Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. In closing, let me thank my good friend from Massachusetts, the new ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, for his cooperation in this area.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 11) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to alert my colleagues that this is not the Ohio State resolution. That comes next. General Leave

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

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and this is indeed a proud day for all Buckeyes. This has been quite a season to see in the ups and downs, and to see this talented group of athletes, student athletes, under the leadership of Coach Jim Tressel was a memorable time for all of us and to see an underdog team perform so well in the Fiesta Bowl for the national championship, with a crowd that was probably 80 to 85 percent made up of scarlet and gray was truly amazing, and as the coach said after the game, he felt that the crowd, very strong crowd, from Ohio State truly made a difference in the outcome, and for that, we are very, very pleased. The gentleman from Columbus mentioned that I was an Ohio State law grad. That is correct. It is also true that of the four branch campuses of the Ohio State University, I represent three, in Mansfield and Lima and Marion. I have had a long-standing relationship with that great university, and we have seen perhaps the culmination of a season, like no other, where we have won 14 games, including the national championship. The last one we won was January 1 of 1969, when I was a senior at Ohio State Law School and got to see Ohio State defeat Southern California. If the gentlewoman from California is listening, we beat USC for the national championship. So Woody Hayes is smiling somewhere today because Ohio State is back on top, and for that we are very, very grateful. I thank the gentleman from Columbus for his leadership in this area. As an Ohio State football fan since I was boy, I never thought I'd say this, but there is something bigger than the Michigan game. Ohio State has a great football history. Going into this year 4 consensus National Championships. 28 Big Ten Championships. 13 Rose Bowl appearances. 6 Heisman Trophy Winners. But I doubt there will ever be a single game that matches what happened last Friday night at the Fiesta Bowl when the Buckeyes defeated the Miami Hurricanes, 31-24 in overtime, to win their first undisputed national championship since the 1968 team. I was a student at the Ohio State's law school back then and never dreamed I'd have to wait this long to see the Buckeyes win another championship. But in exchange for a little patience and few frustrating years against our neighboring state to the north, Ohio State fans were able to watch our team play and win the greatest college football game in history. Under legendary coach Woody Hayes, the Buckeyes usually went into games as the favorites. This time, the experts said Ohio State was overmatched. But Coach Jim Tressel knew that all any team needs to do to win, is make plays. The plays were unforgettable--and there were so many of them! Maurice Clarett's strip after a crucial Miami interception. Michael Doss's pick-off. Matt Wilhelms's crushing sack. Craig Krenzel's miraculous 4th-and-14 completion in overtime and his quarterback sneak for the touchdown. And the final goal line stand by a valiant defense. I salute Miami's effort, and you can see why they were the defending champions. But we in Ohio are proud that the Buckeyes won and ever prouder of the way they won: with determination, passion, and courage. This is a team that taught all of us a lesson, and the lesson is: it's only over when you stop trying. I don't want to wait another 34 years to see Ohio State play for another national championship. But my heart may need that long to recover from this one!

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 5, the resolution providing for the rules for the House for the 108th Congress. This is an important package, with important reforms, for both the House and its committees. In particular, I am pleased to see that the House is prepared to accept my proposal that committees be permitted postpone some votes during markups. As I explained in my testimony submitted to the Rules Committee, one of the biggest obstacles I faced during my first term as Chairman of the Financial Services committee was the limited House schedule, combined with multiple demands for Committee members' time. When the House is in session for 2\1/2\ or 3 days a week, and members routinely have 2 and 3 committee assignments, we are faced with a situation where it is next to impossible for authorizing committees to do their work. When the committees are unable to complete their work, it's hard to keep the floor in session. It is a vicious cycle, and we need new tools to address it. That is why I suggested that the House change rule XI of the Rules of the House to permit committee chairmen to exercise authority similar to that of the Speaker in the House or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone ordered record votes to permit the ``stacking'' of multiple votes. This is a practice we are all used to when we vote in the House or the Committee of the Whole, and one that can be easily applied to committee practice. It is important to note that nothing in this rules change will alter committee quorum requirements, or curtail other parliamentary options available to the Minority. Ultimately, this tool will be one of bipartisan convenience, rather than a tool to be used by the Majority to impose its will on the Minority. I am pleased to see that this proposal is included in the rules package before the House today. I especially want to thank the Majority Leader, Mr. DeLay, the speaker, and the Chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dreier, for their support of this change. I believe this is an important provision in an excellent rules package, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas for his usual excellent work as a member of the Committee on Rules that handles legislation coming from the Committee on Financial Services. I do rise in support of the rule. The efforts that the committee and the entire Congress made in antiterrorism legislation clearly is one of the most important bills that will pass the Congress this year. It is no secret that after 9/11, the reinsurance industry, which is mostly offshore, indicated they would no longer write terrorism insurance. Since they are the insurers of the insurers, it meant that the domestic-based insurance companies were unable to spread their risk and as a result we have a crisis in insurance coverage for terrorism. That crisis has evidenced itself in many ways, not the least of which is a recent study that indicated over $15 billion in valuable projects are on hold, not going forward, because of the lack of terrorism insurance; and because they cannot get terrorism insurance, they cannot get lending for those projects. We are not just talking, Mr. Speaker, about New York City. I was recently in Chicago. There is a major project going on in Chicago that is simply now just a hole in the ground that will employ several hundred people. The President has indicated that their studies indicate some 300,000 jobs are at stake in the construction industry, the realtors, lenders and the like. So in many, many ways this is an economic issue and a jobs issue. That is why the President has been so outspoken in virtually every opportunity that he has had asking the Congress for this important legislation. I suspect that the President has mentioned this issue perhaps more than any other issue in my memory and about the only time that he did not make a public statement about terrorism insurance was at the United Nations. But overall this issue, this crisis in insurance coverage, has been a major factor, I suggest, in the slowdown of the economy. The Secretary of the Treasury was quoted as saying that it could very well knock 1 percent off our gross domestic product. That is a significant amount. We are fortunate today because we stand on the threshold of passing this important legislation that the President will willingly and gladly sign. Let me just talk about the key elements briefly of this bill. The conference report provides full payback protection for American taxpayers, guaranteeing that the first 10- to $15 billion in losses will be paid by the insurance marketplace with the Secretary fully able to recoup any additional amounts necessary. This was a critical component in the House bill that Chairman Baker and I and others insisted upon, that if the taxpayers were going to be involved in this backup, it is important that those tax dollars be repaid. Even though it was not in the Senate version, we prevailed in the conference. It is important to point that out to my colleagues in the House. Secondly, we have incorporated a transition period that provides immediate full commercial terrorism coverage for all American business consumers while long-term contracts under the bill are being negotiated; in other words, an immediate start at getting these projects up and running and 300,000 people back to work. Three, the Federal backstop has been simplified and requires that insurers have to pay a sizable deductible before they are eligible for the Federal backstop. This deductible is increased from 7 to 15 percent of their premiums over the program to phase out the taxpayer exposure and foster the reemergence of a private insurance market for terrorism. It insures that only truly catastrophic events trigger any Federal involvement while continuing to provide equal protection for small and rural insurers. Fourth, we have provided more disclosures and information to consumers, with more options to insure that terrorism coverage is available in all commercial policies. In addition, we continue to provide strong penalties to punish insurers who defraud the government. State insurance and reinsurance programs can be fully covered by the Treasury Secretary to provide equivalent protections for Americans who are unable to obtain insurance in the private markets. And we continue to give victims of terrorist attacks the ability to enforce court judgments against terrorists' assets. Finally, while I would note that the legal protections may not be as strong as I or others would desire, they are all improvements over existing law and are very similar to those strongly approved in the Committee on Financial Services over 1 year ago. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is timely and critical for America. We need it to protect jobs, protect our economy and protect the American people against future terrorist attacks. I urge all of our colleagues and friends to support the rule.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 607, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3210) to ensure the continued financial capacity of insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism. The clerk read the title of the bill.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is a very, very important piece of legislation. It is critical that the Congress act. The President has called for us to act. Let me cite from an article today in The Washington Post regarding the threat of attack that ``terrorist groups may be planning a new wave of attacks on Western targets. Even before the purported bin Laden tape surfaced on the al-Jazeera satellite network on Tuesday, the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency had detected a significant spike in intelligence chatter over the previous 10 days that strongly indicated new assaults are being planned, officials in U.S. intelligence agencies said.'' In congressional testimony last month, CIA Director George Tenet warned that recent attacks in Yemen, Kuwait, and Bali signal an escalation in terrorist activity which he characterized as ``as bad as it was last summer, before the airliner hijacking assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.'' ``That threat environment level was high then and it has not lessened,'' a senior administration official said yesterday. ``Bin Laden's appearances have always been carefully orchestrated, and unfortunately, they have often presaged a major al Qaeda attack or development.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time that this Congress act. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support that this legislation has entertained over the last several months. This is a good example of Congress at its best, but it is even more important that we provide this framework for protection of the American economy. This bill does exactly that. I ask my colleagues for strong support for this conference report.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a valuable member of the committee and a member of the conference committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a valuable member of the committee, as well as the conference committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, soon to be majority leader.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me recognize my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), who also is involved in his last bill on the floor, at least for a while. He has been a principled member of our committee and has provided reasoned judgment throughout a number of the issues that the committee has dealt with over the last 2 years. I want him to know he has my personal thanks and recognition for his excellent work. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), 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 and include extraneous material on the conference report.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. September 11, 2001, will go down in history as one of the most tragic days in American history as a foreign terrorist network unleashed a devastating attack against our Nation, killing or injuring thousands and causing greater insured losses than all recent natural disasters combined. This attack not only destroyed the lives of innumerable innocent people from all corners of the world, but it was also intended to disrupt the very center of America's financial infrastructure. Fortunately, the American people and our economy proved stronger and more resilient than anyone could have imagined. Under the leadership of our President, we have fought back, destroyed the terrorist launching pad, and fortified our borders and financial infrastructure security. We absorbed the terrorists' best hit, and our financial system and our will remain as strong as ever. In the insurance industry not a single American firm was rendered insolvent and insurers were able to expedite claims payments to rush aid to those most in need. The one weak link in our comeback has been the foreign reinsurance market, which since 9/11 has been understandably uncomfortable with providing further coverage for terrorist attacks. An effective insurance industry relies on spreading risk as broadly as possible, in the case of reinsurance across the entire globe. American insurers rely on foreign reinsurance to protect their solvency against truly catastrophic events. Insurers simply cannot responsibly provide protection for American businesses without some sort of financial backstop, and where the foreign private sector can no longer fill that role we must step in to protect our economy against the threat of future attacks. A recent Real Estate Roundtable survey cited more than $15 billion in real estate projects across the U.S. being delayed or canceled because of their terrorism exposure. If the building projects do not go forward, it means that the architects, engineers, construction workers, and realtors do not work. Our economy will continue to be impaired and thousands of American jobs will continue to be lost. We cannot afford to allow the terrorists this victory. We must act. Another survey found that 84 percent of responding American businesses do not believe their companies have sufficient coverage in the face of another terrorist attack and 71 percent find it difficult or impossible to obtain adequate coverage. We survived 9/11, but without a reinsurance backstop for terrorism, another attack could force thousands of companies into bankruptcy with no protection or recourse. At a time when we are preparing for war in the Middle East and facing repeated terrorism security warnings in the United States, we cannot afford not to have a Federal backstop in place. President Bush immediately realized the significance of this economic problem and called on the Congress to pass legislation soon after 9/11 and has been tirelessly pressing Congress for legislation ever since. The House quickly answered this call with passage of legislation last November 1 a year ago and now stands ready to deliver. We have worked closely with the President and the Senate to draft strong bipartisan legislation that is pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer and pro-business. This legislation, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, will provide a Federal backstop for Americans to protect against future catastrophic terrorist attacks. We provide American businesses with immediate protection upon enactment while long-term contracts are being negotiated. The Federal backstop then phases out over time with insurers paying a steadily increasing deductible of 7 to 15 percent of their premiums before the Federal catastrophic protection kicks in. As the reinsurance market flows back in, the Federal involvement would phase out in 3 years. We also provide full protection for the American taxpayers. The conference report provides for full payback of any Federal assistance, with the first 10 to $15 billion of losses required to ultimately be borne by the insurance industry as mandatory retention and payback. The remainder will be recouped based on economic conditions. Consumers are provided with mandatory availability of terrorism coverage and with a significant disclosure to improve their competitive options. This bill is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the American economy to protect U.S. jobs and against future terrorist attacks. We need this backstop in place now. I would be remiss if I did not point out the considerable contributions made by my colleague and subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker). Without his hard work and dedication, this legislation would not have been possible. Also I recognize the important contributions to protect Americans by our full committee ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and our subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), here in the House, as well as Senators Dodd, Sarbanes and Gramm. Our House conference report was signed by every single conferee on our committee, and its bipartisan support is a testament to the work of the President and these Members. I just want to take this opportunity to thank my good friend, John LaFalce. I think he is probably handling his last bill in his role as ranking member on the committee. But I want to personally thank him for his dedication and service to our Nation, and particularly his hard work on this very, very important legislation on terrorism insurance. We have worked continuously for the last 2 years, and I just cannot say enough about his dedication and hard work. We are going to miss you, John, and all of the opportunities we have had to work together on numerous issues; and we wish you the very best in your retirement.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me first say to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and to all of the participants in this historic debate how much I appreciate their leadership and their ability to debate this issue in a very courteous and effective manner. One hundred thirty-eight Members of this House were present back when we debated the original Gulf resolution. Those of us who were here at the time, including myself, remember that as one of the historic times in this Chamber. We return today in many ways to debate some of the very same issues we debated so many years ago. All of us, I think, feel a tremendous sense of honor to have an opportunity to debate these issues before us. But ultimately the substitute offered by my friend from South Carolina fails to put us in a position to be as effective as we were back in 1991. Indeed, it probably takes us a step backward. If you look at the U.N. resolutions, 16 resolutions ultimately in that language, there is the ability of the world to go after Saddam without another U.N. resolution, without another resolution passed by the Congress. Yet the President came to the leadership of our body and requested that the Congress give this kind of authority. That is exactly what our leadership did. My hat is off to the Speaker and to the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), for coming together and putting together a bipartisan resolution that should be supported. This is a serious matter, that Saddam Hussein has continued to resist our efforts. Let us reject this substitute, pass the underlying resolution, stand firm, as we did back some 11 years ago, and send a signal that the United States and our allies will perform adequately.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, this bill is the product of a lot of hard work on the part of many Members, and I want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his dogged determination, as well as the hard work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) in maybe his last major effort on a piece of legislation. Well, we hope to get to terrorism insurance before we adjourn; but the gentleman's work has been extraordinary, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their efforts. This bill has been touted by a number of groups, Madam Speaker. It enjoys universal support from family and religious groups, antigambling groups, professional sports, college athletics, major players in the banking and credit card industries, and law enforcement and Internet service providers. The list goes on and on and is getting larger every day. This is why this bill needs to pass, because of its broad base of support. Five years ago, Internet gambling was almost nonexistent. The Internet was just coming into its own; but apparently this kind of activity abhors a vacuum, and we have seen a huge growth of this type of gambling taking place, preying on the most vulnerable in our society, including our college-aged students and people who can least afford it. We heard testimony in the committee from the Department of Justice and the FBI that Internet gambling serves as a haven for money launderers and that unregulated offshore gambling sites can be exploited by terrorists to launder money. That position was reiterated just recently by FBI Director Mueller when he cited Internet gambling as a substantial problem for law enforcement. We know of at least two open cases before the bureau involving Internet gambling as a conduit for money laundering by organized crime. The GAO, in an interim report to our committee, highlighted law enforcement's concerns with Internet gambling and its vulnerability to money laundering, ``including the volume, speed, and international reach of Internet transactions and the offshore locations of Internet gambling sites'' which ``can promote a high level of anonymity and give rise to difficult jurisdictional issues.'' The Financial Action Task Force, an international body that seeks to combat money laundering, stated in a February 2001 report that some member countries had evidence that criminals were using Internet gambling to launder their illicit funds. For the record, let us make clear what the bill does and what it does not do. It does prohibit the acceptance of U.S. financial instruments, such as credit cards, for use in unlawful Internet gambling transactions. By so doing, it cuts off the financial lifeblood of the illegal Internet gambling industry. It does not expand gambling in any way, shape or form. Those who claim otherwise are not telling the truth, or they simply do not get it. The bill's provisions kick in only where a court or banking regulator determines that an illegal activity is taking place and relies on current Federal and State law to guide it in that determination. H.R. 556 protects the right of States to regulate gambling within their borders. It neither expands nor limits gambling beyond what is allowed under existing Federal, State, and tribal law. This bill represents legislation at its best. It is a direct approach to a serious problem. It will give law enforcement an important new tool to fight crime and will protect families throughout America. It deserves the support and vote of every Member of this House.