Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a recent column by Thomas L. Friedman, which offers acute insights into the Dubai Ports World controversy. Mr. Friedman removes politics from the debate and presents a clear and concise evaluation of the issue.

I strongly recommend Mr. Friedman's column to my colleagues.

[From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2006]

War of the Worlds

(By Thomas L. Friedman)

Since 9/11, whenever the Bush team has found itself in

political trouble, it has played the national security card

against Democrats. It has worked so well that Karl Rove, in a

recent speech to the Republican National Committee, made it a

campaign theme for 2006.

He said America today faces ``a ruthless enemy'' and

therefore needs ``a commander in chief and a Congress who

understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the

moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the

Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said

for many Democrats.''

Mr. Rove added: ``Republicans have a post-9/ll worldview,

and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't

make them unpatriotic--not at all. But it does make them

wrong--deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.''

I particularly like the line ``that doesn't make them

unpatriotic,'' when that was exactly the political slur Mr.

Rove was trying to implant.

So I understand why Democrats were eager to turn the soft-

on-terrorism card back on President Bush when it was revealed

that P&O, the navigation company based in London--which has

been managing the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore,

New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia--had been bought by Dubai

Ports World, a company owned by the Dubai monarchy in the

United Arab Emirates, an Arab Gulf state, and that the Bush

team had approved the Dubai takeover of the U.S. port

operations.

I also understand why many Republicans are now running away

from the administration. They know that if they don't

distance

themselves from Mr. Bush, some Democrats are going to play

this very evocative, very visual ``giving away our ports to

the Arabs'' card against them in the coming elections. Yes,

you reap what you sow.

But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in

which the president now finds himself, I will not join this

feeding frenzy. On the pure merits of this case, the

president is right. The port deal should go ahead. Congress

should focus on the NSA wiretapping.

Not this.

As a country, we must not go down this road of global

ethnic profiling --looking for Arabs under our beds the way

we once looked for commies. If we do--if America, the world's

beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road--we

will take the rest of the world with us. We will sow the wind

and we will reap the whirlwind.

If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the

critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add,

borderline racist. Many U.S. ports are run today by

foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard still controls

all aspects of port security, entry and exits; the U.S.

Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the

containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.

The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of

ships, making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in

the most cost-effective manner. As my colleague David E.

Sanger reported: ``Among the many problems at American ports,

said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is

an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign

Relations, `who owns the management contract ranks near the

very bottom.' ''

What ranks much higher for me is the terrible trend

emerging in the world today: Sunnis attacking Shiite mosques

in Iraq, and vice versa. Danish caricatures of the Prophet

Muhammad, and violent Muslim protests, including Muslims

killing Christians in Nigeria and then Christians killing

Muslims. And today's Washington Post story about how some

overzealous, security-obsessed U.S. consul in India has

created a huge diplomatic flap--on the eve of Mr. Bush's

first visit to India--by denying one of India's most

respected scientists a visa to America on the grounds that

his knowledge of chemistry might be a threat. The U.S.

embassy in New Delhi has apologized.

My point is simple: the world is drifting dangerously

toward a widespread religious and sectarian cleavage--the

likes of which we have not seen for a long, long time. The

only country with the power to stem this toxic trend is

America.

People across the world still look to our example of

pluralism, which is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we

go down the road of pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the

whole world will go Dark Ages.

There is a poison loose today, and America--America at its

best--is the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we

stand by our principles of free trade and welcome the world

to do business in our land, as long as there is no security

threat. If we start exporting fear instead of hope, we are

going to import everyone else's fears right back. That is not

a world you want for your kids.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2872, the ``Louis Braille Bicentennial--Braille Literacy Commemorative Coin Act,'' introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Ney.

Mr. Speaker, I confess I learned something reading this legislation. All of us know some blind people, and all of us, of course, see Braille writing in elevators and elsewhere as we move through our daily lives.

But sitting down and reading the story of the courage and the intelligence it must have taken for a young blind man 200 years ago in France to fight for an education for himself when many sighted kids his age weren't getting even a high school education, is remarkable. And doing it when there were very few books printed for the blind--those only with giant embossed letters--must have been excruciatingly slow and taken a huge amount of self-discipline. To have discovered and modified a method of communication used by the Army into something that could easily be reproduced and read--and more importantly written by the blind, which was not really the case with those giant embossed letters--was a truly revolutionary breakthrough.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, long before the amazing technology that we all take for granted, the blind who were taught to read and write Braille were able to live normal lives and participate fully in society. Still, and this is something else I learned, despite all the independence that reading and writing Braille confers on the blind, only about 10 percent of blind children are taught Braille. Thus, I support the provision in the bill that devotes income from surcharges on the sale of these coins to a Braille Literacy Program operated by the National Federation of the Blind. And I think it is important to note that the silver dollar coins that would be produced under this bill would all bear, on their reverse, a full-sized Braille abbreviation for Braille--the raised dots that form the letters BRL.

Mr. Speaker, this commemorative coin program, like all those that pass through the Financial Services Committee, proceeds at no cost to the taxpayer and requires the beneficiary, in this case the NFB, to raise from private sources an amount equal to or greater than the amount of surcharge income that will be received, and also demands strict post-disbursement audit process to ensure that the funds are used for their statutorily intended purpose. In this case, I have no doubt that the NFB can raise the matching funds and will use the income to really very effectively raise the profile of Braille literacy.

And so, Mr. Speaker, noting that 302 Members of the House have co- sponsored this bill, I urge its immediate passage.

I also submit for the Record the following exchange of correspondence:

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2006.

Hon. William M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: I am writing concerning H.R. 2872,

the ``Louis Braille Bicentennial-Braille Literacy

Commemorative Coin Act,'' which was introduced in the House

and referred to the Committee on Financial Services on June

13, 2005. It is my expectation that this bill be scheduled

for floor consideration in the near future.

As you know, section 7 of the bill establishes a surcharge

for the sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the

bill. I acknowledge your committee's jurisdictional interest

in such surcharges as revenue matters. However, I request

that your committee forego action on H.R. 2872 in order to

allow the bill to come to the floor expeditiously. I

appreciate your cooperation in so doing, and agree that your

decision to forego further action on this bill will not

prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I

would support your request for conferees on those provisions

within your jurisdiction should this bill be the subject of a

House-Senate conference.

I will include a copy of this letter and your response in

the Congressional Record when this bill is considered by the

House. Thank you again for your assistance.

Yours truly,

Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, they never lost a bomber.

The African-American fighter pilots we know today as the Tuskegee Airmen, flew more than 15,000 sorties, mostly bomber-support missions, over North Africa, Sicily and Europe during World War II. They downed roughly 500 enemy aircraft, and sank a destroyer--and they destroyed an awful lot of prejudice in the process.

It wasn't easy. More than 10 percent--66--were killed; 32 were downed and became prisoners of war. But all thousand or so who were trained at Moton Field near the old Tuskegee College in Alabama, now Tuskegee University, were heroes, whether or not they were among the 450 or so who saw combat duty. So were the roughly 12 black men and women who served as mechanics or other support crew for each pilot, and their black comrades who flew in medium bombers during the war.

Mr. Speaker, no one--man or woman, adults or the near-child drummer boys of the Civil and Revolutionary Wars--no one who goes to war in the defense of this country and the liberty for which it stands can be described as anything but valiant and courageous. But usually, Mr. Speaker, the only fight these heroes have is with the enemy.

The trailblazers of the first class of 13, all college grads and pilots, who went through fighter pilot training at Moton Field in the summer of 1941, and all who came after them, also had to fight prejudice. They beat that enemy as soundly as they beat the Axis, and it was not long after the war that the armed services of this country became integrated.

While the brave Tuskegee Airmen were recognized by their comrades in arms, and respected and feared by enemy pilots, they were relatively unknown after the war until the formation in 1972 of the Tuskegee Airmen Inc. Today, besides the scholarship fund it sponsors, there are several memorials to the Airmen, including one at the Air Force Museum at Dayton in my home State of Ohio. Today, we will approve legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to these brave men as a group, and give the medal to the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor Congress bestows. It has gone to military heroes, including General George Washington, and heroes of the fight against prejudice. Thus, it is only fitting--and long overdue--that we recognize the Tuskegee Airmen in this manner, and do so during Black History Month.

It is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I rise in strong support of H.R. 1259, introduced by the gentleman from New York, that would award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen, and ask for its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, some folks may wonder why I am up here with the distinguished delegation from the Pittsburgh area, and that deserves some explanation.

The fine young quarterback for the Steelers, who became the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl, Ben Roethlisberger, is from my hometown of Findlay and also a graduate of Miami University, my alma mater, the cradle of coaches. And we are very proud of Ben's accomplishments, not only what he has meant to Findlay and our community and to the State of Ohio, Miami University, and the great record that he had at Miami, but, of course, now with Pittsburgh. There are a lot of Cleveland Browns fans who are very frustrated about the fact that the Browns chose one before Pittsburgh, the Browns chose somebody else besides the native son of Ohio, and the winner of that, of course, was Pittsburgh and the Steelers, and they stand to gain by winning a fantastic Super Bowl.

So I want to thank my good friend Congressman Murphy for adding me as a cosponsor to this legislation, making me part of this great celebration, and truly honor this fine young man who is such a great role model for the kids in

Findlay and Pittsburgh and really all over the country to show that a classy young guy at 23 can lead a distinguished team to a Super Bowl victory. It is an honor to be here and to bask in the glory, really, of the team, the coaching staff, the Rooney family, and, of course, the great contribution that this 23-year-old young man from Findlay, Ohio and Miami University made, Ben Roethlisberger. Congratulations to all.

Mr. Speaker, I have no particular problem with dealing with former Member/lobbyists on the floor of the House. This is where we do our business. The rule frankly has always been that there is no lobbying on the floor of the House. And, frankly, in 24 plus years here, I have never had that experience, even since I have been committee chairman. So to some extent we are somewhat tilting at windmills.

My big concern really is what the message is in terms of Members, former Members who are lobbyists in the wellness center, as we call it. I happen to chair that, and I have been for a number of years, one of the last vestiges of bipartisanship and camaraderie in this institution that many of us share, many times with former Members who have continually been members of the wellness center and have come down and enjoyed the camaraderie, the exercise.

Not once in that time have I been lobbied, nor have I heard any complaints since I have been chairman of the wellness center about lobbying taking place. I think it is a perhaps unwritten rule. Maybe it ought to be a written rule, but to ban these distinguished former Members that we all served with on both sides of the aisle, whether it is Lee Hamilton or whether it is Jack Fields or Jack Quinn or Bill Archer, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I think really does a disservice to this institution, and I am really concerned about it.

Let us take a look at the language of this proposal. It basically says if you are a former Member/lobbyist, a Bill Archer or a Jack Fields, you are no longer welcome in the wellness center, you can just go ahead and clean out your locker. But if you are a convicted felon, and not a former Member/lobbyist, you can participate in the wellness center. It seems to me rather incongruous and rather upside down towards trying to come to grips with some of these alleged problems that are out there.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Well, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts makes a good point. I think once we start down this slippery slope it is really not in the best interests of this institution. And I think, talking to Members privately on both sides of the aisle, I think that we have clearly overreached here. I have no problem with the floor privileges, but the wellness center is a different animal.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the

Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate bill (S. 467) to extend the applicability of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

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, on the morning of September 11, 2001, this Nation suffered a series of brutal terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda's terrorists murdered thousands of innocent Americans, caused billions of dollars in damage and placed our financial markets in jeopardy. While the marketplace was ultimately able to survive the more than $30 billion loss, insurance reserves were demolished and solvency was put at risk. Insurers could not predict when another terrorist attack would take place or how damaging the next attack could be and were forced to begin to exclude terrorism coverage from commercial policies, leaving policyholders bare. The resulting lack of terrorism insurance put at risk numerous development projects and threatened our Nation's economy.

To respond to this crisis, the House Financial Services Committee immediately created the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA. A year later, the Senate finally acted and the President signed TRIA into law.

TRIA has provided a Federal backstop protecting policyholders against future catastrophic terrorist attacks. TRIA has been a resounding success in ensuring the availability of terrorism coverage for commercial policyholders.

TRIA is set to expire at the end of the year. Unfortunately, the risks from terrorism remain acute and the private markets cannot function without an appropriate government backstop. The legislation before us today, S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act, temporarily extends the terrorism risk backstop for 2 years, while increasing participation of the private sector.

As in our committee legislation, this bill raises the program trigger from $5 million to $50 million in the first year of the extension and then to $100 million for the second year, ensuring that

Federal participation will only happen for large-scale attacks.

It also increases the insurer deductibles by a reasonable amount each year and significantly increases the taxpayer payback to better protect consumers.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some frustration and sadness when I say that Members of Congress and the administration who believe that the risk of terrorism will disappear in 2 years are fooling themselves. It is my firm belief that a TRIA extension should have included some actual reforms to reinvigorate the private sector and replace our Federal program with a permanent private sector solution.

While this legislation is bereft of any reforms to build long-term protections for commercial policyholders, I am confident Congress will be forced to return to this issue before 2 years have expired. It is a sad commentary on our ability to look forward and to be creative, which I think the House legislation clearly did. It is unfortunate that our brethren in the other body saw fit to take such a narrow attitude.

I hope that the Presidential working group that is created by this legislation will examine the need to create dedicated, long-term terrorism reserves and private pooling and risk-sharing facilities to permanently protect our Nation from the economic threat of terrorism.

If such forward thinking and planning is not done as contemplated in our bill, the industry will be back at the Federal trough seeking yet another extension of this program; and make no mistake about it, whatever it is, Congress will respond.

We should give special recognition to the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), for introducing legislation developing a long-term private sector reform to strengthen the private- public sector partnership, to improve terrorism insurance for consumers.

I also applaud my colleagues Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Pryce, Mr. Davis, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Renzi, and Mr. Ferguson for their help and leadership, as well as Ranking Member Frank, Mr. Kanjorski, and Mr. Capuano for their bipartisanship cooperation and commitment to protecting our Nation.

Their leadership is proof that the House can work together to get things done for America. Too bad we did not have better cooperation from the other side. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this important and necessary legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has been one of the leaders on very important issues and chairs the oversight subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), a valuable member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say, and a lot of us have intimated this, we could do better than this that we have before us today. We did better in the House version, and I think all of our committee members know that, and I think most of the Members of the House know that. But there is a time to hold them and a time to fold them.

At this point, I would ask that the House do adopt this conference report.

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

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. 3505. A

bill to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity

for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes,

with an amendment; referred to the Committee on Judiciary for

a period ending not later than December 31, 2005, for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and the

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(1), rule X (Rept. 109-356, Pt. 1).

Ordered to be printed.

Madam Speaker, I support our action today to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act.

Within weeks after the horrendous terrorist attacks of 2001, Congress responded with the PATRIOT Act, providing our law enforcement and intelligence communities with much-needed tools to track down terrorists, sever their communications and funding networks, and prevent future attacks on our citizens.

As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, I was proud to help write the antiterrorist financing provisions of this act. Millions of dollars in terrorist assets have been frozen or seized since 9/11. We have broken up suspected terrorist financing networks, including one in my home State of Ohio. The terrorist financing tools included in the act were further supplemented by the intelligence reform legislation approved in the wake of the 9/11 Commission's report.

As a former special agent of the FBI, I know that other sections of the PATRIOT Act have proven just as vital in assisting law enforcement combat the new threat of international terrorism. I am pleased that this reauthorization makes permanent all but a few of the act's expiring provisions, but regret that the 4-year sunset for the remaining authorities was made a part of this final product. Including any sunset sends the wrong signal to our law enforcement agencies, indicating that our trust in them is incomplete at a time when their services have helped prevent further terrorist attacks. They should have our full support and every reasonable tool we can give them to help fight the global war on terror.

One of the provisions still subject to a sunset deals with the use of roving wiretaps. As one of the few Members of Congress who has conducted undercover surveillance, I can tell you now that the need for roving wiretap authority will not expire in 7 years. Tying intercept authority to an individual suspect rather than a particular communication device is simply common sense in this era of throwaway cell phones and e-mail.

Further, there is absolutely no evidence that wiretap authority or any other USA PATRIOT Act provision has been used to violate the civil liberties of Americans. Congress recognizes the delicate balance between deterring terrorist activities and preserving the freedoms we hold so dear. I know beyond a doubt that terrorists make no such distinction.

The PATRIOT Act has been a success, and we as a nation are safer for it. Its provisions are helping to put the FBI and CIA on a more equal footing with terrorists, who use every available technology to plot with impunity. The act refines our surveillance laws for the high- technology era--something that has been long overdue.

I support the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, and hope that Congress will work toward making the roving wiretap and other temporary provisions permanent.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this critical issue.

I fully support title I of the legislation, particularly sections 101 and 103. These sections reflect legislative language that the President's Working Group proposed this past November clarifying the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's anti-fraud authority, mandating the application of risk-based portfolio margining to both options and single stock futures positions, resolving issues related to the definitions of narrow-based security indexes.

I am inserting the President's Working Group's November letter which proposed this language and the accompanying report language in the Record. These provisions will enhance the liquidity and competitiveness of our capital markets, all the while preserving investor protection. These provisions also reaffirm the intent of the CFMA, that is that regulatory parity applies to options and single-stock futures, and that the SEC and the CFTC jointly regulate single-stock futures.

I fully support the application of risk-based portfolio margining not only to options and single-stock futures, as this legislation so mandates, but also to all equities. Risk-based portfolio margining more accurately reflects economic exposure to the marketplace than does the traditional strategy-based margining methodology. Today's investors often use equity options and futures positions interchangeably, and a broader portfolio margining rule would more appropriately reflect these investors' economic risk. I urge the SEC to approve rules to permit portfolio margining for all equities in the same time frame, as this legislation calls for, with respect to options and single-stock futures.

Title II authorizes the CFTC to survey the trading of natural gas contracts to deter manipulation, and we are all familiar with that language. The reasoning behind this title is to combat perceived, and I say perceived, manipulation of prices in the trading of natural gas contracts. This legislation attempts to address deep-seated factors in our energy markets, namely supply-and-demand issues. However, it does so by revamping a derivatives policy that was well-negotiated and well- settled in 2000 under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

The CFTC's General Counsel commented this past July that ``the CFTC has reviewed this natural gas market several times during the last few years and each time has concluded that the volatility had been due to fundamentals such as tight supplies and other market forces and not due to any price manipulation.'' Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has weighed in similarly, stating that high natural gas prices ``are the result of a lack of adequate liquified natural gas import facilities in the United States as well as a lack of adequate facilities abroad to produce liquified natural gas. They are not the result of weaknesses in the regulation of U.S. natural gas markets generally or futures exchanges specifically.'' And Chairman Greenspan was asked and testified such to our committee on at least two occasions.

This proposed new regulation of over-the-counter derivatives in natural gas may have unintended consequences, including detrimentally affecting the competition in our robust capital markets. I have asked my counterpart at the Committee on Agriculture to work with the Committee on Financial Services and the President's Working Group to ensure that these provisions do not upset the intent of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. The CFMA was the product of lengthy, and bipartisan congressional negotiations and reflected the President's Working Group's 1999 report.

It was decided then and reflected in the Congressional Record and most keenly in a report accompanying the CFMA by the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, one of the predecessor committees to the Committee on Financial Services, that legal certainty and regulatory relief for OTC derivatives was necessary. That committee stated that these products ``have become essential to banks' risk-management strategies. These OTC derivative markets have become central to a wide range of banking activities.''

I would like to work with the Committee on Agriculture as this legislation moves forward to ensure that the regulatory relief and legal certainty that the CFMA imposed upon the OTC derivative markets in 2000 remain in law.

Upon the introduction of this legislation last Thursday, my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member, and I sent a letter to the members of the President's Working Group requesting their views on this title. I am inserting this correspondence in the Record and will share a few of their concerns.

Treasury Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Randal Quarles stated that the provisions in title II ``could result in unintended adverse consequences and undermine the regulatory relief and legal certainty that were so carefully crafted through the CFMA of 2000. They could have a significant and negative impact on the important risk-management function that these OTC markets perform in the U.S. economy.''

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan responded that the

provisions of Title II are rather vague and could be

construed as a broad expansion of the Commodity Futures

Trading Commission's mandate. . . . The case for such a broad

expansion of the Commission's mandate simply had not been

made . . . [B]roadening recordkeeping and reporting

requirements beyond futures contracts could impose

substantial burdens on market participants that are unlikely

to be outweighed by their benefits.

CFTC Chairman Reuben Jeffery reiterated that the CFTC already ``has the necessary tools to oversee the markets it regulates.''

It is my intent that if this legislation moves forward that the views of the President's Working Group will be taken into consideration. In the event of a House-Senate conference, the Committee on Financial Services will be represented. Our conferees will take into account the intent of the CFMA and the counsel of the President's Working Group.

I thank my colleagues for their time and their work on these important issues.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned above, I include for the Record the President's Working Group's November letter with the proposed language and the accompanying report language.

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, November 3, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oxley: As Chairman of the President's Working

Group on Financial Markets (PWG) and on behalf of its

members, I am enclosing a joint PWG letter which transmits

legislative and report language that addresses the retail

foreign currency fraud issues raised by the 7th Circuit's

decision of last year in CFTC v. Zelener. The enclosed letter

also transmits legislative language to establish statutory

deadlines for the resolution of issues related to portfolio

margining and certain security indexes. The PWG will continue

to monitor the very recent events concerning Refco and its

affiliates as the facts unfold to determine whether or not

any measures may be needed to address any additional issues

that the situation raises.

Sincerely,

John W. Snow,

Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2892, a bill sponsored by my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Michael Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick's legislation is a response to the administration's request to access the growing, frequently untapped, equity that seniors have amassed in their homes. That equity, through a very successful FHA program can be accessed through Home Equity Conversion Mortgages.

The number of such loans that the FHA program can handle was capped so that HUD and Congress could determine the safety and soundness of the program. Nearly 10 years later, now we know the program is successful and this bill will ensure that the reverse mortgage program continues uninterrupted and will not place the FHA insurance fund into any risks. By removing this cap, more senior citizens will be able to use the equity in their homes to make them handicapped accessible, to access money for healthcare, or whatever needs their families have. The program also ensures that the reverse mortgage is paid back when they move or when they pass away, and the homeowner will never owe more than the house is worth.

The number of elderly persons in America continues to rise and with advances in health care and technology, seniors will certainly represent a growing number of American citizens. It is of great importance that these citizens' needs be met and addressed now and that they will have as many economic resources as possible to support themselves in the future. Reverse mortgages is a tool that will help in addressing the needs of seniors today and in the years to come.

A home represents more than just a place to live. It represents security and memories that are cherished by their owners. Part of that security can be economic security. I ask that Members of this Congress unanimously support this bill so that seniors may have the money they need without having to move from their homes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1047, the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. Speaker, it is rare in this Chamber when we can vote for legislation that is good for business, good for consumers, good for children, good for parents and good for taxpayers all at the same time. Usually we must make our best judgments on how to balance those often competing interests. At this time, however, there are a lot of winners and no losers.

The legislation we are considering, authored by the gentleman from Delaware, holds every chance of solving what has become a real problem in modern commerce, how to get a $1 coin circulating in the sections of the economy that would benefit from having one. We can all remember the old cartwheel silver dollars, or at least some of us can, that were great to have when we were kids, but which were too big and bulky to carry a pocketful, and we can all remember the Treasury's mistake in 1979 when it went to replace the bigger dollars with one that many people thought was indistinguishable from the quarter.

Mr. Speaker, we have all had the experience of trying to buy a fare card in the Metro system here in Washington and having the machine reject our worn dollar time after time or trying to buy something from a vending machine and having it jam with our paper money. That is an inconvenience to the consumer, but it is often a big loss to the operator of the vending machine, not just of that sale, but of all the others who cannot use the machine until it is repaired. Who actually pays for the losses in the end, of course, is the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, doubtless a fully circulating dollar coin will not be as useful or popular in a rural community without public transit as it is in an urban environment. But in cities, it will be a big hit, and in any event, it is the obligation of Congress to provide for the production of coins and currency that allows businesses to operate efficiently.

So the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the author of the 50 State quarter program, a most successful program, and I applaud the gentleman for his leadership and vision. He has come up, again, with an ingenuous solution. Having seen the demand for quarters skyrocket as soon as those coins started changing their design every couple of months, he has designed a program that will do the same for the dollar coin, creating a gimmick, and I don't know whether I wanted to call it a gimmick, but that is what it says right here, that will draw the coins into circulation because of collector demand instead of trying to push the coins out into circulation as the Mint famously and unsuccessfully tried to do in 2000.

Other aspects of the bill, a gold First Spouse coin, a solid gold investor grade coin with a buffalo nickel design and a set of four new penny reverses in 2009 for the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, are also good ideas in that regard.

I would also like to make two points. One is that since this idea was that of the gentleman from Delaware, rightfully, the bill we pass ought to bear the number H.R. 902 that he introduced with the gentlewoman from New York and which passed the House 422-6. I chalk the fact that this bill bears a Senate number up to the procedural problem as the Senate rushed to pass the legislation before the Thanksgiving recess, but it is still unfortunate. Make no mistake about it, this legislation came about because of Mike Castle and Carolyn Maloney, and I want to thank both of them for their efforts.

Much more serious is a provision in the Senate bill that was not in the House bill and which will, in my estimation, cause some problems as the Presidential dollar program goes forward, a requirement that a third of all the dollar coins issued during the life of the Presidential dollar program bear the Sakakawea design. Mr. Castle and Mrs. Maloney struck a good commonsense agreement with Mr. Pomeroy over the House version of this bill that would have continued minting Sakakawea design coins to meet demand throughout the life of the Presidential dollar and then return to full production of that design after the Presidential program is finished and the dollar coin establishes a useful and well-circulating medium of exchange.

Mr. Speaker, although not the fault of the design of Sakakawea herself, there will not be the same demand for the Sakakawea coins as for the Presidents, because there will be no real change in the design of the coin from year to year. The problem, of course, is that if the coins are struck but there is no demand, they will need to be stored somewhere at some cost to the government. I will introduce into the Record a letter to that effect from the Federal Reserve.

Mr. Castle and other supporters of this legislation have signaled their intent to revisit this provision in the upcoming session to try to find a way to stimulate demand for the Sakakawea design, and I pledge to work with them in that effort.

With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, this is fine legislation. It will benefit businesses, consumers, have great educational value and actually probably make the government a good deal

of money as collectors take some of the dollars out of circulation. I urge its immediate passage.

Board of Governors of

the Federal Reserve System,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to provide you with

information and perspective on H.R. 902 and S. 1047, the

House- and Senate-passed versions of the ``Presidential $1

Coin Act of 2005,'' particularly as these bills would affect

the Federal Reserve Banks. These bills are intended, in part,

to increase the circulation of $1 coins. Prior to House

passage, I provided comments on H.R. 902 in a letter dated

March 15, 2005, and my colleague, Federal Reserve Board

Governor Mark Olson, provided comments on a similar bill in

an earlier letter dated August 31, 2004. Federal Reserve

Board staff also briefed House and Senate staff on similar

issues. I appreciate that the bills passed by the House and

Senate address several of the comments that were raised in

the previous letters and briefings; however, we continue to

have concerns about several aspects of the proposed bills.

Both bills require the issuance of four new Presidential $1

coins each year. as well as the continued issuance of the

Sacagawea $1 coin. Although both bills provide the Secretary

of the Treasury with discretion to determine the appropriate

number of Presidential $1 coins per design to issue each

year, the Senate bill requires (and the House bill suggests)

that the Secretary and the Board ensure that unmixed supplies

of each newly-issued $1 coin be available to all institutions

that want them during an introductory period. The experience

of the Reserve Banks with regard to the state quarter and

golden dollar programs has been that the commemorative coin

designs increase Reserve Banks' inventories well beyond

levels that they would otherwise hold and increase operating

costs associated with coin inventory management. The public

initially tends to demand a large number of coins for

numismatic purposes, but eventually many of those coins are

returned to the Reserve Banks. This results in the

accumulation of excessive inventories. Assuming that the flow

back of excess Presidential $1 coins to the Reserve Banks is

consistent with that of earlier commemorative coin designs,

we estimate the net present value of the cost associated with

storing excess Presidential $1 coins to be approximately $45

million over the life of the program. As we have previously

suggested, slowing the rate at which new coin designs are

introduced would help reduce these costs.

The Senate-passed bill would exacerbate the Reserve Banks'

inventory challenges, compared to the House-passed bill, by

requiring the minting and issuance of Sacagawea $1 coins ``in

quantities no less than 1/3 of the total $1 coins minted and

issued'' under the Presidential $1 coin program. Establishing

such a relative quota for Sacagawea coins, irrespective of

the actual public demand for that specific coin design, would

likely further increase the amount of excess coin held at the

Reserve Banks. Federal Reserve Board staff estimates that the

Sacagawea coin quota would further increase the cost

associated with storing excess dollar coins by as much as

one-third, or $15 million, to an estimated net present value

of approximately $60 million over the life of the program. We

would expect the Mint to continue to produce Sacagawea coins,

and the Reserve Banks to put Sacagawea coins into circulation

as needed, and we recommend that the final bill not include a

specific requirement that a fixed fraction of new $1 coin

production be dedicated to the Sacagawea design.

It has proven very difficult over time to stimulate public

demand for the $1 coin. As you may know, the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) has reported several times on a

number of barriers to the effective circulation of $1 coins,

including the U.S. public's continued preference for $1

notes. As a result, we urge that the final legislation be

flexible enough to address the possibility of continued low

public demand for the $1 coin and the potential implications

of slow growth in usage for the costs incurred by the Mint

and the Federal Reserve.

On another issue, the House-passed bill provides a sense of

the Congress that at such time as the Secretary of Treasury

determines to be appropriate, and after consultation with the

Federal Reserve, the Secretary should declare the Susan B.

Anthony $1 coin to be obsolete. Neither existing law nor the

bill defines the word ``obsolete.'' We continue to be

concerned that the public might interpret such language as

withdrawing the legal tender status of the coin. Further, if

``obsolete'' means that Susan B. Anthony coins would remain

legal tender but that the Treasury and Federal Reserve should

remove the coins from circulation, this would likely impose

significant operational costs that would also reduce the

potential value to the government of the proposed $1 coin

program. For example, currently available equipment does not

enable the Federal Reserve to sort the different $1 coins

according to their designs in order to remove some designs

from circulation. Therefore. we continue to believe that it

would be prudent not to include language in the bill

suggesting that the Susan B. Anthony coin will be withdrawn

from circulation or declared obsolete.

We hope these thoughts help clarify some of the remaining

technical issues with the two bills. As the House and Senate

work to resolve the differences between the bills, we ask

that you take into consideration the concerns outlined in

this letter.

Sincerely,

Donald L. Kohn,

Member of the Board.

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

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

Mr. 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1047.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3422, the Small Public Housing Authority Act, and wish to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his work on this important legislation.

The Small Public Housing Authority Act would amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt a small public housing agency from a requirement to prepare an annual public agency plan if the agency administers not more than a total of 250 dwelling units and section 8 vouchers and is not a troubled agency and provides assurances of resident participation.

Currently, public housing authorities are required to submit both a 5-year plan and an annual plan to HUD. The 5-year PHA plan addresses the agency's mission and their plan to achieve their mission. Specifically, the annual plan has typically required public housing authorities to include information on the housing needs of the families in the jurisdiction, strategies to meet these needs, statement of financial resources, and PHA policies governing eligibility, selection, and administrations.

Typically the average streamlined PHA plan is 47 pages with extensive attachments. For a small PHA with limited staff, compiling such a report is both time consuming and labor intensive. The regulatory relief provided in this legislation will give small public housing authorities more time to focus on the needs of their tenants. This exemption of smaller PHAs from filing plans will not affect the ability of tenant organizations to continue to have input with the managers of their developments. Language incorporated into the legislation ensures tenant participation and requires smaller PHAs to provide advanced planning required under the 5-year plans.

Similar legislation sponsored by our good friend, retired Representative Doug Bereuter, was considered by the Financial Services Committee on March 17, 2004, and passed the House under suspension of the rules on May 5, 2004, in the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3422 deserves our support. I urge its adoption.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3422.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this bill on the floor today. The revitalization of brownfield sites has always interested me because Ohio has thousands of those underused or vacant properties. I was involved in writing the first brownfields legislation almost 10 years ago at a time when people were just starting to focus on what redevelopment could mean for jobs and cleaning up the environment.

Aside from the contamination at these sites, we found that there were legal and financial obstacles to redevelopment. After working on the issue for several years, Congress passed a major brownfields bill in 2001 that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) helped push across the goal line. That bill mainly dealt with EPA's programs.

The Financial Services Committee then started looking at making HUD's programs more effective, specifically the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. At a hearing, we learned that many communities have been shut out of the BEDI, pronounced Betty, program because they cannot get a grant without going through the cumbersome process of applying for a section 108 loan. That is very hard on smaller communities. In fact, Mayor Lydia Reid from Mansfield in my congressional district testified that is an obstacle to getting redevelopment project off the ground and creating new jobs.

I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for introducing H.R. 280. It will bring needed flexibility to the program by delinking BEDI from the section 108 program. Communities will be able to apply for a grant if that is all they need to get a project going and bring in major private sector investment.

We can unlock a lot of jobs by getting a lot of these properties back to productive use. There are some 450,000 brownfield sites in every State in the Nation. By redeveloping these properties, we also reduce the stress being put on pristine green fields and farmland.

We have had good cooperation in our committees and with other committees in bringing this bill to the floor. A vote for H.R. 280 is a vote for jobs. I urge its passage today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me again recognize a few individuals. Gary Miller of California, the author of this legislation, has been just dogged in his determination to get this legislation passed. Unfortunately, his plane was delayed coming from California today and so was unable to participate in the debate.

I also want to thank Paul Gillmor for his dogged efforts on this, and I appreciate also the cooperation of the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, and Mrs. Maloney for their efforts.

It has been 4 years since we began working on this legislation, and I have to say that these are the kinds of bills that do not get a whole lot of attention. They are not overly controversial, but they do a lot of good. They will have a very positive impact on a lot of communities throughout the country.

We debate this under the suspension of the rules, so you will not hear a lot of hue and cry in the media about it. But at the end of the day, it is Congress at its best doing the kind of work we need to do.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I would echo that. And I am glad we changed the rules, by the way, that one can mention that body instead of referring to it as, quote, the other body.

In any event, this is meaningful legislation that we indeed want to pursue in the other body so that we can get this to the President. It has an enormous upside and potential for communities.

Governor Voinovich, when he was Governor before becoming Senator, had a commission which he commissioned in Ohio to study the loss of greenfields in the Buckeye State. One of the things that that commission found was that we could start the flow of that use of very productive farmland in Ohio by better cleaning up brownfields and putting them back to use.

So this bill is basically in that vein, and we think that this will go a long way in that effort.

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