Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the official designation of my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, as Flag City USA.

Findlay's spirited celebration of Flag Day dates back to 1968, when an area businessman shared his passion for Old Glory with the community. John B. Cooke, a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, determined that every household in Findlay should display the flag on June 14. Speaking to industry and community groups throughout Findlay in support of this idea, he spearheaded a successful effort to purchase 14,000 flags. Area Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and Camp Fire Girls distributed these flags to area households and businesses.

My predecessor in Congress and former boss, Jackson Betts, recognized this achievement in a speech to the House on June 12, 1968. ``The strong patriotism of residents of my district,'' he said, ``has rarely been better exhibited than the present project which will make Findlay, Ohio, Flag City USA on June 14, 1968.'' Congressman Betts also contributed a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol to Findlay's Flag Day display.

The event was heralded in the House by my immediate predecessor in Congress, Tennyson Guyer. On May 7, 1974, Congressman Guyer introduced a joint resolution to designate Findlay as Flag City USA, citing the 1968 Flag Day event and the dedication of a plaque in Findlay to our armed forces on that day. This Friday, May 7, I will join my constituents at an event in Findlay hosted by the Hancock/Flag City Heritage Commission to commemorate the 30th anniversary of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Flag City know that Old Glory is far more than a piece of cloth. This point was most clearly illustrated in 1989, after the Supreme Court upheld flag burning as a protected act. More than 2,000 area residents gathered in Findlay's Dorney Plaza to celebrate our flag end express their strong opposition to this ruling. I was proud to join them at this event, where they presented me with a petition containing more than 5,000 signatures objecting to the Court's act.

Our flag has never gone out of fashion in Findlay, but the post- September 11 era has brought even more poignancy to the banners readily seen throughout our city. They remind us of the debt we owe to the brave men and women who fight in defense of our freedom--both those protecting our homeland domestically and those engaged on our behalf across the globe.

As I go to work each day and see Old Glory flying over the Capitol dome, I reflect on our enduring freedoms celebrated each day in Findlay and in towns and villages throughout the nation. Our flag remains the most visible symbol of our nation and of the liberties we have too often taken for granted. It is a unifying sign in times of peace and war, renewing pride in America and continued hope for our future.

It has been three decades since we were officially named Flag City USA, but Findlay's spirit of patriotism has shined brightly throughout its history. I salute the hard work of the Hancock/Flag City Heritage Commission for coordinating this commemoration, and thank all of the fine citizens of our community who maintain the pride of Flag City USA. They remind us that ours is the greatest nation on earth, and that our city is brimming with the American spirit.

Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Cervical Cancer Screening Month in January, I would like to bring attention to the tremendous opportunity our country has to make cervical cancer the first real victory in the war on cancer. For the first time in over 50 years, we have a new screening approach that offers great hope for finally eliminating cervical cancer. We must seize this opportunity by ensuring that all women have access to the best tests available.

Worldwide, cervical cancer is the second most-common cancer among women. Approximately 470,000 women are afflicted and 230,000 die each year, according to the World Health Organization. In the United States, incidence and deaths from cervical cancer have decreased by almost half since the early 1970s, largely due to widespread screening with the Pap test, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. However, research shows that cervical cancer rates have remained steady for the past few years. According to the American Cancer Society, over 10,500 American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year and 3,900 will die.

No American woman, however, should die of cervical cancer because it is nearly 100 percent preventable. It is a slow-developing disease that can usually be treated easily before abnormal cells develop into cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, when detected at an early stage, cervical cancer has one of the highest 5-year survival rates of all cancers. The key to prevention and successful outcomes is to screen women early using the best screening approaches possible.

While the Pap test has gone a long way toward reducing cervical cancer rates, it is not perfect. It relies upon a visual examination of cervical cells, and errors in collecting the cells or interpreting them can lead to false-negative results. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the accuracy of the conventional Pap smear at identifying women with cervical cancer or precancerous conditions was only 51 percent. Newer, improved Pap tests bring that accuracy up to a range of 61 percent to 95 percent, depending upon the study cited.

While imperfect, the Pap test has been so successful to date largely because it is done with high frequency. If cervical cancer or its precursors are missed in one screening round, they are likely to be detected in a subsequent screening round. At the same time, women who receive ``false-positive'' results from the Pap test usually undergo necessary follow-up Pap tests or other procedures.

We know that a virus, human papillomavirus, (HPV) is the cause of cervical cancer. Studies show that it is found in 99.7% of cervical cancers and must be present for the disease to develop. Most people will be infected with HPV at some point in their lives, but their body's immune system will clear the virus without any noticeable symptoms. However, persistent infection over several years with high- risk types of HPV can lead to cervical cancer in women. Persistent HPV infections are more likely to be found in women aged 30 and older.

In 2003, a DNA test for HPV was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for routine screening in women aged 30 and over in conjunction with a Pap test. Numerous studies show that adding an HPV test to a Pap test can increase to almost 100 percent the ability to identify women with cervical cancer or precursor conditions. Additionally, HPV testing gives clinicians important information: the ability to identify which women are at increased risk of cervical cancer and who should therefore be monitored more closely to ensure that cervical cancer is not missed. Women who test negative with both tests can be better reassured, while reducing their need for unnecessary, invasive exams.

Since its approval last year by the FDA, HPV testing has gained rapid acceptance in the healthcare community. Already, leading medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Cancer Society and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, have updated their screening guidelines to include HPV testing in routine screening for women aged 30 and over.

These groups' guidelines recommend that, because HPV testing is so sensitive and because cervical cancer develops so slowly, that women can be safely screened with the combination of a Pap test and an HPV test every three years. Research shows that this can also result in lower long-term costs. With this approach, however, it is important that we not confuse infrequent cervical cancer screening with infrequent gynecologic visits. This essential annual exam also screens for such conditions as breast cancer, hypertension, osteoporosis and STDs. For many women, the gynecologic exam is their only opportunity each year for routine, preventive medical care.

Major private insurers now reimburse for HPV testing as well as covering a woman's annual gynecologic exam. These include Aetna, Cigna and many Blue Cross Blue Shield plans. Last month, Kaiser Permanente, the nation's leading health maintenance organization, announced that its largest region will now offer HPV testing, along with a Pap test, as standard-of-care cervical cancer screening for all women aged 30 and over. Earlier this month, the nation's largest women's health practice in the country also announced that it will offer HPV testing to all of its patients who are 30 and over as part of their routine cervical cancer screening program.

As the private healthcare system brings newer and better technology to women, we must make sure that all women have access to these advanced screening techniques. All women deserve to benefit from the most effective screening technologies available. Having advanced testing technology is the first step in eliminating cervical cancer.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. OXLEY: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 1914. A

bill to provide for the issuance of a coin to commemorate the

400th anniversary of the Jamestown settlement (Rept. 108-472

Pt. 1); referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for a

period ending not later than July 6, 2004, for consideration

of such provisions of the bill as fall within the

jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(s), rule

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 3550, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (TEA-LU).

In my congressional district, the rural highways that served our Nation for decades can no longer sustain the increasing numbers of cars, semis, and other vehicles that use them every day. Many of these roads cannot meet the expanding needs of the communities and growing economies that they serve. U.S. Route 30, the prime east-west truck route in my district, continues to exemplify this problem.

As the chief alternative to the Ohio Turnpike and Interstate 70, Route 30 has seen drastic increases in truck traffic over the years-- more than 63 percent in the last decade alone. This has led to a tragic number of fatal accidents on the narrow two-lane segments of this road. Obviously, the need for a four-lane upgrade has never been more crucial.

Six years ago, as part of TEA-21, I was able to secure more than $11 million for the purchase of right-of-ways for the Route 30 modernization throughout my congressional district. Since then, I have been honored to join my constituents at a groundbreaking ceremony in Crestline and a ribbon-cutting ceremony near Beaverdam to mark further progress on this lifesaving project, for which they have been waiting for more than four decades. Construction work continues between Upper Sandusky and Mansfield, with completion of the various upgraded segments slated for later this year. I'm grateful that TEA-LU will provide an additional $10 million in direct funding for continued Route 30 construction from State Route 235 in Hancock County to the west end of the Upper Sandusky bypass in Wyandot County, bringing much-needed relief to those who drive and live near this major highway.

I'm also pleased that the bill provides $2.3 million to continue U.S. Route 68 bypass construction efforts in Urbana. In 1958, the State of Ohio launched this project to connect Interstate 70 to U.S. Route 33 west of Columbus, purchasing significant parcels of land for the new road. Little progress has been made to date, though, hampering the ability of local officials to promote and develop the area west of the city. This bill will advance the second phase of the overall project by providing needed design and right-of-way funds.

In accord with TEA-LU's expansion of rail/highway crossing safety programs, I am grateful to the Committee for including important rail grade separation projects in the reauthorization. In the city of Lima, the construction of new grade separations will alleviate the potential dangers that arise when stopped trains cut off an entire sector of the populace from emergency services. A similar project in Urbana will allow for the rehabilitation of the rail bridge over U.S. Route 36.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the stalwart leadership and commitment of Chairmen Don Young and Tom Petri in setting a course toward meeting our nation's growing transportation needs. I also salute the continuing hard work of Steve LaTourette and Bob Ney in securing the best possible rate of return for Ohio and other donor states to the Highway Trust Fund. As we move to conference, their efforts in support of highway funding equity and fixing the ethanol tax penalty will help our state to complete Route 30, Route 68, and many vital infrastructure projects that have been on the shelf for years due to lack of funding. I look forward to working with them and with our outstanding senators, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich, to ensure that our state and nation have the best and most modern transportation systems in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I was in constituent meetings in my congressional district on Monday, March 29, 2004. As such, I was absent from the House floor during the rollcall votes on H.R. 2584, providing for the conveyance of a decommissioned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship to the Utrok Atoll local government, and H.R. 3723, the Vaughn Gross Post Office Building Designation Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3786, the ``Bureau of Engraving and Printing Security Printing Act of 2004.''

Mr. Speaker, it is rare when the Members of this body can do something that is good for the country, good for the world, bad for nobody except crooks and terrorists and cost U.S. taxpayers nothing. This is one of those occasions.

Mr. Speaker, by approving this legislation, which would allow the Treasury Department to print currency and security documents such as passports or stock certificates for foreign governments, Members of the House will be voting to help strengthen the economies of friendly smaller nations and cutting the opportunities fraud and identity theft worldwide. Further, should the Treasury Department print any such documents, the work would be done on a fully reimbursable basis while allowing our expert engravers and printers at Treasury to refine their craft by working on anti-counterfeiting techniques that are not yet ready for the high-volume production necessary for U.S. documents but which with refinement someday may find their way to U.S. security documents or currency.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is similar to bills introduced at the request of both this and the previous Administration, which was broadly and bipartisanly approved in this chamber in several recent Congresses. That it never has been considered in the other body is a shame--the Treasury was unable to participate in producing new currency for Iraq that removed the face of the dictator, Saddam Hussein.

No work authorized under this legislation could be performed if doing so would interfere with the Treasury's job of providing currency and other security documents for the U.S. or if such work would not be in full harmony with U.S. foreign-policy objectives. Further, the bill does not prevent foreign nations from sending such printing to a U.S.- based private-sector printer, although such printing is usually done by government printers in larger nations.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. It deserves our full support, and I recommend its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2993, the ``District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act,'' and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how fond the American people are of the 50- State quarter program that began in 1999. It has proved popular with collectors, of course, and it has caused all Americans to look at the change in their pockets or their purses in a new light. It has been an invaluable aid in teaching about the unique nature of each state.

All Members salute the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, for his foresight in authoring that legislation. Today we consider a completely separate program, one that is modeled on, but is not part of the State quarter program. Instead of honoring five States a year for a decade, this program will issue six different quarters, for the District of Columbia and the five territories, all in a single year.

Surely, the District of Columbia and the five territories will benefit in similar fashion as the states have. I think this program will be of particular benefit regarding the territories, which are not as well-known, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, of Guam and the United States Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

I have learned a lot about the territories from previous debates on similar legislation in previous Congresses, Mr. Speaker, and I think this legislation will be educational as well.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has passed the House in a number of Congresses, passing by both recorded and voice votes. I know of no objection to it, and I urge all Members to support its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 254, a bill to make certain changes to the agreement between the United States and Mexico concerning the North American Development Bank (NAD Bank).

I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership and commitment to this important legislation. The legislation is important because it requires the U.S. representatives to the NAD Bank to agree to changes which will make the institution more effective in financing environmental infrastructure projects along the U.S./Mexico border. The legislation passed the House once already and it is my pleasure to support it again.

This legislation is needed in order to make two changes to the charter agreement before the NAD Bank can commence operations. First, the NAD Bank would be able to make grants and non-market rate loans for environmental infrastructure projects along the border out of its paid- in capital resources with the approval of its Board. Currently, the NAD Bank can only finance market rate loans.

Second, the legislation limits the amount of grants that can be provided to support any one project. This limitation is important in order to ensure that the NAD Bank does not run out of money by using exclusively grants for a small number of projects. It is a reasonable limitation that should protect the Bank's ability to support a wide range of projects through grants as well as concessional and market- rate lending.

I am confident that the congressional oversight authority established in this legislation will provide Congress with an on-going opportunity to review the NAD Bank's work. H.R. 254 includes an annual reporting requirement on the subject of the NAD Bank by the Secretary of the Treasury to both the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It also includes different sense of the Congress provisions regarding the water conservation needs of the U.S. border regions.

Establishment of the NAD Bank reflects the United States' continued commitment to its partner in the first regional free trade agreement of the modern era. The economies of Mexico and the United States are increasingly integrated. As our two economies grow together, the growing number of people living in the border areas between Mexico and the United States will increasingly share similar priorities regarding development of that border in an environmentally sensitive manner. Establishment of the NAD Bank will help ensure that projects consistent with the goals will have an opportunity to receive funding, benefiting both the United States and Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, this is straightforward legislation that enjoys broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1375 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor today H.R. 1375, bipartisan legislation making a number of changes to Federal banking, thrift, and credit union laws that will enable these sectors of the financial services industry to operate more productively and provide a higher level of service to their customers.

I want to begin by recognizing the efforts of the principal sponsor of this legislation, a valued member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), as well as her primary democratic cosponsor, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross). In putting together this legislation, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the committee consulted extensively with the Federal banking and credit union regulators, as well as affected private sector parties, to fashion a package that, by removing unneeded or outdated legal restrictions, helps to maintain the competitive standing of the U.S. banking and financial services system that has no equal in the world.

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, President Bush and this Congress have called upon the financial services industry to play a major role in the effort to starve al Qaeda and like-minded organizations of the funds they need to inflict terror on the civilized world. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act enacted shortly after the September 11 attacks imposes a host of new mandates and due diligence requirements on financial institutions designed to identify and block the movement of terrorist funds through the global financial system. Committee on Financial Services has conducted extensive oversight on the implementation of title III, and I think I speak for many members of the committee in applauding the seriousness and sense of commitment with which the financial services industry has gone about fulfilling the front-line responsibilities it has been asked to assume in the financial war against terrorism.

Shouldering these burdens is not without significant costs, of course. The changes made by the PATRIOT Act require banks and other depository institutions to devote significant compliance resources to monitoring and examining transactions, verifying the identities of new customers, and responding to inquiries by law enforcement authorities seeking to track terrorist finances through the U.S. banking system. Both as a way of offsetting these new expenses and freeing institutions to devote sufficient resources to PATRIOT Act compliance and serving their customers, the committee began during the last Congress to try to identify regulatory or statutory requirements that could have outlived their useful purpose and could be eliminated without any adverse affects on the safety and soundness of the banking system or on basic consumer protections. H.R. 1375 is the end result of that process.

The legislation, which enjoyed bipartisan support in the Committee on Financial Services, reflects significant contributions from several members of the committee. For example, the bill incorporates legislation authored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) which would permit credit unions to offer check-cashing and wire transfer services to individuals who are not members of the credit union, but are within its field of membership, thereby promoting alternative sources of banking services for many low- and moderate-income Americans. An important amendment offered in committee by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) would greatly improve coordination between home and host State supervisors of State-chartered banks that operate branches in multiple States.

I also want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their hard work in crafting a compromise on an issue that was the subject of spirited debate in the committee: the extent to which certain commercially owned industrial loan companies, which are insured depository institutions chartered in a handful of States, should be permitted to exercise the new branching authority provided for in section 401 of the bill. I will offer a manager's amendment later today that incorporates the good work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the ranking member on this difficult issue.

Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for quarterbacking this effort in his subcommittee and helping to shepherd it through the full committee.

Thanks to hard work of the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ross) and many other members of our committee, the House will have an opportunity to vote later today on legislation that improves the productivity and efficiency of our financial services industry. A vote for this bill is a vote to allow banks, thrifts, and credit unions to channel their resources away from complying with unneeded regulatory mandates and toward making loans and providing other financial products and services to consumers and to their small business customers, which can only help fuel economic growth in local communities across this country.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the lead sponsor of this important legislation.

(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the distinguished former chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the outstanding gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), a valued member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to also recognize the leadership of the gentleman from Arkansas for being the lead Democrat sponsor on this legislation. We appreciate his hard work on this endeavor.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would simply say this has been a very good debate and, in fact, a great representation of the legislative process at work. We have had a lot of strong opinions, particularly on the ILC issue. But overall this is an attempt to provide regulatory relief to institutions who have undertaken a tremendous burden, particularly under the PATRIOT Act strictures. For that reason, this bill needs to go forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes certain technical and conforming changes to the bill requested by the Federal financial regulators, deletes sections from the bill reported by the Committee on Financial Services that have been superseded by other legislative or judicial developments, and, most importantly, incorporates compromise language developed by two highly respected members of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), limiting the scope of the de novo branching authority provided for in section 401 of the bill.

As reported by the Committee on Financial Services, section 401 eliminates current statutory restrictions on banks' ability to branch across State lines. When the committee marked up H.R. 1375, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and other Members expressed concerns about extending this de novo branching authority to industrial loan companies, or ILCs, that are owned by commercial companies, such as retailers and auto manufacturers. Since the markup, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) have worked together to develop language that would permit ILCs owned by financial firms to avail themselves of the new de novo branching authority while prohibiting branching by ILCs owned by nonfinancial or commercial firms that did not become insured depositories until after a grandfather date specified in the amendment.

Like any good compromise, the Gillmor-Frank amendment does not embody total consensus. There are those in this body who believe we should place no restrictions on the activities of ILCs that do not also apply to other depository institutions and those on the other hand who feel equally strongly that the ILC charter has been expanded beyond its original purpose and should be scaled back. Indeed, we have heard strong debate on that during general debate. On the whole, I believe that the Gillmor-Frank language strikes a reasonable compromise on a very difficult issue, and I am pleased to include it in this manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed.

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

We are prepared to accept the amendment, and I say to the gentlewoman from California, good work on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of H.R. 1375, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Chairman, like most Americans, I am deeply disturbed by the decline of basic decency on our public airwaves. A new low was probably reached during the half-time show of the recent Super Bowl. It's incredible that parents should have to monitor the content of a football game to protect their children. The groundswell for change has been gathering for some time now. In the last few months alone, I have received more than one thousand constituent letters expressing concern about profanity and indecency on the airwaves. The message has been received, loud and clear.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. The bill holds violating stations accountable for trashing our precious public airwaves and hits purveyors where it matters the most, in the wallet. Currently, an FCC indecency violation carries a maximum $27,500 fine, which hardly threatens a multi-million dollar station. This bill increases the fine to a more fitting $500,000. Repeat violators will find themselves on a very long and expensive trip. The FCC will also be given authority to hold hearings on stripping the licenses of repeat offenders.

It's important that we act because even a small blow struck for decency makes a difference. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the Child Online Protection Act, which I helped to write. This is a law we approved to prevent kids from being exposed to Internet pornography. I have also been working with my Democrat colleague Charles Gonzalez on the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. It's long past time that attitudes about decency started changing in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to help observe a landmark anniversary for an institution that sustains the jobs of thousands of Americans. February 12, 2004, marked the 70th anniversary of the Export-Import Bank, the official export credit agency of the United States. The Bank will have a celebration of this anniversary in the near future. The Export-Import Bank is an independent U.S. Government agency that creates and sustains American jobs by providing direct loans to buyers of U.S. exports, guarantees to commercial loans to buyers of U.S. products, and insurance products which greatly benefit short-term small business sales.

In an ideal world, export contracts would be won or lost on the basis of the cost and quality of the products being sold. However, as long as foreign export credit agencies provide concessionary financing to companies from their countries, the Export-Import Bank of the United States must ``level the playing field'' by protecting American exporters. The Export-Import Bank fills the necessary role of creating and sustaining American jobs here in the United States, where they are sorely needed.

Since its founding in 1934, the Export-Import Bank has supported over $330 billion of U.S. exports from businesses large and small. In FY 2003, it supported $14.3 billion in exports. Currently, about 85 percent of Export-Import transactions directly benefit small businesses. This amounts to almost 20 percent of the Bank's financings.

The Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act was signed into law on June 14, 2002 (Public Law No. 107-189). This Act reauthorized the Export-Import Bank through 2006 and made other appropriate changes to the charter of the Bank. The House Financial Services Committee continues to conduct oversight over the implementation of this Act.

Again, I extend my congratulations to the Export-Import Bank on its 70th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, during the lengthy debate over campaign finance reform, some of us warned that appearances can be deceiving. The McCain-Feingold bill was supposed to empower ordinary voters, who were evidently thought incapable of exercising their own reason during election campaigns. The power shift has actually been to the unelected media and unaccountable special interest groups, mostly liberal, who have concentrated their control over what voters see and hear. Other voices have been muzzled, which is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia called the failure to strike down the law ``a sad day for freedom of speech.''

I commend to your attention this George Will column published in the Washington Post on February 22.

Rendering Politics Speechless

(By George F. Will)

Two years ago President Bush, who had called it

unconstitutional, signed the McCain-Feingold bill--furtively,

at 8 a.m. in the Oval Office. The law expanded government

restrictions on political speech, ostensibly to combat

corruption or the ``appearance'' thereof. Bush probably

signed it partly because the White House, thinking corruptly

or appearing to do so, saw reelection advantage in this

fiddling with the First Amendment.

And partly because the nation's newspaper editorial writers

nearly unanimous in praise of McCain-Feingold. The

editorialists' advocacy of McCain-Feingold could appear

corrupt: The bill increases the political influence of

unregulated newspaper editorializing relative to increasingly

restricted rival voices (parties, candidates and their

financial supporters).

Last December the Supreme Court found no serious

constitutional infirmity in the law because, although the

Constitution says Congress shall make ``no law'' abridging

freedom of speech, Congress has broad latitude to combat

corruption or its appearance. There is the appearance of

corruption when a legislator's views attract contributions

from like-minded people, and then he acts in accordance with

his and their views.

Today McCain-Feingold itself does not just appear to be

corrupting. It is demonstrably and comprehensively so.

Most campaign money is spent on speech--disseminating

ideas, primarily by broadcasting. McCain-Feingold's stated

premise was that there is ``too much'' money in politics--

hence, it follows, too much speech. McCain-Feingold's

prudently unstated premise was that legislators know--and

should legislate--the correct quantity of speech about

themselves, the proper times for it and certain restrictions

on the content of it.

Such legislating may not be corrupt, but it might appear

so. And appearances are the essence of ethics, as understood

by Washington's ethics industry.

Perhaps the White House embraced McCain-Feingold because it

doubled to $2,000 the permissible ceiling on ``hard money''

contributions crucial to the president's reelection campaign.

Also, Republican national committees do better than their

Democratic counterparts at raising smaller hard-dollar

contributions.

Supposedly, the principal purpose of McCain-Feingold was to

ban large ``soft money'' contributions to the parties

ostensibly for ``party-building'' purposes. The delusional

assumption of many McCain-Feingold enthusiasts was that when

such contributions were banned, the people who had been eager

to exert political influence by such contributions would say

``Oh, well'' and spend their money instead on high-definition

televisions. Or something.

Actually, McCain-Feingold was moral grandstanding by many

liberals who had no intention of abiding by its spirit--or

its letter, for that matter--any more than they had abided by

existing campaign finance law. To compensate for Republican

advantages in raising strictly limited hard dollars,

Democrats quickly formed a slew of committees technically

disconnected from the party but allowed to receive unlimited

soft dollars.

Allowed, that is, as long as the committees do not spend

money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for

federal office.'' Under McCain-Feingold, and for 30 years

before it, entities that raise and spend money for that

purpose are subject to hard-dollar limits.

McCain-Feingold's ban on large soft-money contributions to

political parties has spawned many groups, mostly liberal

ones, to receive and spend such contributions as surrogates

for the parties--groups such as America Coming Together.

Ellen Malcolm, ACT's president, says her group aims to

increase voter turnout in 17 states crucial to the

presidential election in order ``to beat George Bush.''

It appears that she intends to influence a federal

election. Nothing wrong with that. Citizens are supposed to

do that. But liberals have been the prime movers in enacting

laws against doing so with soft money, which organizations

such as ACT exist to receive.

ACT says it ``will coordinate with progressive

organizations.'' But it had better not coordinate with the

Democratic Party or candidates. There would be nothing

morally wrong with such coordination. It should be a

fundamental right--indeed, a civic virtue--for groups such as

ACT to coordinate with like-minded political parties. But

``coordination'' is criminal under McCain-Feingold.

House Republicans are now trying to subpoena records of

these Democratic groups, clearly hoping to have a chilling

effect on them. This is disgusting--but Democrats deserve it

because they have entangled America's core liberty, political

speech, in an ever-thickening web of regulations they now are

evading.

On Wednesday the Federal Election Commission, which is now

in charge of deciding what speech is legal under McCain-

Feingold and Supreme Court ambiguities, issued a ruling--many

more to follow--of exquisite opacity. The chairman of the

Republican National Committee said it ``effectively shuts

down'' groups such as ACT and others. A spokesman for ACT

cheerily said the group would continue ``to operate robustly

and effectively.'' It is a constitutional obscenity that no

one now knows--or, pending many more FEC and court rulings,

can know--what political speech is legal in this nation where

the First Amendment is no longer even pertinent to protecting

such speech.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of S. 1920, and the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

As you know, the gentleman's amendment consists of the text of H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2003. That bill was additionally referred to the Committee on Financial Services, which I chair, based on its jurisdiction over banks and banking, credit, and securities and exchanges.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is vitally important to the Nation. In particular, those provisions addressing the ``netting'' of financial contracts are an important part of ensuring that our economic recovery continues, as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Alan Greenspan, has said time and time again.

Accordingly, I wholeheartedly support any effort to move this legislation forward to enactment. For the record, I am submitting an exchange of letters between the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and myself regarding H.R. 975. I appreciate his willingness

to work constructively with the Committee on Financial Services and look forward to working with him to achieve enactment of these important reforms.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2003.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

Washington, DC.

Dear Jim: On March 12, 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary

ordered reported H.R. 975, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention

and Consumer Protection Act of 2003. As you know, the

Committee on Financial Services was granted an additional

referral upon the bill's introduction pursuant to the

Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the

House of Representatives over banks and banking, credit, and

securities and exchanges.

Because of your willingness to consult with the Committee

on Financial Services regarding this matter, your continuing

support for our requested changes, and the need to move this

legislation expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the

bill by the Financial Services Committee. By agreeing to

waive its consideration of the bill, the Financial Services

Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 975. In

addition, the Committee on Financial Services reserves its

authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill

that are within the Financial Services Committee's

jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be

convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to

support any request by the Committee on Financial Services

for conferees on H.R. 975 or related legislation.

I request that you include this letter and your response as

part of your committee's report on the bill and the

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation

on the House floor.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman.