Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, behind every successful Member of Congress is a good staff. When I was elected in 1981, I was told that my first and most important decision would be to find an outstanding Chief of Staff who could build a loyal and effective team.

That first decision turned out to be my best. Jim Conzelman has been my only Chief of Staff during an amazing 25 years in the history of the House of Representatives and our Country. He is a trusted aide and personal friend who has played an integral role in our accomplishments on behalf of the Fourth District and the Nation as a whole.

Jim came to me from that hotbed of political activism--Bozeman, Montana--with credentials from the Ford presidential campaign, the Select Committee on Assassinations, and a Member office. I was the newest recruit of a minority party near its low ebb in the House.

But it was a good time to be young and a Republican because the Reagan Revolution had begun. As I cast votes to advance the President's agenda, Jim assembled a support team that allowed me to meet my twin objectives of becoming a respected legislator in Washington and a persuasive advocate for my constituents.

The foundation that Jim built proved to be a lasting one during the quarter-century that followed. There have been memorable legislative battles, from telecommunications reform to financial services modernization to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In 2001, we made the unprecedented move from the Commerce Committee to the newly created Financial Services Committee. As counselor to the chairman, Jim helped me organize a committee soon recognized for its productivity and responsiveness to all of its members.

Jim inspires great loyalty by treating everyone he meets with respect. Considering the transient nature of most staff, the retention rate in my office is unheard of. My core staff when I announced my retirement had combined legislative experience of more than 250 years, a true tribute to Jim's management skills. Many other staffers have gone on to successful careers after getting their first ``break'' from Jim, who remembers the feeling of starting a career in a city where the U.S. Capitol exerts a magical influence.

In a town where success often depends on the relationships you build, Jim has thrived professionally through the strength of his personal character. It is evident in both his work on the Hill and his volunteerism for charitable causes like the Multiple Sclerosis Society. I am reminded of the observation that Doris Kearns Goodwin made in Team of Rivals, her book about Lincoln, that ``the qualities we generally associate with decency and morality--kindness, sensitivity, compassion, honesty, and empathy--can also be impressive political resources.''

Jim's ideals have remained the same since the day he arrived in Washington from Montana. He came for the same reason we all come--to serve the people and our Country. It is above all a privilege, but that should not prevent us from showing appreciation to those who have done the job well. With gratitude, ``Team Oxley'' salutes Jim Conzelman for his service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3938, the Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2006, a strong compromise between the House and Senate versions of bills reauthorizing this country's vital export credit agency. This is the second time as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee that I have been involved with the Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization and I remain a strong supporter of the Bank primarily because it continues to create and sustain American jobs.

Since our last authorization in 2002, the Bank has provided guarantees on loans to buyers of U.S. exports and insurance products numbering close to 11,500 total transactions--of which $7 billion of authorizations supported over $63 billion in export value. Alongside these numbers is the very impressive fact that last year alone the Bank returned over $1.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury in the form of fees, far outstripping the $145 million appropriated.

Madam Speaker, I also am proud to note that like many of the bills we have passed throughout my chairmanship of the Financial Services Committee, this was an overwhelming bipartisan effort, led by Chairman Deborah Pryce and Ranking Member Carolyn Maloney as well as Representatives Biggert, Velazquez and Manzullo and with the strong support of this committee's next chairman, Barney Frank. This bill also represents important input from the Committee on Small Business, various export and banking experts, representatives of both small and large businesses, environmentalists and even a former president of the Bank.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us makes changes necessary to keep the Bank vital through the five years of this reauthorization. The greatest of these changes will be the creation of a permanent Small Business Division whose function will be conducting outreach programs and tailoring Bank products to be more user-friendly for small businesses. This division will better equip the Bank to meet its mandate of making 20 percent of its total loans and guarantees available to small businesses, with particular emphasis towards helping small businesses owned by women, minorities, and the socially and economically disadvantaged. Additionally the bill contains a number of reporting requirements that will allow Congress to better monitor the Bank's activities.

Madam Speaker, passage of S. 3938 will enable the Bank to be even more successful during the next five years. I urge its passage today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5637) to streamline the regulation of nonadmitted insurance and reinsurance, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today is a historic moment in the evolution of our insurance marketplace. The Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act is an important reform for consumers, helping American homeowners and businesses to obtain more available and more affordable insurance coverage. It will especially help consumers in high-cost areas, such as coastal regions and urban cities vulnerable to terrorist risk. But equally important, this bill is the next critical step in a long journey towards comprehensive reform of how insurance is regulated at the State and Federal levels.

In 1995, I chaired some of the first hearings in the new Republican Congress on insurance reform and helped shape the largest financial services modernization bill of the last decade, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. We finally got GLBA enacted in the waning days of 1999, but it wasn't easy. The Congress had been working on regulatory reform for some 66 years, enough time for three generations of lobbyists to put their children through college.

The debate on GLBA underscored the importance of the financial services industry to our country and the critical need for additional reform. To facilitate further legislative reforms and continue building on our hard-fought success, the House leadership created the Committee on Financial Services, which I have had the privilege of chairing for nearly its 6 years in existence.

Since then, we have had dozens of hearings with hundreds of witnesses on insurance regulation. We have heard that, starting back in 1871, the State insurance regulators committed to modernizing their regulations to provide for more uniformity and coordination and that they continue to hope to some day reach that goal. We have sorted through numerous State and Federal proposals to address the problems of a sluggish insurance marketplace beset by inefficient regulation and the threats of terrorism and other catastrophic disasters. And we have completed numerous investigations of how insurance providers and regulators have lived up to their promises to consumers and the marketplace.

After Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the heads of the State insurance regulators approached our committee to work together in forging several formal policy papers making a commitment towards uniformity and reform, culminating in an agreement to pursue Federal legislation to help the States achieve their own modernization goals.

These policy discussions culminated in the State Modernization and Regulatory Transparency Act, or SMART, as a template for further reform. Two of the SMART titles that appeared to have the greatest bipartisan consensus now form the basis of the legislation before us being moved forward by the leadership of Representative Ginny Brown- Waite, Representative Moore, Capital Market Subcommittee Chairman Baker, Representative Wasserman Schultz, and several others.

Insurance reform is never easy and never quick. Believe me, it is never quick. Each success that we have had has been the result of strong bipartisan cooperation in working together to overcome the turf and vested interests that will always cling to the status quo.

I am proud though to have had the opportunity to work with my colleagues to finish one stage of modernization and help launch the next, and I wish my colleagues well as they continue down this long journey towards modernization of insurance regulation.

I again compliment the bill cosponsors, subcommittee Chairman Baker and Ranking Members Frank and Kanjorski for their help and leadership. I look forward to passing this measure to improve the availability and affordability of insurance and taking another giant leap forward in this historical step towards insurance reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), one of the leaders and the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, Mr. Baker, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this was, again, in the great tradition of our committee, a good bipartisan effort by a lot of members that have been mentioned heretofore, and it is really what makes our committee very special. I am very proud of the work product that was put out. It is a somewhat controversial subject, the overall issue; but to be able to take a chunk of this, a very important chunk, and move it separately I think was a wise decision that our staff participated in as well as the members.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3850) to improve ratings quality for the protection of investors and in the public interest by fostering accountability, transparency, and competition in the credit rating agency industry.

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 thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to rectify the troubling accounting and reporting issue exposed by the largest corporate scandals in U.S. history. This landmark legislation strengthened the role of auditors, boards of directors, and audit committees, and in doing so stabilized America's capital markets. By enhancing the transparency and accountability of our public companies, Sarbanes-Oxley sought to fortify the pillars upon which our securities laws stand.

Within the many sweeping reforms implemented by the act was a provision, little noticed at the time, which required the SEC to examine credit rating agencies. Four years, one SEC report, over seven House and Senate hearings, and countless committee hours later, I stand before my colleagues in support of final action to bring much needed competition to the credit rating agencies.

S. 3850, the Credit Rating Agency Reform Act, closely follows and makes minor additions to H.R. 2990, the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act, which was introduced by Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick in June 2005, and passed the House on July 12 of this year. Like Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill, S. 3850 levels the playing field in the ratings industry by replacing an SEC designation process that benefits a privileged few with a voluntary registration system available to all.

Credit ratings are vital to our capital markets, providing investors with an evaluation of the creditworthiness of the debt issued by America's corporations and municipalities. High-profile mistakes made by prominent rating agencies, including missteps in the rating of Enron and WorldCom, highlight an industry in drastic need of increased competition and improved transparency.

As it now stands, the SEC designates rating agencies as nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations, or NRSROs, through an opaque process that provides applicants little guidance on the substance and procedure by which they will be evaluated. Currently, only five rating agencies are designated as NRSROs by the SEC. Understandably, many more aspire to attain that designation, as NRSRO status confers a significant competitive advantage. However, new applicants languish for years without an up-or-down vote in admission into this elite club. In fact, the Department of Justice commented upon the SEC designation process in 1998, calling it a ``nearly insurmountable barrier to entry.''

The SEC's opaque designation process has created an artificial government-sponsored barrier to entry that has stifled competition and helped the top two rating agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, garner an 80 percent market share, clearly a duopoly. Without true competition in this industry, fees have skyrocketed and ratings quality has deteriorated. Ultimately, individual investors will benefit from a voluntary registration system that produces cheaper, more accurate ratings.

In the many years that I, Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Richard Baker, and the rest of the Financial Services Committee have studied and deliberated over credit ratings, we have heard from countless parties, including the SEC, industry, academia, and the rating agencies themselves about the conflicts of interest that pervade the industry. Ratings firms have expanded into new areas which, many commentators have suggested, further compromise their objectivity. In addition, it has been alleged that leading rating agencies engage in certain abusive practices, to the detriment of smaller market players. S. 3850 closes the door on this behavior by requiring disclosure of conflict of interest and prohibiting abusive practices.

I want to commend the leading credit rating agencies, Moody's and Standard & Poor's, for lending support for this measure despite their initial opposition. Taking the handoff from Congressman Fitzpatrick and H.R. 2990, S. 3850 provides a strong framework for advancing the credit rating industry for the 21st century.

As for Senator Sarbanes and me, the bill provides a logical follow-up to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and our efforts to restore integrity to the capital markets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the author of the legislation, for 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the chairman of the Capital Markets Insurance Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to pay special tribute to our friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick). It is rare in this House that a freshman has been able to pass major legislation as we have before us today, and it is a real tribute to his leadership and hard work and the cooperation on both sides of the aisle that we were able to get this bipartisan and bicameral bill finished.

We had a most impressive and informative field hearing in the City of Brotherly Love last November, and it really did set the template and the opportunity for the committee to move forward with this legislation.

It is particularly poignant because it is a natural after passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, and I know Senator Sarbanes and I both appreciate the work and the leadership that Mr. Fitzpatrick has provided for us and for Chairman Baker to move that legislation through his subcommittee.

I want to thank all involved, including the staffers that Mr. Fitzpatrick mentioned. This has been a labor of love, and it will be one that will have enormous implications for our capital markets down the road.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6115) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to restructure mortgages and rental assistance for certain assisted multifamily housing.

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 thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 6115, the Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2006, legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Deborah Pryce. This legislation extends the Multifamily Assisted Housing Restructuring and Affordability Act of 1997 for 5 years beyond its current expiration date of September 30, 2006.

Legislation creating the Mark-to-Market program was enacted in 1997 to reduce the cost to the Federal Government of renewing section 8 contracts. At that time, 4,000 multifamily projects with FHA-insured mortgages were receiving project-based rent subsidies under section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The original Housing Assistance Payment contracts attached to these projects were written for periods ranging from 15 to 40 years. The majority of these projects had units with rents that exceeded those for comparable unassisted units; however, HUD did not have the authority

to renew the contract at above-market rents.

Consequently, few of these projects would have remained financially viable when their rental income was reduced to market rates, as owners would not have been able to cover their costs. With the reduced rents, such projects would most likely have gone into default on their mortgages, generating losses to the FHA insurance fund and possibly displacing many tenants in those projects.

Under the current law, if the Mark-to-Market program expires, HUD will be required to renew Housing Assistance Payment Contracts at market levels, but the authority to restructure mortgage debt will no longer be available for projects that have yet to enter the Mark-to- Market program. Without that authority, many projects would not generate sufficient cash flow to support their mortgage after rents are reduced to market levels.

CBO estimates that the cost of restructuring is less expensive than the cost of default by about $500,000 per project, on average. Consequently, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6115 will reduce direct spending by $188 million over 5 years principally by avoiding defaults on FHA-insured multifamily mortgages that otherwise would occur under current law.

H.R. 6115 will ensure that HUD continues to have the tools necessary to restructure mortgages and lower rents, thereby reducing the Fed's cost of oversubsidized section 8 properties.

I want to commend Congresswoman Pryce for her work on this important legislation. And I urge the adoption of H.R. 6115, the Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, let me salute our good friend from California, who has had a passionate interest in housing ever since she got here and has worked extremely well as the ranking member of the subcommittee with the chairman and with both the full committee chairmen, myself and the gentleman from Ohio. We have surprised a lot of people with what we have been able to produce.

They say politics is the art of the possible, and I think we have proven it time and time again. This is commonsense legislation that is good for all concerned, and I just want to salute her dedication to that effort.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2856) to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider regulatory relief legislation for the financial services industry and its regulatory agencies.

The Financial Services Committee has been working on this legislation

for 5 years now, and I am pleased to announce that we have reached agreement with the Senate on this important legislation. The bill before us today should be taken up by the Senate later this week and on the President's desk shortly thereafter.

On March 8, 2006, the House began the effort in this Congress by passing H.R. 3505, the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2005, by a vote of 415-2. On May 25, 2006, the Senate passed its version of this legislation, S. 2856, by voice vote.

S. 2856 includes only about one-half of H.R. 3505's provisions and five sections that were not part of the bill coming from the House. Two of the five provisions added by the Senate were contained in H.R. 1224, which passed the House on May 24, 2005, by a 424-1 vote. These provisions authorize the Fed to pay interest on reserve balances and giving the Fed greater flexibility to set the ratio of reserve deposits a depository institution must maintain against transaction accounts.

The other provision added by the Senate in S. 2856, one, allows the Treasury Department to determine the types of securities that may be pledged in lieu of security bonds; two, requires the Government Accountability Office to study and report to Congress on currency transaction reports filed with the Treasury Department and on the costs of regulatory compliance.

And, three, direct the SEC and banking agencies to jointly issue regulations implementing a section of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act.

Today, I am recommending that the House accept the Senate version of this legislation with six amendments that have been agreed to by the minority in this Chamber and by both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

Two amendments make acceptable changes to sections concerning a prohibition on employment of convicted individuals in banking organizations and regarding consumer notices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

A third amendment mandates that the SEC and the Fed jointly adopt rules concerning banks' brokerage activities exempt from SEC oversight in accordance with the intent of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act and deletes the provision in the Senate bill which would have permitted the Federal banking regulators to seek an expedited judicial review of any SEC rule making in this area.

The fourth amendment concerns a budget offset related to the payment of interest on Fed reserve balances.

The fifth increases the amount of unimpaired capital and surplus that a national bank may invest to promote the public welfare.

Finally, the sixth amendment updates the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide clarity and certainty for depository institutions lacking Federal deposit insurance as it relates to disclosure and advertising.

Mr. Speaker, the financial services industry is laboring under an enormous regulatory burden. While many of the regulations are necessary to protect consumers and meet other worthy public policy objectives, a number are clearly burdensome. For this reason, shortly after I assumed the chairmanship of the committee, I asked the financial regulators and industry trade groups to give us their best advice on how we could ease regulatory requirements faced by insurer depositors. The goal was to free depository institutions from such regulations so they can better serve their customers and communities.

It was clear then, as it is now, that there also needs to be a counterbalance to the significant compliance responsibilities placed on depository institutions by the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as other Government efforts to counter terrorist financing.

Excessive regulation affects all sectors of the financial services industry but presents the greatest burden for smaller institutions. For small banks that continue to serve their historic role as a financial lifeline for local communities, they must be free to operate in a regulatory environment that does not unduly constrain them.

The bill contains a broad range of constructive provisions that, taken as a whole, will allow banks, thrifts and credit unions to devote more resources to the business of providing financial services and less to compliance with outdated and unneeded regulations.

I want to congratulate Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Moore, who introduced the bill last year, and Mr. Bachus, the chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, which held numerous hearings on this important issue.

Mrs. Capito also deserves recognition for her longstanding support of regulatory relief legislation and actually sponsoring the first legislation in the last Congress before she moved to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the financial services industry spends a great deal of money every year complying with outdated and ineffective regulation. That is money that could instead be loaned for new homes, new cars, and new projects, fueling job growth in local communities. The sooner we enact this legislation, the sooner we will provide needed relief to depository institutions and increased financial opportunities for both consumers and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support passage of S. 2856, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member's concern. I want to assure you that this amendment is prospective only and applies only to new investments made by banks and not to investments or written commitments already in place.

There is nothing in this amendment that is intended to require banks that have made investments that comply with the law that was in effect prior to the enactment of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 to undo or divest themselves of these investments or renege on their written commitments to invest in community development.

Mr. Speaker, before I do, I want to make clear that we, and it is pretty obvious that we have not rehearsed this in advance.

Yes. I thank the gentleman for giving me an opportunity to do so.

In adopting this provision, it is our intention that the regulatory agencies utilize section 702 with care and precision. Specifically, it is not intended to be used routinely in corporate applications, notices or requests to impose financial or other conditions on bank directors or officers that contain a personal guarantee against loss by the institution.

For example, it is not intended to be used by the regulatory agencies to routinely require directors or officers of insured depository institutions to enter into capital maintenance agreements with the agencies as a condition of granting a charter or providing deposit insurance.

It is also not intended to be used by the regulators to routinely require bank directors or officers to maintain the capital of a troubled insured depository institution without the directors or officers agreement.

While we believe it is important that banking agencies are able to enforce agreements that protect the deposit insurance fund, we also believe that our national banking policies should encourage the participation of highly qualified people on the boards of those institutions.

It would be counterproductive to create an environment where the threat of personal liability may cause bank directors to resign or keep well-qualified people from becoming directors in the first place. We will continue to monitor closely how this provision is applied by the regulatory agencies to ensure that this does not happen.

Yes, that is my understanding as well.

I will insert into the Record a letter dated August 5, 2006, from the OCC, FDIC, the Fed, and OTS. This letter clarifies the regulators' intentions for the provision. It also reaffirms their intent to enforce the language precisely and to not routinely impose financial or other conditions on bank directors or officers that contain a personal guarantee against loss by the institution seeking to change a charter or providing deposit insurance.

I believe this addresses concerns raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and the committee will continue our oversight role in implementation of this provision.

Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency,

August 7, 2006.

Hon. Mike Crapo,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Crapo: This responds to your letter dated July

28, 2006, concerning section 102 of S. 2856, ``The Financial

Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006.''

We agree completely that banking policies should welcome

the participation of qualified individuals on the boards of

directors of insured depository institutions. We believe that

enactment of this section would be fully consistent with that

goal and that the provision should be implemented in that

spirit, if enacted.

Section 102 is intended to enable the appropriate Federal

banking agency to enforce conditions imposed in writing in

connection with any action on an application, notice or other

request, and written agreements between a Federal banking

agency and a depository institution or an institution-

affiliated party, in accordance with the terms of the

condition or agreement, without the necessity of showing

unjust enrichment or reckless disregard for the law,

applicable regulations, or prior order of the appropriate

Federal banking agency. The language is intended to address

the effect of court decisions in a few cases that questioned

the authority of the banking agencies to enforce such

conditions or agreements without first establishing that the

institution-affiliated party was unjustly enriched or engaged

in reckless disregard for the law or previous agency orders.

It is our intention to utilize this provision with care and

precision. Specifically, we do not intend to use it routinely

in connection with corporate applications, notices or

requests to impose financial or other conditions on bank

directors or officers that contain a personal guarantee

against loss by the institution. In particular, it is not our

intention to use it routinely to require directors or

officers of insured depository institutions to enter into

capital maintenance agreements with the agencies as a

condition of granting a charter or providing deposit

insurance. Nor is it our intention to use it routinely to

require bank directors or officers to maintain the capital of

a troubled insured depository institution without the

director's or officer's agreement.

We hope this addresses your concerns.

Sincerely,

John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency; John M.

Reich, Director, Office of Thrift Supervision; Ben S.

Bernanke, Chairman Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System; Sheila C. Bair, Chairman, Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

(Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, just to wrap up and say this has been a concerted effort. It has taken 5 years. While I guess all of us are frustrated in one way or another with the other body at times and this bill particularly, at the end of the day we did a good job and got what we could, and we will save some other things for a later day.

But Jeb Hensarling and all of the folks who worked on this legislation, I want to thank them for their cooperation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5347, the HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006, introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). This important piece of legislation would simply reauthorize the HOPE VI program for one more year and would continue to provide a resource to revitalize severely distressed public housing units.

Since 1993, this program has been an important part of the transformation of public housing by encouraging public housing authorities to seek new partnerships with private entities to create mixed-finance and mixed-income affordable housing that is developed and operated very differently from traditional public housing.

HOPE VI epitomizes public-private partnerships for funding redevelopment projects. Mixed-finance development projects have allowed the government

to raise millions of dollars from the private sector for redevelopment projects using Federal funds as bait. For every governmental dollar, these partnerships can yield $3 or $4 additional in private investment.

Despite the obvious advantages of HOPE VI, the program has needed improvement. In 2003, in a previous reauthorization of HOPE VI, the Financial Services Committee added reforms by requiring the HUD to select grantees, among other criteria, on their capacity to bring planning and ultimately development to fruition within a more expedited time frame.

In addition, the committee was concerned that the HOPE VI program was biased toward larger urban areas. Thus, the committee required that at least 5 percent of the HOPE VI funds be awarded to smaller communities, particularly rural areas, where public housing authorities are not present, to assist in the redevelopment of town areas for affordable housing. Now known as the Main Street Project, many rural communities are able to access these vital redevelopment funds.

The HOPE VI program has been a valuable program in addressing many of this country's housing needs by revitalizing communities rather than simply building public housing. This House has repeatedly spoken on this program by continuing to fund HOPE VI in the relevant appropriations bills year after year.

I would like to thank good friend Chris Shays for his leadership on this important affordable housing program. By reauthorizing HOPE VI, this bill will continue the reforms established in 2003 to ensure that smaller communities have access to important revitalization dollars and will continue to make HOPE VI a cost-effective and efficient program for the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the able gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 418, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act, which protects the men and women serving in our Nation's military from deceptive financial practices and unsuitable financial products.

I want to pay a particular tribute to the sponsor of the House legislation that came through the Financial Services Committee. This bill that we have before us is almost identical to the bill that passed out of our committee. Mr. Davis, a veteran and West Point graduate, led the way in protecting our military men and women on this issue early last year. Early last year he secured a bipartisan voice vote in committee and a resounding 405-2 bipartisan victory in the House.

Congratulations also go to former Congressman Max Burns of Georgia who led the charge protecting our military personnel in the 108th Congress.

We are pleased with giving the Senate credit for their bill number if we get to enact the protections for our military as envisioned by Mr. Davis and Max Burns.

Mr. Speaker, since the tragic day of September 11, 2001, our country has been at war with terrorism around the world. In the prosecution of that war, our armed services have performed heroically. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of freedom, and all have worried about the safety and security of their loved ones as they leave to serve our country.

Unfortunately, there are a few bad actors in the financial services industry who have been taking financial advantage of our soldiers. These unscrupulous companies and their sales teams infiltrate our military installations and use aggressive, misleading, and often illegal sales tactics to sell high-cost products of dubious value that are unsuitable for any investor, and are particularly unsuitable for most military personnel.

The Pentagon has issued directives intended to prevent these abuses. But with the ongoing confusion over regulatory jurisdiction, the lack of communication among government agencies, and the lack of sufficient investor protection standards for certain financial products, it is clear that our military personnel can never be adequately protected unless Congress enacts this bill.

The Davis bill bans bad financial products and coercive sales practices on military bases, including obscure and high-cost ``contractual plans.'' It clarifies the regulatory jurisdiction on military installations within the U.S. and abroad, adds appropriate consumer protections and disclosures for financial products sold on military bases, and ensures proper reporting systems between our military and the financial regulators to catch bad actors before they can do more harm.

It also makes the process of selecting a financial adviser more transparent for all investors by providing online access to background information on broker-dealers, including disciplinary actions. This last provision was taken from legislation introduced by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that passed the House in April 2005.

The overwhelmingly bipartisan support for this bill within Congress and the military is the result of strong leadership by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) as well as former Member Max Burns, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Mr. Baker, who led our committee's investigation into abusive practices and bad products, Congressman Jim Ryun and Congressman Steve Israel. Mr. Ryun and Mr. Israel worked closely together on the reporting requirements of this bill, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for ensuring appropriate SEC review of broker-dealer sales practices on military installations.

Their hard work and passion for protecting our military personnel is well reflected on this legislation. I urge my colleagues in the full House to vote ``yes'' on S. 418.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6033, the Thomas J. Manton Post Office Building Designation Act. The legislation would designate a United States Postal Service Office in New York as the Thomas J. Manton Post Office Building.

Thomas Manton served this country with honor and integrity. He was a true public servant.

His distinguished public servant career includes: serving in the military, police officer with the New York City Police Department, serving in the New York City Council and being a Member of Congress representing the people of New York's 7th congressional district. Thomas Manton always fought for the people he represented and New Yorkers are better off because of his work.

I am honored to have worked with Thomas Manton while he was in Congress. We were both members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and he was ranking member on the Subcommittee that I chaired. We sat through many long hearings together.

Throughout his life he approached his work with integrity. The dedication in Thomas Manton's honor will preserve his legacy and remind his constituents of his long and distinguished public career.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support of S. 2784, the ``Fourteenth Dalai Lama Congressional Gold Medal Act,'' and urge its immediate passage.

This legislation was introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and is identical to H.R. 4562, introduced by the gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The House version currently has 312 co- sponsors, is compliant with all House and Financial Services Committee rules, and has been scored as budget-neutral by CBO.

Under the legislation, the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate are authorized to present, on behalf of Congress, a gold medal to Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, or spiritual, cultural and, in effect, governmental leader of Tibet, who has lived in exile from his native country since 1959, when he fled the power of the People's Republic of China.

Mr. Speaker, the Dalai Lama has spent the 47 years of his exile peacefully seeking to establish a form of autonomous self rule for Tibet. In doing so, he has earned the great respect of the world community for the quiet, disciplined and non-violent way he has chosen to lead his struggle--in fact, the respect is so great that in 1989, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee said the award came ``for his consistent resistance to the use of violence in his people's struggle to regain their liberty . . . He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.''

Mr. Speaker, Tibet is a long way from the United States, and a far different land about which most Americans know little. But the Dalai Lama's basic beliefs--peace, human rights, preservation of culture and of the environment, and the promotion of harmony and respect among religions--are so familiar to all of us that we may feel we know this quiet man in some special way, and he us. In fact, at a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda in 1991, the Dalai Lama said of his childhood view of the United States: ``What truly inspired me were your ideas of freedom and democracy. I felt that your principles were identical to my own, the Buddhist belief in fundamental human rights, freedom, equality, tolerance and compassion for all.''

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian honor the Congress can bestow. Previous recipients have included Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa and Elie Wiesel. His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, stands with them in his beliefs, and in the way his life embodies them. It is appropriate and, perhaps, overdue that we confer upon him this medal, this mark of respect and admiration. I urge immediate passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to pay tribute to Jeanne Oates Angulo, President of the Capital Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. After twelve years of outstanding service to this organization, Jeanne will be retiring at the end of the year.

Jeanne was tapped to serve as president in 1994 after a successful career in television and radio, including a stint as General Manager of WPGC AM/FM in Washington, D.C. During this time, she was honored with the Advertising Club of Washington's Silver Medal Award, and was recognized as a Woman of the Year by Washington Woman magazine.

Her tenure at the MS Society has been equally distinguished. Jeanne has presided over an explosion in contributions to the Capital Chapter from $2 million to more than $5 million annually. She has overseen such fundraising staples as the MS Walk, the MS Bike Tour, and the Women Against MS Annual Luncheon.

It has been my pleasure to work with Jeanne on the annual MS Ambassadors Ball, a salute to members of the diplomatic corps for their many contributions to humanitarian efforts. My wife, Pat, has co- chaired this event on two occasions, and joins me in praising Jeanne for her determination in soliciting in-kind donations to the Ball to keep overhead expenses low. Jeanne's enthusiasm and drive in this area has ensured that more funds are spent on the Society's mission: ending the devastating effects of MS, supporting MS research, and providing for MS advocacy efforts.

Jeanne has also dedicated her time to service on the boards of many community organizations, including the March of Dimes, the Metropolitan Police Boys and Girls Club, the USO, the Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts, and the Women of Washington. Her tireless devotion to volunteerism is an outstanding model for others, and has been a tremendous asset to her as she works to get more people involved in charitable efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the entire Board of Directors of the National MS Society, everyone at the Capital Chapter, and all whose lives she has touched join me in thanking Jeanne for her continued efforts to help find a cure for MS. We wish Jeanne and her husband, Al, the very best as they move on to a new chapter in their lives

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2808, the Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood.

The legislation calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue not more than 500,000 one-dollar silver coins in 2009, to mark the bicentennial of the birth of one of our greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln. The Nation's 16th President, he was born February 12, 1809, in present-day LaRue County, Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the story of the tall, craggy man who went on to become a lawyer in Springfield, Illinois. Later, by dint of honesty, integrity, intelligence and compassion, became President, and served through some of the most trying times of our Nation. We all know the tragic story of his death after being shot at Ford's Theater on April 15, 1865. And we all know the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Few of us know, I think, the history of that famous proclamation. Although it ended up as a proclamation by the President using his war powers, it started life as a normal piece of legislation. In fact, its existence first was reported 144 years ago in the famous Harper's Weekly magazine of July 26, 1862, which said: ``The following message was delivered to Congress on Monday: FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Herewith is the draft of the bill to compensate any State which may abolish slavery within its limits, the passage of which, substantially as presented, I respectfully recommend.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5337) to ensure national security while promoting foreign investment and the creation and maintenance of jobs, to reform the process by which such investments are examined for any effect they may have on national security, to establish the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all Members to support H.R. 5337, the National Security FIRST Act, which makes important reforms to the process by which the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States scrutinizes purchases of U.S. businesses by foreign ones, to ensure that there is no threat to national security.

As we consider this legislation, we must remember that the result of foreign investment in the United States has been spectacular. U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies employ nearly 5\1/2\ million Americans. The average salary for those workers is a healthy $60,000 and a third of those jobs are in manufacturing.

At a time when we are concerned about our balance of trade, it is important to note that more than 20 percent of U.S. exports are produced by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies. Mr. Speaker, we all know why we are here today.

Congress and the country went through a very difficult period this spring after we learned about the Dubai Ports sale.

As a response, in one of the best examples of bipartisanship I have seen in my tenure here, H.R. 5337 was introduced by Majority Whip Blunt, Chairwoman Pryce, Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Crowley and now has nearly 90 cosponsors. It is a very good bill that addresses what some see as flaws in the CFIUS process without creating new problems or barriers to investment.

I would particularly like to compliment Chairwoman Pryce for her leadership on this complex issue. In three very thorough hearings, she made certain,ky018 members were well-versed in the details of the CFIUS process before any legislating was done. The result was a unanimous 64- 0 vote for passage in the Financial Services Committee.

The language we are considering today is nearly identical, with a manager's amendment that makes only a few changes made to further strengthen the process. Among those changes are the addition of Commerce Secretary as a second Vice Chair of CFIUS; the addition of the Energy Secretary to CFIUS itself; clarification that CFIUS reviews are to be done to determine the effects of a transaction on national security; the requirement that the 30-day review period end with a roll call vote, with any single dissenting vote sending the transaction into the 45-day investigative period; and further clarification of the role of the Director of National Intelligence in the CFIUS process.

Mr. Speaker, what we need to accomplish is to strengthen the national security in two ways: by increasing administration accountability and by improving the ability of Congress to perform necessary oversight. This bill does both. The result will be a process that stops what should be disapproved and gives a green light to what should be approved, including, of course, any modifications needed to protect against the loss of the defense industrial base or a critical technology.

This is a strong and effective bill here that corrects exactly what was wrong with the CFIUS process without overreaching and causing further problems. It continues to give CFIUS the flexibility to exercise discretion, allowing it to focus on investments that raise national security concerns. I do not and will not support some of the other proposals that have been put forward, such as any additional time delays or directly involving Congress in the decisionmaking process. I believe we need to take great care to refrain from inserting politics into the consideration process, and that goal has been achieved here.

Mr. Speaker, we must protect our national security, but national security includes economic security. Let's remember that it is our economic security and prosperity that give us the resources to provide adequately for our internal and external defenses. We simply must not drive off those who want to make the wise investment in our great economy.

Our friends in the other body should understand that no bill would be a preferable alternative to a bad bill, and we in the House will not sacrifice American prosperity and job growth when there is no real improvement to American security.

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent bill; and I think the CFIUS process and our national security would be improved by enacting it exactly as written.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip and the lead sponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), the chairman of the appropriate subcommittee who has shown enormous leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) of the aforementioned Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I do not think anybody could have predicted, certainly not me, that a few weeks after the firestorm that came about with the announcement of the Dubai Ports deal that we would be on the floor today debating legislation that was considered by our committee and others and passed in our committee overwhelmingly with a 64-0 bipartisan vote, with cooperation on both sides of the aisle, to deal with a real problem.

Even though I personally felt there was a great deal of overreaction about the Dubai Ports deal, the fact is that it revealed some very deep concerns that people like the gentleman from California had, and others, about how the CFIUS process works. We set about with great care, working with Mr. Frank, our ranking member, Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Crowley, to craft a bill under the guidance of Chairwoman Pryce and Mr. Blunt from Missouri, to craft a bill that met the balance, met the test of dealing with our very real concerns about national security and, at the same time, encouraging foreign investment into our country.

I have to say that of all the bills I have been involved in since I have been chairman, and, frankly, all the bills I have been involved in since I have been here in 25 years, this was one that gave me a great deal of satisfaction because it showed the legislative process at its very best, with input from people who had a great deal of knowledge, who worked very hard on the issue, from the staff to the Members, to craft this legislation and stand here today, just a few weeks after that firestorm, with a product that is going to pass overwhelmingly in this House and that really says that this House, when we want to, can deal in a bipartisan way with some very difficult issues in a very professional manner.

I will be glad to yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

I can't match the eloquence of the gentleman from Massachusetts, so I yield back

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

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during today's votes on H.R. 3085, regarding the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail; H.R. 3496, the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act; and H.R. 3729, the Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act.

Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of each bill.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing the importance of America's longstanding free trade policies and the many benefits of direct foreign investment in our country, I commend to the attention of my colleagues this excellent Wall Street Journal piece by Douglas Holtz- Eakin.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin rightly notes that congressional overreaction in the area of CFIUS reform would do great harm to our economy and result in protectionist retaliation by our trading partners.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jul. 13, 2006]

You Can't Be CFIUS

(By Douglas Holtz-Eakin)

The ongoing legislative effort to reform the Committee on

Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has suddenly

been put on the fast track. In particular, Senate Banking

Committee Chairman Richard Shelby is asking for unanimous

consent by the full Senate to vote on his bill with no debate

over whether key provisions are in the national interest.

Unfortunately, there is a big downside risk in precipitous

action.

Earlier this year, international investors looked askance

when an acquisition--the purchase by Dubai Ports World (DPW)

of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O)--

dissolved into political controversy because the deal

included terminal operations at a number of U.S. ports. Yet

even though this impasse came on the heels of heavy-handed

congressional interference in Chinese National Offshore Oil

Corporation's proposed purchase of American oil company

Unocal, hope remained that this was all a brief departure

from the U.S. tradition of open international investment.

Hope took a hit in the solar plexus last month during the

Senate debate over the U.S.-Oman free trade agreement. Sen.

Byron Dorgan objected to an obscure provision covering

``land-side aspects of port activities,'' arguing that it

would obligate the U.S. to turn over to Omani interests the

same kind of port operations that were disputed in the DPW

affair. The Oman agreement ultimately was approved by the

Senate. But the eagerness of politicians to play the DPW card

bodes ill for the future.

Congress may not appreciate what is at stake. Far from

being in continuous conflict, open capital markets and

national security support one another. A strong economy is

part of national security, and among developed economies

the U.S. has experienced uniquely strong productivity

growth in the past decade, A key ingredient for this

success has been openness to global trade in goods,

services and capital. Currently, U.S. subsidiaries of

international companies have over five million employees

and pay compensation of over $300 billion each year, or

about $60,000 per employee. The vast bulk of these

investments have come from countries belonging to the OECD

(over 90%) and a small minority is undertaken by firms

with government control.

Congressional meddling will retard foreign investment

Transactions do arise (and have arisen) in which security

consideration overwhelm their financial desirability. To

date, the CFIUS process has worked well to support well-

functioning, open capital markets with specific carve-outs

for transactions that pose a national security threat. CFIUS

did its security job, but it failed miserably in other

respects. Congress, which created the security-screening

authority with the Exon-Florio legislation nearly two decades

ago, was left too much in the dark. Suspicious of security

gaps and frustrated by its inability to exercise appropriate

oversight, Congress has seized the opportunity to revisit the

entire issue.

And therein lies a danger. While global investors watch

nervously, the Senate has raised the specter of wholesale

politicization of investment approvals--requiring notices to

governors and congressional delegations of proposed purchases

in their states; ranking countries by their cooperation in

the war on terror and nuclear nonproliferation and basing the

severity of security reviews on these published rankings;

adding bureaucratic delays for investments that don't raise

security concerns; and drawing Congress into the middle of

the review process. The potential for damage to the U.S.

investment climate is quite real.

More productive would be to drop the legislative approach

entirely. After all, what is the rush? Once our genuine

national interests are clarified, the president can take

advantage of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's 30 years of

experience in cross-border transactions and issue an improved

executive order revising the marching orders for CFIUS to

include greater transparency, improved cooperation with

Congress and improved monitoring of compliance. The Treasury

has already appointed a new deputy assistant secretary

position devoted to CFIUS reviews.

It is important to eliminate any lingering threat of

politically driven reviews that will boomerang and directly

hurt U.S. global investments. The greatest danger lies in

other countries using recent U.S. missteps as a pretext for

protectionist rules draped in the guise of national security.

Press reports indicate that China will tighten screening of

deals, and impose new curbs oil foreign acquisitions by

setting up a ministry-level committee to review controlling

stakes in strategic industries including steel and the

manufacturing of equipment for shipbuilding and power

generation. A trend toward restricted capital markets would

greatly damage the global economy, especially at a time when

multilateral trade liberalization is losing steam. It would

also directly hurt U.S. interests. To reduce this danger we

need presidential leadership, and no more interference by

Congress.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin, director of the Maurice R. Greenberg

Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign

Relations, was chief economist of the president's Council of

Economic Advisers from 2001 to 2002.