Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to hold the coveted Roll Call trophy for the victory last night at Bowie Baysox Stadium, where I want to thank our good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the host of the evening, for a wonderful time, the 41st Annual Roll Call Baseball Game between the Republicans and the Democrats for charity. The big winner last night really was charity. We raised over $90,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs and for the Literacy Council. It was a well-played game. I want to thank my cohort on the other side of the diamond, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for once again being a great sportsman, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the pitcher for the Democrats, a consistent player, and all of the Republican team for a great victory. Our MVP last night was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). He was extraordinary. I took him from behind the plate and put him on the mound. Nobody thought we could win after Steve Largent left; but the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) was magnificent, and did not walk a hitter and only allowed one earned run. Our infield played solid, and our outfield, as well. We had some timely hits from a couple of unlikely sources, and we came away victorious, so of course I thank the Members so much for this. Let me also say how proud we were of the women on our team. Republicans have had women players now for the last 12 years, and I invite our friends on the other side of the aisle perhaps to find some capable women to play that game. We are the embodiment of title IX on the Republican side, and proud of it.

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. OXLEY. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3250, the ``Code Talkers Recognition Act.'' Congress rarely has the opportunity to celebrate selfless heroism, Mr. Speaker, and so I particularly thank the sponsor of this legislation, Mr. Thune, for introducing it and Mrs. Granger and Mr. Watkins, for their efforts on similar bills that now have been incorporated here. Mr. Speaker, as we are now engaged in a war on terrorism that involves precision munitions and long-range air strikes, it is easy to forget how different the wars of the 20th century were. Then, huge armies often stood toe-to-toe, and the decisive edge in a battle often turned more on knowing what the enemy was going to do than on anything else. Once we broke the German codes, the tide of the war in Europe turned. Once we knew the Japanese codes, Allies were able to take apart their sea power and end any ability to project force. But Mr. Speaker the Germans and the Japanese had code-breakers, too. What they didn't have were the Native American code talkers, who used their tribal languages to communicate military orders and intelligence information between forward-deployed units and their commanders further to the rear. Those tribal languages never were understood by our enemies, Mr. Speaker, and the resulting ability to communicate freely, accurately and safely saved countless Allied lives. Congress has honored the Navajo Code Talkers with medals. This bill addresses the long-overdue recognition of the other brave warriors from other tribes who performed similar services. The bill would grant the Congressional Gold Medal, posthumously in most cases, to those brave warriors from the Sioux, Choctaw, Comanche and the other tribes. Mr. Speaker, the Sioux Code Talkers--using Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Sioux languages--were deployed in both the European and Pacific theaters and served in some of the heaviest combat actions to provide their communications services. They are credited by military commanders as being instrumental in saving the lives of many Allied soldiers. Comanche serving in the 4th Signal Company helped to develop a code using their language to communicate military messages during the D-Day invasion and in the European theater during World War II. To the enemy's frustration, the code developed by the Comanche Code Talkers proved to be unbreakable. The Germans even sent spies to training grounds in Fort Gordon and to reservations in Oklahoma to try and crack the code Mr. Speaker, the Choctaw Code Talkers of World War I were the first code talkers used in recent times. While most Native Americans at the time were not considered citizens of the United States, many volunteered to fight, and many were incorporated into a company of Indian Enlistees serving the 142nd Infantry Company of the 36th division. While serving, their use of the native language was discouraged. However, a commander--aware that most Allied codes had been broken by the Germans--realized that a number of men under his command spoke complex and possibly undecipherable language, and he put them to work sending codes. A total of 18 Choctaws served our country as Code Talkers. The Choctaw tribe and the State of Oklahoma have honored these code talkers and today I believe we should do likewise. Mr. Speaker, as the Navajo Code Talkers already have been recognized with Congressional medals and this legislation specifically names Sioux, Choctaw and Comanche code talkers, this bill also asks the Secretary of Defense to identify any non-Navajo code talkers from tribes other than the Sioux, Choctaw and Comanche who served overseas as code talkers in the wars of the last century, and recognize them with medals as well. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to honor all Native American code talkers who have fought for our country.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 433, I call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1372) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade, who has been a force throughout this whole process. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the conference committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), also a member of the conference committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of the conference report to accompany S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2002. This is a sound piece of legislation that will help U.S. exporters reach markets overseas, will maintain U.S. manufacturing jobs and will help the economy grow. We have worked in a bipartisan manner throughout this process, and the House measure passed the Committee on Financial Services by voice vote and also passed on the floor of the House on May 1 by a voice vote, also. It is important to note that this support carried through to the conference report which was signed by every conferee, save one. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter); the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), my esteemed colleague; and the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for their hard work on the conference committee. Without the dedication and hard work of these Members, this reauthorization would not have reached the floor today. Madam Speaker, our manufacturers face stiff competition from foreign companies seeking to expand the sale of their goods overseas. There is little argument that goods made in the U.S. are the highest quality and are in great demand. However, foreign companies receive significant assistance from their export credit agencies in finding markets and negotiating prices for their goods. Without the Ex-Im Bank, U.S. exporters would be forced to compete in this international marketplace with one hand tied behind their backs. Ex-Im levels the playing field of international trade by allowing U.S. companies to compete on the quality of their products. In a perfect world, we would not need export credit agencies, and the free market would operate without distortions. Because foreign manufacturers receive aid through export credit agencies, the United States must have a strong Ex-Im Bank in order to fight fire with fire. Currently, some 70 governments around the world have export credit agencies like Ex-Im providing more than $500 billion a year in government-backed financing. Madam Speaker, as long as foreign governments are financing export credit agencies, we must support Ex-Im to ensure that our manufacturers and workers remain competitive in the global marketplace. This conference report is about U.S. jobs. Without the Ex-Im Bank, many companies would lose bids to supply U.S. manufactured goods overseas or would simply move their production operation to other countries where they could receive export credit financing. In testimony before the Committee on Financial Services last year, the president of a division of Case New Holland, Richard Christman, stated that when the company was deciding whether to construct a combine assembly plant in the U.S. or in Brazil, one of the primary factors they took into consideration was whether export credit financing would be available to sell their goods overseas. Because there was the possibility of Ex-Im Bank financing for the goods produced in the plant in the United States, Case decided to build their plants in the U.S. This one decision created hundreds of jobs in our country and ensured that suppliers and other businesses affected by the operation of a major assembly plant would continue to benefit as a result of the Ex-Im Bank. These are real jobs and real exports that directly affect our economy. Critics of Ex-Im claim that it is corporate welfare for the largest companies in the United States. That charge is simply not accurate for several reasons. First, approximately 90 percent of Ex-Im's transactions are with small businesses. Those businesses rely on Ex-Im to help them access overseas markets that they would otherwise not be able to reach. This conference report seeks to continue to increase the exposure of small businesses to Ex-Im Bank products by doubling the minimum dollar value of small business financing that the bank must pursue. Second, while many of Ex-Im Bank's higher dollar transactions do go to larger companies, we should remember that those large companies utilize supplies from many small- and medium-sized businesses in order to create those products. Third, Ex-Im serves as the lender of last resort for U.S. exports when commercial financing is not available for export sales. Without the Ex-Im Bank supplying this kind of high risk financing, many sales would not be made, and many U.S. workers would be without jobs. Finally, let me make it clear that Ex-Im financing is not free. Ex-Im charges interest on its direct loans and premiums for its guarantees and insurance costs that the U.S. exporter usually passes through to its overseas customer. From the exporter's and customer's point of view, the bank does not subsidize the cost of financing an export transaction. Ex-Im is no less expensive to use than a commercial bank or other financial intermediary. The opponents of this conference report have been trying to paint this as a giveaway for U.S. corporations, and it is most certainly not. This conference report goes a long way to protect workers, to encourage more small business transactions, to aid the environment and to protect human rights. I encourage my colleagues who may instinctively be opposed to this measure to take a good hard look at this conference report, think about how it will benefit U.S. business and the economy, and then support it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Madam 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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), for his stellar efforts throughout this process; and also particularly the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). He would perhaps deflate a couple of rather incongruous statements made during the course of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. OXLEY

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

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a simple extension of the authority of the Export-Import Bank until June 14, 2002. Mr. Speaker, this is a rather routine extension. The conference committee is meeting literally as I speak, and we would hope to have a bill to the floor. But in case we do not, it is important that the activities of the Export-Import Bank maintain until June 14. I ask that the House would pass this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 H.R. 4782.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4782) to extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank until June 14, 2002.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3717) to reform the Federal deposit insurance system, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3717, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2002. The U.S. has the largest, most complex, most stable banking system in the world. Deposit insurance is one of the major reasons for this stability. Today we will strengthen this system so that it continues to serve as a model for the world. Depositors, taxpayers, and depository institutions will be well served by this legislation which will modernize the Federal deposit insurance system. Federal deposit insurance was created by Congress in 1934 and it has successfully served the American people for 68 years. Public confidence has been maintained and the stability of the Nation's banking system has been preserved during periods of financial uncertainty. The deposit insurance system has been significantly modified only twice since 1934, both times in response to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. During this crisis, the FDIC and the RTC resolved 2,363 failures of insured institutions involving more than $700 billion in assets. As FDIC Chairman Powell stated, ``There were no bank runs, no panics, no disruptions to financial markets, and no debilitating impact on overall economic activity.'' The existence of Federal deposit insurance was a critical factor in the financial markets remaining relatively stable. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3717, though technical in nature, seeks to apply the experiences of the last decade to today's banking marketplace. It is 21st century legislation for a 21st century banking industry. While the purpose of deposit insurance remains the same, industry growth, bank expansion from new powers, and the integration of banking and securities activities require that the scope and coverage of deposit insurance evolve so as to reflect the realities of a modern financial services industry. Moreover, the presence of Federal deposit insurance continues to be a key consideration for consumers in their decisions about where they do their banking and what level of deposit risk they are willing to assume. Mr. Speaker, there is broad consensus in this body. The Bush administration and the Federal banking and thrift regulators and business and consumer groups are in favor of improving and strengthening the deposit insurance system and making it more responsive to the cyclical nature of banking activities in the post- Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial and economic environment. This legislation fulfills our commitment to the American public. Indeed, H.R. 3717 was reported out of the committee on a bipartisan vote of 52 to 2, a testimony to its responsiveness and timeliness. This legislation is both responsive and responsible. It recognizes that depositors, savers, and investors have integrated financial needs, and that the deposit insurance system must be stronger, more flexible, and adaptable to changing depositor behaviors in ``real time.'' This bill allows the FDIC to do just that. It provides the FDIC with the necessary authority and supervisory tools to manage the deposit insurance fund in a way that balances all affected interests. It recognizes that all financial institutions present some type of risk, and that deposit insurance benefits all stakeholders, consumers, institutions and taxpayers, and that its associated benefit and costs should be allocated evenly and fairly. It expands benefits for depositors based upon their current needs and ensures premiums are assessed on insured financial institutions based upon their applicable risks. Finally, this bill has mechanisms to ensure that the deposit insurance fund grows responsibly, that it remains at a more than adequate level during good and bad times, and that excess funds are returned to communities for loans and other economic growth programs. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the Committee on Financial Services, for taking on this challenging, highly technical legislative project and for engaging all of the major stakeholders in developing a bipartisan piece of well-balanced, highly effective 21st century legislation. I also want to thank all of the bipartisan cosponsors of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. By doing so we ensure the public continues to maintain its confidence in the U.S. financial services industry, by far the most stable in the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) be permitted to control the remainder of my time for consideration of this legislation.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4737--the ``Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act.'' As Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, and an original cosponsor of the legislation, I want to lend my support to H.R. 4737's State flexibility authority that cuts statutory and regulatory red tape, to allow States and/or local governments to conduct demonstration projects to integrate Federal programs and funds. Under the plan, entities, such as the public housing authority, and the local and State governments could petition a Federal review board for this broadened authority, with the appropriate Secretary exercising veto authority over the plan. As example of this waiver could be a child-care center and a local public housing agency jointly petitioning the Federal Review Board to waive the regulations and requirements of their applicable programs to achieve a certain purpose. H.R. 4737 will knock down firewalls and bureaucratic obstacles that many housing organizations complain about when attempting to blend programs from different agencies. This proposal represents an opportunity to permit some innovation in Federal programs aimed at tackling the problem of service delivery, poverty, and a permanent underclass. Everyone should have the opportunity to move beyond public housing and homeless shelters to fully integrate in the private sector through rental and homeownership opportunities. We have heard time and time again that we need to blend more of the programs from HHS and HUD, for example, to tackle hopelessness. H.R. 4737 gives us that opportunity. Moreover, to ensure that residents in public housing have an opportunity to comment and participate in the development's strategic plan, H.R. 4737 requires that the concerns of the residents to be incorporated into not only the annual strategic plan submitted by the Public Housing Authority but also the application for State flexibility. This will provide a significant opportunity for collaboration between the public housing authority management, residents and the administrators of other entities to craft demonstrations that will achieve meaningful results, as opposed to a dictate from top-management only. I can't underscore the importance of resident/tenant participation to the eventual success of these applications and demonstrations. For that purpose, H.R. 4737 is noteworthy. One of the reasons the '96 welfare reforms were so successful is that states had the flexibility and leeway to shape their welfare programs in innovative ways. This bill enhances that flexibility, offering ``flexibility'' to allow states to integrate funding to improve services. As Health & Human Services Secretary and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson said, flexibility is ``what the governors need and that's what the governors will have.'' This new flexibility will help States create broad, comprehensive assistance programs for needy families--as long as they achieve the purpose of the underlying program and continue to target those in need. This new flexibility will help States design fully integrated assistance programs that could revolutionize service delivery. The exemptions included in H.R. 4737 should alleviate any concerns that fundamental rights and protections are jeopardized. Those exemptions are: (1) civil rights; (2) purposes or goals of any program; (3) maintenance of effort requirements; (4) health and safety; (5) labor standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; or (6) environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4737.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Chairman Ney's concerns regarding the operation of the Export-Import Bank and I share many of them. Ex-Im plays an important role in fostering trade and leveling the playing field for U.S. exports. However, it is absolutely unacceptable for Ex-Im to support transactions that compromise our national security. I have closely monitored the transaction that Mr. Ney has highlighted and while I did not find any wrongdoing by Ex-Im, I am troubled by the approach Ex-Im took while reviewing this deal. I am confident that the State Department does a good job in monitoring violations of the Arms Export Control Act, and if there was a serious problem they would be able to successfully stop a transaction. The problem is that bad transactions should not have to reach that level, they should not be approved by the Ex-Im Board in the first place. I do hope that in the future, Ex-Im takes very seriously these issues and works to limit transactions with entities that have violated U.S. national security laws. As far as legislative remedies are concerned, I appreciate all the efforts by my good friend from Ohio. I am committed to work closely with him as we consider changes to Ex-Im's Charter in order to ensure that our national security is not compromised.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) be permitted to control the time for general debate on our side.