Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 236, on approving the Journal, and rollcall No. 238 on the motion to table the motion to instruct conferees, I was unavoidably detained while chairing a committee hearing to receive Chairman Greenspan's semi-annual testimony on the economy. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both motions. (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permisson to speak out of order for 1 minute.) Funding for IDEA

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill to strike language that would amend the Federal securities laws with respect to the treatment of certain SEC fees. The provisions that my amendment would strike pertain to an issue that has already been addressed in much more comprehensive form in the form of H.R. 1088, the Investor and Capital Markets Fee Relief Act. That bill, which was approved in the House with a resounding bipartisan vote of 404 to 22, reduces the excess fees that investors are currently paying in connection with securities transactions, IPOs, and other securities activities. My amendment strikes language that would change the treatment of certain exchange-traded transactions for purposes of allocating fees charged under section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Act for budgetary purposes. Rather than addressing this issue in a piecemeal fashion and outside the consideration of the committee of jurisdiction, and that would be the Committee on Financial Services, it should be addressed, as it already has been, in H.R. 1088. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his cooperation on this matter, as well as for his support of H.R. 1088, and urge all Members of the body to support my amendment to reduce SEC fees in a comprehensive manner, rather than in the appropriations process. I urge support for the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of H. J. Res. 36, which calls for a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to heed the overwhelming majority of our constituents and protect our nation's flag. Old Glory is not just another piece of cloth--nor is it a political tool for one side or another to use in debate. Our flag is the most visible symbol of the nation, a unifying force in times of peace and war. Americans from both sides of the political spectrum back the action we are taking today in sending this issue to the states. Since the Supreme Court invalidated state flag protection laws in 1989, 49 state legislatures have passed resolutions petitioning Congress to propose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, is known as Flag City USA. Main Street and other major downtown thoroughfares are lined with flags in a patriotic salute to our great nation. Arlington, Ohio, which I am also privileged to represent, enjoys the designation Flag Village USA. The messages I receive from Findlay, Arlington, and throughout the Fourth Ohio District are clear: the American people favor the protection of Old Glory by staggering margins. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Duke Cunningham's joint resolution, and recognize him for his longstanding, unwavering leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support their constituents and vote in favor of sending this amendment to the states.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today is the day of bragging rights for the congressional baseball game. I am proud to announce that the Republican team won 9 to 1 on Thursday night. I want to thank Martin Sabo and all the Democrat participants as well as our own team for a wonderful game. We had over 3,000 people come out to the Baysox ballpark for the game and raised over $90,000 for charity, the Washington Literacy Council and the Boys and Girls Club of Washington. We are very, very proud of that. This is a great tradition. This is the 40th congressional game in the modern era. I want to thank everybody who participated. I thought I would immortalize this year's game in poetry so it goes down in the literary, as well as the sports, annals and, in the process, raising the level of culture a little bit in this great Chamber. Many of my colleagues may remember this famous poem by Gerald Hern on the old Boston Braves pitching stars, Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain. They were the team's only two reliable pitchers: First we'll use Spahn and then we'll use Sain. Then an off day followed by rain. Back will come Spahn followed by Sain and followed we hope by 2 days of rain. With apologies to Mr. Hern, I have adapted his poem into an ode to my starting pitcher and MVP, Steve Largent, the gentleman from Oklahoma. First we'll use Largent and then we'll pitch him again. As long as his arm's good we'll pitch him in sun or in rain. Sadly, now he's retired like Spahn and like Sain I probably won't see his likes again. Auditioning new pitchers will be a big pain because you know from last year that walks drive me insane. There's just one more honor at which Steve can now aim, not Governor but induction in the Roll Call Baseball Hall of Fame.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to authority granted by section 501(b)(1)(c) of Public Law 106-569, I am announcing my appointment of the following four individuals to the Lands Title Report Commission, established by section 501(a) of that Act: Mr. Chester Carl of Window Rock, Arizona; Mr. Louie Sheridan of Lincoln, Nebraska; Mr. Bob Gauthier of Pablo, Montana; and Mr. Francis X. Carroll of Buffalo, New York. These individuals were chosen for this appointment due to their demonstrated experience in and knowledge of land title matters relating to Indian trust lands. The Commission, and their appointment, will expire 1 year after the Commission's initial meeting. The Commission is responsible for analyzing the system of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for maintaining land ownership records and title documents and issuing certified title status reports relating to Indian trust lands and, pursuant to such analysis, determining how best to improve or replace the system. The Commission is then required to report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on its findings. The other eight members of the Commission are appointed by the Senate and the President. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate these fine individuals on their appointments, and look forward to their report.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox). (Mr. COX asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Cantor), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. The gentleman from New York was recognized for what particular purpose?

Mr. OXLEY. Point of inquiry. Does the request have to be in writing?

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of the committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci), a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Of course not. I am simply saying those amendments were defeated handily in the subcommittee and committee, and the gentleman from New York had the opportunity to put that language in his substitute. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before recognizing my next colleague, to respond to my friend from New York, if I may. The gentleman had the opportunity to put in his substitute anything he wanted, which would have included, of course, the provisions that he mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I am not making any preconceived ideas about the needs for the SEC. That will obviously come in the necessary regular order as it relates to the SEC and their funding and the reauthorization. But to say that these fees somehow should be used for law enforcement other than the SEC strikes me as simply not correct. The gentleman could simply introduce an amendment to the proper appropriations bills that would increase the funding for the FBI and the Department of Justice directly related to the SEC.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and indeed I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me say to my friend from New York that we have had a good debate on this issue, and it has been a bipartisan debate, which has been quite enlightening. My big concern is that there is some misperception that somehow these SEC fees should be used for something other than funding the Securities and Exchange Commission, that is, the FBI and the Justice Department. Let me remind the Members that when Congress passed the Capital Markets bill, the NSMIA bill, back in 1996, under the leadership of our good friend Jack Fields, the effort at that time was to create a user fee. Those folks who would use the SEC to police the markets and to make certain that things ran smoothly, that those fees would be used to fund the SEC. A genuine user tax. A user tax like when we buy gasoline at the pump. That tax goes into roads and bridges. And that is what a user fee really is. The user fee in this case has become so large and has grown so exponentially, as a matter of fact I have a chart which shows the SEC funding versus fee collections, and we can see the SEC appropriations down here and the total SEC fees have gone up exponentially, particularly during the bull market; and as a result those fees have become excessive and have in fact funded this SEC six times over. Now, my friend from New York, who offered the substitute amendment, if he were sincere about taking some of those revenues and using them for something other than the SEC would have directed those fees to the FBI and to the Justice Department, and maybe even to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. But that is not what the SEC fees were all about. That is what the Congress decided back in 1996, and we were so successful that they have overextended the SEC budget by six times. So what we are saying is this is an overtax. It is a tax on investment, it is a tax on savings, it is a tax on job creation and ought not maintain. So that is where we are today. So while my friend wants to cut some of the fees, but not all of the fees, our argument is just the opposite, that we only need these fees to run the SEC. Later on this year we will be debating and discussing the reauthorization for the Securities and Exchange Commission. It may very well be, I will say to my friend from New York, that the SEC will come in and make a case for increasing their authorization. And if indeed they do, I will join my friend from New York in authorizing more funds so that the SEC can continue to do its good work. But that will come later, and that is a different issue in that regard. So this is an amendment that needs to be defeated. We need to return those excess fees back to where they belong, and that is the American investor; and I would ask that the amendment be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.