Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. This bill represents the combined efforts of my esteemed colleagues, Chairmen Bob Goodlatte and Jim Leach, who have crafted an effective piece of legislation to finally stop the illegal Internet gambling we have worked against for so many years. The Goodlatte-Leach bill combines two complementary approaches. First, it cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling Web sites. These Web sites, almost always located on some far-flung Caribbean island, will no longer be allowed to accept bettors' credit cards, fund transfers, or checks drawn on American banks. Secondly, H.R. 4411 clarifies that the 45-year-old Wire Act covers illegal Internet gambling. As a former FBI agent, I can attest to the fact that the Wire Act is an effective tool in stopping crime, and this bill will help us make better use of it. Illegal Internet gambling is bad for a number of important reasons. Experts at the FBI and Justice Department have warned that these sites are often fronts for money laundering, drug trafficking and terrorist financing. Internet gambling sites evade U.S.-based regulations that ensure the integrity of casino games, prevent minors from gambling, and puts in safeguards for problem gamblers. Because these businesses are located overseas, they provide no tax revenues, provide no U.S. jobs, all the while evading Federal and State law enforcement. Unlike legal gambling here in the United States, no enforcement mechanism exists to ensure that individuals are protected against these overseas Internet gambling sites. And with no age verification, savvy online gambling sites are preying on minors and young adults. This Internet gambling bill is a culmination of a decade of hard work by Chairmen Goodlatte and Leach. I would also like to commend the efforts of Mr. Bachus, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Pitts, Ms. Hooley, and Mrs. Kelly, just to name a few. With their help, we have passed several versions of this legislation in the House. I remain hopeful that the Senate will be able to do the same and we can once and for all give the banking regulators and the Justice Department the tools they need to stop illegal Internet gambling. In the meantime, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Goodlatte-Leach bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. I object, and I withdraw my unanimous consent request. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 896, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 895) supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present to the House for our consideration H. Res. 895, a resolution that expresses the sense of the House supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs that track terrorists and terrorist financing. Additionally, the resolution finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was conducted lawfully and with all due protections of civil liberties. The resolution condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information and states that the House expects the cooperation of news media organizations in these matters. Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution that every Member can and should support. We are at war. Thanks to the great job being done by our members of the U.S. military and law enforcement, Americans feel safe to go about their daily lives, but we are still in fact at war. We depend on classified programs and classified information in order to successfully prosecute that war. While there is the physical war that is being fought, of course another critical front in this war is terrorist financing, and that is where we focus our debate today. It is critical, because where terrorists place and spend their money is one of the best indicators about where the terrorists are located, who they are, and where they may strike again. The editors at the New York Times would do well to reread the editorial they published on September 24 about 2 weeks after September 11, 2001. In part, it reads: ``The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators, and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities.'' The editorial concludes, ``If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.'' All of that activity that was recommended by the New York Times so soon after 9/11 was taking place and was being done with an extraordinary amount of international financial cooperation by the U.S. Treasury and its Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. The program was being conducted in accordance with current U.S. and international law, with executive orders, with outside audits, and with all proper care being given to individual liberty. I need to add that it was also being conducted with significant success. And part of that success was because this Congress passed the PATRIOT Act and our committee stepped forward with antimoney-laundering provisions that became a part of that PATRIOT Act, so important on the war against terror. However, the recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program. Now the terrorists are well informed of the details of our methods and will find other ways to move money outside of the formal financial system. Now the terrorists will be driven further underground, and we will have to invest further years of work to uncover these new methods. Unfortunately, a one-day story in the New York Times can ruin years of careful work by those who work to map terrorist networks and the flow of terrorist money. Obviously, the editors of the New York Times are more concerned about their sagging circulation rates and about damaging the Bush administration than they are about disrupting terrorist financing. For those who may think we are overreacting, all you have to do is go back just a few days to the arrest of the seven terrorist suspects in Miami. That cell was looking to gain funding from al Qaeda to attack American targets. While law enforcement successfully broke that cell in plenty of time, we need to know about financial transactions like those while the attacks are in the planning stage. In a recent column, Morton Kondracke asked the question: ``Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. had broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications? Or would they have revealed how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated? Nowadays, newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures.'' In the same column, Kondracke says: ``But the fundamental problem infecting much of Congress, the media, and the political class, especially those left of center, is that they are consumed with loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe.'' Continuing to quote Kondracke: ``Everyone in Congress and the CIA should see the movie `United 93' as a reminder of what we are up against. Muslim fanatics will not only try to destroy the Capitol, but also explode a nuclear bomb, if they can.'' Kondracke goes on: ``And people should heed the warning delivered by Princeton University Professor Bernard Lewis. Lewis cast the struggle with Islamic extremism in World War II terms. `It is 1937,' he said, `and we seem to be more in the mode of Chamberlain at Munich rather than Churchill.''' Kondracke, again quoting Lewis: ``Osama bin Laden and other would-be Hitlers,'' he said, ``consider the United States an effete, degenerate, pampered enemy incapable of real resistance. It's part of the pattern that we fight among ourselves as much as against our enemies. This is more than serious. It's dire.'' These are the words of a well-respected journalist. A profound statement from Kondracke, but right on point. Another respected voice on the issue is Michael Barone. On USNews.com, Michael Barone recently said: ``Why do they hate us? Why does the New York Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt, while confident of remaining safe under their roof.'' Nobody could have said it better than Michael Barone and Morton Kondracke. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. That is why the Congress is debating this resolution. I ask this resolution be supported strongly on a bipartisan basis. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for 5 minutes.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on passage of H.R. 4761.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman, Mr. King of New York, chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will take a second to correct the gentleman from Alabama. There is not one word in this resolution that calls for prosecution of anything other than leakers. Not the media.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the only member of the Financial Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Me.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a lively debate. I just want to state some facts. We are at war. All of the decisions, virtually all of the decisions that have been made since 9/11 have been made in this Congress, the administration, with the express purpose of protecting the American people. The PATRIOT Act, actions that were urged by the New York Times and other media, were undertaken expressly to protect the American people. And the fact that we have not had a major attack in this country is I think fairly good news and indicates to everybody that the system and what we have done is working. We all served with Lee Hamilton. He was a great Member, well respected on both sides of the aisle. Lee Hamilton was the co-chairman, along with Governor Kean, of the 9/11 Commission. They testified before numerous committees. They wrote an excellent report. And that report was critical looking backward on things that we had not done to better protect ourselves. We did not connect the dots. We had a wall between the CIA and the FBI. There were things that could have been done better. And this was all constructive criticism. And then those gentlemen went out, not only did they testify, but they spoke in public. And they are still very active in that operation. Why do you think, why do you think that Lee Hamilton asked the New York Times to resist publishing that information? Do you not think that he thought that our Nation was at risk and that that kind of information out in the public would notify al Qaeda and our enemies that we were in grave danger? Why would somebody with the reputation of a Lee Hamilton or a Governor Kean make that extraordinary effort to try to keep a news organization from publishing that information? That is what this argument is all about. That is what this resolution is all about. This is serious business. This is not politics. This is about the safety of our children and our country. And we talk about politics all of the time. I am frankly disappointed. Vote for this resolution and let us get on with the business at hand.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. And let me say at the outset I appreciate his good work on the Rules Committee and affording us the opportunity to testify last evening on this legislation. I did not introduce this bill, or this resolution, for political purposes. I have a deep respect for our process and our institution here. I introduced that resolution to send a signal that a lot of people in this Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are pretty sick and tired of people leaking classified information, secret classified information, and having the media report it with no responsibility, no accountability whatsoever. They are endangering our fighting men and women in Iraq and all over the world. They endanger the very freedoms that we enjoy. And it has been a continual frustration, whether it was the NSA revelations or the wire-tapping of al Qaeda suspects who are talking to people or emailing people in the United States. This is the third time in a relatively short period of time that this country has been witness to essentially treasonous behavior on the part of individuals who leak classified information, clearly against the law, clearly against the law, and then brazenly reported in the front pages of major newspapers, aiding and abetting the enemy. We are at war, ladies and gentlemen. Now, some of you folks find that an inconvenient fact, but we are at war. And when the Congress responded with the PATRIOT Act shortly after 9/11, that was supported by a broad array of Members on both sides of the aisle and with editorials in the New York Times and other newspapers telling the administration they better get on the case and set up ways that we can intercept terrorist financing. Part of that legislation came out of my committee. We are pretty proud of what we did in that antimoney laundering, antiterrorist funding legislation that we made part of the PATRIOT Act. And guess what? It has worked. Now, that may drive some of these people crazy in certain editorial boards. But the fact is this program has worked effectively and efficiently since it was set up for the first time. Even the New York Times in their editorial, the editorial board of the New York Times specifically called on Congress and the administration to set up programs to intercept and monitor financial reporting internationally. And this program has worked effectively well. The President of the United States was not dumb enough to go out there and talk about methods and ways that this program worked, as the gentleman from Texas said. He talked about the program existing. But he did not say how it worked on a day-to-day basis. And now we have it spread all over the news media about how this program works. What is the average terrorist to think? He is going to find a different way to move his money around, that is what he is going to do. He is going to change his behavior. So this resolution was set up to first of all say this is a very effective program. Let me just go over the four basic points of this resolution. One, it supports the government's efforts to identify, track, and pursue terrorists and their financial supporters. Now, if you are against that, then vote ``no.'' Two, finds that the Treasury Department's Terrorist Financing Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with law, with appropriate safeguards and reviews to protect individual civil liberties, and in consultation with and oversight by the Congress. If you don't like that, then vote against it. Three, condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Who among us is not going to agree with that? Four, calls on the news media organizations to stop disclosing classified intelligence programs that protect the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists. That is what this resolution says. So read the resolution and then tell me what part of that resolution you don't agree with. And if you don't agree with it, then by all means vote ``no.'' I would like to close by quoting Mort Kondracke in a recent edition of Roll Call in his column. He says this: ``Would newspapers in the midst of World War II have printed the fact that the U.S. has broken German and Japanese codes, enabling the enemy to secure its communications, or reveal how and where Nazi spies were being interrogated?'' Mr. Kondracke goes on to say: ``Nowadays newspapers win Pulitzer Prizes for such disclosures.'' And then he goes on to say: ``The situation is very serious; in fact it is dire.'' It is dire. Now, I don't consider Mort Kondracke to be from the far right. But he has nailed this basic question that this resolution addresses. We all, as Members of Congress, have a responsibility to protect this Nation and its people. And one of the ways we do it is making sure that we can track terrorist financing and do it and protect civil liberties, and we are doing just that. And this resolution confirms that. I ask all of the Members on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution because this is really at the heart of a gut-check in this country, whether we are going to allow for this kind of behavior to take place, leaking classified information and then having newspapers win a Pulitzer Prize as a result.

Mr. OXLEY

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 House Resolution 895 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. OXLEY

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

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. OXLEY. I am not going to claim opposition because we support the amendment. I would just say to the gentlewoman, we are pleased to accept her amendment.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2006, or the FIRM Act. This legislation will significantly reform the National Flood Insurance Program and ensure its continued viability. After all the rain we have seen in our Nation's capital these past few days, now is an especially good time to take a close look at this program that millions of Americans count on to protect the investment they have made in their homes from flood damages. The Financial Services Committee has a history of reforming the NFIP and with conducting oversight over the program. Spearheaded by the efforts of our former colleague, Representative Doug Bereuter of Nebraska, this committee took significant steps toward reform with passage of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Act in 2004. That bill helped ensure that those people whose homes flooded on a frequent basis will not continue to soak the American taxpayers by filing flood loss claims time and time again. Under the leadership of my friend Bob Ney, chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the committee continued to oversee the NFIP last year with a field hearing in his district and with hearings on the status of flood map modernization and the program in general. These hearings exposed a number of deficiencies in the NFIP, including the fact that FEMA was not moving quickly enough to reform the program and that the Nation's flood maps are often outdated and inaccurate. Then came Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita. These storms placed an unprecedented strain on the NFIP that continues to this day. We had to raise the borrowing authority of the flood program first to $3.5 billion, then to $18.5 billion, then to $20.8 billion. FEMA tells us that it is still not enough to cover all the claims from last year. When all is said and done, the NFIP will need $25 billion to pay all of those claims, and that does not take into account any storms we have before hurricane season ends this year. We have an obligation to these estimated 225,000 policyholders who have already filed a claim resulting from the events of 2005. These homeowners who have a binding contract with the NFIP to cover flood events could initiate legal action against FEMA and the U.S. Government if the flood insurance program does not make good on this contract. At the same time, we also have an obligation to reform and modernize the NFIP so that homeowners will continue to have access to flood insurance. According to recent estimates, more than half the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of the sea. While senseless coastal development should not be subsidized or encouraged, these homeowners who play by the rules and live in homes that take proper flood mitigation steps should also not be penalized. The FIRM Act is a bipartisan bill. Chairman Baker and I have worked closely with Ranking Member Frank to put together numerous reforms that will serve to increase FEMA's accountability and address the weaknesses exposed by last year's flooding. In an effort to make the NFIP more actuarially sound, the FIRM Act phases out the subsidized rates currently enjoyed by the owners of hundreds of thousands of vacation homes and second homes. If you can afford one of those homes, you can afford to pay your freight. In addition, the bill introduces new lines of coverage at actuarial prices and increases the program's coverage limits to reflect inflation. These are common-sense reforms that, again, will be actuarially priced. The FIRM Act requires FEMA to administer the program more responsibly. Flood maps will be improved and updated, and FEMA will have to certify to Congress that they have done so. The NFIP's borrowing authority will be temporarily increased to ensure that all outstanding claims will be paid. The FIRM Act increases the amount that FEMA can raise policy rates in any given year from 10 percent to 15 percent; and for those lending institutions that drop the ball on enforcing mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, fines will be tripled from where they are now. I remain committed to the reform of the National Flood Insurance Program that we in the Financial Services Committee started with passage of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Act in 2004. H.R. 4973 is the logical next step on the road to fiscal soundness for NFIP. I commend Mr. Baker for his work and strongly urge a vote for final passage. Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and yield him 2 minutes.