Michael Oxley

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1047) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of each of the Nation's past Presidents and their spouses, respectively, to improve circulation of the $1 coin, to create a new bullion coin, and for other purposes.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I again want to reiterate my support and thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from North Dakota and thanks for his cooperation. The gentlewoman from New York's negotiating skills got the Statue of Liberty on the coin. That is pretty impressive. And the gentleman from the First State has been a real leader in this for a long time. In the great tradition of our committee, we look forward to strong bipartisan support.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1047, the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, and urge its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, it is rare in this Chamber when we can vote for legislation that is good for business, good for consumers, good for children, good for parents and good for taxpayers all at the same time. Usually we must make our best judgments on how to balance those often competing interests. At this time, however, there are a lot of winners and no losers. The legislation we are considering, authored by the gentleman from Delaware, holds every chance of solving what has become a real problem in modern commerce, how to get a $1 coin circulating in the sections of the economy that would benefit from having one. We can all remember the old cartwheel silver dollars, or at least some of us can, that were great to have when we were kids, but which were too big and bulky to carry a pocketful, and we can all remember the Treasury's mistake in 1979 when it went to replace the bigger dollars with one that many people thought was indistinguishable from the quarter. Mr. Speaker, we have all had the experience of trying to buy a fare card in the Metro system here in Washington and having the machine reject our worn dollar time after time or trying to buy something from a vending machine and having it jam with our paper money. That is an inconvenience to the consumer, but it is often a big loss to the operator of the vending machine, not just of that sale, but of all the others who cannot use the machine until it is repaired. Who actually pays for the losses in the end, of course, is the consumer. Mr. Speaker, doubtless a fully circulating dollar coin will not be as useful or popular in a rural community without public transit as it is in an urban environment. But in cities, it will be a big hit, and in any event, it is the obligation of Congress to provide for the production of coins and currency that allows businesses to operate efficiently. So the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the author of the 50 State quarter program, a most successful program, and I applaud the gentleman for his leadership and vision. He has come up, again, with an ingenuous solution. Having seen the demand for quarters skyrocket as soon as those coins started changing their design every couple of months, he has designed a program that will do the same for the dollar coin, creating a gimmick, and I don't know whether I wanted to call it a gimmick, but that is what it says right here, that will draw the coins into circulation because of collector demand instead of trying to push the coins out into circulation as the Mint famously and unsuccessfully tried to do in 2000. Other aspects of the bill, a gold First Spouse coin, a solid gold investor grade coin with a buffalo nickel design and a set of four new penny reverses in 2009 for the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, are also good ideas in that regard. I would also like to make two points. One is that since this idea was that of the gentleman from Delaware, rightfully, the bill we pass ought to bear the number H.R. 902 that he introduced with the gentlewoman from New York and which passed the House 422-6. I chalk the fact that this bill bears a Senate number up to the procedural problem as the Senate rushed to pass the legislation before the Thanksgiving recess, but it is still unfortunate. Make no mistake about it, this legislation came about because of Mike Castle and Carolyn Maloney, and I want to thank both of them for their efforts. Much more serious is a provision in the Senate bill that was not in the House bill and which will, in my estimation, cause some problems as the Presidential dollar program goes forward, a requirement that a third of all the dollar coins issued during the life of the Presidential dollar program bear the Sakakawea design. Mr. Castle and Mrs. Maloney struck a good commonsense agreement with Mr. Pomeroy over the House version of this bill that would have continued minting Sakakawea design coins to meet demand throughout the life of the Presidential dollar and then return to full production of that design after the Presidential program is finished and the dollar coin establishes a useful and well-circulating medium of exchange. Mr. Speaker, although not the fault of the design of Sakakawea herself, there will not be the same demand for the Sakakawea coins as for the Presidents, because there will be no real change in the design of the coin from year to year. The problem, of course, is that if the coins are struck but there is no demand, they will need to be stored somewhere at some cost to the government. I will introduce into the Record a letter to that effect from the Federal Reserve. Mr. Castle and other supporters of this legislation have signaled their intent to revisit this provision in the upcoming session to try to find a way to stimulate demand for the Sakakawea design, and I pledge to work with them in that effort. With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, this is fine legislation. It will benefit businesses, consumers, have great educational value and actually probably make the government a good deal of money as collectors take some of the dollars out of circulation. I urge its immediate passage. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC, December 5, 2005. Hon. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to provide you with information and perspective on H.R. 902 and S. 1047, the House- and Senate-passed versions of the ``Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005,'' particularly as these bills would affect the Federal Reserve Banks. These bills are intended, in part, to increase the circulation of $1 coins. Prior to House passage, I provided comments on H.R. 902 in a letter dated March 15, 2005, and my colleague, Federal Reserve Board Governor Mark Olson, provided comments on a similar bill in an earlier letter dated August 31, 2004. Federal Reserve Board staff also briefed House and Senate staff on similar issues. I appreciate that the bills passed by the House and Senate address several of the comments that were raised in the previous letters and briefings; however, we continue to have concerns about several aspects of the proposed bills. Both bills require the issuance of four new Presidential $1 coins each year. as well as the continued issuance of the Sacagawea $1 coin. Although both bills provide the Secretary of the Treasury with discretion to determine the appropriate number of Presidential $1 coins per design to issue each year, the Senate bill requires (and the House bill suggests) that the Secretary and the Board ensure that unmixed supplies of each newly-issued $1 coin be available to all institutions that want them during an introductory period. The experience of the Reserve Banks with regard to the state quarter and golden dollar programs has been that the commemorative coin designs increase Reserve Banks' inventories well beyond levels that they would otherwise hold and increase operating costs associated with coin inventory management. The public initially tends to demand a large number of coins for numismatic purposes, but eventually many of those coins are returned to the Reserve Banks. This results in the accumulation of excessive inventories. Assuming that the flow back of excess Presidential $1 coins to the Reserve Banks is consistent with that of earlier commemorative coin designs, we estimate the net present value of the cost associated with storing excess Presidential $1 coins to be approximately $45 million over the life of the program. As we have previously suggested, slowing the rate at which new coin designs are introduced would help reduce these costs. The Senate-passed bill would exacerbate the Reserve Banks' inventory challenges, compared to the House-passed bill, by requiring the minting and issuance of Sacagawea $1 coins ``in quantities no less than 1/3 of the total $1 coins minted and issued'' under the Presidential $1 coin program. Establishing such a relative quota for Sacagawea coins, irrespective of the actual public demand for that specific coin design, would likely further increase the amount of excess coin held at the Reserve Banks. Federal Reserve Board staff estimates that the Sacagawea coin quota would further increase the cost associated with storing excess dollar coins by as much as one-third, or $15 million, to an estimated net present value of approximately $60 million over the life of the program. We would expect the Mint to continue to produce Sacagawea coins, and the Reserve Banks to put Sacagawea coins into circulation as needed, and we recommend that the final bill not include a specific requirement that a fixed fraction of new $1 coin production be dedicated to the Sacagawea design. It has proven very difficult over time to stimulate public demand for the $1 coin. As you may know, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported several times on a number of barriers to the effective circulation of $1 coins, including the U.S. public's continued preference for $1 notes. As a result, we urge that the final legislation be flexible enough to address the possibility of continued low public demand for the $1 coin and the potential implications of slow growth in usage for the costs incurred by the Mint and the Federal Reserve. On another issue, the House-passed bill provides a sense of the Congress that at such time as the Secretary of Treasury determines to be appropriate, and after consultation with the Federal Reserve, the Secretary should declare the Susan B. Anthony $1 coin to be obsolete. Neither existing law nor the bill defines the word ``obsolete.'' We continue to be concerned that the public might interpret such language as withdrawing the legal tender status of the coin. Further, if ``obsolete'' means that Susan B. Anthony coins would remain legal tender but that the Treasury and Federal Reserve should remove the coins from circulation, this would likely impose significant operational costs that would also reduce the potential value to the government of the proposed $1 coin program. For example, currently available equipment does not enable the Federal Reserve to sort the different $1 coins according to their designs in order to remove some designs from circulation. Therefore. we continue to believe that it would be prudent not to include language in the bill suggesting that the Susan B. Anthony coin will be withdrawn from circulation or declared obsolete. We hope these thoughts help clarify some of the remaining technical issues with the two bills. As the House and Senate work to resolve the differences between the bills, we ask that you take into consideration the concerns outlined in this letter. Sincerely, Donald L. Kohn, Member of the Board.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the First State, who has been a real leader in this effort and shown a great deal of foresight.

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

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

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 280) to facilitate the provision of assistance by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the cleanup and economic redevelopment of brownfields, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this bill on the floor today. The revitalization of brownfield sites has always interested me because Ohio has thousands of those underused or vacant properties. I was involved in writing the first brownfields legislation almost 10 years ago at a time when people were just starting to focus on what redevelopment could mean for jobs and cleaning up the environment. Aside from the contamination at these sites, we found that there were legal and financial obstacles to redevelopment. After working on the issue for several years, Congress passed a major brownfields bill in 2001 that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) helped push across the goal line. That bill mainly dealt with EPA's programs. The Financial Services Committee then started looking at making HUD's programs more effective, specifically the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. At a hearing, we learned that many communities have been shut out of the BEDI, pronounced Betty, program because they cannot get a grant without going through the cumbersome process of applying for a section 108 loan. That is very hard on smaller communities. In fact, Mayor Lydia Reid from Mansfield in my congressional district testified that is an obstacle to getting redevelopment project off the ground and creating new jobs. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for introducing H.R. 280. It will bring needed flexibility to the program by delinking BEDI from the section 108 program. Communities will be able to apply for a grant if that is all they need to get a project going and bring in major private sector investment. We can unlock a lot of jobs by getting a lot of these properties back to productive use. There are some 450,000 brownfield sites in every State in the Nation. By redeveloping these properties, we also reduce the stress being put on pristine green fields and farmland. We have had good cooperation in our committees and with other committees in bringing this bill to the floor. A vote for H.R. 280 is a vote for jobs. I urge its passage today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), who I have had the pleasure to work with for many, many years, both in Ohio and here in the Congress. He has been a leader on the brownfields issue since we served together on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and we are pleased to have him participate not only on that committee but our committee as well.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a former member of the Financial Services Committee, who has come back home to participate in this debate on brownfields.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me again recognize a few individuals. Gary Miller of California, the author of this legislation, has been just dogged in his determination to get this legislation passed. Unfortunately, his plane was delayed coming from California today and so was unable to participate in the debate. I also want to thank Paul Gillmor for his dogged efforts on this, and I appreciate also the cooperation of the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and Mrs. Maloney for their efforts. It has been 4 years since we began working on this legislation, and I have to say that these are the kinds of bills that do not get a whole lot of attention. They are not overly controversial, but they do a lot of good. They will have a very positive impact on a lot of communities throughout the country. We debate this under the suspension of the rules, so you will not hear a lot of hue and cry in the media about it. But at the end of the day, it is Congress at its best doing the kind of work we need to do.

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

Mr. OXLEY. I would echo that. And I am glad we changed the rules, by the way, that one can mention that body instead of referring to it as, quote, the other body. In any event, this is meaningful legislation that we indeed want to pursue in the other body so that we can get this to the President. It has an enormous upside and potential for communities. Governor Voinovich, when he was Governor before becoming Senator, had a commission which he commissioned in Ohio to study the loss of greenfields in the Buckeye State. One of the things that that commission found was that we could start the flow of that use of very productive farmland in Ohio by better cleaning up brownfields and putting them back to use. So this bill is basically in that vein, and we think that this will go a long way in that effort.

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

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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 3422.

Mr. OXLEY

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3422) to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt small public housing agencies from the requirement of preparing an annual public housing agency plan, as amended.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3422, the Small Public Housing Authority Act, and wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his work on this important legislation. The Small Public Housing Authority Act would amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt a small public housing agency from a requirement to prepare an annual public agency plan if the agency administers not more than a total of 250 dwelling units and section 8 vouchers and is not a troubled agency and provides assurances of resident participation. Currently, public housing authorities are required to submit both a 5-year plan and an annual plan to HUD. The 5-year PHA plan addresses the agency's mission and their plan to achieve their mission. Specifically, the annual plan has typically required public housing authorities to include information on the housing needs of the families in the jurisdiction, strategies to meet these needs, statement of financial resources, and PHA policies governing eligibility, selection, and administrations. Typically the average streamlined PHA plan is 47 pages with extensive attachments. For a small PHA with limited staff, compiling such a report is both time consuming and labor intensive. The regulatory relief provided in this legislation will give small public housing authorities more time to focus on the needs of their tenants. This exemption of smaller PHAs from filing plans will not affect the ability of tenant organizations to continue to have input with the managers of their developments. Language incorporated into the legislation ensures tenant participation and requires smaller PHAs to provide advanced planning required under the 5-year plans. Similar legislation sponsored by our good friend, retired Representative Doug Bereuter, was considered by the Financial Services Committee on March 17, 2004, and passed the House under suspension of the rules on May 5, 2004, in the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3422 deserves our support. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I just want to, again, congratulate the gentleman from Texas for his leadership and the cooperation on the other side. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 and include extraneous material on S. 1047.

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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 280, as amended.

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 and include extraneous material on S. 467.

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the brutal terrorist attacks on our Nation on September 11, 2001, America's economic and financial security was put at risk. Thousands of innocent people were victimized and our insurance industry was brought to its knees. Insurers could not predict when or where or how damaging the next attack would be. As a result, the insurance markets pulled back and businesses were unable to obtain terrorism insurance at any price. Business development plans stalled and our economy was put at risk. President Bush immediately called on Congress to pass legislation that would prevent severe economic disruptions caused by a lack of available terrorism insurance. The Financial Services Committee worked closely with the administration and the Senate to draft the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, or TRIA. TRIA provided a temporary Federal backstop to protect against future catastrophic terrorist attacks. This program, by any measure, has been a resounding success. On June 30, 2005, the Treasury Department submitted a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the TRIA program, the availability and affordability of terrorism insurance for various policyholders, and the likely capacity of the property and causality insurance industry to offer insurance for terrorism risk after TRIA expires on December 31 of this year. According to the report, the removal of TRIA would result in ``less terrorism insurance written by insurers, higher prices, and lower policyholder take-up.'' The administration stated that it wanted to reform the TRIA program and foster the development of a private market for terrorism insurance. The legislation before us today would temporarily extend the terrorism risk backstop for policyholders, but would also add a number of critical reforms. Perhaps most importantly, this bill is the only proposal providing significant taxpayer protections. Unlike the current TRIA program which sets a limit on the amount of Federal assistance taxpayers may recoup, this legislation may have full 100 percent taxpayer payback. Every dollar the Federal Government pays out gets repaid over time. This bill also significantly increases industry co-shares, providing further taxpayer relief in the short run. The bill raises the program trigger from $5 million to $50 million in the first year of the extension and then to $100 million for the second year. It also eliminates commercial automobile insurance from the terrorism insurance program, for a reduction of over $30 billion dollars in covered line premiums. The bill raises the deductibles on all lines of insurance from the current level of 15 percent to an average of over 20 percent, the biggest increase among all of the proposals. The legislation encourages insurers to make coverage available for nuclear, biological, chemical and radioactive risk attacks, which are currently excluded from most insurance policies. Without these provisions, policyholders will continue to be unprotected for the most catastrophic of events. Any Federal terrorism insurance program must be temporary. Because terrorism risk will not go away, one of our major goals must be to decrease the role of the Federal Government over time and provide real, lasting market reforms that will increase industry responsibility for terrorism insurance. It is important that industry have more ``skin in the game'' to ease the transition to the private market for terrorism insurance. In addition to a raised trigger and deductibles, this bill is the only legislation that requires that development of a long-term solution shifting the backstop to the private sector and phasing out the Federal role. A public-private entity is created and is required to issue specific proposals within a short period of time, and the bill sets up various risk-pooling mechanisms and dedicated terrorism capital accounts to immediately begin the transition. Without these provisions, we will be back here in 12 months arguing over another extension with no improved reforms. This legislation is identical to the bill that passed our Financial Services Committee overwhelmingly by a vote of 64-3, with the exception of striking certain provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee by agreement, a slight change in the definition of exempt commercial purchasers, and other technical and conforming changes. I applaud my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, for introducing this legislation. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Price), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), the ranking member from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) for their leadership and commitment to this important matter. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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