engage in analyzing all laws and regulations governing various types of information in question. The Committee I chair has extensive experience in the financial services area with regimes that permit individuals to ``opt out'' of information sharing arrangements. Such regimes require careful balancing of personal privacy and law enforcement and national security priorities and cannot be drafted on the fly without extensive consultation with all interested parties. This amendment, in my judgment, falls far short of the mark. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 804, a bill that would exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the national flood insurance program. This bill was introduced by my friend and colleague from Louisiana, Mr. Richard Baker, and was reported from the Financial Services Committee, by voice vote, on March 16, 2005. I am pleased to see it on the floor of the House this morning and am confident that it will receive favorable consideration. H.R. 804 is a common-sense bill that will prevent Federal agencies administering means- or income-tested benefits from considering National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) mitigation grants as income. Successful distribution of these mitigation grants is vitally important to the financial soundness of the NFIP, since they help prevent costly repetitive flood losses by allowing homeowners to elevate their properties or take other measures to prevent future flooding. In July 2004, an IRS ruling maintained that these mitigation grants must be reported to the IRS as income for tax purposes. As a result, some homeowners have refused mitigation offers out of a concern that mitigation funds could increase their reported income to levels that would result in a loss of Federal education, nutrition and health care benefits. Other homeowners fear potential tax liabilities. We in the Congress have put in a great deal of work over the past several years on the repetitive flood loss issue, culminating in the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. This Act expanded the use of mitigation grants and requires homeowners to participate in flood mitigation programs. Unfortunately, we are now faced with a situation where affected homeowners face the loss of benefits such as subsidized school lunches, Federal education grants and Medicaid. That is just not right. H.R. 804 removes this concern and will allow flood mitigation grants to work as intended. I urge my colleagues to help protect homeowners throughout our Nation by supporting final passage of H.R. 804.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago we all watched in horror as the space shuttle Columbia fell apart during re-entry over the Southwest. Nearly two decades ago, we all watched in horror as the Challenger blew up on launch. And before that, we remember other space tragedies. But, Mr. Speaker, despite all the sense of sorrow and loss that those events brought, we also remember the successes of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratories--spacewalks and moon walks, moon rocks and rocket jocks. The history of NASA and the JPL are a glorious celebration of all that is American, the right stuff, the elation and the tragedy, the bravery and the genius. And so today I rise in strong support of the proposal by the gentleman from Texas to honor the 50th anniversary of NASA and the JPL with commemorative coins to be issued in 3 years. Mr. Speaker, just like the space exploration program, this program is big and reaches for the stars. The coins will have symbolic, though trace, amounts of metal that has actually flown in space. Though the coins will be available individually, the prize no doubt will be sets representing the solar system that will become prized collector items for space fans and coin collectors alike who will be glad to fork over the $1,200 or $1,500 that will be necessary to buy nine silver dollars and one gold $50 coin. Fittingly, surcharges on the sale of the coins will go to help the survivors of those heroes killed in space exploration accidents, and to help preserve and display spacecraft at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, said to be the most popular tourist destination in the District of Colombia. Also fittingly some of the surcharge money will be used to seed creation of a Smithsonian Museum of Money here in DC. I know the gentleman from Texas, besides being an energetic Member of this body, is a coin collector himself, and I think it is fitting that a coin program and a coin collector will be the start of such an overdue money museum effort. And so, Mr. Speaker, as we all look at television this week and see the re-start of the space shuttle program, let us think a little about heroes, and about guts and glory, and about genius, and how all of these things are the essence of America. And today, let us support this legislation overwhelmingly.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution authored by the gentleman from California concerning the bid by CNOOC Ltd. to purchase Unocal Corp. Mr. Speaker, I remain fully committed to free and fair trade. However, I don't believe that this offer constitutes free and fair trade. The offer also could threaten our national security. This resolution would encourage immediate review of a merger agreement, which is authorized by the statute already, rather than waiting for bureaucratic processes to kick in. Acting quickly is important because national security reviews of proposed merger transactions often take months and can last over a year. Mr. Speaker, a review of any Unocal merger agreement with CNOOC would be done by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, which was created pursuant to language inserted into the Defense Production Act (DPA) nearly two decades ago. It is chaired by the Department of the Treasury and includes Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense, State, the U.S. Trade Representative and other parts of the government. The DPA is solely in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services because it seeks to identify, stop or mitigate negative effects on the economy from our efforts to protect the Nation's security. As Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction, I believe it is critically important that the Administration act quickly to review any merger agreement so that shareholders who would need to review potentially competing bids would have all relevant information at their disposal. Mr. Speaker, the national security implications of a proposed merger between CNOOC and Unocal are unmistakable. China's appetite for energy is enormous. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ney, that national security includes economic security here. It is important for CFIUS to review the possibility that the Chinese might divert from the United States all of Unocal's energy production to China to feed its energy appetites if a merger with Unocal were to be completed. I think we can all agree that this would be a blow to the U.S. economy. Please consider the following facts: China's consumption of crude oil is expected to double within the next two decades. World production of oil exceeds capacity by the smallest margin in decades. China's need for energy is so great that electricity has been rationed to some factories, and the Chinese are reported to be investing in technology to ``cook'' low-quality coal into gasoline. This is costly, inefficient and has environmental problems. China is the world's largest economy without a meaningful strategic petroleum reserve. The U.S.-China Commission's 2004 Report to Congress indicated that China's strategy for securing oil supplies ``is still focused on owning the import oil at the production point . . . The Chinese policy is to own the barrel that they import . . . to gain control of the oil at the source. Geopolitically, this could soon bring the United States and Chinese energy interests into conflict.' '' The United States, in contrast, has a free market strategy ``based on global market supply and pricing.'' The same report indicates that China ``plans to expand its strategic reserve to fifty to fifty-five days worth of oil imports by 2005 and sixty-eight to seventy days by 2010.'' So, as today's Washington Post points out, it makes perfect sense that a majority-owned Chinese oil company seeks to acquire control of oil and gas production and reserves. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this offer comes from the Chinese government. CNOOC is 70 percent owned by the Chinese government. One quarter of the funding for its cash offer comes at no or minimal interest rates. If that is not a subsidy, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what a subsidy is. News reports indicate that more than $5 billion of the Unocal offer is available at no interest--more than $2 billion of the bid--or at 3.5 percent interest. These are not market rates. I absolutely agree with a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, who is quoted in the Post article as saying: ``We think that these commercial activities should not be interfered in or disturbed by political elements.'' By that I mean: without a Chinese government subsidy. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that I doubt whether the CNOOC proposal will result in a deal which would trigger CFIUS review. The Chevron offer will go to Unocal shareholders August 10. The Chevron offer now has all of the appropriate regulatory approval. The CNOOC offer comes late in the process and has not received any regulatory approvals to date. It is far from clear, even with the Chinese government subsidies, that the CNOOC bid would be competitive with the Chevron bid . . . but that is a decision for Unocal shareholders to make, not us. Mr. Speaker, I urge immediate approval of this resolution and immediate review of any accepted CNOOC offer for Unocal. As well, Mr. Speaker, I urge swift convening of a conference committee on a comprehensive energy bill for the United States, an adoption of the President's comprehensive energy program for the U.S. and swift adoption of the conference report.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House floor during rollcall votes on H. Res. 199 (Expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives regarding the massacre at Srebrenica in July 1995) and H. Con. Res. 155 (Urging the Government of the Republic of Albania to ensure that the parliamentary elections to be held July 3, 2005, are conducted in accordance with international standards for free and fair elections). I was giving a presentation on the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio National Guard in Mansfield, OH at the Base Realignment and Closure Commission hearing in Buffalo, New York. Had I been present for the votes I would have voted ``yea'' for both measures.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, the events of the last few weeks, culminating in the conviction of an 80-year-old Klansman in the infamous killing of three civil rights workers during 1964's ``Freedom Summer,'' serve as a good reminder that this country has come a long distance in just a few short decades. It is hard, from today's vantage point, to remember a time--a time when some of to-day's Members had not yet been born--when schools were segregated, when bathrooms were separate, when ``back of the bus'' was a place where some had to ride whether they liked it or not. Of course, tolerance is a job that requires constant attention and improvement, but we should not lose sight of the good progress we have made. And so today, Mr. Speaker, consideration of legislation to commemorate the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School is timely, or perhaps even overdue. Regardless, it is worthwhile for us to think for a minute of the courage of nine African-American youngsters as they stood on the steps of that school. And it is important for us to think of the courage of the idealistic youngsters, white and black, who powered the civil rights movement throughout the 1950s and early 1960s. The legislation we consider today will go a long way to preserving an historic symbol of that desegregation fight. Surcharges on the sale of as many as half a million commemorative silver dollars will pay for preservation programs, and education programs at the site of the first important test of the Supreme Court's landmark desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Mr. Speaker, as a testament to the importance of this legislation, it is supported broadly and on a bipartisan basis by 321 Members. I urge its immediate passage.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. This bill, introduced by my good friend Mr. Geoff Davis from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, will go a long way towards protecting the men and women serving in our Nation's military from deceptive financial practices and unsuitable financial products. Mr. Speaker, since the tragic day of September 11, 2001, our country has been at war. In the prosecution of that war, our armed services have performed heroically. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom. Unfortunately, there are a few bad actors in the financial services industry who have been taking financial advantage of our armed forces. These unscrupulous companies and salesmen gain access to military installations and use aggressive, misleading, and often illegal sales tactics, to sell high-cost products of dubious value that are unsuitable for any investor, and are particularly unsuitable for our military personnel. The Pentagon has issued directives intended to prevent these abuses. But with the ongoing confusion over regulatory jurisdiction, the lack of communication among government agencies, and the lack of sufficient protection standards for certain financial products, it is clear that the abuses will not stop unless Congress enacts this legislation. H.R. 458 bans bad financial products and sales practices, clarifies regulatory jurisdiction on military installations within the United States and abroad, adds appropriate consumer protections and disclosures for financial products, and ensures proper reporting systems between our military and the financial regulators to ensure bad actors cannot escape. It also makes the process of selecting a financial advisor more transparent for all investors, by providing online access to background information on broker-dealers, including disciplinary actions. Finally, the legislation imposes new requirements on lenders that target a military clientele for high-cost loan products, to ensure that our men and women in uniform are treated fairly when obtaining credit, and are fully informed about the costs and potential consequences of entering into credit arrangements that feature high annual percentage rates. The House passed similar legislation in the 108th Congress by a vote of 396 to 2. This term, our Committee reported Mr. Davis' bill to protect our servicemen and women by a unanimous vote. This overwhelming bipartisan consensus is the result of strong leadership by Mr. Davis, the author of this legislation; the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Mr. Baker, who led our investigation into abusive practices and bad products; Mr. Jim Ryun and Mr. Israel who worked closely together on the reporting requirements of this bill; Ms. Brown- Waite for ensuring appropriate SEC oversight of broker-dealer sales practices on military installations; and Mr. Gutierrez for working on new requirements for high cost lending. Their hard work and bipartisan leadership is well-reflected in this legislation. I urge my colleagues in the full House to support this bipartisan bill and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 458.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. What gave it away?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, what they call the bragging rights, the day after the annual congressional baseball game. Mr. Speaker, last evening at historic Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, the Republican baseball team defeated the Democrats by a score of 19-10. We most appreciate everybody's participation. Mr. Speaker, this was the largest crowd in the history of this vaunted contest that goes back, in the modern era, some 45 years. We had almost 6,000 spectators. The winners in this contest were not the Republicans, really, but the charities that were involved that will benefit greatly. We raised about $125,000 for the Boys and Girls Club of Washington and the Adult Literacy Council. I want to thank all of the players who participated, particularly Kevin Brady, the second baseman for the Republican squad, who was voted our MVP. Kevin has had a checkered career recently. The last two seasons before this, he did not last through the first inning because of injuries. This year he played the entire game and had a couple of hits and played well in the field and was voted our MVP. Our congratulations also go to Jay Inslee from the Evergreen State who played magnificently at third base for the Democrats and was awarded the MVP award by the manager of the Democratic team, my good friend, Martin Sabo, a great sportsman and a real leader. We enjoyed the game immensely. I want to publicly thank the gentleman from Maryland for hosting us for so many years up in Bowie; but we had an opportunity, as he knows, to move to the major league ballpark, and to play in a major league ballpark, I think I speak for all of our players, was like getting our youth back, at least for 2 or 3 hours out there in that contest. I want to thank all of the sponsors and all of the people who purchased tickets for this event. It was truly a great historic event on the Hill and one that we look forward to participating in next year. I will be glad to yield to my friend from Maryland.

Mr. OXLEY. I would have found a way somehow to get this in.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was in my congressional district yesterday participating in events in support of the 179th Airlift Wing of the Ohio Air National Guard, which has been slated for closure by the Department of Defense. As a result, I was absent from the floor during yesterday's rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted against the Watt amendment to H.J. Res. 10, in favor of tabling each of the two appeals of the ruling of the chair on the motion to recommit H.J. Res. 10, in favor of final passage of H.J. Res. 10, in favor of ordering the previous question on H. Res. 334, in favor of H. Res. 334, against the Baird amendment to H.R. 2985, against the Jo Ann Davis amendment to H.R. 2985, against the Hefley amendment to H.R. 2985, against the motion to recommit H.R. 2985, and in favor of final passage of H.R. 2985.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.J. Res. 10, which calls for a constitutional amendment permitting Congress to protect our nation's flag. 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 for 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 of the flag. The annual display of 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 a cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's joint resolution, and recognize him for his unwavering 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. Speaker, I was absent from the floor during today's rollcall votes on H. Con. Res. 44 (recognizing the importance of Cinco de Mayo) and H. Res. 282 (expressing the sense of the House regarding anti-Semitism by United Nations members). Had I been present, I would have voted yea on each of these measures.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1224, the Business Checking Freedom Act of 2005, which repeals antiquated banking laws that prohibit banks from paying interest on business checking accounts and the Federal Reserve from paying interest on funds that banks and other depository institutions are required by law to maintain at the Federal Reserve Banks. Mr. Speaker, it may surprise some of our colleagues to know that since 1933, banks have been unable to pay interest on business checking accounts. The law was originally intended to ensure that larger banks did not use higher interest payments to lure deposits away from small, rural banks to fund stock market speculation. While at the time this law may have been wise public policy--although even that is debatable-- in the year 2005 it is a relic of a financial world that no longer exists. There is little doubt that now, with the current complex and competitive nature of the financial services industry, all depository institutions would benefit from the ability to offer business checking accounts and are more than able to manage the potential risks involved. In fact, as the financial services industry grows more competitive and more complex, antiquated laws that limit the competitive capacities of financial institutions only harm the customer's ability to find appropriate financial solutions. Repealing the ban on interest on business checking accounts will free banks to compete for business customers on a level playing field, and promote the development of bank products and services geared toward a small business clientele that is ill-served by the current prohibition. In addition to providing small businesses with much-needed regulatory relief, H.R. 1224 would authorize the payment of interest on certain reserves that depository institutions are required to maintain at the Federal Reserve. Current law prohibits such payments, thereby imposing a ``hidden tax'' on depository institutions and placing them at a competitive disadvantage relative to non-bank financial firms and foreign banks that are not subject to the same reserve requirements. If, under the Federal Reserve Act, banks, thrifts, and credit unions are required to hold funds against transaction accounts, simple fairness dictates that the Federal Reserve should be required to pay interest on those reserve balances. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has testified on numerous occasions that repealing the current prohibition would have the additional benefit of facilitating the Federal Reserve's management of U.S. monetary policy. The bill also contains a hard fought compromise by Mr. Gillmor of Ohio and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts that addresses the authority of industrial loan companies (ILCs) to offer interest-bearing accounts to their business customers. The provision specifies that an ILC which obtained deposit insurance prior to October 1, 2003, is authorized to pay interest on a business account, provided the ILC is owned by the same parent company that owned it as of that date. Other ILCs could also offer such interest-bearing accounts, provided that at least 85 percent of the gross revenues of their parent company and other affiliates were derived from activities that were financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity during at least three of the prior four calendar quarters. Mr. Speaker, legislation substantially similar to H.R. 1224 has been approved by this body on several prior occasions, including twice in the last Congress. The Bush administration has previously endorsed authorizing banks to pay interest on business checking accounts. In addition, H.R. 1224 is strongly supported by all segments of the small business community, including the National Federation of Independent Business and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and by America's Community Bankers. I want to conclude by thanking two valued Members of the Financial Services Committee, the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Gillmor from Ohio, who have worked tirelessly over several Congresses to advance this legislation, as well as our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Frank, who has contributed greatly to this legislation and has been strongly supportive of the overall effort on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1224.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1185.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1185, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005. This bipartisan legislation preserves the value of insured deposits at America's banks, thrifts and credit unions, advances the national priority of enhancing retirement security for all Americans, and ensures that the benefits and costs of deposit insurance are allocated equitably and fairly among financial institutions. Federal deposit insurance was first established in 1934 during the Great Depression and has served for over 70 years as a source of stability in the banking system and a valued safety net for depositors. Deposits in banks and savings associations are covered either by the Bank Insurance Fund or the Savings Association Insurance Fund, while the deposits of America's 85 million credit union members are insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund. Federal deposit insurance serves as a guarantee to depositors in U.S. depository institutions that up to $100,000 will be available to them in the event that their institution should ever fail. It both protects depositors from a sudden and unforeseen loss of wealth and insulates the economy from the consequences of a loss of liquidity in the banking system. Shortly after I became chairman of the newly formed Committee on Financial Services in the 107th Congress, the FDIC, the Federal agency responsible for administering the deposit insurance program, recommended a number of reforms to the system to address structural imbalances that had emerged since the last major overhaul of deposit insurance following the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, got to work holding extensive hearings and drafting comprehensive legislation incorporating the FDIC's recommendations and making other needed changes to the system. The legislation that resulted from the efforts of the gentleman from Alabama passed the House with well over 400 votes in the 107th Congress and by an even larger margin in the 108th. With the other body having twice failed to act on the legislation approved overwhelmingly by this House, we are back this year with high hopes that the third time will truly be the charm in enacting this critically important legislation. The reasons for reforming the deposit insurance system remain every bit as compelling today as they were almost 4 years ago when we first began to climb this mountain. By merging the BIF and the SAIF into a single deposit insurance fund, H.R. 1185 will create administrative efficiencies and promote fundamental fairness in the system. By giving the FDIC more flexible tools for managing the insurance funds according to changing economic conditions, while at the same time ensuring that funds are returned to the industry in the form of rebates and credits when circumstances warrant, H.R. 1185 will promote economic stability and address the system's current bias toward charging excessive premiums at ``down'' points in the business cycle. All of these reforms command broad consensus among banking regulators and in the banking industry, as well as in the House. On the issue of deposit insurance coverage levels, which have now gone a record 25 years without being adjusted for inflation, the legislation of the gentleman from Alabama provides for incremental increases that promote retirement security and help to keep municipal deposits in the communities where they originated to serve as a funding source for loans and other development initiatives. All of us recognize that the increased coverage levels prescribed in the House bill are what have blocked its progress in the other body, and I have therefore indicated that I am willing to entertain compromise on that issue if it is the price of achieving the other important reforms contained in this legislation. That said, it should also be noted that H.R. 1185's increase in base deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $130,000 hardly constitutes a radical expansion of the deposit insurance safety net. If coverage had merely kept pace with inflation since 1980 when coverage was last updated, it would now be well over $200,000. Even going all the way back to the $40,000 coverage amount in effect in 1974 and indexing for inflation from that level yields a coverage level well above $140,000. Let me conclude by commending Chairman Bachus for his leadership and persistence in pursuing this legislation over the course of three Congresses. I also want to thank our committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has championed several of the specific reforms contained in this bill and has acted throughout the process in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation that has become the hallmark of our committee's work in recent years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises an excellent point. Our good colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), this is his contribution to this legislation, because as he shares the district that is next to mine, a number of small communities that have exceeded that amount of $100,000, they are under a fiduciary responsibility to have that money protected by the FDIC. And what it has done, of course, is drive some of that money out of the small communities and into larger communities so you cannot put that money to use in the community. So I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks. I am glad the gentleman brought that issue up because it is a very important part of this legislation.