[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               ANTIREDLINING IN INSURANCE DISCLOSURE ACT

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 475

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1188) to provide for disclosures for insurance 
     in interstate commerce. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and the amendments made in order by this resolution and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 475 is an open rule which 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 1188, the Antiredlining in 
Insurance Disclosure Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  The rule makes in order the Energy and Commerce Committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original 
bill for purposes of amendment. The substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1188 is an important piece of legislation. Everyone 
needs access to insurance--whether it be homeowners, automobile, 
renters, or business.
  H.R. 1188 addresses concerns regarding insurance premium disparities 
which prevent some from having affordable access to insurance. The 
legislation requires insurance companies to disclose their insurance 
related activities in the country's 25 largest urban areas based on 5-
digit ZIP Codes.
  The information generated by the requirements of H.R. 1188 will help 
determine the extent of insurance availability in large metropolitan 
areas and will help determine what changes can and should be made to 
increase access.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. Any Member with an amendment which 
is germane and does not violate House rules may offer it. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt this resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Gordon] for having yielded this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it took a while for us in the Committee on Rules. We 
anguished over it for a long period of time. But to the surprise of 
many of our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, we finally got it right. This is 
an open rule that does not require a preprinting of the amendments in 
the Congressional Record. It does not waive points of order against any 
part of H.R. 1188 or any prospective amendment at all.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], and the ranking Republican member, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], for requesting a relatively 
clean rule. I also want to commend my colleagues on the Rules Committee 
who in a bipartisan way agreed not to impose a preprinting requirement 
for amendments. As Chairman Dingell said in his comments before the 
Rules Committee a week ago Tuesday, this is a bill that has been out 
there for a long period of time, so it is unlikely that there will be 
any surprise amendments, at least from our side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, while the rule we are discussing is not controversial, 
the bill it makes in order, H.R. 1188, is very controversial. It is 
controversial not only because of the onerous reporting mandates it 
seeks to impose on the insurance industry but also because it 
illustrates the degree to which our committee system is in disarray.
  Nowhere in rule X of the rules of the House is the jurisdiction of 
insurance clearly defined. The United States has one of the most 
archaic financial systems among the developed nations. A major reason 
for this is due to the ancient jurisdictional tug of war that has gone 
on between the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  While the distinctions between commercial banks, investment banks, 
and insurance companies have been blurred by an evolving financial 
services market, the House is operating under a committee system that 
was developed at a time when the sale of war bonds was the principal 
function of our financial system.
  Mr. Speaker, the House leadership should stop putting obstacles in 
the way of congressional reform proposals that could modernize the 
committee system and address these jurisdictional disputes. But if the 
leadership insists on being obstructionists, the least we should do is 
amend rule X to better define the responsibilities of the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           75      17         23       58         77 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through July 19, 1994.                                                        


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Credit and 
Insurance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule that 
the Committee on Rules put out on this important issue.
  Insurance redlining in America is a very serious problem. Our 
committee had the first hearings in this Congress pertaining to this 
issue, going back a year last February when we heard from a number of 
insurance commissioners throughout the country on the terrible scourge 
of insurance redlining that takes place around the United States. In 
fact, we were provided testimony by Mr. Garimendi from the State of 
California who actually provided us with maps he had obtained from 
insurance companies where crayons were used to outline black, brown, 
yellow, and gray areas, parts of the State of California, where major 
insurance companies had told their agents not to write insurance 
policies.
  We have heard insurance agents testify time and time again over 
several hearings indicating in fact that they have been told by their 
companies not to write to blacks, that blacks do not pay back their 
policies and blacks are bad policy risks. We have an ACORN study 
indicating that this is a wide-scale problem all across America.
  The fact of the matter is that everyone who is familiar with how 
upward mobility works in America understands very clearly that one of 
the sad facts of American life in our American cities, in our poor and 
black and minority neighborhoods, is that there is a much less 
percentage of home ownership and small business ownership that exists 
in those communities than exists in other neighborhoods.
  People ask, why? They say that the blacks cannot pay back their 
bills, that they are bad credit risks. The fact of the matter is that 
we cannot find a bank and we cannot find an insurance company in many 
of the black neighborhoods in America. Yet every major study by both 
the banking industry and the insurance industry indicates that 
minorities actually pay back their loans and poor people pay back their 
loans at better rates than wealthier people do. That leads us to the 
conclusion that the only viable reason why people do not in fact write 
insurance policies and make bank loans in these communities is because 
of racial prejudice.
  Now, what we are trying to do in this legislation is get to the cause 
of that racial prejudice and have the insurance companies tell us what 
in fact is going on and where they write insurance. This is modeled 
directly after the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act which comes out of the 
Banking Committee, legislation that I got passed in this body 5 or 6 
years ago that has done an enormous amount of good at leveraging bank 
funding of small business ownership and home ownership in the minority 
community.
  That legislation was lost at the subcommittee level and lost at the 
full committee level, but it came out here on the floor and with 
Republican support we were enabled to gain the kind of evidence that 
allows us to ask the banks very simply where they are making their 
loans. That is what is necessary in the insurance industry.
  The bankers are the first to tell us that one of the major problems 
they have in this country is that they cannot write a bank loan to an 
individual unless that individual has insurance. If there are no 
insurance companies that are writing policies in the minority 
neighborhoods, the blacks cannot get bank loans, brown people cannot 
get bank loans, and people with yellow skin cannot get bank loans in 
America, and the reason for that is because insurance companies are not 
writing policies in those neighborhoods.
  All this bill does is ask for information. It asks for information 
that tells us in a very specific way where these insurance policies are 
being written. It asks the American people and the American insurance 
industry to tell us very clearly whether or not policies are being 
written in specific neighborhoods. The legislation that the Banking 
Committee proposes is very different than the legislation coming out of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is different in several ways. 
First of all, the Committee on Energy and Commerce probably said in 
front of the Rules Committee the other day that their information does 
not ask questions about race and gender. Well, if they do not ask 
questions about race and gender, I pose the question, how the heck are 
you ever going to find out whether or not racial discrimination takes 
place?
  They ask for information on a zip code basis. But anybody who looks 
at zip codes in America understands that there can be zip codes that 
include poor black neighborhoods in the inner city as well as wealthier 
white suburbs. So if all the insurance companies have to do is tell us 
whether or not they are writing policies with certain ZIP Codes, that 
will never tell us whether in fact racial discrimination takes place.

  We ask for it on ZIP Code+4, which is on a much small neighborhood 
level or on a census track basis. We ask for loss data. We have heard 
testimony from a range of different insurance commissioners around the 
country that came before us and told us that despite the fact that 
insurance companies will tell the American public and anybody that asks 
that the reason that they do not write policies in these neighborhoods 
is because the blacks are poor risks, that their homes get robbed more 
often and they have greater losses, if we look at the actual 
information that is collected by several states around the country 
right at the moment, the exact opposite is the truth.
  The Banking Committee version asked for that information. The Energy 
and Commerce Committee version does not ask for loss data. If we do not 
get loss data, we will get information from the insurance companies 
indicating that they are not writing these polices because these people 
are bad risks.
  Fundamentally, the reason why we have to get at this is to find out 
whether or not we are really serious about seeing upward mobility in 
America. We have all sorts of policies that say we are going to invest 
in the Third World all across this planet, but we have a Third World in 
America that we turn our backs on. What we are trying to do is to get 
our major institutions to take a step forward, end racial prejudice, 
and invest in these communities. That is what this is all about. We 
need the help of this body. We need people to take a moral stand on 
this issue. Certainly we can pass a bill around here that does not ask 
for any of the detailed information that is required and necessary in 
order to draw the proper conclusions.

                              {time}  1250

  But if you are serious about getting at whether or not this kind of 
racial prejudice exists, you have to get the detailed information that 
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs' version asks for.
  Finally, I would submit that there is a major question before the 
body as to whether or not this information would be housed at the HUD 
agency or housed at Commerce. This is a jurisdictional question between 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Banking, 
Finance and Urban Affairs. I think it is a critical question.
  The HUD agency, Housing and Urban Development, has run several 
programs, including the programs that pertain to flood insurance and 
housing insurance and mortgage insurance and homeowner's insurance. 
They are in charge of determining whether or not that kind of racial 
prejudice takes place in our housing industry. They have housing 
inspectors that go out and make these determinations.
  The Commerce Department has none of these provisions. Certainly they 
collect some information on foreign insurance companies. It has nothing 
to do with racial prejudice or the kinds of issues we are discussing in 
this bill.
  The Secretary of HUD has asked for this to be a priority of his 
tenure at HUD. He has reorganized that agency in a way that has allowed 
him to make this a priority of his, and he has talked to me on several 
occasions, including testimony before our committee, which the Energy 
and Commerce version never got from Ron Brown, asking that this 
information be given to HUD, that he wants to make this a front and 
center piece of his administration's attack on racial discrimination in 
the housing industry.
  Mr. Speaker, please give this issue serious thought. If you rally 
wanted to end racial discrimination in the insurance industry, we need 
to collect this data, and we need to have the data housed at the HUD 
agency. If we get these data housed at HUD, if we get the detailed 
information, we can go a long way toward ending racial discrimination 
in the housing policy and small business lending that currently exists 
in this country.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Appleton, WI [Mr. ROTH], a hard-working member of the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  (Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us will, if passed, 
drive up consumer insurance costs. That is the bottom line.
  The bill would begin an unnecessary Federal takeover of regulating 
the Nation's property an casualty insurance business.
  This legislation is premised on bad public policy. Why? Evidence of 
widespread redlining in insurance is anecdotal only.
  Testimony presented to the committee by Eric Englund, president of 
the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, said:

       Stripped naked, the insurance industry exists to sell and 
     service insurance.
       Old or young. Rich or poor. White or black. Urban or rural. 
     We'll take your money. We'll cover your risk. We'll pay your 
     claim. . . .
       Redlining is not the problem. The problem is the way in 
     which the verbiage of racism impedes the evolution of 
     additional practical solutions to problems inherent in urban 
     living.

  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. The best that may be 
said about this bill is that it could be a lot worse.
  As reported, H.R. 1188 would require insurance companies doing 
business in 25 of our largest cities to report annually to the U.S. 
Government the total number of policies written, earned premium, and 
total number of new policies, cancellations, and nonrenewals. It would 
require companies to disclose the number and location of agents in each 
city. All this mass of data would be reported by ZIP Code. Others in 
the Congress would require the reporting by census tract--far more 
costly to insurance companies--and consumers. This is government 
regulation gone wild.
  In fact, some well-intentioned insurance leaders have been persuaded 
to support this bad bill as reported for fear that the even more 
obnoxious version might be enacted.
  Even the bill before us, however, would lead to escalation of 
consumer insurance costs, more-not less-regulation, more Federal 
bureaucracy, unnecessary Federal spending, duplication of State 
antidiscrimination laws, and duplication of State data collection.
  My State, Wisconsin, is in the forefront of States who require 
reporting detailed homeowners and automobile insurance sales data as to 
location of customers as to cancellations.
  For more than a year, the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners has been collecting similar data from every State. Its 
first, interim report on urban insurance availability and affordability 
will be available at the end of 1994.
  If you review the bill you'll see that the bill is so defective it 
will cause legal chaos in the field of civil rights litigation. It 
fails to define redlining satisfactorily. It fails to define what is 
and is not legal behavior. And it fails to give direction for use of 
the data once it is collected.
  This legislation is just plain unnecessary at this time. The Nation 
has far greater priorities.
  The bill would lead to an unwarranted dual Federal-State system of 
insurance regulation. It would be imposed on top of the present 
effective State system.
  So, once more, the Congress would arrogantly stick its nose into our 
State-regulated property and casualty insurance industry. State 
regulation for this industry is basically effective and appropriate. 
Federal supervision is not needed.
  This bill would unnecessarily make the Federal Government bigger and 
more costly--and the facts are that this government already is too big 
and costs far too much.
  To be sure, the federal insurance program that would be provided here 
might start small. But history teaches us that over time it would grow 
and never die.
  Its laudable goal is to eliminate perceived rate, geographic, and 
racial discrimination in the sale of property and casualty insurance, 
especially homeowners' insurance.
  This legislation, however, epitomizes everything that is bad about 
current legislative practice and policy in Congress today. The bill 
mandates needless spending of additional millions of dollars of federal 
money--up to $4 million a year--that we don't have. It imposes 
unnecessary costs on insurance providers that are certain to be passed 
on to consumers. It tries to address a possibly imaginary national 
problem.
  While the committee heard anecdotal testimony, including witnesses at 
a field hearing in Milwaukee, no case has been made that the insurance 
industry is guilty of widespread redlining as a form of racial 
discrimination. The committee reviewed several studies ostensibly 
designed to prove whether widespread redlining exists in urban areas. 
The studies, all flawed, failed to do so.
  The industry has been unfairly indicted by anecdote. It is like 
Justice Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity: ``I know it when I 
see it.''
  The facts are that one study presented to the committee clearly shows 
that property insurance is widely available in urban markets. 
Furthermore, the States already outlaw discrimination in the 
marketplace, including redlining. This new Federal legislation would be 
redundant.
  This bill would do to insurance companies what Congress already has 
done to banks through the infamous Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, known 
informally as the HMDA Act. We all know HMDA has produced a zillion 
pieces of paper for the Federal Reserve to take care of and analyze 
endlessly with mostly inconclusive and controversial results.
  But we do not seem to learn anything from the past. This bill simply 
lacks definition of what behavior is and is not legal. This legislation 
would amount to welfare for lawyers in terms of litigation that would 
be almost certain to result from misuse of collected data.
  Data collected under this bill could be used to involve insurance 
companies in costly legal battles defending every marketing and 
underwriting decision made in the inner-city.
  Insurance companies could be accused of redlining when they either 
have a poor risk history in a certain area or just are not doing a very 
good job of marketing.
  Every company would be tempted to establish a legal defense fund--
even the White House has one these days. Legal costs, of course, would 
be passed on to the consumers.
  My information is that the data that would be collected and disclosed 
by this legislation has already been requested by the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners, an organization of State 
officials.
  There is no need to rush enactment of this legislation when the 
States at their own expense already are investigating urban insurance 
underwriting practices.
  I urge the House to summarily reject this faulty, costly bill until 
better evidence justifies its enactment.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this measure as a member of the 
Subcommittee on Consumer Credit and Insurance. It is a subcommittee of 
the Committee on Banking, Financing and Urban Affairs, and it is that 
subcommittee which has traditionally had jurisdiction in this area.

                              {time}  1300

  I believe that what we are talking about here is very basic and 
fundamental. The jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs in the area of property and casualty insurance has never 
really been challenged. The committee has historically overseen efforts 
to monitor and ensure the availability of property and casualty 
insurance. The urban property insurance program of the 1960's and early 
1970's were run out of HUD and overseen solely by banking.
  What we are attempting to do here today is to monitor information 
which is critical to the issue of redlining. This body has made 
substantial progress on the issue of redlining with regard to the 
banking industry and how loans are made into various communities. But 
until now the issue of redlining in the insurance industry has never 
been clearly brought into focus, and it is time that it be brought into 
focus.
  That is what we are attempting to do here, to ensure that people have 
available to them loans that will provide them with the ability to 
improve property and to acquire property. And as the chairman of the 
subcommittee made clear just a few moments ago, their ability to do 
that is seriously impaired, in fact it is made impossible in many 
instances, as a result of the unavailability of insurance.
  In order to correct this problem, we need to have very simple and 
fundamental data. We need to know where insurance is being provided, in 
which communities it is being provided so that we can clearly determine 
in what communities conversely it is not being provided.
  The only way to do that in a meaningful way is to collect the data in 
a way that it will be usable. If we collect it on the basis of ZIP 
Codes, it is not usable, because the ZIP Code covers an area that is 
too large. ZIP Codes cross neighborhoods, and they make the data 
relatively unimportant and not usable.
  But if we collect it on the basis of census tracts, as we would like 
to do, then that data becomes usable in a very meaningful way.
  Fundamentally that data ought to be available through HUD. HUD is the 
agency which traditionally collects this data with regard to banking 
and in every other area it is the agency that has jurisdiction over 
housing, the agency that has jurisdiction over property and casualty 
insurance now, currently. And the data ought to be housed there.
  If we put the data into the Commerce Department, the Commerce 
Department is not equipped to deal with it. And we will then be 
collecting the data in a way that does not make any sense and will not 
have any real meaning or any significance.
  So this information ought to go to HUD. It ought to be collected in a 
meaningful way on the basis of census tracts rather than ZIP Codes, and 
it ought to be done in a way that will make some real sense so that we 
can develop this information to determine where redlining is taking 
place in this society.
  It is taking place in this country now; we know that. But in order to 
counteract those efforts, we need to know where exactly it is taking 
place.
  So it makes sense to collect this data in that way and put it into 
HUD so it can be used in a responsible and meaningful fashion.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment because it will mean a much fairer and more 
effective insurance redlining law.
  This legislation is crafted to bring the marketing practices of the 
insurance companies into the open so we can see whether redlining 
actually occurs. Unfortunately, the bill as currently written would not 
provide us with enough information.
  The loss data reporting requirements are particularly important to a 
redlining law. Anyone who has followed the redlining debate over the 
years knows that insurance companies claim their rates are higher in 
certain areas because losses are greater there. But studies have shown 
just the opposite, that loss rates are actually lower in areas where 
premiums are the highest.
  The only way to resolve this debate is to have the insurance 
companies provide their loss data. If indeed the companies' claims that 
losses are higher in central cities are true, then they should be 
tripping over themselves trying to provide us with the loss data. What 
have they got to hide?
  This amendment is also important because it will expand the number of 
metropolitan areas covered by the law from 25 to 75. This is a 
compromise between the bills passed by the Energy and Commerce and 
Banking committees. The banking bill would have included the largest 
150 metropolitan areas, plus 50 rural areas.
  According to the lists that I have seen, the area I represent--the 
Milwaukee area--has been ranked either 24th or 26th. I can tell you 
that redlining is a huge concern in my area. If it is a major concern 
in the 24th or 26th largest metro area, then it must be a concern in 
the 40th, 60th, and 75th largest areas as well. There is no reason why 
the law should not apply for the people who live in these areas.
  The voluntary census tract and ``ZIP+4'' provisions are also a 
compromise between the energy and commerce and banking bills. The 
Banking Committee bill would have required census tract reporting in 
all areas. This amendment would simply give the secretary charged with 
administering the bill the flexibility to require census tract or ZIP+4 
reporting in areas where five-digit ZIP Codes do not provide an 
accurate picture of a community's neighborhoods.
  As someone who represents a very diverse area, I know that one ZIP 
Code can include a predominantly white, upper middle class neighborhood 
and a predominantly African-American, poor neighborhood. In cases like 
this, reporting by five-digit ZIP Code is simply inadequate.
  The amendment would also provide us with valuable information on race 
and gender. These provisions are no different from those in the Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Act [HMDA]. Any information disclosed would be 
completely voluntary on the part of consumers.
  Let us pass as redlining bill that will truly make a difference. 
Insurance redlining is a serious problem that deserves to be dealt with 
seriously. Please join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. As I 
said earlier, this rule is a marvelous model for our Committee on Rules 
to follow. It is an open rule, which I think should be the pattern used 
for other legislation that comes forward.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule. The legislation itself is 
terrible. I oppose that, but I do support an open amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Pursuant to House Resolution 
475 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1188.

                              {time}  1307


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1188) to provide for disclosures for insurance in interstate 
commerce, with Ms. DeLauro in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
1188, the Antiredlining in Insurance Disclosure Act. This is landmark 
legislation, which is supported by a diverse coalition including the 
NAACP, the American Insurance Association, Citizen Action, the Economic 
Empowerment Foundation, the Independent Insurance Agents of America, 
the Coalition of Bar Associations of Color, and the Council of 
Insurance Agents and Brokers.
  This bill is a truly bipartisan bill. It was reported by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce by a voice vote with strong support on 
both sides of the aisle. I particularly want to thank the hard efforts 
of our full committee chairman, John Dingell, and the work of the 
ranking minority member of our subcommittee, Mr. Stearns, and the 
ranking minority member of the full committee, Mr. Moorhead. I also 
want to express my appreciation to the former ranking minority member 
of our subcommittee, Mr. McMillan, who has been extremely helpful in 
moving this bill forward. I firmly believe that this bipartisan effort 
has immeasurably helped to make passage of this bill possible.
  I have been listening to the debate on the rule, and I think it 
confirms that this bill is a compromise. We heard some Members say that 
the reporting requirements should be increased, and others who want to 
do nothing. In fact, the bill has the broad support because we found 
the middle ground.
  Over the last year, the Commerce Subcommittee has examined redlining 
practices of insurance companies. At the subcommittee's two hearings, 
we heard very disturbing reports about a variety of practices insurance 
companies use to deny access to insurance to the residents of our urban 
areas.
  For example, Illinois Public Action testified that there are 52 State 
Farm offices and 32 Allstate offices in a predominantly white 
congressional district in Chicago. But in the Chicago portion of my 
district, according to Public Action, there are only six State Farm 
offices and two Allstate offices outside the downtown area, but there 
are several in the suburban portions.
  Beyond anything we heard at our hearings, I can tell you about 
insurance redlining. It is an evil practice. It is nasty. As Ben 
Chavis, executive director of the NAACP, put it in his letter endorsing 
H.R. 1188, ``Insurance redlining is a pernicious practice that must be 
stamped out.''
  Believe me, despite the remarks of some Members, who during debate on 
the bill, said redlining does not exist, I can assure you that 
insurance redlining is alive, well, and thriving. Many of my 
constituents must live with it every day. One need only drive through 
certain low-income areas and see residential communities that have 
deteriorated, areas that can't get insurance. They have been allowed to 
deteriorate not only because they have become economically and socially 
deprived, but to a large degree because accidents and hazards that most 
of us can be insured against were not covered by homeowners and/or 
automobile insurance which was denied them solely because of their 
location. Without insurance, there is no hope.
  Redlining is a vicious circle. When you are denied the right to buy 
insurance, real property and businesses begin to deteriorate. When that 
occurs insurance becomes even harder to get. Residents and jobs flee, 
contributing to a vicious circle of despair. Fair access to affordable 
insurance is a keystone in our efforts at community quality control and 
urban revitalization.
  Regrettably, many of my constituents are too poor to own their own 
home. Homeownership is the great American dream, but for them, it is a 
far off and often unattainable desire, so they must rent. However, 
whether they are homeowners or renters, they want to work, they want to 
be economically independent, they want jobs. Many jobs that were once 
found in major cities have been fleeing to the suburbs. Folks wanting 
to work, and able to work, need access to the job. Now you may be of 
the opinion that mass transit can solve this problem, but I stand here 
to tell you that mass transit is often not available or adequate to the 
locations or at the optimum schedule for getting the workers to and 
from these jobs. They need an automobile.
  While many Americans may be unable to afford to own a home, but they 
can afford to own a car. It is their lifeblood. It is their access to a 
job. It is their access to a better way of life. It is their only 
access to the American dream. But if you own a car, you need insurance. 
Access to affordable auto insurance is a major problem in many urban 
areas of our country, including Chicago. That is why I included 
reporting of auto insurance as an essential part of H.R. 1188. That is 
why I am at a loss to understand the effort by some to strike auto 
insurance from the bill. To do so simply does not make any sense--
particularly now, when everyone is talking about welfare reform 
encouraging people to work rather than to remain on the public dole. 
The ability to obtain automobile insurance goes to the heart of 
accessibility to job opportunities.
  There is plenty of evidence of redlining behavior by insurance 
companies. For example, the NAACP has a lawsuit pending against 
American Family Mutual Insurance Company. That is the case where the 
sales manager was recorded as telling an agent, ``I think you write too 
many blacks. You gotta sell good, solid premium paying white people.'' 
Do you know how offensive that statement is? How insulting?
  To combat redlining, I introduced legislation H.R. 1188, the Anti 
Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act. As amended by the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, this act will require insurance companies to 
disclose information about their insurance activities in the 25 largest 
urban areas, such as the breakdown of policies sold and agent location 
by ZIP Code. These disclosure requirements would apply to automobile 
and homeowners insurance, and would last for 5 years, extendable by the 
Secretary of Commerce for 2 additional years. In addition, the 
Secretary of Commerce would conduct a 2-year pilot project to collect 
information on small business commercial insurance in the five largest 
cities.
  The information generated by this legislation would help determine 
the true nature and extent of redlining, but more importantly, the 
public disclosure of this information would also serve as a powerful 
disincentive against discriminatory behavior.
  At the subcommittee markup last July 28, the bill was amended to meet 
industry objections. I was not thrilled with all these amendments, but 
they attracted broader and bipartisan support to the bill and enabled 
the legislation to move forward. At the same time, I believe the bill, 
even in its amended form, is a tremendous step forward. It will provide 
a significant amount of data that is simply not publicly available 
today--data that will help us determine the true nature and extent of 
redlining. The bill was improved at the full Committee, when I 
successfully offered an amendment to establish a pilot project for the 
collection of information on commercial insurance.
  During the legislative process, we worked and consulted with all 
sides in fashioning this bill. There was extensive consultation with 
consumer and community groups, the insurance industry, the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners, and relevant Federal agencies. 
We worked with Members on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is completely 
satisfied with this bill, but most can support it. As the consumer 
group Citizen Action put it, the bill ``is a significant improvement 
over the status quo.''
  Now this bill is no panacea. It is not going to solve all insurance 
redlining problems overnight. No bill will, but it is an important step 
forward. It will help those charged with enforcing insurance laws by 
highlighting areas where insurance is most difficult to get. It will 
enable a more thorough investigation of possible redlining.
  Now some may say this bill is not good enough. Let us wait until next 
year, or let us leave it to the States.
  I am not optimistic that we would do any better by leaving it to the 
States. There are a few State insurance departments which are really 
concerned about redlining, and this bill does not preempt those States 
from taking action. Thus while this bill does not interfere with what 
States may do, it ensures a baseline level of disclosure nationwide.
  My constituents and yours suffer daily the indignities of insurance 
redlining. They want to start seeing some relief now. We here in 
Washington can argue about the perfect bill, but our constituents want 
results. We can wait forever for State legislatures to pass the perfect 
bill--or even any bill, but our congressional districts want results.
  Madam Chairman, I must also point out that, when this bill is 
considered for amendments, I will have to oppose all amendments.
  If I had my druthers, I would like to have been able to strengthen 
this bill, but, my first priority must be to pass this much needed 
legislation. The bill in its current form reflects a broad, pragmatic 
consensus. Unfortunately, the kinds of changes that some of my 
colleagues might want to make would produce a bill that would destroy 
that consensus and could not be enacted.

                              {time}  1310

  The bill in its current form can be enacted and should be enacted. It 
would provide a lot of information about insurance practices that is 
simply not available today. If we attempt to improve this bill in a 
manner that it is not passable, none of this information will become 
available. We would have shot ourselves in the foot and the perfect 
would have become the enemy of the good.
  Madam Chairman, let me expand on one point. The bill requires data 
reporting on insurance activities with respect to the 25 largest 
metropolitan areas, and establishes a pilot project of reporting with 
respect to commercial insurance in the 5 largest metropolitan areas. In 
determining either the 25 largest or the 5 largest metropolitan areas, 
as applicable, the Secretary of Commerce should use population figures 
from the 1990 census. Thus, the Secretary should designate either the 
25 largest or the 5 largest metropolitan areas, as applicable, in rank 
order based on the 1990 census. For purposes of determining the rank 
order, the ranking of metropolitan areas should be based on 
metropolitan areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget as 
of December 31, 1992.
  Let me also note that section 6 of the legislation directs the 
Secretary to promulgate implementing regulations. Those regulations may 
provide for adjustments and exceptions for classes of transactions 
where necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of the reporting 
and disclosure requirements and to prevent circumvention or evasion or 
to facilitate compliance.
  There may be some limited situations where the reporting requirements 
of this legislation are not necessary, in light of the purposes of the 
legislation, with respect to certain specialized types of insurance 
policies. For example, some insurance companies offer specialized 
insurance policies to cover antique or specialty automobiles that are 
not used for general transportation purposes. Since the reporting of 
data on these particular types of specialized insurance policies does 
not appear necessary to effectuate the purposes of this legislation, 
this may be one area where the Secretary may want to consider using the 
exemption authority of section 6.
  Madam Chairman, I urge support of this legislation and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1188, the Antiredlining 
in Insurance Disclosure Act. In the context of insurance sales, 
redlining is, unfortunately, a term tossed around without much thought 
to its meaning. The most common, and most realistic definition of 
redlining in insurance sales is the practice of routinely and 
deliberately denying certain classes of individuals insurance coverage 
simply because of their race, gender, ethnic origin, or socioeconomic 
status. It is important that anyone who might be engaged in this 
practice be absolutely clear on one point--redlining is a violation of 
both Federal civil rights laws and State insurance laws and it will not 
be tolerated. Any corporation or individual found engaging in racial 
discrimination of any kind should be prosecuted to the fullest extent 
of the law.
  Madam Chairman, you will hear many Members come to the floor today 
and describe why the House must approve strengthening amendments to 
this legislation, so that it will be an effective civil rights 
enforcement bill. As well-intentioned as my distinguished colleagues 
may be, I think they are missing the point--H.R. 1188 is not a civil 
rights enforcement bill.
  Arguably, H.R. 1257, the Banking Committee's redlining bill was 
designed to provide information for civil rights enforcement. However, 
the Banking Committee's bill is not the one on the floor today, and 
even if it was, it reached its conclusion by presupposing an answer to 
the question asked by H.R. 1188; namely, whether or not individuals are 
discriminated against in insurance sales simply due to their race or 
where they live.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee decided to structure H.R. 1188 in 
the manner before the House today because none of the evidence 
submitted to the committee, or even any of the evidence or testimony 
printed in the Banking Committee's hearings, was sufficient to warrant 
large-scale intervention. Much of the evidence was anecdotal in nature, 
which any public policy expert will tell you is dubious at best, and 
the vast majority of those studies purporting to be scientific in 
nature were grievously flawed.
  For instance, the Commerce Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking 
Republican member, heard almost half-a-dozen stories of individuals who 
alleged that they were denied insurance because of their race, ethnic 
background, or gender. Two different consumer groups submitted 
different studies alleging widespread discrimination in the sales of 
insurance. However, another study received by the subcommittee showed 
that among minority homeowners in the inner-city, an average of 98 
percent carried either basic or comprehensive homeowners' insurance 
policies and 86 percent said that it was either very or somewhat easy 
to obtain insurance. All of these studies cannot be correct.
  That is why a coalition of subcommittee Republicans and Democrats 
joined together to ensure that H.R. 1188 answered the question posed by 
the subcommittee's hearings--does redlining in insurance sales exist? 
To focus the bill on this question, we modified the bill in four simply 
ways:
  First, we reduced the number of urban areas included in the study 
from 150 to 25. That still represents almost two-thirds of the Nation's 
metropolitan population, which is a sample far larger than needed to 
see if a problem exists.
  Second, we only required reporting on the basis of 5-digit ZIP Codes 
instead of census tracts. Currently, no insurer uses census tracts for 
any of their activities. Requiring reporting by census tracts, of 9-
digit ZIP Codes which are later converted into census tracts by the 
Government, would be extremely costly to either insurers or the 
Government, meaning that insurers would have to raise premiums or the 
Government would have to raise taxes.
  Third, we eliminated requirements that insurers report unnecessary 
data, such as demographic information or loss data. Demographic 
information about geographic areas, like racial and gender composition, 
is already widely available--we can even get it on our own computers 
through House Information Systems. And lost data represents highly 
proprietary information, the release of which could represent the loss 
of trade secrets for insurers. Loss information reported on a 5-digit 
ZIP Code basis or smaller also represents too small a sample to be 
statistically significant.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we ensured that this was 
indeed a study, and not a data gathering exercise that would continue 
in perpetuity. We added a 5-year sunset provision, ending the study 
unless the Secretary of Commerce decided that more data was needed, in 
which case the program would definitely end after a total of 7 years. 
We believed that this, like any other program, should be subject to the 
normal authorization and appropriation process, and Congress should 
have an opportunity to review the study's findings to determine whether 
there is a need for continued data collection.
  H.R. 1188 and the proposals by some of my former Banking Committee 
colleagues will provide roughly the same information. So what do we 
gain with the approach taken by H.R. 1188? The short answer is about 
$21 million.
  As you can see from the chart, the Congressional Budget Office had 
strikingly different estimates for the cost to the Government of H.R. 
1188 and the Banking Committee's redlining provisions. Even under CBO's 
worst case scenario, the Banking Committee's proposal was $21 million 
more expensive than H.R. 1188. If you ask why, the CBO best answered 
that question in their cost analysis of the Banking Committee bill: 
``Most of the estimated cost associated with--the redlining portion of 
the bill--would be attributable to the large amount of information that 
would be collected, analyzed, and made available to the public.'' That 
is the same information that members of the Banking Committee will be 
seeking to require through their amendments.
  In these times of fiscal austerity, we need to be even more conscious 
than usual about the cost of what we do in this House. H.R. 1188 
represents a bipartisan compromise that will answer the same questions 
answered by the data that Democratic members of the Banking Committee 
want to collect. And it does it more effectively and at a lower cost 
than anything proposed by the Banking Committee, either in their bill 
or through their amendments.
  I believe that H.R. 1188 as it stands before the House represents the 
best possible compromise for everyone. Changing too much in either 
direction will cause Members to loose their already strained enthusiasm 
for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose all amendments to 
H.R. 1188 and to support its final passage only if it remains intact.

                              {time}  1320

  Madam Chairman, I include the chart referred to in my remarks, as 
follows:

   OFFICIAL CBO COST ESTIMATES FOR H.R. 1188 AND TITLE II OF H.R. 1257  
                     [Budget authority in millions]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Fiscal year                    
                             -----------------------------------  Total 
                               1994   1995   1996   1997   1998         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1188 (high estimate)...   $4.0   $4.0   $3.0   $3.0   $3.0    $17.0
H.R. 1188 (low estimate)....    3.0    3.0    1.0    1.0    1.0      9.0
H.R. 1257 (Title II)........    0.7    3.2    3.1   15.0   16.0     38.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Official CBO cost estimates included in the respective committee
  reports.                                                              

  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], the former insurance 
commissioner of North Dakota and former president of the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Madam Chairman, I have served as an insurance regulator. For 8 years 
I was elected by the people in North Dakota to regulate the business of 
insurance as conducted in that State. During that period of time I was 
elected by my regulatory colleagues to serve as president of the 
National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the umbrella 
organization closely coordinating the regulatory initiatives of the 
State. My brother was elected to the position of insurance commissioner 
succeeding me in that post giving me an ongoing, close view of 
regulatory issues as seen by State regulators. Frankly, I have a great 
deal of confidence in State regulation and in the National Association 
of State Insurance Commissioners which coordinates carefully State 
regulation of this important national commerce.
  In that light, I have typically been very skeptical of Federal 
initiatives on insurance regulatory issues, believing that they were 
well-intentioned but ill-considered, they did not work well, they were 
duplicative of activity taking place at the States or worse yet a 
jurisdictional grab from something better controlled at a State level. 
I do not find H.R. 1188, however, to fall within that realm of 
traditional objections I have had to Federal initiatives. I believe 
H.R. 1188 is a balanced, careful approach to a serious public policy 
issue.
  Frankly, I wish more data was presently available. I wish the State 
commissioners had generated, had taken the initiative and given us more 
data so we might evaluate the very serious allegations attendant to the 
redlining issue. I think the approach taken by the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce is an appropriate course, and I mark it in stark contrast 
to the initiatives urged by the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
Affairs.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce does not presume guilt, does not 
foist upon the industry and ultimately upon the insurance consumers of 
this country increased costs for exhaustive data collection efforts 
based on some anecdotal reports. Rather, it takes a careful, studied, 
balanced view certainly designed to give us the type of data that we 
will need to evaluate the seriousness of the issue and formulate 
appropriate public policy in the future should it come to that.

                              {time}  1330

  As we look at those who just say all we want is information, all we 
want is information, we have got to understand that regulatory burdens 
upon an industry add costs to consumers, every consumer in this 
country. There is no allegation of red-lining in North Dakota but you 
can bet North Dakota consumers are going to pay higher premiums if the 
farflung regulatory objectives of the Banking Committee are amended 
into this legislation.
  So I would close by urging my colleagues, support H.R. 1188, a 
balanced approach, and oppose the amendments offered this afternoon to 
the bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], ranking member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1188, 
the Anti Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act, and urge my colleagues 
to oppose all amendments. This legislation is the product of months of 
hard work by Chairwoman Collins, Chairman Dingell, Congressman Stearns, 
and others. It represents a bipartisan compromise to find an efficient 
and cost effective approach to the troubling issue of redlining. It is 
a bill that is supported by both consumer groups and businesses.
  There is a great deal of confusion over the extent of redlining in 
the inner-city. Some studies indicate that redlining is a localized 
problem that can be amply prosecuted under current law. Other studies 
suggest that redlining is more widespread. There is enough confusion 
about this issue that the NAIC has recently issued a data call to learn 
more about this problem.
  H.R. 1188 creates the least intrusive means of collecting data 
relevant to the question. Insurance companies already collect policy 
information based on ZIP Codes. By matching up policy information from 
the Nation's largest metropolitan areas with existing census data, the 
Department of Commerce can determine whether there are any 
significantly underserved population areas. This collection effort will 
end after 5 years, to insure that no permanent government bureaucracy 
is created.
  Some of my colleagues would like to upset the fragile coalition 
supporting this legislation by imposing additional mandates. For 
example, an amendment will be offered to force insurance companies to 
gather information by census tract. This amendment is unnecessary, 
burdensome, and expensive. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, data collection by census tract would increase the cost of this 
legislation by as much as $29 million. I believe that we have a duty to 
the taxpayers to minimize all new regulations and expenditures.
  In closing, I would like to commend my colleagues who have worked so 
hard to craft this legislation. In particular, my thanks go to 
Chairwoman Cardiss Collins and ranking Republican member Cliff Stearns 
who has pulled everyone together to forge an effective compromise. 
Congressmen Slattery, Rowland, McMillan, and Greenwood, as well as the 
full committee chairman, Mr. Dingell, have all made critical 
contributions.
  H.R. 1188 is the least intrusive, cost-effective approach to 
understanding redlining. Adoption of any amendments will tear apart the 
fabric that holds this bill together. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
all amendments and to pass the bill as it stands.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  Ms. DANNER. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1188. 
This bill strikes an equitable balance between the needs of the Federal 
Government and the needs of insurance companies across the United 
States.
  H.R. 1188 requires insurers to report specific information regarding 
homeowners, automobile, and fire insurance policies, by 5-digit ZIP 
Code. These are the most common policies in force in our country today, 
with virtually every household in the Nation maintaining at least one 
of these policies and many households maintaining multiple policies.
  H.R. 1188 requires insurers to report this data for the 25 largest 
metropolitan statistical areas, which represent 58 percent of the urban 
population of our country and 46 percent of the total U.S. population.
  The bill also calls for the Department of Commerce to conduct a study 
of small business insurance availability. Because of the differences 
between small businesses and their insurance needs, no one policy fits 
all. The Secretary will be charged with the duty of first determining 
an appropriate definition of small business for insurance purposes and 
the kinds of coverage most common among small businesses and then 
completing the study with a comprehensive examination of small 
businesses in the five largest MSA's.
  An important element of the bill requires the data to be reported in 
the aggregate as opposed to an individual policy basis. This will 
prevent the disclosure of individual policyholders' names. Aggregate 
data reporting will also assist the data collectors by reducing the 
volume of computer space needed to process and analyze the materials.
  Furthermore, requiring insurance companies to gather and report data 
on 50 additional cities, will not provide better evidence that 
redlining is or is not occurring, but it will sharply increase the 
costs that insurance companies must incur--a cost which will inevitably 
be passed on to the consumer.
  Last, this legislation will sunset after 5 years unless the Secretary 
reports to the Congress that further study is necessary. This is an 
important element of the bill for all taxpayers. If insurance companies 
are redlining, 5 years of data will certainly tell us so. If they are 
not, the American taxpayer does not need to perpetuate another 
Government bureaucracy.
  Madam Chairman, this bill collects more than ample data needed in 
order to determine if a redlining problem exists. I rise in support of 
H.R. 1188 and I urge my colleagues to reject all amendments to this 
bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], the ranking member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FISH. Madam Chairman, as many Members of this House know, I have 
long been a supporter of State regulation of insurance. At the same 
time, during my many years in the Congress, I have been a strong 
supporter of civil rights legislation. In this context, I rise in 
support of H.R. 1188, the Antiredlining in Insurance Disclosure Act, 
sponsored by Congresswoman Cardiss Collins. 
  The gentle chairlady has worked with her subcommittee to carefully 
design a bill which will provide the Federal Government with adequate 
data to determine if a redlining problem exists in this country's urban 
communities. Some have made allegations that insurers are refusing to 
sell their products in minority or low-income neighborhoods. The 
Collins bill will collect data from the 25 largest metropolitan 
statistical areas [MSA's] which represent 59 percent of the urban 
population of this country. The Department of Commerce will then 
analyze that data and report back to the Congress.
  There are some issues that require action at the Federal level--a 
Federal perspective. H.R. 1188 will help us determine if there is a 
national redlining problem with respect to sales of insurance in urban 
America. Redlining is a serious issue, particularly if it is done 
because of race or economic status. For decades, insurers have not been 
permitted to collect any information regarding policyholders' race or 
ethnicity. The data collected as a result of this bill when coupled 
with data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau will allow us to 
determine if there is an insurance availability problem in urban 
communities. It is proper that information regarding an individual's 
race or ethnicity be collected by the Federal Government such as is 
done by the Census Bureau.
  However, it would not be proper for insurance companies to ask their 
policyholders, or potential policyholders, to identify their race or 
ethnicity, even on a voluntary basis as one amendment seeks to do. Many 
policyholders would be offended by such a question and would refuse to 
answer. It would most probably make policyholders believe race 
information was being used to determine their premium charge or 
insurability. Mrs. Collins and her subcommittee realized that requiring 
insurers to ask for race information was not the appropriate approach. 
That data is best collected by the Federal Government and is currently 
available through the Department of Commerce.
  In conclusion, Madam Chairman, H.R. 1188 is a fair and balanced 
measure. It will provide the necessary data at the least cost to 
insurers and at the least cost to consumers of insurance products. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bill and reject all amendments.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], who serves with me on the committee.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Chairman, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness, on which I 
serve, held two public hearings last year to determine whether 
redlining on a racial or an ethnic basis is occurring in the United 
States. I was not able to attend the field hearing in Chicago, but did 
participate in the hearing in Washington.
  Frankly, I was not convinced that redlining is in fact occurring to 
any significant degree. What the evidence did seem to suggest was that, 
not surprisingly, insurers were basing their marketing strategies on 
the basis of profitability, not ethnicity. But the advocates of this 
legislation believe redlining occurs regularly, so they have devised a 
bill to collect massive amounts of data for analysis and study to root 
it out.
  If redlining is occurring, we ought to find out about it. We ought to 
put an end to it, because it is wrong. It seems to make the most sense 
to limit data collection to places where there are actually allegations 
of redlining. I offered such an amendment, but it was defeated in the 
Commerce subcommittee and in the full committee.
  The bill before us now collects data from 25 metropolitan statistical 
areas. That means records must be submitted to Washington for every 
auto, homeowner and fire insurance policy sold to virtually half of the 
population of the country, a very large sample, indeed.
  Now, in my mind, that puts the needle of redlining in a haystack of 
paperwork where it will never be found. Certainly sampling half of the 
Nation's insurance sales ought to be enough to discover if redlining is 
occurring. What we must do today is to resist amendments soon to be 
offered that would extend this data collection even further from the 25 
metropolitan statistical areas in the bill to 75. That proposal takes 
the needle from the haystack and puts it in the hayfield.
  H.R. 1188 represents a compromise, Madam Chairman, and I urge Members 
to resist amendments that would make it even more burdensome, costly, 
and impossible to administer.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery], a distinguished Member of the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness.
  Mr. SLATTERY. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in support of H.R. 1188, the 
Anti Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act.
  I have been actively involved in this legislation on the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and I am pleased it is receiving the attention it 
is today on the floor of the House. I commend the gentlewoman who 
chairs the subcommittee and ranking minority member on the subcommittee 
also for their hard work on this legislation.
  During the subcommittee consideration of this legislation, I worked 
with several of my colleagues to develop a bipartisan compromise that 
can pass Congress this year. The en bloc amendment I offered, which 
gained unanimous support by the subcommittee, cleared up many of the 
outstanding concerns of the industry.
  H.R. 1188 would require insurers selling policies in large urban 
areas to report statistical data to the Department of Commerce in order 
to determine the extent of so-called redlining practices. Let me just 
say I believe this legislation is very important, because there are 
serious and legitimate allegations about redlining practices across 
this country. I am convinced that the five-digit ZIP Code is the best 
geographical unit for this type of data collection. ZIP Codes are 
universal. Insurance companies do not currently organize data by census 
tracts, and many small companies do not compile data with nine-digit 
ZIP Codes. Use of five-digit ZIP Codes is the most sensible approach 
and will not cause undue financial burden on the industry.
  I am pleased this measure does not require companies to report loss 
data. It is important that we do not legislate in a manner which would 
require companies' trade secrets to be revealed to competitors. By 
requiring data reporting in the 25 largest metropolitan statistical 
areas, we will be able to ascertain the extent of redlining. I believe 
these MSA's, which comprise 58 percent of the Nation's metropolitan 
population, will provide a more than adequate sample.
  Small insurance companies, those with less than 1 percent market 
share per line statewide, which write primarily rural policies would 
not be required to report more than summary data. Insurance companies 
will be allowed to report data on an aggregate basis, which will 
maintain the policyholders' confidentiality.
  The measure includes a provision to sunset the act after 5 years, but 
allows the Secretary of Commerce to extend it for one 2-year period. 
After that time has expired, Congress can review the studies and then 
determine whether the legislation should be reauthorized.
  This may not be perfect legislation. It is like all other compromises 
that we deal with in this body, but the fact of the matter is this is 
the best legislation that we can put on the President's desk this year.
  I happen to believe very strongly this is a serious problem that 
needs to be dealt with. I believe the data we are collecting with this 
legislation will give us a clear picture as to the dimension of this 
problem, and if it is as serious as some suggest that it is and as I 
believe that it is in some areas of this country, then we will have the 
data to document it and be able to move forward with the vigorous 
action that this Congress and State legislatures across the country 
could deal with.
  So I commend the Committee on Energy and Commerce for bringing this 
legislation to the floor today and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to point out that it has been basically 
a one-sided debate that has occurred on the House floor over the course 
of the last 45 minutes or so, because the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs has not been allowed on the House floor to be able to 
make its case in terms of the alternatives that have been supported in 
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs to deal with the 
very serious problem of insurance relining.
  First and foremost, I have heard Members mention that we cannot go 
from ZIP Code to census tract because of the cost. The fact of the 
matter is that many of the insurance companies around the country 
already use the ZIP Code+4 category which suffices to get the 
information that is required to make the determination.
  It is very clear that you cannot make the determination as to whether 
or not redlining exists if you only take zip codes. ZIP Codes in many 
cities around the country involve urban areas that are in many cases 
very, very poor that extend out to wealthy suburbs, and therefore 
simply because an insurance company happens to write policies in a ZIP 
Code does not tell you whether or not racial discrimination is taking 
place. Certainly you can get bipartisan support for such a bill, 
because it does not do a darn thing.
  If we are really interested in finding out whether or not racial 
discrimination exists in the insurance industry, you have got to take 
it to a point where you are finding out whether the prejudice exists.
  In terms of the cost, the fact of the matter is the cost of these 
programs, if you buy the CD-ROM, is a very, very inexpensive 
proposition. In many cases, first of all, I should point out, the 
banking industry already does this at the census-tract level.
  Second, the fact is that the information that we have gotten from 
both software companies at our committee hearings as well as from the 
industry itself indicate the cost to this industry will be minimal, and 
it basically requires a computer programmer to punch a button on a 
computer screen to convert it from census tract to ZIP Code.
  I appreciate the fact that there is not a lot of racial 
discrimination in the State of North Dakota, and the fact is we had a 
Member here who mentioned the fact that this was not something that he 
felt was particularly a big problem. But North Dakota does not have the 
same kind of problems that we have in Boston or in Philadelphia, 
Chicago, or Detroit or in places like Los Angeles where the problem of 
insurance redlining exists. Obviously, there may be costs to 
straightening out an industry that has been racially prejudiced in 
terms of how it is writing its policies.
  That might, in fact, mean some discomfort for the insurance industry 
in North Dakota. I am sorry for that discomfort. The fact of the matter 
is the insurance commissioner in North Dakota currently has changed 
since the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] has left North 
Dakota, and now requires the information we are asking for in this 
bill.
  So I am pointing out that if we are really interested in getting the 
kind of information that will allow us to make these determinations, we 
need to have census tract versus ZIP Code. We need to ask for 
information on race and gender. Of course, if you do not ask for 
information on race and gender, certainly you get bipartisan support, 
because it does not tell you anything.
  If you want to find out whether or not it exists, you have got to ask 
for information about race and gender.
  If a minority or someone, or a woman, does not want to tell you or a 
man does not want to tell you their race or gender, fine, then they can 
exempt themselves from having to write the information, but it allows 
us to ask the question. If we are serious about getting to the point 
whether there is discrimination, we need to have information on loss 
data.

                              {time}  1350

  The insurance industry is obviously going to tell us that the reason 
why they do not write policies is because the blacks are bad risks. 
Well, my goodness, let us at least find out whether the information we 
have gotten from the various insurance regulators who have come before 
our committee are telling us the truth when they tell us that in fact 
the minority community gets charged higher rates and has less losses.
  I also would like to point out that in the amendment that the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs is offering in order to 
deal with some of the paperwork burdens, we exempt many of the small 
companies. That does not exist in terms of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce version.
  This is fundamentally, when all is said and done, a question of 
whether or not we are going to get at the root cause of racial 
discrimination in the policy-writing of insurance companies in America 
and whether or not, in your opinion, if you think that the Energy and 
Commerce Committee has taken enough of your committee's jurisdiction, 
then I would suggest you vote for the Energy and Commerce version. If 
you think they have had enough, then vote for the Banking Committee's 
version.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have just a few comments in reference to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' [Mr. Kennedy's] comments. I think the question is, if 
the Members want a more intrusive Government program, then they would 
vote for the Kennedy bill. But if they want less Government intrusion 
and they want a bill that costs less for what at the moment appears to 
be an imaginary problem, they should vote for H.R. 1188. It is not 
clear to us that a lot of the investment that has been put into a lot 
of the cities and is not in certain areas is not because of any 
discrimination but perhaps is because the risk involved or because of 
the status of the situation in terms of the real estate and many other 
factors. But I think H.R. 1188 starts to proceed with a very concrete 
study, with less Government intrusion, and has bipartisan support.
  So at this point we have heard from both sides of the aisle and we 
have bipartisan support for a bill that is less intrusive, costs less, 
and at this point would bring to bear all the information we need 
within a 5-year sunset.
  I must point out that the bill that Mr. Kennedy supports does not 
have the 5-year sunset, and I think that most Members of Congress who 
have had any experience in dealing with the Federal Government would 
like to have at least a sunset provision.
  Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns].
  Mr. TOWNS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, let me just say that I have heard the discussion here 
about the fact that this bill does not do anything, that this bill is 
too weak and this bill does not answer the questions.
  Let me just say that all of us probably have or would have liked to 
have gotten some things into the bill, but this was the strongest bill 
that we could get at the time and passed in the House.
  I think this bill is not weak, it is not useless, as some people have 
said. It requires insurance companies to provide the Department of 
Commerce with certain information about the car, about the homeowner, 
fire and allied profit insurance. They provide it in the 20 largest 
metropolitan areas around. That to me is extremely important. I hope 
that the calmer colleagues will look at this and recognize that the 
time has come that we need to do something about discrimination.
  This bill addresses that issue. This is a bill that has bipartisan 
support. I do not think we should sit around and talk about what could 
be done. I think the thing we should do now is to vote this bill out.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns] has 
expired.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TOWNS. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  I would like to say that I have listened to all of the discussions 
over the past few months, people saying that this is not strong enough, 
that we should do more, we should go further. But I think we have to be 
realistic. If we can pass this bill, I think we should. It has 
bipartisan support. I think we should move ahead with it. I think it 
answers a lot of the questions. I am very concerned about 
discrimination.
  When I listen to people in my area, as I have also listened to people 
going around this country, they are saying to us we should do 
something. They do not want us to twiddle our thumbs and talk about 
things to do down the road; they are talking about things we should do 
now.
  We are prepared to go forward with this today. The bipartisan support 
is very important. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] 
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] and the members of the 
full committee for the work they have done, as well as the staff.
  This bill makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
his comments. And to show the bipartisanship here for this bill, it is 
my willingness at this time to yield 4 minutes from our side to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding this time to me.
  Madam Chairman, after long labor, much delay, and, quite frankly, a 
fair amount of externally induced obfuscation, the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce has brought before this body H.R. 1188.
  Madam Chairman, I want to begin by commending the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for her leadership on this matter. She is the first to 
author this legislation. She has long been working against redlining 
and against racial discrimination in housing and in all other matters. 
She deserves the commendation and the support of this body for the fact 
that she has brought this legislation to the floor and has achieved the 
success which she has.
  Madam Chairman, her accomplishment is all the more remarkable in that 
it is bipartisan, that this legislation has come out of the committee 
with the strong support of the membership on both sides. It is still 
more important in that this is legislation which can pass and which can 
become law. It is supported by a wide diversity of groups including the 
NAACP, the Citizen Action, the Economic Empowerment Foundation, and the 
Coalition of Bar Associations of Color. It is also supported by large 
and responsible segments of the insurance industry as well as many 
individual insurance companies, such as the National Association of 
Mutual Insurance Companies, Alliance of American Insurers, American 
Insurance Association, Independent Insurance Agents of America, 
Professional Insurance Agents of America, and a number of other 
industry groups.
  Madam President, this bill is an extraordinary accomplishment. It 
shows the support, because of the diligent effort of the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], of both industry, civil 
rights groups and community groups. It is a piece of legislation which 
is supported on both sides of the aisle. It is unique in that it builds 
upon the reporting requirements which we have traditionally had with 
regard to reporting to the Department of Commerce, which is the 
traditional agency which receives economic and business information so 
that the judgments of this Government can be bottomed on a solid 
informational base.

                              {time}  1400

  The distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has also 
come up with a package which enables this country for the first time to 
get adequate information with regard to redlining, how extensive the 
practice is, how pervasive it is, and how it has impacted upon every 
part of the country. She has achieved a large enough data sample, and 
she does it on the basis of the traditional reporting methods which are 
used by the insurance industry, so that the insurance industry can 
without excessive costs transmit to the Government the information 
which this body and the Government as a whole will need to arrive at 
necessary judgments as to what action should be taken.
  This legislation enables the Congress and the Government of the 
United States to achieve the information which is needed to commence 
the attack upon redlining if there is a finding on the basis of 
intelligently-achieved information that this is a practice that needs 
particularly corrective action. And it also helps us to define the 
information in a way which will enable us to begin to address the 
crafting of a proper relief for the wrongdoing, if such there be. It 
also enables this country to achieve it at the lowest cost, not only to 
the industry but also to the Government of the United States.
  I believe that this is responsible legislation. It can become law. It 
can begin to address a problem which has long been a matter of concern 
to every decent American.
  That the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has achieved the 
extraordinary accomplishment of achieving the support of the 
Government, of the agencies downtown, of the industry, of civil rights 
communities and groups, and others. This shows that she has performed 
an extraordinary accomplishment in the public interest. She deserves 
the commendation and support of this body.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, may we be informed as to how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MANTON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1188. This measure will provide reliable data from the property and 
casualty insurance industry in a timely manner. In turn, this data can 
be used to determine whether there is a problem with insurance cost and 
availability in our Nation's largest urban areas.
  This legislation is designed to disclose what insurance is being 
sold, where it is being sold, who is selling it, and how much it costs 
the consumer. All of this information will help us determine whether or 
not insurance is being made available to all consumers.
  H.R. 1188 also provides for the public disclosure of the data 
collected. The Secretary of Commerce would annually compile aggregate 
data by ZIP Code, and would include tables showing aggregate insurance 
patterns.
  It requires studies of the more complex issues of commercial 
insurance, agent appointments and terminations, insurance applicants, 
and the effectiveness of the data collection.
  I would like to commend my colleagues, Congresswoman Collins and 
Chairman Dingell, for their efforts on this legislation and I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Franks], who also serves 
on the subcommittee with us.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Does insurance redlining exist in our inner cities in 1994? Let us 
hope that the answer to that question is no, but Madam Chairman, we 
need to know.
  I have been an outspoken critic of initiatives that would make race a 
significant factor in measures perceived as favoring African-Americans, 
that is, racial gerrymandering of districts and quotas for the death 
penalty, but Madam Chairman, I will be quick to point out potential 
instances when people of color are being placed at a total 
disadvantage.
  Insurance redlining could be one of those dreadful examples. I trust, 
Madam Chairman, that it is not a problem in our society, but we need to 
explore the possibility that it does exist, and, if so, eradicate it.
  Potential redlining would hurt economic development where it is 
needed the most, in our inner cities. If insurance rates are 
unreasonably high, people will not do business in these areas.
  H.R. 1188 is a way of putting in place a system of checks and 
balances to make sure that insurance is readily available to all 
Americans at a reasonable rate. This will keep our citizens gainfully 
employed and American goods and services competitive.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes for my closing 
statement.
  Madam Chairman, I feel it is important to take the floor again to 
discuss what is probably the most common question I get about H.R. 1188 
from my fellow Republicans: Why is H.R. 1188 worth supporting? It is a 
very good question.
  I have made no secret of the fact that I am not nearly as convinced 
as some of my colleagues that redlining is the problem that some 
believe it to be. I vehemently oppose any effort to impose some kind of 
enforcement mechanism that would prevent redlining because it is 
premature to enact some enforcement mechanism before we even know if 
there is a problem.
  That is not what H.R. 1188 does. I know that because when the 
Commerce Subcommittee Republicans joined with subcommittee Democrats to 
work with Chairwoman Collins to amend this legislation, we firmly 
believed that enforcement was not the route to take. It was too 
expensive and entirely unjustified.
  H.R. 1188 is a 5- to 7-year long study. Period. For all of the talk 
of census tracts and zip codes and MSA's, H.R. 1188 is really only a 
study. It is complex and difficult to understand at times, but it is 
just a study.
  Energy and Commerce Republicans were willing to work with Democratic 
proponents and opponents of the legislation to craft this limited study 
because we were told that it was something that most of the insurance 
industry was willing to live with, that it would be supported by the 
original sponsor of redlining legislation in the House, Chairwoman 
Collins, and that it would answer the questions that many of us had 
about redlining. And, we understood that the alternative, Mr. Kennedy's 
bill, was highly intrusive, and would have cost the Government, the 
taxpayers, and consumers far too much in the way of increased taxes and 
premiums.
  I feel the need to emphasize just how fragile this coalition is. The 
Republicans who support H.R. 1188 regard the bill as reported out of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee as the outer limit of what is 
acceptable. In order to maintain our coalition, we made a nonnegotiable 
demand of our Democrats--accept no amendments or the Republicans will 
walk away from this bill. Our Democrats agreed and in return we agreed 
that we would also oppose any and all amendments--technical, 
substantive, or otherwise.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose all amendments to this 
legislation. No amendment can change this bill for the better in a way 
that would be acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans.
  Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the help of a number of 
people who enabled us to get to this point. As I said before, 
Chairwoman Collins has been extremely gracious in her dealings with the 
members of the subcommittee, and she should be applauded for her 
dedication to this issue. None of this would have been possible without 
the help of Democrats like Mr. Slattery, Dr. Rowland, and Chairman 
Dingell. On the Republican side, Carlos Moorhead, the ranking 
Republican of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, Alex McMillan, 
and Jim Greenwood all deserve a great deal of thanks for their help. 
Staff were also instrumental in doing the legwork on this legislation, 
particularly Richard Huberman of Mrs. Collins' staff and Janet Potts of 
Mr. Dingell's staff, as well as our own minority committee staff, Doug 
Bennett, Hugh Halpern, and Mary Moore Hamrick, who, unfortunately, is 
no longer with the committee.
  In closing, I would just like to reiterate the importance of opposing 
amendments to this legislation. If so much as a single amendment is 
approved by the House, I can assure those who would like to see this 
legislation pass that Republican votes in favor of H.R. 1188 will be 
virtually nonexistent.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

                              {time}  1410

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lehman].
  (Mr. LEHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEHMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 1188, the Anti Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act. I would 
like to commend Chairman Dingell and Chairman Collins for their 
leadership and hard work on this important bill, as well as the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Moorhead].
  As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has 
jurisdiction over this issue, I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
support H.R. 1188. This legislation will help determine the nature and 
extent of insurance availability and whether insurers discriminate on 
the basis of race, income, or ethnic origin.
  The bill requires insurers to disclose information on the sales of 
automobiles and property insurance policies in 25 large urban areas. 
H.R. 1188, unlike the Roybal-Alard amendment, has been carefully 
crafted by the Energy and Commerce Committee in a manner that will not 
compromise consumer confidentiality.
  H.R. 1188 is a balanced approach that deserves the support of this 
body. If you are serious about combating redlining in America, support 
H.R. 1188 and oppose all amendments.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Rowland], a distinguished member of our 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. ROWLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROWLAND. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Anti Redlining 
and Insurance Disclosure Act, H.R. 1188.
  The Committee on Energy and Commerce has worked hard to craft a 
balanced and cost-effective solution to study and address the problem 
of redlining in insurance. This solution, which is before us today, has 
support from both sides of the aisle. It is a bipartisan bill.
  H.R. 1188 requires the disclosure of information about every 
substantial insurance transaction of nearly half of the U.S. 
population. In doing so, it will draw a broad enough picture of 
industry practices for us to determine if insurance is being denied to 
people on the basis of discrimination. And, if we find such 
discrimination, it will allow us to design remedial measures to address 
the types of discrimination this information reveals.
  The reporting requirements of H.R. 1188 are extensive, and compliance 
with these requirements will be expensive for insurance companies. But 
the benefits to the American people, in the form of greater protection 
for civil rights and greater protection from abusive industry 
practices, will be well worth it.
  Today's bill, H.R. 1188, is an important step forward for all 
Americans, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Madam Chairman, let me say to the Members that H.R. 1188 is a well-
crafted, well-balanced piece of legislation that we have considered. 
All persons, groups, organizations, civil rights, insurance companies, 
everybody who is concerned about insurance matters, have worked with 
them and fashioned this piece of legislation that is extremely well 
balanced. I do hope that every Member of this body will support this 
legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I want to commend Representative Cardiss 
Collins, chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection and 
Competitiveness, and Representative John Dingell, chair of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for their leadership in reporting 
H.R. 1188 to the floor so expeditiously. This is a vital bill for this 
country. To illustrate the point, I want to discuss a recent episode of 
alleged insurance redlining in the District of Columbia and how H.R. 
1188 would address the problem.
  On November 28, 1993, the Washington Post published a report on 
alleged insurance redlining in the District of Columbia and Maryland by 
the GEICO Insurance Co. The article highlighted allegations made by 
several GEICO employees that the insurance company screened out blacks 
for auto and home insurance, gave preferential treatment to customers 
from white neighborhoods, and retaliated against employees who 
complained about such practices. Employees further alleged that, in 
violation of District of Columbia law, GEICO used District residents' 
job status in deciding what premiums to charge for auto insurance, the 
result being that a low-wage employee with a clean driving record would 
be given a worse rate than a professional employee with violations on 
his or her record.
  The District's insurance commissioner will soon begin a market 
conduct study of GEICO's insuring practices in the District of 
Columbia. It is anticipated that the study will focus on whether 
GEICO's underwriting practices are discriminatory, whether the 
application of these guidelines has discriminatory effects, and whether 
the rates of insurance applications, cancellations, rejections, and 
nonrenewal are substantially disproportionate across certain minority 
ZIP codes.
  This data will begin to allow the District to get a more accurate 
picture of the scope of redlining problems in the metropolitan area. 
Insurance redlining, however, is not just a problem in the District of 
Columbia, but is a problem in major metropolitan areas across the 
Nation. H.R. 1188, the Antiredlining in Insurance Disclosure Act, would 
require annual reporting by large insurers like GEICO of the number of 
households and vehicles insured, policies issued, premiums earned, 
insurance agents employed, policies canceled, and policies not renewed 
by the company. The collection of such data nationally is the only way 
to comprehensively address this problem, and must be done if we are to 
fulfill our responsibility to fight racial discrimination in all its 
forms and guarantee equal opportunity to all citizens.
  The passage of this bill is critically important to my constituents 
and to minorities nationwide, and I voice my strong support for the 
bill.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Chairman, today we are here to debate 
whether or not to amend H.R. 1188. First, let me begin by saying that 
H.R. 1188 already goes well beyond what is necessary to combat alleged 
redlining in insurance underwriting. I can say this, as I have 
something of a passing knowledge on insurance issues, having started my 
legal career as a hearing officer for the Ohio Department of Insurance.
  To begin with, what is it that the legislation seeks to accomplish? 
If it wants to eradicate discrimination along the lines of race, 
religion, or national origin, there are already adequate civil rights 
and unfair claims practices laws, both Federal and State, to combat 
cases of classic redlining. These laws guarantee everyone equal 
opportunity. Nothing guarantees equal outcomes. Besides, it is well 
documented that insurance is available to virtually everyone who wants 
to purchase it. Recent studies indicate that over 97 percent of urban 
property owners have insurance.
  Regarding the purpose of this legislation, proponents say we need 
this bill to gather data to determine, through a number of studies, 
whether discrimination exists in insurance underwriting. Basically, 
Congress wants to see if a problem exists. However, has anyone asked 
what will be the likely result of the study, once it is completed, or 
how we will remedy the problem?
  Does creating a system that does not correlate risk to cost make 
sense? Would stripping personal behavior and responsibility from the 
insurance underwriting process force most Americans to subsidize, 
through higher premiums, the risky lifestyles or behavior of the very 
few? I believe it would. I also do not believe that this will solve the 
real problem.
  What the proponents of this type of legislation really want is to 
community rate property and casualty insurance. By that I mean that 
they want everyone to pay the same price for the same coverage, 
regardless of risk, geographic or otherwise.
  Community rated property and casualty insurance would be a bad deal 
for the vast majority of Americans. The ultimate result would be that 
the cost of most people's auto and homeowner's policies would increase 
substantially in order to subsidize those who were at a greater risk 
for loss.
  However, even if I could be convinced of H.R. 1188's merits, these 
amendments certainly go beyond what is necessary, and truly cause me to 
question the real purpose of this legislation. For example, one of 
these amendments would make insurers report loss data to the Federal 
Government.
  This bill should not require reporting of company-specific loss data. 
These data are irrelevant to the purpose of the bill, which is 
ostensibly to combat facial discrimination along the lines of race, 
religion, and national origin in insurance underwriting practices.
  Additionally, loss data would only be available on the basis of a 
rating territory, which is, at best, based on a group of five digit ZIP 
Codes. Also, loss data on a census tract basis, which is sought by many 
supporters of this legislation, is unavailable and would be 
statistically meaningless. Furthermore, loss data are irrelevant to 
determine whether insurers are in fact writing policies in urban areas, 
which is, at least on the surface, what proponents of antiredling 
legislation say is their main concern.
  Currently, individual insurers are required to provide loss data to 
State regulators only on the basis of a rating territory, and only when 
necessary to justify rate changes, not as a routine matter. Loss 
information is relevant only if the Federal Government is going to 
begin second-guessing insurance rates; a matter which Congress has 
already delegated to State insurance departments. Maybe I misunderstood 
the purpose of the legislation, but I did not understand it to create a 
costly and duplicative Federal insurance regulatory bureaucracy.
  Madam Chairman, the bottom line is insurers are not statistical 
agencies. As a routine matter, statistical reports are submitted to 
regulators in the aggregate, combining the data of many insurers. 
Additionally, it should be noted that loss data are valuable 
competitive information and constitute trade secrets. The disclosure of 
loss data could seriously undermine competition in the insurance 
market. A breakdown in competition would only harm consumers by 
increasing the cost of insurance. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues 
to vote against any amendments to H.R. 1188 and vote no on final 
passage.
  Mr. FOGLIETTA. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1188, 
the Anti Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act.
  As chairman of the Congressional Urban Caucus, I support this bill 
which will erase the red lines that cut through the heart of many 
inner-city communities.
  In far too many cities, homeowners who need property insurance are 
being ripped off and turned down by insurance agents because they live 
on the wrong block or in the wrong neighborhood or have the wrong skin 
color or speak with an accent.
  But the impact of these red lines is devastating. Without access to 
insurance, people cannot buy a home.
  Without insurance, new businesses cannot be opened, and existing 
businesses are endangered.
  Without insurance, housing cannot be built and critical repairs 
cannot be made.
  We talk about empowerment but we need practical resources, like 
insurance, to turn this talk into reality.
  Let's walk the walk by ending discrimination and allow all 
neighborhoods to attain the American dream of home ownership.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1188.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1188, the Anti Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act. This bill 
will help to solve some of the problems experienced by residents of our 
Nation's inner cities who have for too long paid higher premiums for 
insurance or have not been able to obtain coverage.
  This legislation will require the annual disclosure of insurance 
practices of the largest insurance companies in our Nation's 25 largest 
metropolitan areas. Smaller insurance companies would not be required 
to file comprehensive reports, rather they would simply have to furnish 
a summary of their services.
  As a Representative from Houston, I have many constituents who have 
experienced difficulty in obtaining insurance and many suspect that 
certain neighborhoods are denied coverage based on the demographics of 
the residents who live there. While some disagree with the idea that 
racism may be to blame for the difficulty in obtaining insurance, we 
must at the very least collect the data necessary to determine the 
reasons behind this problem. H.R. 1188 will require this information to 
be furnished to the Secretary of Commerce so that we can determine once 
and for all the reasons behind disparities in coverage for some 
neighborhoods.
  Our Government can tell where automobiles are sold or which 
drugstores specific lots of prescription drugs go yet we cannot 
currently tell which neighborhoods have adequate insurance. This bill 
simply allows us to look at the facts and make a determination based on 
those facts. The issue of redlining falls under the same philosophy as 
``out of sight, out of mind.'' As long as we are able to turn a blind 
eye to these underinsured neighborhoods they will continue to be out of 
the minds of the authorities whose job it is to correct the social and 
economic problems facing our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation because it 
will allow our inner-city neighborhoods to obtain the same type of 
insurance coverage enjoyed by the suburbs. This is one step toward real 
urban revitalization since the insurance of property results in that 
property being better maintained and thus sustaining its value. By 
voting for this bill you can vote to give families the tools they need 
to ensure their continued success and eliminate the risk of loss that 
inevitably results in the decay of our inner-city neighborhoods.
  Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1188, the 
Anti Redlining In Insurance Disclosure Act, and I commend my colleague 
from Chicago, Mrs. Collins, for her leadership in determining whether 
the serious problem of redlining exists in major metropolitan areas.
  The term redlining dates back to a time when insurance companies 
literally draw red lines on a map to indicate areas where they would 
not sell insurance. These areas often tended to be low-income, inner-
city areas.
  Madam Chairman, without access to affordable insurance, small 
businesses in urban areas cannot continue to exist and provide needed 
jobs. Access to affordable insurance is an important protection that 
should be available to all Americans.
  H.R. 1188 is a balanced approach to this problem and will help to 
determine whether allegations of redlining are accurate. The bill 
requires disclosure by insurance companies of their insurance 
activities in the 25 largest urban areas. It also requires the 
reporting of agent locations. This information will help to determine 
insurance availability in a number of urban areas across the country.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 
1188. It is an important step toward ensuring that no American is 
discriminated against by being denied access to insurance, simply 
because of where they live.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill is considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1188

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Anti Redlining in Insurance 
     Disclosure Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) disparities in property and casualty insurance coverage 
     provided by insurers engaged in interstate commerce between 
     areas of different incomes and racial composition could 
     adversely affect interstate commerce and the cost and 
     availability of insurance for consumers, and
       (2) appropriate disclosures of information by insurers 
     would benefit consumers and insurance regulators.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this Act is intended to, nor 
     shall it be construed to, encourage unsound underwriting 
     practices.

     SEC. 3. MAINTENANCE OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.

       (a) General Rule.--
       (1) Designated insurers.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided by subsection (b)(7), 
     each designated insurer shall, in accordance with subsection 
     (b), annually compile, submit to the Secretary, and make 
     available to the public for each calendar year and for 
     designated lines of insurance in a designated MSA--
       (i) the total number of policies, total exposure units (in 
     car years and house years), and total earned premium of 
     insurance policies by designated line which were issued by 
     such insurer and the new written exposure units, exposure 
     units canceled, and the exposure units not renewed by such 
     insurer, and
       (ii) the number of licensed agents of such insurer whose 
     principal place of business is located in such designated MSA 
     and the number within each 5-digit zip code in such 
     designated MSA and with respect to each such agent, whether 
     such agent is an employee, independent contractor working 
     exclusively for such insurer, or an independent contractor 
     appointed to represent such insurer on a non-exclusive basis.
       (B) Submissions and availability.--The information 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be--
       (i) submitted to the Secretary in accordance with 
     subsection (d), and
       (ii) made available to the public, in accordance with 
     subsection (b)(2), for inspection and copying, at cost, at 
     the home office of the insurer and at a central depository, 
     established under subsection (c), by the Secretary.
       (2) Non-designated insurers.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b)(7), every insurer which sells an insurance 
     policy in a designated line of insurance in a designated MSA 
     and which is not a designated insurer in such MSA shall 
     submit to the Secretary for each calendar year in accordance 
     with subsection (d) and regulations of the Secretary the 
     total exposure units (in car years and house years) of 
     insurance policies in a designated line sold in such MSA. 
     With respect to such policies, the insurer shall report the 
     designated MSA where the insured risks are located for which 
     such insurance is issued and within such MSA report the 5-
     digit zip code where the risk is located.
       (b) Requirements.--
       (1) Content.--The information required to be maintained and 
     made available under subsection (a)(1) shall be itemized in 
     order to clearly and conspicuously disclose the policies, the 
     exposure units, and the premium amount for each line of 
     insurance for which information is required and be itemized 
     by the 5-digit zip code where the risks are located.
       (2) Availability to the public.--The information required 
     to be maintained and made available under subsection (a) 
     shall be made available to the public on a timetable 
     determined by the Secretary but not later than October 1 of 
     the calendar year following the calendar year for which the 
     information is required to be made available, except that 
     such information shall not be made available to the public 
     until it is available in its entirety but it shall be made 
     available if not all the information required to be reported 
     is available on such October 1 or on the date determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Specification of data.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to information which is 
     required to be maintained and made available under subsection 
     (a)(1), the Secretary shall by regulation establish 
     specifications for the collection and public reporting of 
     such information with respect to the following lines of 
     insurance: private passenger automobile, homeowners, and 
     dwelling fire and allied lines. The specifications shall--
       (i) provide that information be aggregated among similar 
     policyholders and reported on that basis,
       (ii) be designed to collect information with respect to the 
     availability, cost, and type of insurance coverage between 
     and among various geographic areas,
       (iii) detail what data elements should be collected,
       (iv) provide for the collection of information on an 
     individual insurer basis,
       (v) minimize burdens on insurance agents, including 
     independent insurance agents,
       (vi) provide the data required by clause (ii) with the 
     least burden on insurers, particularly small insurers,
       (vii) take into account the types of data collected under 
     the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975,
       (viii) take into account existing statistical reporting 
     systems in the insurance industry,
       (ix) require itemization by 5-digit zip code, and
       (x) include information on policies written in a residual 
     market.
       (B) Consultations.--In developing the specifications in 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (i) other Federal agencies with appropriate expertise,
       (ii) State insurance regulators,
       (iii) representatives of the insurance industry, including 
     statistical agents,
       (iv) representatives of insurance producers, including 
     minority insurance producers, and
       (v) consumer, community, and civil rights groups who are 
     representative of a diversity of geographic locations.
       (C) Effective date.--The regulation under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be issued no later than 270 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (4) Commercial insurance study and pilot project.--
       (A) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study regarding 
     the availability of commercial insurance (other than 
     professional liability insurance, workers compensation 
     insurance, and title insurance) with special emphasis on the 
     availability of commercial insurance for small business. The 
     study shall focus on--
       (i) an appropriate definition for small business; and
       (ii) preliminary views regarding the availability, cost, 
     and type of insurance coverage for small business, which may 
     be based on surveys of members of the small business 
     community.

     In conducting the study, the Secretary shall consult with 
     interested parties from a diversity of locations, including 
     State insurance regulators, consumer, community, and civil 
     rights groups, representatives of small business, 
     representatives of the insurance industry, including 
     statistical agents, and representatives of insurance 
     producers, including minority insurance producers. The 
     Secretary shall submit a report detailing the findings of the 
     study to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the appropriate committee of the Senate 
     no later than 18 months following the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (B) Proposal of pilot project.--Concurrent with the conduct 
     of the study under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     develop a proposed data collection pilot project in the 5 
     largest MSA's to help determine the need for any further data 
     collection requirements to evaluate the availability, cost, 
     and type of insurance coverage for small business. In 
     developing the proposed pilot project, the Secretary shall 
     consult with interested parties from a diversity of 
     locations, including State insurance regulators, consumer, 
     community, and civil rights groups, representatives of small 
     business, representatives of the insurance industry, 
     including statistical agents, and representatives of 
     insurance producers, including minority insurance producers. 
     The Secretary shall submit a specific proposal for a pilot 
     project to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives and the appropriate committee of the 
     Senate no later than 18 months following the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (C) Specifications for pilot project.--Immediately 
     following the submission of the proposal for a pilot project, 
     the Secretary shall, by regulation, establish specifications 
     for the collection and public reporting of information with 
     respect to commercial insurance for the proposed pilot 
     project. As part of the specifications, the Secretary shall 
     designate the 5 largest MSA's for purposes of the pilot 
     project. The specifications shall--
       (i) provide that information be aggregated among similar 
     policyholders and reported on that basis,
       (ii) be designed to collect information with respect to the 
     availability, cost, and type of insurance coverage between 
     and among various geographic areas,
       (iii) provide for the collection of information on an 
     individual insurer basis,
       (iv) provide the data required by clause (ii) with the 
     least burden on insurers, particularly small insurers, and 
     insurance agents, including independent insurance agents,
       (v) take into account existing statistical reporting 
     systems in the insurance industry and use existing data 
     sources to the maximum practical extent,
       (vi) include information on policies written in a residual 
     market,
       (vii) detail what data elements should be collected,
       (viii) detail what insurers should be designated insurers 
     for purposes of the pilot project,
       (ix) detail what lines of commercial insurance should be 
     designated for purposes of the pilot project, with particular 
     consideration given to commercial fire and business owners 
     lines,
       (x) include an appropriate definition of small business, if 
     necessary,
       (xi) provide data representative of at least 2 years of 
     experience and provide that the pilot project will terminate 
     no later than 2 years after its inception, and
       (xii) provide adequate lead time to insurers designated 
     under clause (viii) for the reporting to begin.

     The regulation shall be issued within 2 years of the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (D) Reporting under pilot project.--Insurers designated 
     under subparagraph (C)(viii) shall report to the Secretary 
     with respect to lines of insurance designated under 
     subparagraph (C)(ix) in the 5 largest MSA's, pursuant to the 
     regulation issued by the Secretary in subparagraph (C).
       (E) Analysis of data under pilot project.--At the 
     conclusion of the pilot project, the Secretary shall analyze 
     the data collected. Within 1 year of the conclusion of the 
     pilot project, the Secretary shall report to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
     appropriate committee of the Senate on--
       (i) any conclusions of the Secretary regarding the data 
     collected under the pilot project, particularly regarding the 
     availability, cost, and type of commercial insurance for 
     small business, and
       (ii) the need for further data collection requirements to 
     evaluate the availability, cost, and type of such coverage or 
     to help ensure the availability of such coverage.
       (5) Period of maintenance.--Any information required to be 
     compiled and made available under subsection (a) shall be 
     maintained and made available for a period of 3 years after 
     the close of the first year during which such information is 
     required to be maintained and made available.
       (6) Format for disclosures.--Subject to subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall prescribe a standard format for making 
     information available as required by subsection (a). Such 
     format shall encourage the submission of information in a 
     form readable by a computer.
       (7) Exemption.--
       (A) Secretarial action.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     State has enacted a law, or otherwise implemented a 
     requirement under which--
       (i) insurers operating in that State are subject to 
     disclosure requirements on a 5-digit zip code basis 
     substantially similar to those of subsection (a),
       (ii) there are adequate provisions for enforcement, and
       (iii) the information disclosed under the State law or 
     requirement is made available to the Secretary and the public 
     in a manner similar to other information disclosed under 
     subsection (a),

     then the Secretary shall by regulation exempt insurers 
     operating in that State from complying with the requirements 
     of subsection (a) with respect to that State's portions of 
     the designated MSA's. If the Secretary determines that the 
     State law or requirement no longer meets the criteria of 
     clauses (i) through (iii) or is no longer in effect, the 
     Secretary shall by regulation revoke the exemption.
       (B) United states program.--Reporting shall not be required 
     under subsection (a) with respect to insurance provided by a 
     program underwritten or administered by the United States.
       (c) Public Access System.--The Secretary shall implement a 
     system to facilitate public access to information required to 
     be made available to the public under subsection (a). Such 
     system shall include arrangements for a central depository of 
     information in each designated MSA and for a telephone number 
     which can be used by the public, at cost, to request such 
     information. Statements shall be made available to the public 
     for inspection and copying at such central depository of 
     information for all designated insurers within such MSA. The 
     Secretary shall also make copies of such statements available 
     in forms readable by widely used personal computers, such as 
     in disc format. The Secretary may charge a fee for such 
     information, which may not exceed the amount, determined by 
     the Secretary, that is equal to the cost of reproducing the 
     information.
       (d) Submission to Secretary.--With respect to the 
     information required to be submitted under subsection (a) to 
     the Secretary, the Secretary shall develop regulations 
     prescribing the format and method for submitting such 
     information. Such regulations shall ensure uniformity among 
     insurers, to the extent practicable, in the format used for 
     reporting, including the definitions of data elements. Any 
     reporting insurer may submit in writing to the Secretary such 
     additional data or explanations as it deems relevant to the 
     decision by such insurer to sell insurance.

     SEC. 4. DESIGNATIONS.

       (a) Designations by the Secretary.--
       (1) Designations of msa's.--The Secretary shall designate 
     the MSA's for which reporting is required under section 3(a). 
     The Secretary shall designate the 25 MSA's having the largest 
     population.
       (2) Designation of insurers.--For each MSA designated under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take the following 
     actions:
       (A) The Secretary shall designate the insurers transacting 
     insurance business in such MSA for which reporting is 
     required under section 3(a). At a minimum, the Secretary 
     shall designate the 25 insurers in such MSA having the 
     largest premium volume in the designated lines of insurance 
     in each State in which such MSA is located.
       (B) In addition to the insurers designated under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall also designate any 
     entity primarily providing insurance in a designated line of 
     insurance as part of a residual market established by State 
     law.
       (C) The Secretary shall also designate, in addition to the 
     insurers designated under subparagraphs (A) and (B), insurers 
     who specialize in selling insurance in urban areas, including 
     surplus lines insurers.
       (D) The Secretary shall also designate, in addition to the 
     insurers designated under subparagraph (A), (B), and (C) 
     insurers such that insurers representing at least 80 percent 
     of the premium volume in each State in which such MSA is 
     located in the designated line of insurance are designated in 
     such MSA. The Secretary may not designate additional insurers 
     under this subparagraph if their market share in the 
     designated line of insurance in the applicable States, as 
     measured by premium volume in each State in which such MSA is 
     located, is under 1 percent.
       (E) In addition to the insurers designated under 
     subparagraph (A), (B), (C), and (D) the Secretary may by 
     regulation designate additional insurers in a MSA if the 
     designation of additional insurers is necessary to provide 
     valid data with respect to the availability, cost, and type 
     of insurance in the MSA.
       (F) The Secretary shall revoke the designation of an 
     insurer designated under subparagraph (A) as follows: If such 
     designated insurer has a market share in a designated line of 
     insurance in a MSA, as measured by premium volume in each 
     State in which such MSA is located, of under 1 percent, the 
     Secretary shall revoke the designation of such insurer 
     beginning with the insurer with the smallest market share of 
     such insurance if the remainder of the designated insurers 
     have a market share of at least 75 percent of such insurance 
     as measured by premium volume in each State in which such MSA 
     is located. In addition, the Secretary may revoke the 
     designation of any insurer designated under subparagraph (A) 
     with a market share in a designated line of insurance in a 
     MSA, as measured by premium volume in each State in which 
     such MSA is located, of under 1 percent if such designation 
     has not been revoked under this subparagraph and if such 
     insurer primarily sells insurance in rural areas of such MSA.
       (G) For purposes of this paragraph, insurers which are 
     affiliated or are members of the same group shall be 
     considered together as one insurer.
       (3) Designation of lines of insurance.--For each MSA 
     designated under paragraph (1) the following are the 
     designated lines of property and casualty insurance for which 
     reporting is required under section 3:
       (A) Private passenger automobile insurance.
       (B) Homeowners insurance.
       (C) Dwelling fire and allied lines of insurance.
       (4) Timing of designations.--
       (A) Initial designations.--The Secretary shall make initial 
     designations required by paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) no 
     later than July 1 of the year preceding the first year for 
     which reporting is required under section 3. Such initial 
     designations shall be effective for 5 calendar years from the 
     date of designation.
       (B) Subsequent designations.--Not later than July 1 of the 
     year preceding the fifth year after a designation under 
     subparagraph (A) or this subparagraph, the Secretary shall 
     make another designation to be effective upon the expiration 
     of such 5 years and such designation shall be effective for 5 
     calendar years from the date of designation.
       (C) Notice.--The Secretary shall notify persons involved in 
     the designations no later than the July 15 which follows the 
     designation.
       (b) Obtaining Information.--The Secretary may obtain from 
     insurers such information as the Secretary may require to 
     make designations under subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. TASK FORCE ON AGENCY APPOINTMENTS.

       (a) Establishment.--Within 90 days of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a task 
     force on insurance agency appointments. The task force 
     shall--
       (1) consist of representatives of appropriate Federal 
     agencies, property and casualty insurance agents, including 
     specifically minority insurance agents, property and casualty 
     insurance companies, State insurance regulators, and public 
     interest groups,
       (2) have a significant representation from minority 
     insurance agents, and
       (3) be chaired by the Secretary or the Secretary's 
     designee.
       (b) Function.-- The task force shall--
       (1) review the problems inner city and minority agents may 
     have in receiving appointments to represent property and 
     casualty insurance companies,
       (2) review the practices of insurers in terminating agents 
     and consider the effect such practices have on the 
     availability or cost of insurance, especially in underserved 
     areas, and
       (3) recommend solutions to improve the ability of inner 
     city and minority insurance agents to market property and 
     casualty insurance products, including steps property and 
     casualty insurance companies should take to increase their 
     appointments of such agents.
       (c) Report and Termination.--The task force shall report to 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the appropriate Committee of the Senate 
     its findings under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) 
     and its recommendations under paragraph (3) of subsection (b) 
     within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 
     The task force shall terminate when the report is submitted 
     to the Committees.

     SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 3.

       (a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out section 3. Such 
     regulations may--
       (1) contain such classifications, differentiations, or 
     other provisions, and
       (2) may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for any 
     class of transactions,

     as in the judgment of the Secretary are necessary and proper 
     to effectuate the purposes of such section and to prevent 
     circumvention or evasion thereof or to facilitate compliance 
     therewith.
       (b) Data Collection Contractor.--The Secretary may contract 
     with a data collection contractor to carry out the 
     Secretary's responsibilities under section 3 if the 
     contractor agrees to collect and make available the data 
     pursuant to the terms and conditions of such section. A 
     statistical agent may also be a data contractor.
       (c) Role of Statistical Agents.--
       (1) Acceptance of data.--The Secretary and, if applicable, 
     the contractor under the subsection (b) contract may accept 
     data reported under section 3(a) by a statistical agent 
     acting on behalf of more than one insurer if--
       (A) the statistical plan used by the statistical agent for 
     the reporting of data on insurance provides for the reporting 
     of data in a manner compatible with section 3(a),
       (B) the statistical agent reports such data on an 
     individual insurer basis, and, at the discretion of the 
     Secretary, on an aggregate basis,
       (C) the statistical agent provides adequate procedures to 
     protect the integrity of the data reported,
       (D) the statistical agent has procedures in place which 
     ensure that data reported under the statistical plan in 
     connection with reporting under this Act and submitted to the 
     Secretary are not subject to adjustment by the statistical 
     agent or an insurer for reasons other than technical accuracy 
     and conformance to the statistical plan,
       (E) the statistical agent ensures that the data of one 
     insurer is not subject to review by other insurers before 
     public availability, and
       (F) the statistical agent provides for the reporting of 
     data in a manner compatible with the format prescribed by the 
     Secretary under section 3(d).
       (2) Discontinuance of data acceptance.--The Secretary may, 
     after providing an opportunity for a hearing, discontinue 
     accepting data reported under section 3(a) by a statistical 
     agent acting on behalf of more than one insurer if the 
     Secretary determines the requirements for acceptance of data 
     in paragraph (1) are no longer met.
       (d) Role of GAO.--The Comptroller General shall have the 
     authority to review and audit any data collection and 
     reporting performed under section 3, whether by the 
     Secretary, the contractor under the subsection (b) contract, 
     or a statistical agent, to ensure that the integrity of the 
     data collected and reported is protected.
       (e) Burdens on Insurance Agents.--In prescribing 
     regulations under this Act, the Secretary shall take into 
     consideration the administrative, paperwork, and other 
     burdens on insurance agents, including independent insurance 
     agents, involved in complying with the requirements of this 
     Act and shall minimize the burdens imposed by such 
     requirements with respect to such agents.

     SEC. 7. RELATION TO STATE LAWS.

       This Act does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt the 
     obligation of any insurer subject to this Act to comply with 
     the laws of any State or subdivision thereof with respect to 
     public disclosure and recordkeeping.

     SEC. 8. COMPILATION OF AGGREGATE DATA.

       (a) Scope of Data and Tables.--The Secretary shall compile 
     each year, for each MSA, data aggregated by 5-digit zip code 
     for all insurers who are subject to section 3 or who are 
     exempt from section 3 under subsection (b)(7)(A) of such 
     section. The Secretary shall also produce tables indicating, 
     for each MSA, insurance policies aggregated for various 
     categories of 5-digit zip codes grouped according to 
     location, age of property, income level, and racial 
     characteristics of neighborhood.
       (b) Aggregation of Information.--Statistical agents may 
     aggregate the data of insurers that report to them and may 
     provide such information to the Secretary. The Secretary may 
     also provide the individual company data submitted by 
     insurers to statistical agents for aggregation.
       (c) Availability to Public.--The data compiled and the 
     tables produced pursuant to subsection (a) shall be made 
     available to the public on a timetable determined by the 
     Secretary but not later than October 1 of the year following 
     the calendar year on which the data and tables are based.

     SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Civil Penalties.--Any insurer who is determined by the 
     Secretary, after providing opportunity for a hearing on the 
     record, to have violated the requirements of section 3 shall 
     be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $5,000 for 
     each day during which such violation continues.
       (b) Injunction.--The Secretary may bring an action in an 
     appropriate United States district court for appropriate 
     declaratory and injunctive relief against any insurer who 
     violates the requirements of section 3.
       (c) Insurer Liability.--An insurer shall be responsible 
     under subsections (a) and (b) for any violation of a 
     statistical agent acting on behalf of the insurer.

     SEC. 10. SUNSET.

       (a) Expiration.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this 
     Act shall not be in effect after the expiration of 5 years 
     from its effective date. Prior to the expiration of 4 years 
     from such date, the Secretary shall report to the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives and the 
     appropriate committee of the Senate--
       (1) the quality of data received under section 3 and the 
     effectiveness of the data requirement, including the relation 
     between the cost of such data gathering and the benefits from 
     having such data available,
       (2) the appropriateness of the geographic data reporting 
     units,
       (3) the need for continued reporting by the designated 
     insurers in urban areas,
       (4) the efforts of insurers to meet the insurance needs of 
     minority and low-income neighborhoods, and
       (5) such other information as the Secretary determines will 
     assist in considering an extension of this Act.
       (b) Extension.--Based on the Secretary's report on the need 
     described in subsection (a)(3) and the information described 
     in subsection (a)(5), the Secretary may extend this Act for 
     one period of 2 years.

     SEC. 11. STUDIES.

       (a) Study of Information on Insurance Applicants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility and utility of the collection of 
     information with respect to the characteristics of applicants 
     for insurance and reasons for rejection of applicants. The 
     study shall examine the extent to which--
       (A) oral applications or representations are used by 
     insurers and agents in making determinations regarding 
     whether or not to insure a prospective insured,
       (B) written applications are used by insurers and agents in 
     making determinations regarding whether or not to insure a 
     prospective insured,
       (C) written applications are submitted after the insurer or 
     agent has already made a determination to provide insurance 
     to a prospective insured or has determined that the 
     prospective insured is eligible for insurance, and
       (D) prospective insureds are discouraged from submitting 
     applications for insurance based, in whole or in part, on--
       (i) the location of the risk to be insured,
       (ii) the race or ethnicity of the prospective insured,
       (iii) the racial or ethnic composition of the neighborhood 
     in which the risk to be insured is located, and
       (iv) in the case of residential property insurance, the age 
     and value of the risk to be insured.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall report the results of the 
     study under paragraph (1) to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the appropriate 
     Committee of the Senate within 18 months of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Study of Insurer Actions To Meet Insurance Needs of 
     Certain Neighborhoods.--The Secretary shall conduct a study 
     of various practices, actions, programs, and methods 
     undertaken by insurers to meet the property and casualty 
     insurance needs of residents of low- and moderate-income 
     neighborhoods, minority neighborhoods, and small businesses 
     located in such neighborhoods. The Secretary may establish a 
     task force of interested parties, including representatives 
     of insurance companies, insurance agents, including minority 
     agents, and consumer representatives to discuss additional 
     practices, actions, programs, and methods to meet these 
     needs. The Secretary shall report the results of the study, 
     including any recommendations, to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the appropriate 
     Committee of the Senate no later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``commercial insurance'' means any line of 
     property and casualty insurance, except private passenger 
     automobile and homeowner's insurance.
       (2) The term ``designated insurer'' means an insurer 
     designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 4(a)(2).
       (3) The term ``designated line'' means a line of insurance 
     specified in section 4(a)(3).
       (4) The term ``exposure units'' means units insured against 
     risk of loss by an insurer and the term ``units'' means an 
     automobile or the number of units in a building.
       (5) The term ``insurer'' means any corporation, 
     association, society, order, firm, company, partnership, 
     individual, or aggregation of individuals which is subject to 
     examination or supervision by any State insurance regulator, 
     or which is doing or represents an insurance business. Such 
     term does not include an individual or entity which 
     represents an insurer as agent for the purpose of selling or 
     which represents a consumer as a broker for the purpose of 
     buying insurance.
       (6) The term ``MSA'' means a Metropolitan Statistical Area 
     or a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area and the term 
     ``designated MSA'' means an MSA designated by the Secretary 
     pursuant to section 4(a)(1).
       (7) The term ``property and casualty insurance'' means 
     insurance against loss of or damage to property, insurance 
     against loss of income or extra expense incurred because of 
     loss of, or damage to, property, and insurance against third 
     party liability claims caused by negligence or imposed by 
     statute or contract.
       (8) The term ``residual market'' means an assigned risk 
     plan, joint underwriting association, or any similar 
     mechanism designed to make insurance available to those 
     unable to obtain it in the voluntary market.
       (9) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.
       (10) The term ``State'' means any State, the District of 
     Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the 
     Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

     SEC. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The requirements of this Act shall take effect with respect 
     to information on insurance described in section 3 and 
     developed in and after calendar year 1995.

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. kennedy

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment, and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy:
       Page 25, line 24, strike ``Energy and Commerce Committee'' 
     and insert ``Committee on Banking; Finance and Urban 
     Affairs''.
       Page 30, lines 20 and 21, strike ``Secretary of Commerce'' 
     and insert ``Secretary of Housing and Urban Development''.
       Strike ``Committee on Energy and Commerce'' each place it 
     appeals in the bill and insert ``Committee on Banking, 
     Finance and Urban Affairs''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which 
the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs has offered to this 
bill that deals with the question of jurisdiction. It deals with the 
question of whether or not the information that is asked for in the 
bill should be contained at HUD or should be contained at the Commerce 
Department.
  The reason why this is important is because there are two separate 
agencies. One agency deals with whether or not there is racial 
discrimination in housing, whether or not there are a series of 
programs that HUD has always been in charge of the pertain to flood 
insurance, that pertain to private mortgage insurance, that pertain to 
the Federal Housing Administration insurance, the private deposit 
insurance, and, last but not least, the insurance redlining, because 
HUD enforces the Fair Housing Act insurance program.
  The fact is that HUD is the agency that this information ought to be 
contained with.
  Now, if we look at what has actually occurred with this bill, I 
initially wrote this legislation and went to the Parliamentarian. We 
asked the Parliamentarian's judgment on how to make certain that the 
information would come directly to the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs. We were given certain assurances about why this 
would come to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  The fundamental fact is after this passed, with those assurances, the 
subcommittee, after it passed the full committee, another Member of 
this body went to that committee and got the ruling changed so that our 
bill was then referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
their bill was not referred to our committee.
  It was patently wrong, patently unfair. Our committee went and saw 
the Speaker of the House about that kind of shoddy treatment. Since 
that time, we have tried very hard to try to find some way of working 
out our differences. There was no attempt to work out our differences. 
What we found was in fact with this legislation, there have been 
attempts after attempts to undercut any ability to get this information 
at the agency where it is proper to be housed.
  What I am trying to suggest is that if we look at the history of why 
insurance is not designated for a particular committee, it seems to me 
it is pretty clear. Insurance has always been regulated by the States. 
It is the one major industry of our land that is not designated by some 
committee in the Congress. And what happens is under the rule X, it is 
unclear. But despite the fact that the Committee on Banking, Finance 
and Urban Affairs runs all of these insurance programs, because of the 
overarching concern that somehow insurance is interstate commerce, 
Energy and Commerce automatically gets it.
  When the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs was 
initially formed in this country, we controlled 80 percent of the 
credit in America, controlled the vast majority of all the credit 
around the world. Today the mutual fund industry has more deposits than 
the banking industry. It is controlled by Energy and Commerce. The 
securities industry controls more deposits than the banking industry. 
It is controlled by Energy and Commerce. Energy and Commerce controls 
our health. If they could get a bill through, it would be interesting. 
They control the transportation. They control our energy policy. They 
control our railroads. They control our interstate commerce.
  Enough is enough. At some point the fact is that this is nothing more 
than a further power grab by that committee on the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs' jurisdiction, and it is time to 
stop getting bullied around by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
Time and time again, whether it is legislation pertaining to how we are 
going to come together as a land and have financial institutions that 
can go out and compete with the Germans and Japanese and other 
foreigners, as long as it treads on the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce jurisdiction, it cannot pass the Congress of the United 
States.
  What I am trying to suggest is that we allow an honest to goodness 
debate on the specific issues of whether or not it makes more sense to 
house this information at HUD, where the Secretary has requested it, 
where the Secretary has indicated that he wants to make this a priority 
of his in this administration.

                              {time}  1420

  It is true that an Inspector General's report on Jack Kemp's HUD 
indicated that HUD could not handle any new programs. But the fact is 
that Henry Cisneros has come in and reorganized HUD. I talked to his 
office this morning. They indicated to me that they are entirely 
capable and very much want to have this information contained at HUD.
  Madam Chairman, I would urge the Members to support the legislation 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] and myself to 
contain this information at the Housing and Urban Development Agency 
where it is necessary to get the job done. If Members think that the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce has taken enough of their committees' 
jurisdictions, then vote yes on the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] be allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
rise in opposition to the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment to H.R. 1188.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment to H.R. 
1188 because I believe that it is little more than a thinly veiled 
attempt to expand their committee jurisdiction, and, in the end, would 
do more harm than good to this legislation and the Nation's consumers 
of insurance.
  This amendment has really only a single purpose--to change the 
implementing agency to an agency primarily within the jurisdiction of 
the Banking Committee. The agency they chose was the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development. This amendment would give the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development broad new authority to collect this 
data in spite of all the evidence demonstrating that HUD needs to 
better address its current responsibilities before it receives new 
ones.
  I could provide a litany of examples of HUD scandals and 
mismanagement, but the HUD inspector general put it best in a letter to 
the Banking Committee. Commenting on the Banking Committee's redlining 
proposal, she explained succinctly that ``Historically, HUD has not 
developed and maintained data systems in an effective and efficient 
manner.'' She went on to explain how HUD initially suffered from 
incomplete, untimely, and erroneous data reporting when it tried to 
implement its responsibilities under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
  Even Chairman Gonzalez and the rest of the Banking Committee 
acknowledged HUD's limitations in the recent committee report on the 
Housing and Community Development Act. The committee reiterated 
findings by the HUD inspector general that ``HUD is a `troubled' 
Federal agency with 10 material weaknesses in its basic operations,'' 
and that troubles arising in the mid-1980's ``has left a decimated 
workforce with the wrong skills mix, inadequate computer data systems, 
and the inability to administer properly the programs currently 
authorized.''
  Clearly, HUD has a poor track record in implementing the kinds of 
data systems that would be required under H.R. 1188. It would be 
conceivable that by the time HUD managed to out work the problems, the 
program would be ready to expire.
  I was somewhat surprised to hear that Chairman Kennedy told the Rules 
Committee that the Department of Commerce had no experience gathering 
large amounts of data. This could almost be true, if it were not for 
one small fact--the Department of Commerce houses the Bureau of the 
Census, arguably the largest data gathering organization in the world.
  Why should we give new authority to an overburdened and ineffective 
bureaucracy at HUD when the Bureau of the Census routinely gathers 
large amounts of information about every man, woman, and child in the 
United States? Further, the Department of Commerce already gathers some 
insurance data, including data on affordability and availability. 
Clearly, the original agency authorized under H.R. 1188 is the best 
agency for the task on the merits.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this cynical amendment based on a 
petty jurisdictional squabble. Members should look at this issue on its 
merits, and I am convinced that anyone who does will agree that the 
House should reject the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment.
  Mr. GONZALES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words, and I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzales] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GONZALES. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
granted an additional 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I object to 5 minutes. Having served 4 
years on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and 
having a lot of respect for the chairman, I would grant him another 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GONZALES. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzales] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GONZALES. Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman here is----
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I demand that the gentleman's words be 
taken down.

                              {time}  1430

  The Clerk will report the words objected to.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman here is, to say the 
     least, hypocritical, inasmuch as he has distorted an 
     attribution to me.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzales] seek 
recognition?
  Mr. GONZALES. Madam Chairman, I failed to hear the Chairman's 
statement. Would you repeat it?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman want the words read again?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-report the words.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman here is, to say the 
     least, hypocritical, inasmuch as he has distorted an 
     attribution to me.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. GONZALEZ. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek recognition?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, I do, Madam Chairman. My understanding is that the 
allegation is that the words used were unparliamentary.
  The CHAIRMAN. That was the point of order.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, in obedience to that, let me revise the 
words by saying that the gentleman's remarks----
  Mr. STEARNS. Regular order, Madam Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw his remarks?
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Yes, Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may proceed in order.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, let me say that I take not only gross 
but personal exception to the gentleman's attributing to me statements 
and positions that I have never taken by reading out of context from an 
inspector general's report of HUD with respect to the other 
administration, the prior administration's consistent pattern of 
mismanagement and failure to address it, and failing to point out that 
the current administration of HUD has reached the point where, with the 
additional help of the legislation that we have perfected, is getting 
an extra help in their managerial problems which they have inherited.
  Therefore, I very much resent that this statement would have been 
made to imply that HUD is incapable of doing that which, in our bill, 
as passed by the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, 
through the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, would 
empower HUD to undertake in its fact-gathering.
  In the first place, Madam Chairman, what the gentleman fails to state 
is that the Kennedy amendment would remove from the bill the onus of 
placing this responsibility on the Department of Commerce that has no 
track record in this kind of fact-gathering. If that is the case, it 
would make as much logic to put it over in the Nuclear Energy 
Commission. Why not have them do it? It would make just as much sense, 
if not, perhaps, more.
  Madam Chairman, we have developed separate banking legislation in the 
committee to address the problems that homeowners presently face in 
many areas of our country with respect to the gross, unjust redlining 
by insurance companies. What we are asking in our legislation, Madam 
Chairman, and in the Kennedy amendment is for the same fact-gathering 
that we now compel banks to provide, but what this represents is a 
wholesale abasement before this powerful, monstrous lobby known as the 
insurance industry. No wonder they have no complaints, because they 
have kowtowed completely in the Committee on Energy and Commerce to 
those vested interests that are hellbent in persisting in redlining, to 
the gross injustice of many of our fellow Americans.
  The ironfisted tactics of the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce----
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I demand that the words of the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] be taken down.

                              {time}  1440

  Madam Chairman, as an act of comity to my dear friend, the gentleman 
from Texas, who I know gets much overwrought in matters of concern and 
sometimes speaks in tones that he might not choose to do, and out of 
the good will I feel for my friend, the gentleman from Texas, with whom 
I have served so long, the great personal affection which I have for 
him, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request, in the hope 
that my dear friend from Texas will proceed in a more parliamentary and 
gentlemanly fashion.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his demand. The gentleman may 
proceed.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Michigan and appreciate his complimentary words. I was merely 
using a phrase that I thought would reflect the very strong tactics 
employed by the chairman of this distinguished committee.
  Let me point out that this is a matter that the courts have 
interpreted. That is, we have court decisions in which the Fair Housing 
Act as administered by HUD have interpreted redlining by insurance 
companies to be within HUD's proper jurisdiction in attempting to 
control and eliminate by insurance companies, not banks, not S&Ls, but 
insurance companies.
  Of course I feel strongly. When I see members of my committee who 
merely because they have had the courage, as the chairman of the 
subcommittee that has responsibility in this area, to pursue and be 
punished because of bills they are having in the other committee on 
other matters, I would be very much abdicating my responsibilities out 
of fear of displeasing my colleagues whom I equally esteem by shouting 
defiance to tyrannical and very revengeful tactics to the detriment of 
good legislation in another area, clean air.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gonzalez was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Chairman, I think it is reasonable. What are we 
afraid of? What are we afraid in this Chamber of debate to hear a 
member speak 5 minutes additionally? Wherein is the fear? What is the 
basis for it? If the position is so correct by those that fear and 
oppose that their position is correct and true and valid, why fear any 
talk, any amount of talk?
  Let me continue addressing the issue. This is a gut issue. And maybe 
and maybe not it involves committee jurisdictions. I will show to 
anybody's examination freely and truly my record as chairman since 
1989, January 3, of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs, wherein at any time any other committee has felt hurt by an 
improper invasion on our part of their jurisdiction. Not one time. And 
it is not our desire to do that. We have enough to take care of within 
the very clearly prescribed jurisdiction of the committee.
  In this area of insurance, there is a gray area as reflected by the 
quandary and the contradiction by the very Parliamentarians themselves, 
the very Parliamentarians. There is a gray area. But there is no gray 
area as to the jurisdiction on all credit-extending activities in our 
country being under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking, 
Finance and Urban Affairs.
  We have formed this new subcommittee in contracting a number of 
committees and streamlining our operations in the Committee on Banking, 
Finance and Urban Affairs, of which the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy], is chairman and the title of that subcommittee is Credit 
and other matters such as coinage and insurance. We are not trying to 
invade the proper scope of the Committee on Energy and Commerce at any 
time, never has a charge been made to my knowledge, and we certainly do 
not seek it now. But we think that it would be remiss on our part, even 
if the odds are against us, even if we fail to speak forth on what is 
the proper jurisdiction of this committee and the Department that we 
wish to charge with the responsibility of searching out and rooting out 
this very violative, discriminatory practice of redlining for 
homeowners. We are talking about homeowners. So that the Secretary, as 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has brought out, not 
only he, his predecessor, have brought out their desire to have this 
kind of an aspect of activity under their jurisdiction.
  The authority to test discriminatory insurance practices would mesh 
with the substantial experience that the Fair Housing Enforcement 
Office has acquired in conducting testing under the Fair Housing 
Initiatives Program.
  Point 3. HUD's new oversight responsibilities relating to the second 
mortgage market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing 
Finance Board, and the Resolution Trust Corporation closely relate to 
the insurance redlining issue.
  We must conclude by saying that this function provides an excellent 
fit with our existing fair housing and other programmatic 
responsibilities.
  I will provide the sufficient jurisdictional FHEO/HUD resources, 
whatever is necessary to achieve these additional responsibilities and 
we do so in our Housing and Comprehensive Community Development Act. 
There is certainly no other agency in Government, much less the 
Commerce Department, the Commerce Department will be asked to do 
something it has never done before. Notwithstanding the fact it may 
have the Census Bureau within its jurisdiction. That is beside the 
point. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also has vast technological 
and computer facilities for gathering, computing and relating 
information. But we are talking about the proper agency already 
equipped and experienced in this area to be handling this matter.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  I have heard a lot of talk about the Parliamentarian and the Speaker, 
but they have already ruled on this issue, so I want to go on with the 
merits or demerits as I see it of this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment makes no sense on the merits. The 
Department of Commerce is the most appropriate agency to collect this 
insurance data. The Department has past involvement in insurance 
issues, particularly issues of availability and affordability on 
insurance, such as its experience in monitoring and reviewing the Risk 
Retention Act. It collects data on foreign insurers and reinsurers. The 
Department's responsibility for conducting the U.S. Census indicates 
that it is the data collection expert in the Federal Government.
  In contrast, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has 
little expertise with respect to the private insurance industry. While 
HUD is charged with enforcing the Fair Housing Act, this legislation is 
broader than just homeowners insurance.
  Furthermore, HUD's own inspector general has raised serious questions 
about HUD's capability to handle insurance data collection. According 
to the inspector general, ``Historically, HUD has not developed and 
maintained data systems in an effective and efficient manner.'' The IG 
notes that the relevant HUD staff ``readily admit they have little or 
no experience in designing data systems.'' The inspector general also 
advises ``that HUD's limited funding for data systems integration 
should not be diluted for new activities.'' The HUD IG concludes, with 
respect to the Kennedy bill, ``we are concerned about HUD's ability to 
implement the [legislation] in an effective, timely, and efficient 
manner.''
  The legislation also requires the collection of data with respect to 
auto insurance. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has 
absolutely no expertise with respect to auto insurance. Why doesn't the 
gentleman offer an amendment to shift data collection to the Department 
of Transportation? The answer is obvious. The Banking Committee has no 
jurisdiction over the Department of Transportation.
  The legislation also establishes a pilot project for the collection 
of data on commercial insurance. Here again, HUD has absolutely no 
expertise.
  The choice is between the Department of Commerce--an agency with 
clear expertise--and HUD--an agency where even the relevant staff admit 
little or no relevant experience. It is important for the best possible 
data collection to be done under the bill. Commerce is the agency to do 
this and it can then share the results with HUD, the Department of 
Justice, and any other agency charged with fighting discrimination.
  Accordingly, I must strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am a new 
Member of the Congress and while it is somewhat fascinating to see what 
may or may not be a struggle between two powerful chairmen over 
jurisdiction, I really have no interest in that. I have not been around 
here long enough, I suppose, that I would have such a loyalty to my 
committee that I would insist that my committee have jurisdiction. I 
simply want to evaluate the issue on its merits. I have made an effort 
to do that.
  What I see, looking at the difference between the Department of 
Commerce and the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], is 
pretty clear. HUD has some experience operating government-run 
insurance programs, but those same insurance programs are not covered 
by this bill. We have eliminated them from coverage under this bill. 
HUD has no experience with the private insurance industry, and 
absolutely no experience at all with the small business insurance 
market.
  Let us look at Commerce by contrast. Commerce houses the Bureau of 
the Census. It collects extensive information on every man, woman, and 
child in the United States, which is almost what we are going to do 
with this legislation.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I would like to make it a part of the 
Record and announce my intention for clarification to include sections 
from the Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, specifically 
page 75, all the information that I quoted in my speech, as follows:

       While many of the new programs proposed by the 
     Administration may have merit, the Committee concluded that 
     virtually all of them in some way duplicated current HUD 
     programs. The Committee is mindful of the repeated findings 
     of the HUD Inspector General that HUD is a ``troubled'' 
     federal agency which has 10 material weaknesses in its basic 
     operations. The IG has warned that the proliferation of new 
     programs requiring rulemaking, grants decisions, technical 
     assistance, and monitoring coupled with the brain drain of 
     expertise from the Department during the 1980s has left a 
     decimated workforce with the wrong skills mix, inadequate 
     computer data systems, and the inability to administer 
     properly the programs currently authorized. These warnings 
     prompted the Committee to incorporate the new programs 
     proposed by the Department as eligible uses within current 
     HUD programs.

                              {time}  1450

  I make my intensions known and I thank my colleague for allowing me 
the opportunity.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Chairwoman, to conclude, as I mentioned, the 
Department of Commerce already conducts the census. We are with this 
legislation, which I consider to be overreaching, practically gathering 
information about every man, woman, and child in the United States when 
it comes down to insurance. So it is natural for the Department of 
Commerce to handle this function. Commerce already collects insurance 
data, and Commence already has the expertise on issues regarding the 
affordability and availability of insurance.
  I think the Department of Commerce is the appropriate entity to 
collect this information, and I would urge a no vote on the amendment.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words. And, I rise in support of the Kennedy-Gonzalez 
amendment to H.R. 1188.
  The Banking Committee has historically overseen the monitoring and 
enforcement of property and casualty insurance, flood insurance, and 
private mortgage insurance. The Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment protects the 
House Banking Committee's jurisdiction over these insurance issues and 
avoids unnecessary and potentially disruptive jurisdictional conflicts.
  The Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment also promotes the antiredlining 
objectives of H.R. 1188 by requiring that data collected under the bill 
be submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, rather 
than the Department of Commerce. HUD's new experience in the collection 
of mortgage data places it in the best position to most effectively 
collect the information required under H.R. 1188.
  Equally important is HUD's experience in successfully utilizing data 
for fair housing enforcement and compliance purposes under the Fair 
Housing Act.
  Furthermore, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros has made it clear that 
access to this information will greatly enhance HUD's ability to 
enforce our Nation's fair housing laws.
  In comparison, the Department of Commerce lacks the necessary 
experience and administrative capacity to properly administer the 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment.
  Ms. SCHENK. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, let me just start by saying as a freshman it is 
somewhat distressing to observe that an important issue of substance 
can digress into a jurisdictional debate that for most Americans has no 
meaning.
  Madam Chairman, let me say as a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce I do not think there is any dispute that the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs does indeed have some jurisdiction 
over some insurance issues such as Federal flood insurance. But as to 
the private sector, the Speaker, under the House rules, written by 
Thomas Jefferson, referred the bill of the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins] to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. And under the 
rules of this body that was the appropriate referral.
  As to the substance, H.R. 1188 designates the Department of Commerce 
as the data collection agency. Why the Department of Commerce? Because 
it is the data collection expert of the Federal Government, pure and 
simple. Commerce currently collects insurance data. Commerce does have 
the expertise in issues involving the availability and affordability of 
insurance.
  Why not HUD? HUD's own inspector general has questioned HUD's 
capability and involvement in insurance red-lining data collection. I 
quote,

       Historically, HUD has not developed and maintained data 
     systems in an effective and efficient manner. HUD has little 
     expertise in the private insurance industry and no 
     familiarity or involvement with automobile or small business 
     insurance. The relevant HUD staff has little or no experience 
     in designing data systems.

  There is no policy rationale for this amendment. There is no good 
reason why the Department of Housing and Urban Development is in a 
better place to use the information than the Department of Commerce.
  This amendment is all about politics, pure and simple, and I urge 
Members to oppose the amendment. It is bad policy, and it is bad 
procedure.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairwoman, I know we are in what amounts to a jurisdictional 
dispute, but I think this issue can be decided on public policy. The 
best agency for purposes of conducting this particular study certainly 
has been well established over a long period of time as the Commerce 
Department.
  The issue of committee jurisdiction has already been settled by the 
committee referral. The Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs' bill was subsequently referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, but the bill of the Committee on Energy and Commerce was not 
referred to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  Madam Chairwoman, even if the amendment were successful, it would not 
be dispositive on the question of jurisdiction. Even if HUD were 
designated as the agency responsible for administering this program, so 
long as they were responsible for regulation of insurers involved in 
interstate commerce, jurisdiction over this issue would fall to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Madam Chairwoman, I know we talked earlier about the state of 
operations in HUD. But I think it is very clear to everyone that most 
of the employees have been at HUD for many years; they are still there, 
just as most of the employees that have been at the Department of 
Commerce are still there. Only the leadership has changed from 
administration to administration. This program of data collection is 
something that will be done by the people that have long been in one of 
these departments. I think that the Department of Commerce has a far 
better record of data collection for purposes of the census as well as 
issues relating to insurance. This Department already has expertise on 
issues involving the availability and affordability of insurance.
  We have had some problems with HUD in the past. I hope we do not 
continue to have any such problems in the future. It is a very 
important department of government. But it is not the department to 
which this issue should be given.
  Let us authorize the Department of Commerce, with their long-
established record, as the agency that has the job of collecting data 
as required in this legislation.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, first let me make it emphatically clear that rule X 
does give to the Committee on Energy and Commerce exclusive 
jurisdiction over this subject matter. The amendment is important, and 
as important as it is, we must clearly define its jurisdiction, and the 
jurisdiction of private property insurance is, in my opinion, in the 
hands of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  This amendment requires HUD, not the Department of Commerce, to 
administer the programs under H.R. 1188. HUD should run these programs 
because they have the experience. Contrary to what many have said here 
today, HUD has the experience because they have administered a program 
of this nature for over 20 years. HUD is solely responsible for making 
sure homeowners comply, for example, with the Fair Housing Act. HUD has 
the ability to collect this data and we should rely on them to 
administer this program.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Think about it, ladies and gentlemen, securities, the power industry 
including electric and natural gas, mutual funds, health insurance, the 
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the telecommunications industry, 
all are controlled by one committee due to the overarching mandate that 
says if anything is interstate commerce it goes directly to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. I tell my colleagues that the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs runs every major 
insurance program that comes out of this Congress. We have a claim 
because this is an insurance industry issue. They have a claim because 
they say it is interstate commerce. It is up in the air. It is up to 
the membership of this body to determine who will do the best job.
  Madam Chairman, the only people in the world that I have ever met 
that think that the Census Bureau does a good job happen to be the 
members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

                             {time}   1500

  I have never heard anybody think the Census Bureau does a good job. 
Be that as it may, you may think it does such a good job out there. 
That is your business. I happen to think both of these agencies leave a 
lot to be desired.
  The agency that has the proper jurisdiction, that currently is 
responsible for dealing with redlining issues, for dealing with racial 
discrimination is HUD. That is what they do. Part of their mandate is 
to go out and find out where racial discrimination and redlining take 
place in the housing industry.
  We are asking them to expand into a couple of other areas in addition 
to housing insurance.
  The fact is that if we look at how this whole thing got going, it got 
going out of an extension of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. You take 
either Energy and Commerce base text or Banking Committee's base text, 
they are both based on the HMDA Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 
which came out of the Banking Committee. I got it passed with the 
chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], 6 years ago on this 
House floor. That is the base text. That is where this legislation 
finds its roots, and that is why it deserves to be housed in the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  The Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment makes the process better by making HUD 
the agency that receives data instead of the Commerce Department. 
Giving HUD the responsibility to collect data makes sense on the 
merits. In fact, it makes so much sense one is left with the feeling 
that the selection of Commerce was based more on internal 
jurisdictional battles than on the most capable agency.
  HUD has ample experience administering and overseeing the collection 
of data that will be generated by this legislation. Currently HUD 
enforces the Fair Housing Act including provisions prohibiting 
discrimination in homeowners' insurance.
  Does it not make sense, therefore, for HUD to receive data from 
insurance companies about their homeowners' and other property 
insurance data? HUD has been collecting data from the Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act for 20 years. This data is extremely similar to the data 
that will be provided under the provisions of this bill.
  Again, does it not make sense for this information to go to the 
agency that has, even with all its flaws, the most experience? Why, as 
we reinvent Government, do we want to reinvent the Commerce Department 
by having them do the work that HUD has already been doing for 20 
years?
  No matter how you look at this amendment, whether it is to prevent 
one committee from accumulating too much power or whether it is simply 
what Federal agency can best accumulate this important data, the vote 
should be ``yes''.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment would designate Housing and Urban Development rather 
than Commerce as the agency responsible for data collection, for 
analysis, for study, and for reporting under the bill. This is truly 
the most cynical amendment we are likely to face today.
  Under the guise of helping those who suffer from discrimination, it 
is simply a grab at committee jurisdiction in the House, period.
  The Department of Commerce is the data-collecting arm of the Federal 
Government. It has broad and long experience in designing and carrying 
out data collection responsibilities. This is, of course, most evident 
in its responsibilities as to the census, but it is also evident in 
many other areas such as its Bureau of Economic Analysis and the 
International Trade Commission.
  In addition, the Department of Commerce is the sole Federal agency 
with substantive experience in insurance. The Department of Commerce, 
for example, is responsible for implementation of the Risk Retention 
Act, and the Department of Commerce conducts an annual and complete 
analysis of foreign reinsurance markets in the United States. The 
Department of Commerce acts as the substantive expert on all trade 
negotiations regarding insurance.
  HUD has no expertise in property casualty insurance, the type of 
insurance covered by this bill. It has no genuine expertise in 
designing and implementing data systems. These are the province of 
Commerce.
  Keep in mind when Commerce does carry out its data collection and 
analysis responsibilities under H.R. 1188, this information will be 
available to all Federal agencies including HUD for fair housing 
purposes, including Justice for discrimination purposes, and any other 
agency in the Federal Government for any other valid purpose.
  We must be sure that this data is the most accurate, most usable, 
most complete data that a well-designed system can produce. Commerce is 
the obvious agency to carry out that task.
  There is really, Madam Chairman, no contest that Commerce is the 
proper agency to implement 1188, except for the jurisdictional grab in 
this amendment.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment.
  Madam Chairman, the issue here obviously is an important one. I think 
that both of the committees, Banking and Commerce, have worked hard on 
this issue.
  But I am obviously concerned that the agency that has demonstrated 
the leadership, HUD [Housing and Urban Development], in terms of 
discrimination and problems that face our Government under most of the 
Secretaries that have led the agency, whether Jack Kemp or today, under 
Henry Cisneros, that they be given the principal responsibility, for 
this information and action.
  Clearly there is no dispute regarding the need to address the problem 
of insurance redlining. It is a serious problem that is adversely 
affecting our urban areas, intimately related to the chief 
responsibilities of HUD, and I think that if we look at the history of 
the track record here of which Federal departments and agencies has 
been at these urban hot spots over the years, it has been the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development, today, of course, with Henry 
Cisneros. They have a deep stake in this issue and the welfare of urban 
America.
  HUD have the area offices in most regions. They are working within 
the census tracts. They can use that data effectively.
  The fact is I heard earlier, and I think it is regrettable, that the 
inspector general and others have suggested that HUD is not doing the 
job that it should do. Today, it has nearly an impossible task, the 
Housing and Urban Development Department has, in terms of trying to 
catch up with the serious problems in our urban areas.
  I do not think that is any reason to deny them one of the essential 
tools they need for what has been a serious and emerging problem with 
regard to redlining. They need such tools to address their mission. I 
hope that they would have it. HUD has the presence. They have, I think, 
the ability to use the resource.
  But clearly HUD is overloaded with some of substantial 
responsibilities that they now exercise.
  The pending bill, of course, would provide the authority to the 
Department of Commerce, to Ron Brown, and I have no argument with Mr. 
Brown. I just think that it is clear on the face that the Housing and 
Urban Development is the Department that is in these urban areas that 
is providing the leadership in terms of where our Nation is going in 
terms of policies that affect areas which are today the object of 
redlining.
  I think that Commerce is simply the wrong choice. The Department of 
Commerce has no infrastructure in place to handle this matter 
effectively or efficiently.
  The information would simply go into a void and not provide the type 
of utility that all of us anticipate from maintaining such information.
  The Kennedy amendment, supported by the chairman and other members of 
the committee, included myself, and would turn over this information to 
a more appropriate source, to the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development.
  Some are seeking to make the focus of this debate on the size of each 
Department's computer or the efficiency. I think probably both would 
have a long way to go to deal effectively with software.
  What should be the issue, in my view, the debate should be based on 
the ability of each Department to analyze and determine the 
discrimination. In this, I do not think that HUD is second to anyone 
with regard to this process. They have had a working relationship, an 
effective working relationship, with the Justice Department. They have 
the serious problems that face us, that face their communities, and 
they are in the forefront fighting for people, whether it is home 
purchase and the insurance or discrimination practices that are 
occurring.

                              {time}  1310

  The are intimately related with the community development activities 
that are vital to these areas. They need to have the tools to do this 
job.
  This information on redlining is actually one of the tools that would 
permit them to enhance the ability of the Housing and Urban Development 
Department to do the job. This is their portfolio. It is the portfolio 
of the Housing and Urban Development Department to provide the 
leadership, to be the Federal repository, interface with our local and 
State governments at these areas. I think we ought to give them this 
new task.
  The Commerce Department is involved in a different way, a different 
task in terms of commerce and trade and other activities. I think to 
deny this to HUD--it may be full of good intention; I do not question 
the author's good intentions or those of the other committee--but the 
fact is this tool ought to go into the portfolio of HUD to achieve 
their mission.
  Now, Housing and Urban Development is controversial. There is no 
question about it. The reason they are is because they are in the 
forefront of speaking up for people of color. They are in the forefront 
of dealing with discrimination in this country. HUD is pushing the 
issues.
  That is why we should give them the resource to accomplish the task. 
you are denying them that. Sending this information off over in the 
Department of Commerce is not controversial. But I say we need 
controversy in this instance. We need to address this issue of 
discrimination, we need to confront this matter. We have to be able to 
convince the people who live in the urban areas that they have a stake 
and that they are being treated fairly. The Housing and Urban 
Development Department has that responsibility, and could effectively 
use such data and charge.
  I plead with you today to support the Kennedy-Gonzalez amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88, 
noes 343, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                                AYES--88

     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Coleman
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hughes
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Maloney
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Reed
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stupak
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bentley
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Gallo
     McCurdy
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1532

  Messrs. REGULA, THOMAS of Wyoming, and TEJEDA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. FURSE, Mr. ROTH, and Mr. HUGHES changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?


                 amendment offered by ms. roybal-allard

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairwoman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Roybal-Allard:
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``and''.
       Page 3, line 23, strike the period and insert ``, and''.
       Page 3, after line 23, insert the following new clause:
       (iii) information that will enable the Secretary to assess 
     the aggregate loss experience for such insurer for such 
     designated MSA and each 5-digit zip code in such designated 
     MSA within which insured risks of the insurer are located.
       Page 4, strike lines 12 through 25.
       Page 5, line 4, strike ``(a)(1)'' and insert ``(a)''.
       Page 5, line 24, strike ``(a)(1)'' and insert ``(a)''.
       Page 6, after line 25, insert the following new clause:
       (viii) provide for the submission of information on the 
     racial characteristics or national origin of policyholders 
     and on the gender of policyholders, at the level of detail 
     comparable to that required by the Home Mortgage Disclosure 
     Act of 1975 (and the regulations issued thereunder),
       Page 7, line 1, strike ``(viii)'' and insert ``(ix)''.
       Page 7, line 4, strike ``(ix)'' and insert ``(x)''.
       Page 7, line 6, strike ``(x)'' and insert ``(xi)''.
       Page 7, after line 7, insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (B) Rules regarding obtaining racial and national origin 
     information.--With respect to the information specified in 
     subparagraph (A)(viii), applicants for, and policyholders of, 
     insurance may be asked their racial characteristics or 
     national origin only in writing. Any such written question 
     shall clearly indicate that a response to the question is 
     voluntary on the part of the applicant or policyholder, but 
     encouraged, and that the information is being requested by 
     the Federal Government to monitor the availability and 
     affordability of insurance. If an applicant for, or 
     policyholder of, insurance declines to provide such 
     information, the agent or insurer for such insurance may 
     provide such information.
       Page 7, line 8, strike ``(B) and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 7, line 22, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       Page 11, after line 18, insert the following new clause:
       (x) provide for the collection of information that will 
     enable the Secretary to assess the aggregate loss experience, 
     by each line of insurance designated under clause (ix), for 
     insurers designated under clause (viii) for each MSA for 
     which reporting is required under subparagraph (D),
       Page 11, line 19, strike ``(x)'' and insert ``(xi)''.
       Page 11, line 21, strike ``(xi)'' and insert ``(xii)''.
       Page 12, line 1, strike ``(xii)'' and insert ``(xiii)''.
       Page 13, line 24, after ``basis'' insert ``(or a 9-digit 
     zip code or census tract basis)''.
       Page 16, line 2, strike ``25'' and insert ``75''.
       Page 24, after line 4, insert the following new subsection:
       (f) Reporting by Other Geographic Areas.--
       (1) Insurer option.--The Secretary shall provide that any 
     insurer who is required by section 3 to compile, submit, 
     maintain, and make available information may, at the 
     discretion of the insurer, comply with the requirements of 
     such section by compiling, submitting, maintaining, and 
     making such information available on the basis of census 
     tracts or 9-digit zip codes rather than on the basis of 5-
     digit zip codes.
       (2) Requirement by secretary.--The Secretary may at any 
     time, for any insurers, for any designated lines of 
     insurance, and with respect to any geographical areas, 
     require that information to be compiled, submitted, 
     maintained, and made available under section 3 shall be 
     compiled, submitted, maintained, and made available on a 
     basis of census tracts (which shall include any basis that is 
     convertible to the basis of census tracts) rather than on the 
     basis of 5-digit zip codes, but only to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines that availability of information on the 
     basis of census tracts is necessary to assess the 
     availability, affordability, or quality of type of insurance 
     coverage.
       (3) Address Conversion Software.--The Secretary shall make 
     available, to any insurer required to provide information to 
     the Secretary under section 3, computer software that can be 
     used to convert addresses from 5-digit zip code to census 
     tracts. The software shall be made available in forms that 
     provide such conversion for MSA's designated under section 
     4(a) on a nationwide basis and on a State-by-State basis and 
     shall be updated annually. The software shall be made 
     available without charge, except for an amount, determined by 
     the Secretary, which shall not exceed the actual cost of 
     reproducing the software.
       Page 24, line 12, after ``data'' insert ``, including loss 
     ratios,''.
       Page 24, line 13, after ``zip code'' insert ``(or by 9-
     digit zip code or census tract, to the extent information is 
     submitted to the Secretary on such basis pursuant to section 
     6(f))'',
       Page 24, line 16, after ``insurance policies'' insert ``and 
     loss ratios''.
       Page 24, line 17, after ``zip codes'' insert ``(or for 
     categories of 9-digit zip codes or census tracts, to the 
     extent information is submitted to the Secretary on such 
     basis pursuant to section 6(f))''.
       Page 25, after line 5, insert the following new subsection:
       (d) Protections Regarding Loss Information.--
       (1) Prohibition of disclosure of loss information.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Secretary may not make available to the public or otherwise 
     disclose any information submitted under this act regarding 
     the amount or number of claims paid by any insurer, the 
     amount of losses of any insurer, or the loss experience for 
     any insurer, except (A) in the form of a loss ratio 
     (expressing the relationship of claims paid to premiums) made 
     available or disclosed in compliance with the provisions of 
     paragraph (2), or (B) as provided in paragraph (3).
       (2) Protection of identity of insurer.--In making available 
     to the public or otherwise disclosing a loss ratio for an 
     insurer--
       (A) the Secretary may not identify the insurer to which the 
     loss ratio relates; and
       (B) the Secretary may disclose the loss ratio only in a 
     manner that does not allow any party to determine the 
     identity of the specific insurer to which the loss ratio 
     relates, except parties having access to information under 
     paragraph (3).
       (3) Confidentiality of information disclosed to 
     governmental agencies.--The Secretary may make information 
     referred to in paragraph (1) and the identity of the specific 
     insurer to which such information relates available to any 
     Federal entity and any State agency responsible for 
     regulating insurance in a State and may otherwise disclose 
     such information to any such entity or agency, but only to 
     the extent such entity or agency agrees not to make any such 
     information available or disclose such information to any 
     other person.

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD (during the reading). Madam Chairwoman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to offer the Roybal-
Allard Velazquez-Barrett-Kennedy amendment to H.R. 1188, the Anti-
Redlining in Insurance Disclosure Act.
  The leadership of the Federal Government in eliminating the 
discriminatory practices of insurance companies is long overdue.
  Insurance redlining is a real and pervasive problem throughout this 
Nation with devastating results in low- and moderate-income 
communities, particularly in minority neighborhoods.
  Clearly, the time has come for Congress to address this issue 
squarely and to undertake the steps necessary to protect the civil 
rights of all Americans in this regard.
  Historically, low-income, minority communities such as the Los 
Angeles district I represent have not had equal opportunities to 
acquire adequate insurance coverage at affordable rates. The systematic 
denial of this basic, fundamental right has severely limited the 
ability of families to purchase homes, drive cars, and has made 
coverage for small business owners in these areas prohibitively 
expensive.
  Truly, my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman 
Cardiss Collins, has taken a courageous stance on this issue. I commend 
her leadership in fashioning H.R. 1188, a bill that represents a 
significant step forward in addressing insurance redlining. However, 
the bill in its current form will not require the data necessary to 
determine whether discrimination exists in a given community.

  The Roybal-Allard Velazquez-Barrett-Kennedy amendment will supplement 
the disclosure requirements set forth in H.R. 1188 through five key 
provisions:
  First, in an effort to protect small insurance companies, the 
amendment exempts them from the provisions of this bill. Although small 
insurers comprise 82 percent of the industry, valid data will be 
collected from the remaining insurers who write more than 80 percent of 
the insurance policies in the United States.
  Second, insurance companies will be required to provide data on race, 
ethnicity, and gender voluntarily supplied by policy applicants and 
holders.

                              {time}  1540

  This information is identical to the information currently provided 
by financial lending institutions that has proven to be vital in 
efforts to enforce antidiscrimination laws in mortgage lending and 
housing.
  In addition, the amendment will allow insurance companies the option 
to report data by census tract, and will permit the Secretary of the 
authorized agency to request census-tract data as necessary. Census-
tract information will provide more reliable demographic data to 
determine better the characteristics of neighborhoods whose residents 
may be victims of redlining.
  Fourth, while protecting insurance companies against the disclosure 
of proprietary information, the amendment requires the collection of 
loss data. This data will help document whether the higher premiums 
typically paid in relined neighborhoods are truly justified. For 
example, recent studies in St. Louis and Kansas City found that 
minorities pay higher insurance premiums than whites with the same 
income for comparable coverage, even though their claim rates were 
lower.
  Lastly, the amendment increases from 25 to 75 the number of cities 
from which data will be compiled. This means that cities with large 
minority populations such as Birmingham, San Antonio, New Orleans, and 
Toledo will also be assessed.
  Madam Chairwoman, my colleagues and I worked very hard to craft a 
compromise measure which increases the value of information collected 
and reported under H.R. 1188, while also providing important exemptions 
for small insurance companies. As such, the amendment strengthens the 
states objectives of H.R. 1188 to combat insurance redlining practices
  It is a win-win situation for the supporters of H.R. 1188 and for 
consumers who will be provided enhanced protection against arbitrary 
and discriminatory insurance practices.
  I ask for the support of my colleagues for this important amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Madam Chairwoman, I must oppose this amendment. While this amendment 
is portrayed as a strengthening amendment, and has strengthening 
features, it also substantially weakens the bill.
  This bill has broad bipartisan support. A diverse array of groups 
support this legislation. It is a very delicate political balance. I 
understand the intentions of the gentlewoman, and I know she is trying 
to help this bill, but this amendment would destroy the delicate 
balance of H.R. 1188. It is, in effect, a killer amendment.
  In a perfect world, I would like to strengthen this bill. But, my 
first priority must be to pass this bill. Unfortunately, the adoption 
of this and other amendments would produce a bill that could not pass. 
Even if such a bill could pass the House, it would be that much more 
difficult to move it in the other body in the short time remaining in 
this Congress.
  The bill in its current form is not perfect. But it is passable. And 
it is a tremendous step forward. It would provide a lot of information 
about insurance practices that is simply not available today. If we 
adopt killer amendments, no matter how well-intentioned, then none of 
this information will become available. We would have shot ourselves in 
the foot. The perfect would have become the enemy of the good.
  Let me make a few substantive points. First, it is no secret that I 
preferred the use of census tracts in the beginning. But the use of 
five digit ZIP Codes will produce a great deal of valuable information. 
Even the supporters of this amendment recognize that. For example, the 
community group ACORN described a ZIP Code based data call recently 
issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as 
allowing ``the most comprehensive analysis yet of the extent of 
insurance redlining.''
  Furthermore, the top 25 metropolitan areas represent about 58 percent 
of the total metropolitan population of the United States and about 46 
percent of the total population. That is a lot of data about a lot of 
people.
  This amendment also significantly weakens the bill. By exempting 
certain insurers from any reporting under the bill, the amendment means 
the collected data will fail to include information on about 20 percent 
of the policies in a metropolitan area. This seriously lowers the 
quality of the data. In fact, while H.R. 1188 will cover 46 percent of 
the Nation's population, the amendment only increases the percentage of 
coverage to 51 percent. So you get a small increase in coverage at the 
expense of less complete data and a killer amendment. It is a risk not 
worth taking.
  Accordingly, I must urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roybal-Allard 
amendment to H.R. 1188, because this amendment would reverse almost all 
of the changes made to the bill in a bipartisan manner within the full 
committee, and would greatly increase the cost of this legislation to 
both policyholders and taxpayers.
  This amendment is supposed to make all of the changes necessary to 
make H.R. 1188 more effective in fighting redlining. However, if one 
really reads the amendment, it requires a lot more reporting on not 
very many more people than H.R. 1188. And even though you have all of 
this extra reporting, the information you get is not necessary to 
determine if there is a problem with redlining and would greatly add to 
the cost of this bill.
  The first major provision of this amendment is that it adds 50 new 
cities in which reporting is required. As this chart shows, under H.R. 
1188, roughly 58 percent of the Nation's metropolitan population and 46 
percent of the Nation's population as a whole is covered under the 
bill. The proponents of this amendment would have you believe that you 
will add 22 percent more of the metropolitan population if you approve 
their amendment.
  Unfortunately, that really is not the case. This amendment also 
eliminates the minimal reporting requirements for the small, 
nondesignated insurers. Aside from the statistical validity problem 
this creates, it also affects the number of policyholders who would be 
covered by this legislation. Since the non-designated insurers cover 
approximately 20 percent of the policyholders, that means that the 
percentage of the population that would be covered under this amendment 
must be reduced by 20 percent. That means that the Roybal-Allard 
amendment really would only cover about 64 percent of the metropolitan 
population and 51.2 percent of the Nation's population as a whole. That 
really is only a 6-percent increase in the metropolitan population and 
a 5.2 percent increase in the national population over what H.R. 1188 
already has.
  In summary, Madam Chairman, we are going to spend $21 million more 
money to get only a small fraction of increase in information. Madam 
Chairman, this small increase in the covered population would not be so 
troubling if it were not for the other requirements of this amendment, 
and this is important. This amendment would also require the reporting 
of loss data, data about the race and gender of individual 
policyholders, and would permit the Secretary to require census tract 
reporting of any insurer, anywhere, at any time. Are Members prepared 
to have the Government mandate on businesses that they report their 
loss information?
  Each of these provisions has its own pitfalls, Madam Chairman, but 
all of us should keep in mind the simple thought expressed by the 
Congressional Budget Office in the Banking Committee's redlining cost 
estimate: The more data that you collect, analyze, and distribute to 
the public, the more expensive the program.
  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the 
Secretary has absolute discretion on collecting census tract data 
regardless of whether or not the insurer is in a designated MSA, must 
collect race and gender information on a so-called voluntary basis, and 
must collect loss data, regardless of the effects on the insurer's 
ability to compete, this legislation is going to cost more--a lot more. 
In fact, since this amendment adds most of what was in the Banking 
Committee's bill to H.R. 1188, the cost is going to be a lot closer to 
the Banking Committee's $38 million CBO estimate than the $9 million 
estimate for H.R. 1188 as it currently stands.
  While my other colleagues are going to discuss the intricacies of 
some of the other provisions, it is important to note that you are not 
getting much more for the extra cost. First, as I demonstrated, you 
really are not covering that many more people. Second, getting race and 
gender information is not necessary because the census department 
already maintains that information for all geographic areas. Third, 
census tract reporting is not necessary because it really will not 
provide much better data than ZIP Codes.
  I ask my colleagues to reject the Roybal-Allard amendment for what it 
is--a costly, ineffective series of changes designed to meet the 
desires of certain consumer organizations. Maintain the low-cost 
effectiveness of H.R. 1188 as it is. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, which I have cosponsored with Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. 
Kennedy, and Mr. Barrett.
  Although I commend my colleague from Illinois, Mrs. Collins, for the 
initiative she has taken on insurance redlining, the bill that was 
reported out of committee is plainly inadequate. It simply does not 
require the reporting of critical information that we need in order to 
tell whether or not insurance companies are discriminating against poor 
and minority communities. Only with this amendment ``will we have the 
data to determine the scope and degree of redlining''.
  H.R. 1188 also imposes unnecessary burdens on small insurers, 
companies with the least impact upon the insurance market. Our 
amendment will exempt small insurance companies from any reporting 
requirements.
  Evidence of unfair and discriminatory insurance practices has been 
reported in a number of areas. In Kansas City and St. Louis, homeowners 
in poor and minority neighborhoods have been paying higher premiums for 
less insurance coverage, yet insurance companies are losing less money 
there. In Atlanta, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Toledo, testers identifying 
themselves as residents of middle-class Latino and African-American 
neighborhoods were either denied insurance outright or offered 
insurance on terms worse than were white phone callers.
  If my colleagues want to know whether these practices are going on 
across the country, and whether there is any justifiable explanation 
for them, then we must adopt this amendment. Only this amendment would 
accurately inform the public as to how many quality insurance policies 
are going out to women and racial and ethnic minorities, and whether it 
is high losses that are scaring insurers away from lower-income and 
minority neighborhoods.
  First, this amendment provides for the collection and disclosure of 
data on race, national origin, and gender. It would encourage insurance 
applicants and policyholders to report this data on their insurance 
forms, and require that insurance companies then report the information 
to the Secretary.
  This is the same type of information that has been collected for 
years under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and by Federal, State and 
private entities. It is essential to assist HUD and the Justice 
Department in the enforcement of State and Federal laws prohibiting 
discrimination in the provision of insurance.
  This amendment also requires insurers to disclose how much they are 
paying out in insurance claims in each geographic area. This 
information is critical to determine whether minority neighborhoods are 
being treated fairly.
  When questions are raised as to why high-quality, affordable 
insurance policies are not available in these communities, some 
insurance companies cite the higher cost of doing business there. While 
that reasoning may be valid in some instances, for others it provides 
little explanation. As illustrated in the chart behind me, insurance 
companies lose more in insurance claims in low-income, white areas of 
St. Louis than they do in comparable minority neighborhoods. 
Nevertheless, it is the minority community that pays more in premiums, 
and receives less in insurance coverage.
  Are insurance companies using objective factors to decide where they 
write policies, and how much they charge for them--or do they instead 
assume that they will lose more money in inner-city neighborhoods? With 
the information collected under this amendment, we will be able to 
answer that question once and for all.
  My cosponsors and I would also provide regulatory relief to small 
businesses. Our amendment exempts 82 percent of the Nation's insurance 
companies from any reporting requirement. Without this amendment, the 
bill would unnecessarily require many insurers who do not have much 
impact on the market to collect and report information. With this 
change, the big insurance companies would still be covered. The 18 
percent who are not exempted write 80 percent of the policies in this 
country. These companies, who can afford to buy armies of high-priced 
lobbyists to defeat health care reform, can surely afford to report on 
insurance practices which are so important to low-income and minority 
communities, like those that I represent.
  The lack of adequate and affordable insurance has a direct and 
negative impact upon the economic viability of poorer, minority 
communities. Why is it that some pay more for less? Are there sound, 
objective, business-related reasons, or are some companies instead 
resorting to discriminatory practices? The public, and this body, must 
be able to answer these questions. Mr. Speaker, with this amendment we 
will have those answers. Without it, we will be left guessing. I say 
that we do this right the first time. Let us adopt this amendment so 
that we adopt a genuine insurance redlining bill this Congress.

                              {time}  1550

  Mr. McMILLAN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I want to start by commending the efforts of both the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and Banking Committee for focusing 
attention on the availability of insurance in urban America. We should 
all take allegations of discrimination by insurance companies 
seriously. Redlining is already illegal and must not be tolerated in 
any case. But after hearing the debate on jurisdiction, I think the 
public might well conclude that nobody is qualified to deal with the 
problem.
  In considering the banking amendment to H.R. 1188, I have a number of 
concerns about the proposed amendment's disclosure requirements. I 
think the requirements are unnecessarily broad and costly to the 
insurance industry--and will reduce the availability and affordability 
of insurance in urban areas.
  For example, the banking amendment requires insurers to collect data 
on the basis of census tracts. H.R. 1188 uses zip codes instead which 
are much more cost effective and user-friendly units because they are 
normal classifications that are large enough to lend statistical 
credibility to any redlining analysis.
  Second, the banking amendment requires insurers to disclose loss 
data. Loss data is not necessary to determine who is served or not 
served in urban markets. It only creates expensive disclosures that 
could potentially reveal trade secrets concerning the marketing 
practices of insurers.
  Third, the banking amendment increases the number of MSA's from 25 to 
75. To require 75 areas to make these disclosures imposes an unfair 
burden on insurers in cities, like my own Charlotte, where redlining 
was shown not to exist in a statewide market conduct study completed 
last year.
  These are just some of the differences between the Banking Committee 
amendment and H.R. 1188. While I am concerned that H.R. 1188 duplicates 
the antiredlining regulatory efforts of the States, I do think its 
provisions are more sensible and less expensive for the industry than 
are the requirements of the Banking Committee amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and for H.R. 1188.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I have spoken before on this issue but I think it is 
important to clarify for our colleagues what we are talking about here 
and why the amendment that has been offered by myself and several 
others from the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs will 
take this bill, which I think is a good bill in its intent, and I 
applaud the gentlewoman from Illinois and the chairman of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce for the work that they have done on it, but I 
think we can take this good bill and make it an even better bill.
  The reason why I think it is important for us to do that is it is 
important for us to look at what is really going on in the real world 
here and why using ZIP codes alone is not enough to help us reach our 
goal, and our goal, I think we all agree, is to determine whether or 
not redlining exists in our Nation. By using the ZIP codes you are 
going to get a smaller pool than you currently get, because right now 
we have no reporting requirements at all. But ZIP codes in and of 
themselves many times are geographically quite large and many times 
demographically quite diverse.
  Just as an example, let us look at Toledo, OH, ZIP code 43606. You 
have several different census tracts in that one ZIP code. Census tract 
14 has a median value home of $26,600. In that census tract, the 
African-American population is 81 percent. In sharp contrast to that is 
census tract 1301 where the median value of the home is $102,000 but 
only 1 percent of the population is African-American.

                              {time}  1600

  So if we are using only the ZIP code criteria, we are never going to 
see whether redlining exists in this ZIP code. So if your goal is to 
determine whether ZIP codes or whether redlining occurs, we have to 
look at data beyond just the 5-digit ZIP code. I think by going to the 
9-digit ZIP code we are really moving in the right direction. The 
argument we hear against that is it is too expensive, it adds too much 
administrative cost. I find that hard to believe. This is an industry 
that wants to collect actual data until the cows come home. It wants to 
collect data on whether you are a smoker, it wants to collect data on 
whether you are a good driver, it wants to collect data depending on 
whether there is a fire department close to your home or not. The 
insurance industry is built on collecting data. So by asking the 
insurance companies simply to use 9-digit ZIP codes, certainly not a 
foreign concept, and one that I venture to guess most if not all of 
large insurance companies currently use, it will not add any cost to 
the developing of this information.
  So we can get the information we need to determine whether redlining 
exists in this country, and we can do it at no additional cost to 
either the taxpayers or to the industry.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, the amendment before us would essentially make a 
flawed bill worse. The ZIP+4 or the census tracks, as I see them here, 
those provisions would make data collection more onerous. The 
exemptions for small insurers would skew the data to make it look like 
redlining is happening when it really is not. And the lost data 
reporting requirement would force insurers to make their trade secrets 
public.
  But beyond that, I am disturbed by the direction that we are taking 
here. Some of my colleagues honestly believe, and I believe that they 
honestly believe that property insurance underwriting is a business 
where rates are fixed, regardless of individual circumstances or 
personal needs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The process of 
underwriting is extremely client-intensive, and even to suggest 
otherwise is just a reflection of a lack of information on the part of 
that individual.
  What we are voting on is not just a collection of data. It is the 
first step toward Government-mandated community rating for property and 
casualty insurance, and ultimately the socialization of the entire 
underwriting structure.
  This may sound drastic, but consider the history.
  The classical definition of redlining is a denial of insurance based 
solely on the applicant's geographical location. In fact, in the past 
some agents would literally place a map on the office wall and block 
off areas with a red pen denoting areas to avoid, thus the term 
redlining. But that is not what we are talking about today.
  Redlining in this sense has pretty much been relegated to the trash 
bin. Redlining is illegal; 96 to 98\1/2\ percent--and I have studies 
for anybody who want them--of all inner city households have some form 
of homeowners insurance.
  In the 1990's what has happened is redlining has taken on a new 
definition, a wholly new definition. Consider the explanation of Ms. 
Ernestine Whitting of Acorn. She says, ``The industry practice of 
refusing to write policies, charging differential rates, offering 
substandard coverage, discouraging applications, or imposing 
differential requirements as a condition of coverage based on the 
geographic location of a property or individual seeking coverage.''
  Let me interpret that. Under her definition, if I am an insurance 
agent, and I was one for over 30 years, and I never refused anybody 
insurance because of geography, If I charge a higher rate to an 
applicant because his neighbor's historical data points to a higher 
risk factor, I am engaged in redlining. Or if I require an applicant to 
make improvements designed to increase the security of that home, I am 
engaged in redlining. Or if I require an applicant to make improvements 
to remedy some structural flaws, maybe just some steps up to the house 
because of liability claims, I am engaged in redlining.
  Ladies and gentlemen, that is ridiculous. It would be great if risk 
did not change from community to community. It would definitely make it 
a lot easier, but it is just not reality. The reality is that every 
community has a different risk profile, and if we extend the definition 
of redlining to cover price differentials, we are really talking about 
instituting community rating.
  That may be great for some people in high risk communities whose 
policies would be subsidized, but it would mean higher premiums for the 
rest of the Nation.
  I would ask my colleagues how would their district fare if the 
logical conclusions of this legislation became a reality? I think the 
answer for most would be worse.
  Do not misunderstand me. I believe that homeowners insurance should 
be subject to fair and sound underwriting principles. I believe it 
should be available to all Americans, free from discriminatory 
practices.
  But this amendment is more about cross subsidization than simple 
fairness. So I would encourage my colleagues to benefit to some extent 
from my experience of 30-plus years in the business, and also the 
comments I have made and please vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. TORRES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Roybal-Allard 
Velazquez-Barrett-Kennedy amendment to H.R. 1188, the Anti Redlining in 
Insurance Disclosure Act. This amendment will make a number of key 
improvements to legislation that is sorely needed in the battle to end 
insurance discrimination.
  Unfortunately, this is not a new issue. The practice of refusing to 
sell insurance policies or selling inferior ones in minority and inner 
city neighborhoods is pervasive. Evidence collected over the last 25 
years suggests that insurers are discriminating based on certain 
unwarranted factors, including race. As Representative Roybal-Allard 
cited, this insidious practice denies individuals the ability to 
purchase homes and cars and to establish businesses, leading to 
decaying minority and low-income neighborhoods and economically 
deprived communities.
  Clearly, reform in this area is needed. However, the current version 
of H.R. 1188 does not go far enough to make the reform effective and 
meaningful. This is not a killer amendment, far from it. The amendment 
offered by my colleagues will add critically important provisions that 
are needed to determine the extent of redlining.
  First, the reporting of loss data is necessary to verify whether 
higher premiums paid in some neighborhoods are justified. Second, 
voluntary reporting by census tract or ZIP+4 allows more explicit 
differentiation of neighborhoods composed of disparate racial and 
income characteristics, as Chairman Kennedy pointed out. Third, the 
expanded geographic scope from 25 to 75 metropolitan statistical areas 
will increase coverage of many cities where insurance discrimination 
may be pervasive.
  Also important is the amendment's call for voluntary reporting of 
race, national origin and gender. This information is essential for 
civil rights purposes. This information is regularly collected under a 
variety of other Federal laws, the best known of which is the Home 
Mortgage Disclosure Act.
  I believe this compromise amendment will significantly strengthen the 
bill without unduly burdening the insurance industry. The gravity of 
the redlining situation merits a reasonable but forceful response. That 
response is contained in the provisions of the Roybal-Allard Velazquez-
Barrett-Kennedy amendment. I commend my colleagues on the Banking 
Committee under the leadership of Mr. Kennedy for their vision and 
sense of justice for consumers, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this important amendment.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. MANTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  H.R. 1188, as reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is a 
carefully crafted, fair and balanced measure that mandates the 
collection of data in order to determine whether insurance redlining 
exists in our Nation's largest cities.
  The Roybal-Allard amendment would dramatically expand the type and 
amount of data mandated for collection, far beyond what is necessary to 
determine whether redlining exists, and without regard for the 
additional costs it would impose upon the industry and consumers.
  First, the amendment would require insurance companies to provide 
data for the 75 largest metropolitan areas, instead of the 25 required 
by the bill. The top 25 MSA's comprise more than 58 percent of the 
Nation's total metropolitan population.
  An analysis of more than half of the Nation's urban population will 
be more than significant to determine the availability or insurance in 
major U.S. cities.
  Second, the amendment would require companies to provide data on the 
race, ethnicity and gender of policy applicants and holders. Requiring 
insurance companies to provide this data assumes that they collect and 
use this data for some purpose. But nothing could be further from the 
truth. Insurance companies do not collect this data, and have no need 
for this data because it is irrelevant to underwriting decisions.
  The Roybal-Allard amendment would require insurers to ask questions 
about race and ethnicity that they do not now ask, engendering 
hostility and raising suspicions without furthering the purpose of the 
underlying bill: that is, to determine the availability of insurance in 
our Nation's cities.
  This amendment is well-intentioned, but it does not strengthen the 
bill in any way whatsoever, and, if adopted, would lead to the defeat 
of the measure. Let us reject the amendment and pass the bill.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Madam Chairwoman, in looking at the effectiveness of the two 
proposals, the proposal in this legislation would require reporting 
from the largest 25 MSA's in the country. When you add an additional 50 
MSA's, you only add about 18 percent of the Nation's population to 
that.
  Under this bill, the largest MSA's that are required to report 
include almost all insurers. The amendment, however, would exempt 
nondesignated insurers which represent approximately 20 percent of the 
premium volume, bringing them down to 51.2 percent of the population 
that would be covered. This is only about 5 percent more than the 
original bill.
  But there is a serious problem under this amendment because it 
exempts an entire category of insurers. This not only changes the total 
composition of the report but, more importantly, it also seriously 
undermines the accuracy of the report. Many of these insurers are niche 
marketers who work specifically with groups that may have had 
difficulty in obtaining insurance. Without the data collected from 
nondesignated insurers, the number of individuals insured in certain 
areas could look abnormally low; by comparison, one bill's provisions 
already assure that number will not be abnormally low.
  I think it is important that we get a report from almost all insurers 
so that we know exactly how many people are able to get insurance when 
they apply for it.
  The new proposal is not sound because the accuracy of the resulting 
report will suffer.
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for this 
amendment.
  As it currently stands, H.R. 1188 lacks crucial provisions needed to 
determine the extent of redlining in the insurance industry.
  Insurance industry discrimination is a profound problem that Congress 
can no longer overlook.
  Residents of neighborhoods afflicted by redlining need Congress for 
relief.
  Without affordable insurance people cannot buy a house, start a small 
business or drive their own car.
  Without affordable insurance, revitalization of our cities will be 
seriously thwarted.
  Without this amendment, many minority homeowners will either do 
without insurance or continue to pay inflated premiums.
  We need basic information to determine insurance company practices 
and to ascertain the breadth of redlining.
  This amendment will provide us with the necessary information by 
requiring adequate reporting.
  Federal disclosure of information in the areas where insurance 
policies are written will help to combat discrimination, just as the 
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act helped reduce redlining and other 
discriminatory practices in the mortgage lending industry.
  As with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act this amendment will provide 
the option of voluntary reporting of race, gender and national origin, 
and of data by census tract.
  It is in everyone's interest, from the poorest to the most affluent, 
to quickly end any vestiges of discrimination.
  In my district, the local chapter of ACORN did a test.
  The result showed that over half the callers from minority 
households, mostly Latino callers, were refused quotes over the phone, 
while no callers from the white areas were refused quotes; callers from 
minority neighborhoods were consistently offered quotes that were two 
to three times higher than callers from white areas; callers from 
minority areas were subjected to more stringent requirements than 
callers from other areas, such as onsite inspections and credit checks; 
and callers from minority areas had great difficulty getting coverage 
for theft.
  ACORN members say they routinely experience significant difficulty 
getting insurance, and are subject to arbitrary cancellation and 
nonrenewal of insurance policies.
  All members complain about paying exorbitant rates for coverage and 
about credit checks.
  Several members have had their mortgage processing delayed because 
they could not get homeowners insurance coverage.
  One member could not get coverage in time to close on a house, and 
thereby lost a mortgage.
  We must not shrink from our duty to protect those whose voice is 
weak.
  That is our collective responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Ms. LAMBERT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roybal-Allard amendment 
and encourage my colleagues to vote in opposition to it.
  I would first like to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the chairwoman of the subcommittee, for her 
hard work and initiative on this very, very serious and important 
issue.
  I think she has taken a great deal of time and energy, worked hard to 
bring to the floor a bill that will do a tremendous amount in 
decreasing prejudice and bringing available insurance to all people.
  One of the issues about the amendment here is the fact that it is a 
costly amendment; the amendment would greatly increase the burdens of 
insurance data collection by increasing the number of metropolitan 
areas and requiring loss data reporting, census tract reporting. I 
think we can find basically that the census tracts are not consistent 
with the ZIP Code tracking.
  We have seen some of that in our economic zones and empowerment zone 
proposals that we have been working with in our districts.
  The amendment massively expands potential reporting requirements by 
giving the Secretary power to require census tract reporting by any 
insurers anywhere in the United States no matter how small the insurer 
and regardless of whether the insurer operates in a designated MSA.
  The amendment basically or significantly weakens the bill. By 
exempting certain insurers from any reporting under the bill, the 
amendment means the collected data will fail to include information on 
about 20 percent of the policies in the metropolitan area.

                              {time}  1620

  This seriously lowers the quality of the data. We obviously have a 
great deal of current laws and regulations that are complicated. The 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has done a great job in 
bringing forth a bill that minimizes that complication but provides the 
adequate and necessary protection in this industry.
  The amendment destroys the balance in the bill, possibly destroying 
the consensus necessary for passage and enactment.
  I encourage my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. ORTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word and 
reluctantly rise to state my opposition to the Roybal-Allard amendment 
to the insurance bill, H.R. 1188. I appreciate the concerns of the 
authors of this legislation, which is to try to determine whether 
redlining occurs in conjunction with homeowner and casualty insurance. 
I commend the efforts of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] 
and also the authors of this amendment. I believe we all share the 
goals of preventing improper discrimination in insurance access. I 
respect my colleagues on the House Committee on Banking, Finance and 
Urban Affairs who are offering this amendment, sponsored by 
Representative Roybal-Allard. However, I am very concerned about the 
breadth of the provisions in this amendment.
  I would like to briefly state my concerns and reasons for opposing 
this amendment. First, the amendment would require the insurers to 
disclose data on their losses. This provision raises very serious 
questions in my mind about the confidentiality of this information and 
that it could in fact be used detrimentally by insurance competitors. I 
frankly fail to see any value of this information being reported under 
this bill. In my opinion, the only plausible use of this information 
would be on the part of the insurance companies to defend themselves 
against other information which might indicate discrimination.
  It seems to me that if the insurers want to collect this information 
voluntarily for this purpose, that should be their choice, but not 
necessarily a requirement.
  Second, the amendment would expand the number of MSA's from 25 to 75. 
I believe this is unnecessary to meet the goal of determining whether 
and to what extent redlining actually exists; 25 MSA's identified in 
the bill would cover actually 60 percent of the metropolitan areas of 
the United States. This is a broad enough sample to make this 
determination.
  Third, the amendment would require insurers to collect and report 
information about race. This could raise more questions about, and 
provide more opportunity for, discrimination that it could ever 
resolve.
  Finally, the amendment expands reporting from a zip code to a census 
tract basis. I understand there are reasonable arguments on both sides 
of this issue as well. However, it is my belief that the very 
substantial added burden of this requirement is not offset by the 
potential increased value of this information.
  I believe that the bill before us is a good bill. I believe that it 
will in fact move us toward determining whether such redlining exists, 
to what extent it exists, and help to eliminate such redlining.
  Again, I commend the work of both the committees. I serve on the 
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; we have taken up 
legislation. I support the bill but oppose this amendment, and I would 
therefore urge defeat of the Roybal-Allard amendment but urge passage 
of the final bill.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the 
Roybal-Allard Velazquez amendment. Let me begin, however, by commending 
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] for her long and 
outstanding work in bringing this bill to the floor. It is a 
meritorious bill, but I support the amendment because I believe it is 
essential to make this a better bill.
  The problem of redlining goes right to the heart of the American 
dream, the right to own a home, to pay fair rates for insurance, to be 
able to enjoy the same things that people of all other races enjoy. The 
evidence, however, has documented very clearly that we have a problem 
of discrimination with regard to insurance rate-setting.
  Let me suggest a study from the Missouri department of insurance, 
which found that Kansas City homeowners in four minority communities 
paid $6.32 per thousand versus those in low-income white communities 
who paid only $5.45 per thousand.
  The loss ratio or amount of premium dollars paid out in claims, 
however was lower, in fact, in the minority communities, at 60 percent 
as opposed to the higher loss ratios in the white communities at 84 
percent.
  Thus, we see that there is a significant disparity in the rates paid 
in minority communities compared as with nonminority communities.
  Now, why is this a good amendment? Why does this amendment address 
these concerns? Because, notably this amendment requires the collection 
of loss data. I heard a gentleman from the other side say, ``What does 
loss data have to do with rate-setting?'' The fact is he also said that 
what we really look at is risk. Well, risk is determined based upon 
loss experience.
  So if the insurance companies are going to suggest that these 
disparities that we see between blacks and other minorities and 
nonminorities are based on risk for justifiable reasons, then they 
ought to be willing to disclose their loss experience, what in fact has 
been the case. They are unwilling to do that.
  I think it is very significant that in this amendment, by requiring 
the collection of loss data, we are able to determine if in fact the 
insurance company explanations are legitimate or whether in fact they 
are discriminating based upon race. Because this measure is so 
significant, we cannot say that we are serious about dealing with 
redlining if we refuse to collect the loss data that is so essential in 
determining whether or not there are these disparities.
  The amendment is good for another reason. It expands the number of 
MSA's that are included in the bill. Under the current language, only 
25 MSA's are included. Under the amendment, 75 MSA's are included.
  Can you imagine that you would have a national study that did not 
include Toledo, Louisville, Birmingham, New Orleans, San Antonio, 
Memphis, or Little Rock? It would not be much of a study. In fact, the 
opponents of this amendment would have it both ways. They say, ``Your 
amendment is not right because it only gets 80 percent of the 
premiums.''
  Yet they would only use 25 of the MSA's in this country. I do not 
believe that that is an accurate analysis.
  It seems to me the amendment makes good sense because it collects 
essential data to determine whether there are legitimate reasons for 
the disparities and it conducts a study of sufficient breadth so that 
many communities that are potentially adversely affected by 
discrimination can be examined.
  Madam Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. In order to 
understand why there is so much bipartisan opposition to this 
amendment, I think it is important to understand what this bill was 
designed to do in the first place and what it was not designed it do.
  What it was not designed to do is to create a perpetual program to 
regulate the sale of insurance in the United States. What it is 
intended to do is to collect enough data to understand the problem, to 
analyze the problem, and then do something about it probably, with 
further legislation.
  What the bill does is collect the data that has been described on 
page 8. It directs the Secretary to conduct a study regarding the 
availability of commercial insurance. On page 9, it sets up a pilot 
project for data collection in the five largest SMA's. On page 12, it 
goes into an analysis of that data. We collect enough data from half 
the country to understand and analyze what the problem is. On page 20, 
there is the creation of a task force on agency appointments, to review 
the problems that inner city and minority agents may have in receiving 
appointments to represent property and casualty insurance companies. So 
that is accomplished.
  Then on page 25, the bill sunsets after 5 years. We have collected 
the information, analyzed it, created our task forces, and the bill 
sunsets.
  Then finally on page 28, there is a study of insurer actions. What 
can we do about this problem?

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of various practices, 
     actions, programs, methods undertaken by insurers to meet the 
     property and casualty insurance needs of low- and moderate-
     income neighborhoods.

  Then there is a report back to the Energy and Commerce Committee so 
that we can decide if there is need for further legislation.
  That is what the bill is intended to do, to collect data, analyze it, 
study it, create task forces, and then go forward with solutions. We do 
not need to collect more data from more SMA's all over the country in 
order to do the analysis and the study this bill calls for.

                              {time}  1630

  The amendment should be defeated because it simply creates more 
burdensome requirements for collecting data that is unnecessary for a 
statistically accurate analysis of whether or not, and to what extent, 
there is a problem with redlining in this country. It adds nothing 
which would lead us to a solution of the problem.
  For that reason and for others, Madam Chairwoman, I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam chairman, the issue here is very simply whether or not we want 
window dressing, redlining legislation, or whether or not we want real 
redlining legislation. If we want to find out what is going on in our 
country, we have got to ask the questions that can only be answered by 
the facts. If we want to get broad generalizations about whether or not 
insurance companies are writing information in some large geographic 
area, as large as a ZIP Code that would include inner city areas as 
well as wealthy suburbs, than certainly we can endorse the version of 
the legislation that is before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
But if we are truly interested in finding out what is going on in our 
country, we have to have more detailed information. It is more 
detailed; that is what our purposes are.
  The fact is that, if it is still unclear, as I have heard a number of 
people say over the course of the last hour or so, that racial 
discrimination in writing of insurance policies exists, let me remind 
people of some of the testimony given before our committee. The 
California insurance group gave us maps which were given to agents 
which covered in yellow ink the Afro-American, Hispanic, and gay 
neighborhoods of San Francisco. The company deemed those areas off 
limits for the purposes of writing policies. California's insurance 
commissioner, John Garamendi, sued the company for unlawful 
discrimination, and ultimately he reached a $500,000 settlement and won 
a commitment from the company to increase its business in minority and 
gay communities by $3 to $4 million over the next few years.

  In Wisconsin, where the subcommittee held a hearing earlier this 
year, the NAACP recently filed a suit against the American Insurance 
Co., the American Family Insurance Co., that State's largest 
underwriters for homeowners insurance, for redlining minority areas in 
Milwaukee. One of the company's sales managers was caught on tape 
making the following statement, and I quote:

       Very honestly, I think you write too many blacks * * * you 
     gotta sell good, premium-paying white people * * * very 
     honestly, black people will buy anything that looks good 
     right now * * * But when it comes to pay for it next time * * 
     * You're not going to get your money out of them. * * * The 
     only way you're going to correct your [performance] is get 
     away from the blacks.

  The agent who was the focus of those comments was subsequently fired.
  In Brooklyn, we had an agent that gave testimony before our committee 
in which he used words that I will not repeat on this House floor to 
describe the attitude toward his parent company toward the Afro-
American community.
  Now the fact of the matter is this is anecdotal information. We have 
heard from a number of State commissioners that they need to have this 
detailed information. I have heard on the floor that the NAACP supports 
the underlying bill. It is not true. The NAACP has sent out a letter 
today that says that the legislation needs to have the provisions that 
are contained in the Roybal-Allard Velazquez amendment in order to 
receive its support.
  Now, if we are serious about getting information about whether or not 
this kind of racial discrimination takes place, we are not in favor of 
overburdening the insurance industry, this is not going to cost the 
insurance industry a lot of money. It is going to take a computer 
programmer all the time it takes to punch a button to have the 
information kicked out by ZIP Code and plus four or census track versus 
the current zip code. Many of the insurance companies already use ZIP 
Code plus four in order to categorize their information. It is not 
excessively burdensome.
  Finally, I would say to not even ask the question whether or not we 
are going to contain information regarding race and gender is 
unbelievable to me in a bill that is supposed to be designed to extract 
information about whether or not racial discrimination takes place. How 
can we not ask race and gender questions and expect to get information 
on whether or not racial discrimination takes place? This is plain and 
simple whether or not certainly we can get a lot of votes for bills 
that do nothing. But if the country is determined to get to whether or 
not there is discrimination, we need to have the specific information 
as to whether or not that kind of discrimination exists. The Roybal-
Allard Velazquez amendment will get us that information.
  Madam Chairman, I urge the Members of this House to vote in support 
of the Velazquez Roybal-Allard amendment and find out whether or not 
discrimination takes place in the insurance industry.
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I do so 
reluctantly in saying that I am a member of the Subcommittee on 
Consumer Credit and Insurance chaired by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and I know that his intentions are 
honorable and that this bill, along with his amendment, attempts to 
determine if there is racial discrimination, something that we all 
oppose, I would hope, and something that we would all like this 
legislation to address this issue, and in fact I think the legislation 
before us; he spoke of San Francisco and Milwaukee, and I would point 
out to the Members that the legislation in its present form will 
address both of those concerns.
  Now I wanted to compliment the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] because I know that he and I share a concern, and that is a 
concern for the small regional carriers. From time to time these small, 
sometimes family business, sometimes minority owned, small regional 
carriers, are having to go out of business. Many of them are threatened 
today, and, as each one goes out of business, it has a tremendous 
impact in their home town, their home town insurance company. Some of 
them have been there over a hundred years, and many of them, with each 
one going out of business, it means more market share concentrated in 
only a few large national concerns. And I think the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], because of his concern for small regional 
insurance companies, he exempts them from many of the reporting 
requirements in this bill, and I think his intention is to see that we 
do not place any more undue regulations on those small insurance 
companies, and we do not force them out of business, and many of them, 
as I said, minority insurance companies and regional carriers.
  But at the same time this amendment has an unintentional result, and 
this is something that we all want to guard against. We have an 
intention to accomplish a purpose, but in fact we end up with something 
quite different, and one reason I oppose this amendment is I believe it 
will have a detrimental effect on our small regional insurance 
companies.
  Now why do I say that? Because when we expand from 25 to 75 
metropolitan areas, we are catching in this regulatory net many of 
those small regional companies, and my home town will do that. We will 
catch insurance companies in that net, and we are going to have 
insurance companies, because they are not--they are major factors in a 
small market, and I say, when you expand to some of those smaller 
cities, you are going to catch those insurance companies, and that's a 
concern of mine. I know that there is what you have argued is a 
benefit. But I would point that out, and I would point our 
particularly, and as you said in all truth, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, several insurance companies today are reporting by nine-
numbered ZIP Codes, and they are already doing that.

                              {time}  1640

  They are already doing that. But I would remind Members that some of 
the small regional carriers are not. Those are the very people that are 
not reporting and do not have that data and are going to have to go to 
great expense. Quite frankly, to some of these small regional carriers, 
they are important to that hometown economy in that smaller city. But 
it is going to be a tremendous cost to them.
  The gentleman from North Carolina I think has pointed out other 
problems that we have when we go to a nine digit number and census 
track. But another problem is you are going to have some small regional 
carriers that are going to have to go through and make a very expensive 
process to comply with this. And in these two ways, unintended as they 
are, I think this is an unfriendly amendment to small regional 
insurance carriers in this country.
  I say unintended. I have heard the gentleman say many times that he 
is concerned about this trend toward concentration of market share and 
only a few insurers.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] be allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes, so that I might enter into a dialog regarding some 
of the facts just mentioned.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] seek 
additional time?
  Mr. BACHUS. I do not require additional time, Madam Chairman.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to proceed for 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I wanted to deal with some of the 
factual inaccuracies just mentioned. The fact of the matter is under 
the amendment before us, 82 percent of the insurance companies in this 
country are going to be exempted. Eighty-two percent will be exempted. 
What we are talking about are the small insurance companies. The big 
insurance companies are going to have to report it. As the gentleman 
himself pointed out, the major insurance companies in the United States 
in most cases are already going to ZIP Code plus 4. For any of the 
smaller companies that are included, we have offered under the 
Kanjorski amendment in the committee to pay for it.
  Most of the insurance companies will have to pay something in the 
order of $200 for the software to get this converted, the current data 
they collect, to ZIP Code plus 4 or census track. The cost argument is 
completely specious. The fundamental fact is even for the largest 
companies in the United States, the estimate that we have been given in 
our committee is that a cost of under $3,000 would meet the total 
expenses they will incur under this bill. So I just do not believe that 
the cost argument holds any water with regard to the information that 
is going to be required under the amendment.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are some of us in 
this body who do not need the statistical information, who already know 
that redlining exists. I think if you stop the regular guy on the 
street and ask him is there redlining taking place in this country, 80 
to 90 percent of the people would tell you yes.
  We started out hoping we would have a bill which addressed redlining. 
We were told, no, you cannot do that, because you need the statistical 
basis to document that redlining exists.
  This amendment gives us the framework to do that. I want to address 
two parts of it.
  One would require that the information that is collected be collected 
on the basis of race and gender. I do not know how you can document 
racial redlining in this country without having race data in the base.
  The second part of the amendment that I want to address is this five-
digit or nine-digit ZIP Code or census track issue. All of us know that 
five-digit ZIP Codes, as opposed to census tracks, cover high income 
areas, low income areas, black areas, white areas. And without this 
kind of information on a census track basis, how are we going to 
develop the statistical backdrop for addressing the redlining which we 
are told does not exist?
  If the insurance companies insist that redlining does not exist, it 
would seem to me they would want us to have this information to 
document that fact. But if we are going to collect this information for 
the purpose of addressing or determining whether we need to address the 
problem, at least we ought to have the information that is necessary to 
document that redlining is going on in this country. And without race 
information, we cannot do that. I would submit to you without doing it 
on the census track basis, we cannot do it.
  Madam Chairman, I would strongly encourage my colleagues to make this 
bill have some meaning in terms of its ultimate outcome, in terms of 
collecting the data that is necessary to document that redlining either 
does or does not exist in this country, by given the proper 
information. We cannot document it without race, sex, and we cannot 
document it without census. And those who would have it otherwise, I 
would submit, do not really want it to be documented in the first 
place.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Roybal-Allard Velazquez-
Kennedy amendment to strengthen H.R. 1188. I am from Los Angeles, and 
we have been wrestling with this issue for many, many years. I live in 
a redlined community. It is very difficult to turn our communities 
around and to do economic development and to have home ownership when 
we are attacked from every direction. It is very difficult for people 
to be able to pull themselves out of this despair and hopelessness, 
when in fact we cannot get the insurance we need, whether we are 
talking about home mortgages, automobile insurance, business loans. We 
are redlined. We are excluded. We cannot get the insurance, and we are 
simply trying to get the data to prove what is going on in these 
communities, in the community that I live in and communities such as 
mine across this country.
  Why would anyone want to protest against getting this information? I 
truly do not understand. We have exempted all of the small business 
because an argument was made that somehow this would be burdensome, 
this would be costly. So they have been exempted.
  Now what is the argument? We know it is not costly to get the 
information. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and others 
have talked about how they can access this information through 
sophisticated computerization. So I do not know what this defense is 
that is being mounted.
  We simply need data. I would ask my colleagues to vote on the side of 
the consumer, to support consumers in this Congress. Help us to remove 
the barriers that exist in these communities such as mine, so that we 
can get the insurance that is needed to help move us forward and help 
us to be in this mainstream and have a decent quality of life.
  Madam Chairman, I would simply ask us to get off the side of the big 
insurance companies and take a chance. Take a chance. They cannot do 
anything to you. If you vote to support this amendment, your 
constituents will love you for this, whether it is in my community or 
other like communities where they desperately need to be protected.
  Mr. SERRANO. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
strengthening amendment offered by Representatives Roybal-Allard, 
Velazquez, and Kennedy to the Anti Redlining in Insurance Disclosure 
Act.
  As an early cosponsor of this legislation, I have long recognized the 
need for legislation to prevent the all-too-frequent, illegal, race-
based discriminatory practices of some insurance companies.
  Since H.R. 1188 was introduced on March 3 of last year, there has 
been a spate of cases around the country--in Missouri, Texas, New York, 
California, and Washington, among many others--in which insurers have 
been implicated in charging high premiums or denying policies to 
customers not on the basis of valid assessments of the individual's 
risk, but on the basis of his or her neighborhood, race, or income.
  Opponents of anti redlining efforts may be inclined to note that an 
implication of illegal activity is not a determination of guilt, and 
that few of the redlining suits raised against insurers have resulted 
in convictions.
  Far from a defense of the practices of some insurers, this reality 
constitutes the most powerful argument for a strong Anti Redlining in 
Insurance Disclosure Act.
  The fact of the matter is that while available data is in many 
instances very highly suggestive of discriminatory practices, the loss 
data that this amendment would require, and the race, national origin, 
and gender reporting that it would call upon insurers to provide, are 
essential components of a national searchlight to clearly expose--and, 
hopefully, deter--discriminatory practices in the insurance industry.
  Madam Chairman, over the last several decades our Nation has made 
great strides in erecting a legal system that outlaws the denial of the 
civil rights of the American people. Most unfortunately, however, 
although they are less visible now than in the days of Jim Crow, 
violations of civil rights continue.
  As Members of Congress it is our duty to enact such laws as are 
necessary to eradicate these violations and establish a just society. I 
call upon my colleagues to help pass this important amendment.

                              {time}  1650

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California Ms. Roybal-Allard.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 333, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                                AYES--97

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hinchey
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Stark
     Swett
     Synar
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--333

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bentley
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Frost
     Gallo
     McCurdy
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1715

  Ms. SLAUGHTER and Messrs. RANGEL, HILLIARD, PORTMAN, ROSTENKOWSKI, 
and NEAL of Massachusetts changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ROSE and Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              amendment offered by mr. fields of louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page 3, line 
     10, strike ``and'' and insert a comma.
       Page 3, line 13, strike ``and'' and insert ``an explanation 
     of each of the reasons for which exposure units were canceled 
     or not renewed by such insurer, and the total exposure units 
     canceled and not renewed for each such reason,''.
       Page 3, line 23, strike the period and insert ``, and''.
       Page 3, after line 23, insert the following new clause:
       (iii) the total number of written applications or written 
     requests to issue an insurance policy submitted to such 
     insurer (or any agent or broker of the insurer) that were 
     declined, an explanation of each of the reasons for which 
     such applications or requests were declined, and the total 
     number of declinations for each such reason.
       Page 24, line 16, after ``insurance policies'' insert ``, 
     exposure units cancelled or not renewed, and written 
     applications or requests to issue and insurance policy 
     declined.''.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 
20 minutes, to be followed immediately by a vote on this amendment and 
all amendments thereto.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Illinois for working so hard to bring a bill of this nature to the 
floor, but we must be mindful of the fact that we can always make 
legislation better. This amendment certainly reaches the core of the 
redlining problem we have in this country.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment provides for something very basic, 
that is, consumer protection.
  Madam Chairman, whenever we deal with the issue of redlining, it is a 
nasty and somewhat unconscionable event to deal with in the first 
place, because it is already illegal. This amendment gets at the core 
of redlining in our country. It is a consumer information, right-to-
know amendment.
  This amendment is very simple. It provides that whenever a person is 
denied insurance, then that information ought to be given to the 
Secretary of Commerce.

                              {time}  1720

  That is very basic.
  We have people all across this country--there are 46 States in this 
country that do not have any requirement whatsoever when a person is 
denied insurance.
  First of all, in order to drive an automobile in this country many 
States require that you have automobile insurance. In order to buy a 
house for a first time homeowner you have to have mortgage insurance 
before you can get the mortgage for that particular home.
  The problem we have in this country is we have so many people who are 
being denied insurance and for no legitimate reason whatsoever. So if 
we are going to address the redlining problem in this country, we must 
adopt this amendment.
  This amendment is very simple. When a person applies in writing for 
insurance, be it automobile insurance or be it mortgage insurance, then 
that company who denies that individual insurance must report that 
information to the Secretary of Commerce. There is nothing wrong with 
that. That is very basic. Anybody who is denied insurance in this 
country ought to know why they are being denied. How can you correct a 
problem if you do not know the problem exists in the first place? One 
cannot correct a problem, Madam Chairman, if they do not know the 
problem exists.
  For example, Madam Chairman, this is a very serious problem that we 
have in this country. We have people who go to the bank to get a loan 
to buy their first home and they cannot buy because they cannot get 
insurance. Banks will not give them money unless they have insurance. 
What do they do? They go to the insurance company and they say please 
give me insurance, and they deny them; they do not have to give them 
any reason whatsoever for that denial, and they have no government 
protection.
  This amendment goes to the core of the problem in terms of redlining. 
This amendment says when you deny a person insurance in this country 
you ought to give a reason why, and these reasons ought to be 
legitimate, because they have to be reported to the Secretary of 
Commerce.
  What is wrong with that, Madam Chairman? Many will lead Members to 
believe that there is some cost factor involved in this amendment, that 
it is going to cost the industry millions upon millions of dollars. Let 
me say if an insurance company denies or chooses not to renew a 
person's insurance policy, I would hope that they send them a 
communication through the mail in the first place. If you are not going 
to have your insurance policy renewed, then it is just decency, and as 
matter of fact in many States it is the law to send the individual a 
letter denying him renewal. So what additional costs will it cost the 
insurance companies?
  Madam Chairman, all we are simply going to say is when they deny a 
person insurance, when they send that letter of denial or refuse to 
renew, then they must also include in that letter the reasons why they 
have denied that person insurance once they file that information with 
the Federal Government. It is a very simple matter. I certainly ask all 
of my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is so simple. If 
Members are for an individual receiving a reason why he or she is 
denied insurance, then vote for this amendment. If they feel that a 
consumer in this country has no right whatsoever to receive the reason 
why he or she is denied insurance, then vote against the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, that is the amendment. It is as simple as that. It 
does not ask for any additional burden on and insurance companies. It 
is already illegal to redline in this country. In order for us to find 
out how insurance companies are redlining, and if they are in fact 
redlining in this country, we are going to have to have these vital 
statistics; we are going to have to have this information. How can we 
even have the thought of passing an insurance redlining bill in this 
Congress and not have an amendment in the legislation that provides 
that an insurance company ought to give the reason why the individual 
was denied? That is no more than right. That is no more than fair. Even 
a child, Madam Chairman, when you have a child, a good parent will not 
tell a child not to touch a hot stove and not tell them why they ought 
not touch the hot stove, because the minute you walk out of the room 
that child is probably going to touch the stove. You say, ``Child, do 
not touch the stove because it is hot and you can get burned.''

  Now we have insurance companies saying you cannot get insurance and 
we are not going to tell you why.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, Let me say that we have just this afternoon had two 
amendments to H.R. 1188 and they were defeated overwhelmingly. We now 
have a third amendment on the House floor, and all it does basically is 
add more paperwork, extra costs, and more bureaucracy.
  I think the House has spoken, Madam Chairman, pretty clearly on the 
other two amendments, I say to my colleagues we have already spoken on 
this. All this amendment does is go ahead and ask for more information 
when the basic bill, H.R. 1188, already provides the necessary 
information to determine the extent of redlining, for declination, 
which is what the gentleman has asked for. So we already have existing 
in the bill the information that is necessary, and there is no need for 
additional reporting.
  The CBO, as I mentioned earlier, noted in their cost estimates of the 
Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs that the more data you 
collect and analyze and make available to the public, the higher the 
cost to the Federal Government. I think we have here a bill that has 
bipartisan support. When we talk about consumer protection, I think the 
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce has done an 
extraordinary job in all of her efforts here in Congress to protect 
consumers, and she is fully supportive of this bill. So I would say to 
my colleagues, with her background of consumer protection and what we 
have seen in the prior votes here, we do not need to add any more 
reporting to H.R. 1188. So I call on the Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, the amendment at issue really departs 
from redlining and a study of redlining for which the collection of 
data and the evaluation of it is required. The amendment is actually a 
regulatory requirement.
  Is it not the gentleman's understanding that the business of 
insurance is regulated at the State level?
  Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman is correct. I think the gentleman with his 
background in this is concise in that, and the gentleman is right on 
the matter, and I am glad he pointed it out.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Chairman, in the 8 years that I was the 
commissioner of insurance in North Dakota, consumers had the right of 
exactly the type of disclosure the gentleman is seeking in this 
amendment, except it was provided under State law. I believe if the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana would have checked, States 
routinely provide exactly this type of disclosure protection to 
consumers. It is provided by State law as a regulatory matter and has 
no business in this redlining bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. I compliment the gentleman for his critique on this. He 
basically states the issue, and it is regulatory.
  Mr. WATT. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, I will be very brief on this. I have already laid out 
my opinions about this bill and the amendments to it in my previous 
statement on the prior amendment. But I want to confess one additional 
motivation on this, and that is just a human nature motivation.
  My objective, and I think the objective that we have here is to get 
insurance companies, if they are engaging in redlining, to stop doing 
it. When people have to report the reasons for denying insurance, human 
nature kicks in, the urge to be honest kicks in. And I think people 
will be more inclined, insurance companies will be more inclined to 
write the insurance policy rather than give an honest reason for 
denying the insurance.

                              {time}  1730

  I think that in and of itself, in addition to the arguments that I 
have previously submitted on the earlier amendment, justify this 
amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Let me commend the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] for his hard 
work in this area. He is a very able Member of this body and a great 
friend of consumers.
  This amendment is very well intentioned. Let me say three things 
about the Fields amendment. First, unlike earlier versions, this 
amendment will not directly help individual consumers. The earlier 
versions required insurance companies to report to individual 
consumers, and in contrast, this amendment calls for more reporting to 
the Secretary.
  Second, this amendment is premature and jumps the gun.
  My original bill sought to get information like this, but we found 
some practical problems with it. In particular, while insurance 
companies maintain standard information in their data bases about 
actual policies, they did not maintain the information about 
applications. There were other questions raised, too, like how to 
define an application.
  As a result, the bill includes a study by the Secretary of the 
feasibility and utility of collecting information on the 
characteristics of insurance applicants and the reasons for rejection 
of applicants.
  Let us wait for the Secretary's study to assess the feasibility and 
utility of this. Let us not jump the gun.
  Third, throughout the process, we tried to minimize the burdens on 
insurance agents. There are many of these small independent businessmen 
and women throughout the Nation. I am pleased that the major agency 
organizations support the bill, and unfortunately, this amendment would 
add a burden to those agents.
  I would urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Madam Chairman, you know, it is not in the Constitution, but in 
modern-day America there are two things you have to have: credit and 
insurance.
  We found in the application of credit that it is absolutely 
fundamental that the consumer have the right to know why he is being 
denied. And you know what, it worked. It was not too burdensome. It was 
not too onerous. It did help the consumer in one of two ways: He found 
out what he had to do to get his credit in shape, or we were able to 
find out somebody was discriminating.
  I would submit to my colleagues this is exactly what we are trying to 
do, find out what the consumer needs to do to get insurance, or have 
the Secretary be in a position to find out that somebody is 
discriminating.
  Now, you hear that this is so burdensome. Madam Chairman, ladies and 
gentleman, we are not asking the insurance industry to submit an essay 
exam. They simply check the box, lapsed insurance, failure to pay, poor 
credit, whatever the reason is. That way we can make some evaluation 
whether they are giving legitimate reasons and whether certain 
communities seem to have a disproportionate amount of lapsed policies, 
terminated policies, denied policies. This is basic common sense in 
modern-day America.
  This amendment is supported by ACORN, the National League of Cities, 
the NAACP, the Consumer Federation of America, and Public Citizen.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for a very 
sensible, reasonable, rational, and certainly not burdensome amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Chairman, I want to very much support the efforts 
of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] to require the insurance 
industry of America to at least, at a bare minimum, tell the customer 
why they are turned down, if a potential customer asks for an insurance 
policy.
  We have watched on the floor of this House any attempt to get real 
information regarding racial discrimination or redlining eliminated 
from this bill. Make no mistake about it, the way this bill is 
structured today, it does not meet the NAACP test. It does not meet the 
consumers' test. It does not meet any of the organizations that have 
the best interests of the ordinary people of America at heart.
  Does it have the support of the insurance industry? You bet it does.
  Does it have the support of the other side of the aisle? You bet it 
does, and all too often it has the support of Members that are 
interested not so much in necessarily how we are going to look out for 
the interests of the consumers of America but how we are going to look 
out for the interests of the biggest industries.
  What I say is that this attempt by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Fields] to simply ask that industry to tell us whether or not the 
information that they are denying people access to credit on is going 
to be made available to those individuals, is just basically fair, and 
a very reasonable amount of information to require.
  It is not going to be overly burdensome. It will not get in the way 
of the insurance industry to make money. It will only give recourse to 
those individuals that are denied the opportunity to get those 
insurance policies a reason for that denial.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYNN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, the gentleman from North 
Dakota mentioned earlier that the States are regulated, that this issue 
is regulated through the States, and the States mandate they give 
written reasons why they are denied, individuals are denied insurance.
  According to the CRS report, only four States in the entire Nation 
require that the insurance companies give reasons why they deny 
consumers insurance in this country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is 
exactly correct. There are three or four States that have passed this 
enlightened legislation. The vast majority of the States do not require 
anything along these lines, and it is those States, States like New 
York and California and Illinois where we have the problem of insurance 
redlining in the major cities of America, in the urban areas of 
America, where this problem is so rampant that we need to have this 
basic disclosure. If we are not going to require census tract, if we 
are not going to require MSA's, if we are not going to require all the 
provisions that were in the Velazquez and Roybal-Allard amendment, at 
least at the very minimum tell the individual American people why they 
are being denied. If it is not for racial reasons, tell them why they 
are denied access to insurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123, 
noes 305, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               AYES--123

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swett
     Synar
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--305

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Valentine
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Gallo
     Hilliard
     McCurdy
     Neal (NC)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Underwood (GU)
     Washington
     Waters
     Whitten
     Wilson

                              {time}  1758

  Mrs. BYRNE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROSE, FORD of Tennessee, and STOKES changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, the question is on 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Torres) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeLauro, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1188) to 
provide for disclosures for insurance in interstate commerce, pursuant 
to House Resolution 475, reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1800

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid 
upon the table.


 motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3355, violent crime control and 
                      law enforcement act of 1993

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion to instruct 
conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of their community to address crime 
and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCollum moves that the managers on the part of the 
     House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill H.R. 3355 be instructed not to make any agreement that 
     does not include section 2405 of the Senate amendment, 
     providing mandatory prison terms for use, possession, or 
     carrying of a firearm or destructive device during a State 
     crime of violence or State drug trafficking crime.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Hughes] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain this motion to instruct 
conferees. What I am offering today is a motion to instruct conferees 
on the crime bill, on a portion of the bill that is in the Senate, the 
other body's bill, and is not in the House bill, one that we were not 
allowed to have the opportunity to vote on on the floor by our 
Committee on Rules, even though I requested the opportunity to be given 
to us. I think this is a very important motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express what this does in as succinct terms as 
I know how. First of all, it deals with the question of somebody who is 
committing a State crime of violence or a State drug trafficking 
offense, not a Federal crime as the underlying crime, and who does that 
crime either in possession of or with the use of a gun.
  This particular provision, if we were to adopt it and it becomes law, 
that this motion to instruct goes to, would mean that there would be a 
new Federal crime, in addition to the State conviction for the 
underlying crime of violence or drug trafficking, a new Federal crime 
for the simple possession or use of a firearm in the commission of that 
underlying crime, and that new Federal crime would carry with it 
minimum mandatory sentences in given circumstances that could not be 
reduced for any reason whatsoever, not for good time, not for any 
reason.
  The minimum mandatory prison terms for the first offense would be 10 
years for knowingly possessing a firearm during the commission of one 
of these State crimes of violence or drug trafficking, 20 years for 
discharging such a firearm with intent to injure such a person, or 30 
years for knowingly possessing a firearm that is a machine gun or 
destructive device or one that has a silencer or muffler on it. It does 
not federalize at all the State crime. It simply adds a new Federal 
crime.
  All you have to do to prove the new Federal crime is to show that 
there is an underlying conviction or a crime of violence or a drug 
trafficking offense as is defined in that State court, and that there 
was the possession or the requisite use and the technical nature to get 
the particular minimum mandatory sentence.
  If somebody does this twice, it would simply double the minimum 
mandatories for the first and second mandatories, of possession to 20 
years, for discharge--actually to 30, it doesn't quite double it in 
that case, and it goes to life imprisonment if you are using a machine 
gun or destructive device or silencer, and for the third offense, a 
mandatory life sentence.

  This would send a very powerful deterrent message against anybody 
trying to use a gun in the commission of any crime in this country.
  I would add to my colleagues who think this goes overboard, I do not 
think this does at all. I think this gets to the very heart of the 
problem we have been needing to get at for a long time in this country. 
It gets to the problem that too many people are using guns today, and 
it gets to the problem of the repeat violent offender, violence being 
the No. 1 problem in crime today. Six percent of those who commit 
crimes out there today are committing 70 percent of the crimes of 
violence, and they are repeat offenders. They are serving only about 38 
percent of their sentences.
  What we need to do is lock these folks up for long periods of time, 
and we need to send a message of deterrence. Local police officers 
around the country in many forums where I have been this past year have 
told me that among those committing these types of crimes, primarily 
our younger people, there is a regular chain of communication. They 
know the score. The first thing they ask when they are arrested is, if 
they are arrested at all for any of these crimes, is this a Federal 
crime or is it a State crime? They know if it is a Federal crime, they 
are going to do the time, because we have right now the 85 percent 
rule. You have truth in sentencing at the Federal level. We have been 
trying to achieve that in this crime bill for the States for repeat 
violent offenders.
  This particular provision would allow us to extend existing Federal 
law in firearms cases to cover all cases where firearms are being used 
in felonies, in violent felonies and drug trafficking offenses.
  Let me give you an example of what existing Federal law would do and 
does when this is properly utilized. In the previous administration we 
had what is called operation trigger lock using it.
  At the present time, if you are a convicted felon, whether it is a 
State court conviction or a Federal court conviction, it matters not. 
If you are a convicted felon and then you are convicted of a crime 
again with a gun, even if you are in possession of a gun and are not 
convicted of a separate crime, you will have committed a new Federal 
crime for the similar possession of the firearm.
  Operation trigger lock, with some minimum mandatory sentences that 
are on the books for that particular Federal crime, was a provision 
that the Justice Department in the previous administration had been 
using for several months before the new one came in to take some of 
these folks off the streets, out of the State systems where they had 
been convicted, throw the book at them in selected cases, lock them up 
and throw away the keys, do what we wanted to do to send that deterrent 
message.

                              {time}  1810

  All this provision does is to extend that option to the Justice 
Department. I do not think that the present administration is right. 
They would kill that operation trigger lock idea. They said, we do not 
have time to fiddle with that.
  I would submit to everybody out there that this is indeed exactly 
what should be being done now. If we are going to stop the crime of 
violence problem we have in this Nation, the crisis we currently face, 
we have to begin getting serious about taking the violent criminals who 
are using guns off the streets, locking them up, and throwing away the 
keys.
  No, we cannot lock everybody up in the Federal Prison System. No, 
this proposal would not do that. But it would give the Justice 
Department and the local State's U.S. attorneys the option of being 
able to do it when they selectively felt it was important. And it would 
give the message, if it is utilized on a selective basis out there, to 
the guy on the street that ``if you commit a crime with a gun, you are 
really going to risk doing some very serious time in jail, minimum 
mandatory sentences being possible, in addition to your underlying 
crime.''
  So I encourage the adoption of this motion to instruct today to send 
our conferees on the crime bill the message, we want them to accept 
this Senate provision. Get tough on these repeat offenders and allow 
the U.S. attorneys around the country to have this additional tool to 
get at those who commit crimes of violence and drug trafficking, who 
are convicted in State courts using a gun, the opportunity to prosecute 
them in addition to the State offense for this new Federal offense of 
using or possessing the gun.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the McCollum motion to instruct 
conferees to accept that portion of H.R. 3355 that basically would 
federalize the carrying of a weapon during the commission of the State 
offense involving an act of violence or a State drug crime.
  It is probably one of the worst motions to instruct that one could 
offer because it would federalize State offenses involving a firearm, 
and there are literally hundreds of thousands of State offenses 
involving a firearm.
  It covers the possession of a firearm, the use of a firearm or 
carrying of a firearm. As I understand it, it would require a separate 
Federal prosecution in every case.
  I understand that it would require not just the State prosecution but 
a Federal prosecution.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida, 
maybe he can respond to me as to what he envisions would be the role of 
Federal prosecution. Is it his understanding it would require a Federal 
prosecution besides a State prosecution?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUGHES. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, what would be required, as I interpret 
this and the way I helped crafted it, is that we would have an 
underlying State crime and once the State conviction occurred that was 
the prerequisite to this, then there would have to be a separate 
Federal prosecution for the Federal crime which would involve a simple 
prosecution because we would have to prove only two things: First, the 
underlying State conviction of the crime that was the prerequisite and, 
second, that there was a possession or use of the firearm in that 
crime.
  Mr. HUGHES. The gentleman has answered my question. This is D'Amato 
basically revisited in many respects because it would federalize State 
offenses, once again.
  I am not sure what is going to be just a State crime. Even though the 
States prosecute 95 percent of street crime, we are more and more 
federalizing all kinds of State offenses.
  That particular motion to instruct and the provisions of the Senate 
bill is opposed by the Department of Justice. And I have a letter from 
the Attorney General, and I will read just a portion of it.

       The administration strongly opposes the Senate provisions 
     which would largely obliterate the distinction between 
     Federal and State criminal jurisdiction. These provisions 
     represent a false promise of action in fighting violent 
     crime, a promise that will not be realized given limited 
     Federal resources. At best these provisions,

  I am reading from another section of the letter,

     at best these provisions would be ineffectual; at worst, they 
     would divert Federal resources from dealing with 
     distinctively Federal matters in interstate crime, activities 
     that Federal law enforcement is uniquely competent to handle.

  It is opposed by the Administrative Office of the Courts. The 
administrative office indicates that it would put 200,000 new cases in 
the Federal system. It is opposed by the Sentencing Commission.
  The Sentencing Commission indicates that over the next 9 years, if we 
were to adopt this motion to instruct in the conference, it would 
increase our Federal prison population by 383.9 percent, 383.9 percent.
  Look, I am under no illusion about whether this amendment is going to 
pass. Because if it sounds tough around here, it will pass whether it 
makes sense or not. But I tell Members, this particular amendment, if 
we adopt it in conference, would create chaos in the Federal courts. We 
are not reaching civil cases today. And we are not processing the 
Federal cases as rapidly as we can because we do not have the resources 
to do it.
  How in the world one could argue that by basically federalizing State 
offenses we are going to advance the cause of criminal justice is 
beyond me. It may sound tough, but it is not going to do a thing except 
to blur that distinction between Federal and State offenses.
  Moreover, it would catch the following kind of offenses: A mother is 
taking messages for her son ordering all kinds of drugs, cocaine, 
marijuana, whatever. The mother is taking those messages from customers 
for her son. In the house the son has a weapon. Because the mother is 
in the house she is deemed to be in possession of a weapon and she is 
going to get a mandatory minimum of 10 years under this amendment.
  Now, frankly, she ought to be punished. But do we want to say to the 
States, do we want to say that we want to impose a mandatory offense of 
10 years in prison for that kind of criminal conduct? It is criminal 
conduct. But is that what we want to load the prisons with, those types 
of offenses?
  A roofer at night steals from a roof, carrying with him an unloaded 
weapon. Under this amendment treating a violation of that offense would 
trigger a mandatory minimum of 10 years.
  Somebody carrying a weapon in their trunk, the trunk of their car, 
who is also dealing in drugs would receive as a first time offender a 
1-year mandatory minimum.
  I am not condoning the carrying of weapons in the trunk, but do we 
want to impose a 1-year mandatory minimum? I say to my colleagues, if 
they want to tell the States the kind of criminal laws they should have 
in the various States, the 50 States, they ought to resign from 
Congress and go back and run for the State legislatures again, if that 
is what they want to do.
  That is precisely what we are doing. We are basically saying to the 
States, we are going to federalize their State offenses.
  We do not have the resources to federalize these crimes. It is a 
sham. It is not going to do a thing. It is going to be 
counterproductive. I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to 
instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have great respect for the gentleman 
from New Jersey. I have worked on many pieces of crime legislation. I 
just want to advise him that there are a couple of things that he may 
have a misapprehension about with regard to this. The underlying crime, 
the State crime which is the one that is operable here, is not 
federalized in any way. They are still tried in State court. It is the 
choice of local officials whether if somebody has committed murder or 
whatever it is to prosecute them or not prosecute them. That is 
entirely within the realm of the States.

                              {time}  1820

  We are really not federalizing any State crimes. What we are doing in 
this process is, we are giving the option to the Federal prosecutors to 
be able to, in addition to that State conviction, come in and say, ``If 
there is a gun involved, we are going to prosecute a separate crime,'' 
and I want to emphasize it is an option. This is not a requirement that 
the prosecutors do it. We are not going to flood the Federal System. 
This is simply going to give another tool to the U.S. attorneys, and I 
think it is a very important tool to send a message of deterrence in 
this area.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff], a member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the 
sponsor of this motion to instruct, has laid out the arguments very 
cogently. I cannot imagine a better subject for the House of 
Representatives of the United States, in discussing anticrime 
legislation, than to target the most violent of criminals, those 
individuals who are using firearms in the commission of offenses. Those 
are the criminals in particular that the American people want to get 
off the street and keep off the street for as long as possible.
  This bill would add another tool in crime fighting to accomplish 
that. This bill would give the option to the U.S. attorneys to follow 
up with a prosecution if they felt that, in the case of a particular 
defendant committing a particular crime, more time in prison to keep 
that criminal off the street is warranted.
  The answer to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Hughes], the 
chairman of our subcommittee in the Committee on the Judiciary, he 
speaks as if, if this bill were passed, every possible offense that 
could be covered under this bill would be prosecuted in Federal court, 
but this is not the case. Right now the U.S. attorneys exercise a great 
deal of discretion over what to prosecute under existing Federal 
offenses.
  Not every allegation of violation of a Federal offense results in a 
prosecution by a U.S. attorney. They pick and choose on the criteria 
they think is best in terms of fighting crime. This would give them 
another tool. This would give them another option. This would give them 
the power as U.S. attorneys to decide, ``This is someone we want to 
keep off the street even longer,'' and this would give them the means 
to do it. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the McCollum 
motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot have it both ways, then. On the one hand we 
say we are going to give the U.S. attorneys an option, going to give 
them an option. On the other hand, if the U.S. attorney exercises these 
options and prosecutes all these cases, we are going to have 200,000 
additional cases before the Federal courts and our prisons are going to 
swell by 383.9 percent over a 9-year period.
  My colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] knows that 
we have a difficult time today funding the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 
We just opened up some new prisons around the country after some 
potential delays, because we did not have the resources to staff the 
Federal prisons to open them up. We are going to have to open up, at 
the present trend, about one Federal prison every month before the end 
of this decade, every month one new 500-bed Federal prison.
  We have a hard time getting the resources to fund for staff today. We 
cannot staff the medical sections of our present prison system because 
we do not have the resources. We do not offer the health care providers 
sufficient money to attract them into the system, and the gentleman is 
talking about increasing the Federal prison population by another 383.9 
percent?
  Mr. Speaker, the States are not in favor of this. We received a 
letter from the Police Executive Research Forum. These are some of the 
top chiefs of police in the larger cities. They are opposed to this. 
They do not see this as helping them. So there are the States that are 
opposed to it, there is the Attorney General opposed to it. The 
Administrative Office of the Courts is opposed to it, and the 
Sentencing Commission is opposed to it, because they understand the 
impact it is going to have on the Federal System.
  We are going to turn the Federal System upside down by this type of 
loading down of the Federal courts without accomplishing anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Levy].
  Mr. LEVY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the McCollum motion to 
instruct conferees on H.R. 3355.
  Earlier this session, I authored and introduced the Violence With 
Firearms Protection Act. The bill made it a Federal crime to transport 
a firearm across State lines for the purpose of committing a violent 
felony. My bill went a bit further than the Senate language that is the 
subject of Mr. McCollum's motion in that it carried the death penalty 
in some cases.
  After my bill went nowhere in the Judiciary Committee, and as H.R. 
3355 approached action on this floor, I attempted to add my proposal to 
the crime bill as an amendment. For reasons known only to the members 
of the Rules Committee, the amendment was ruled nongermane.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal law prohibits the interstate transportation of 
explosives for illegal purposes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a 
violation of Federal law to transport false teeth, in some 
circumstances, from one State to another. But you can carry a gun from 
State to State--and use it to kill people--with impunity under Federal 
law.
  Let me illustrate how ridiculous the current state of our law is.
  Last December, on a night that most of my constituents will remember, 
a man in New York City boarded a commuter train bound for Long Island. 
When the train reached my district, he pulled a firearm and began 
shooting. The gun, by the way, was purchased legally in California, 
waiting period and all.
  When the firing ended, six people were dead. Others were wounded.
  In the wake of what has become known as the Long Island Railroad 
Massacre, and because New York's law doesn't treat violent criminals 
very seriously, I presented the facts of the case to the Justice 
Department. Their evaluation determined that the gunman violated no 
Federal law.
  Imagine that. Had the gunman come from California to New York with 
illegally manufactured dentures we'd have fined him and maybe sent him 
to jail. But he killed six people and we can do nothing.
  Support the McCollum motion to instruct. Make it a Federal crime to 
transport firearms across State lines for the purpose of using them as 
instruments of violence.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Levy], because he has made a very valuable contribution to 
this debate in the introduction of his legislation and in the points he 
made today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, my situation is somewhat similar to that of 
the gentleman from New York. I am a sponsor of legislation to 
substantially increase the Federal penalties for the illegal use of 
firearms, particularly in the commission of a crime. I submitted an 
amendment adding that language to the crime bill to the Committee on 
Rules, and, as in the case of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Levy], 
the Committee on Rules denied the right of this House to vote on this 
sensible legislation. That is why I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Hughes], that our prisons are at capacity and we are hard-pressed 
to house the prisoners who are there. I support building new prisons 
and I support putting the people who commit violent crime with firearms 
into those prisons. So do our constituents. The best way to curb the 
incidence of crime committed with firearms is to make criminals realize 
that they face severe penalties if they use a gun to break the law.
  A study by the Department of Justice has shown that, while the 
average sentence meted out for violent offenders is about 8 years, 
actual time served behind bars averages less than 3 years. That means 
that more than half of the violent offenders are free and back on the 
streets within 3 years.
  The study also found that, once these violent felons are released, 
they get busy committing more crimes. Sixty-three percent are 
rearrested within 3 years of their release, fully a third of them for 
committing another violent crime.
  The only way to be sure these people do not commit more violent 
crimes with guns is to send a very clear signal to criminals: ``If you 
commit the crime, you are going to do the time.'' Under the Senate's 
crime bill that time is a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years behind 
bars for carrying a firearms during the commission of a violent crime 
or drug felony.

                              {time}  1830

  Discharge that firearm with the intent of injuring another person and 
you get 20 years in prison, minimum. If that firearm is a machinegun or 
is equipped with a silencer, you serve 30 years, minimum.
  The penalties are even steeper for repeat offenders in each of those 
categories, increasing to 20 years, 30 years, and life, respectively.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about reducing violent crime, we must 
put the word out on the street: ``If you use a gun to commit a violent 
crime, you risk going to jail for 10 years, minimum. Go to Jail. Do not 
pass Go.'' That is the message we have got to send and that is why I 
urge my colleagues to support the McCollum motion to instruct.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Hastings] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. HASTINGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
instruct. I have sat very quietly listening to the debate. I have 
immense respect for the parties on both sides and their understanding 
of these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
McCollum], on the other side, when we walk about unfunded mandates, 
does the gentleman take into consideration the fact that when we pass a 
law of this kind and it impacts on the Federal judiciary, that no 
additional money travels with these kinds of measures. In Florida, we 
are minus a significant number of Federal judges because, among the 
other reasons, they are not being made at this time. There would be no 
money for additional prosecutors, for additional public defenders, or 
court personnel. Let met tell the gentleman what happens, and I am 
talking from personal experience.
  With an added number of Federal cases, the lessening of the handling 
of civil cases is undertaken. We then wind up with criminal cases being 
tried rather repeatedly. there is no one in this House who would not 
want to get rid of any violent criminal that we can and cause them to 
be put away.
  The example that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Levy] gave, that 
person is going to be in jail for the rest of his life and everybody 
knows that. So what do we want to do, put him in two jails, a State 
jail and a Federal jail?
  The linchpin of this country will come undone unless Federal judges 
can address civil cases at some point in time. Add Federal jurisdiction 
for criminal cases and lessen the opportunity to try civil cases.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Hastings]. In fact, he and I agree on the point he is 
trying to make. We need more resources for the Federal judiciary. We 
need to free up Federal judges to be able to do some civil cases. In 
fact, the bill in the other body, the Senate bill, has $300 million for 
additional judiciary. Our House bill does not. I hope when the 
conference comes out, they will do that.
  I would like to make the point to the gentleman, while we agree on 
that, that this is very optional. While operation trigger lock was 
being imposed by the previous administration to do an additional system 
in this area, this administration has chosen not to, probably because 
of resources. I do not agree with that allocation, but I understand 
what the gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. HASTINGS. If I may, the Attorney General opposed it, the 
Administrator of Courts opposes it, and the reason that they do is 
because of a lack of resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that it is optional, but I 
have seen the results of what becomes optional. We have a local State 
attorney that determines, hey, this is an opportunity for me to get rid 
of it. Let me call the U.S. Attorney who says, ``I will take it.''
  What we have is an overloaded Federal system. The Federal system 
cannot handle the cases that we are sending them criminally unless we 
give them more judges, more prosecutors, and more public defenders 
which I am in favor of doing.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Let the gentleman and I work on getting those 
resources.
  Mr. HASTINGS. All right.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the world I hate more than 
disagreeing with my friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] 
whom I look up to as the premier expert on criminal law on our side of 
the aisle. But I am having real trouble buying this concept that every 
time a gun is used, a Federal crime is created.
  I am persuaded by what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] has 
said down there about the overloading of the Federal courts and the 
response of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] seems to be that 
it is only an option. But a Federal law, a criminal law that is only 
optionally enforced, it seems to me, erodes the whole fabric of the 
law. If it is a Federal law and if it is a crime, it ought to be 
prosecuted. But I do not think we have the need, first of all, because 
what about the State courts? What about the State criminal system? Are 
we saying they are so bereft of resources or the will to enforce the 
law that we must federalize the enforcement of gun legislation? I abhor 
the use of a gun in a violent crime. That person ought to be severely 
punished, and they are not severely punished, and we have to add more 
resources to the State system, help them with grant money and matching 
funds. But to create a new Federal crime every time a gun is used and 
then to say it only has to be enforced optionally it seems to me is an 
oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms. I do not think we are being 
weak on crime to say, let us not abuse the Federal system by thrusting 
on it a whole plethora of criminal actions that cannot possibly be 
enforced. I just have those misgivings.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, let me say in response that I have the 
utmost respect for the gentleman from Illinois, and I usually share, as 
he says, the same viewpoint. However, I would say to him that as he 
well knows, all Federal criminal law involves a degree of discretion on 
the part of the U.S. attorneys and the prosecutors. I do not wish to 
say nor did I intend to that I do not believe this should ever, or not 
be used. I believe that the reason why we want to put this into law is 
so that it will be used, but used selectively, used in cases that will 
send a message which is the underlying reason here, and there needs to 
be a national message that is sent to criminals who would use guns that 
if they are going to do it, they are really going to serve time and 
they are going to serve Federal time because the very fact it is 
Federal is a very important deterrent and many police officers, many of 
them, have told us that again and again.
  While I have great respect for the gentleman from Illinois, he and I 
would differ over this, I also do not think we are really federalizing. 
We are not federalizing the underlying crime, we are simply saying, we 
are extending an additional Federal law that exists on the books today 
that says that if you have committed a felony and you possess a 
firearm, whether it is a State felony or not, it is a Federal crime. 
But I would like to extend that to send a message to a lot more people, 
that is all.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman is creating thousands of defendants in the Federal system. 
Cannot they be dealt with adequately in the State courts?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. No; they cannot be. I do not believe they are being. I 
believe we need to provide the resources necessary, because this is 
important. This is more important than a lot of other places we are 
putting Federal money right now. That is my conclusion. We may differ 
on that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois is right on target. We are 
talking about federalizing State offenses. Think about it for a minute. 
We are telling the States that we do not agree with State legislatures 
throughout the country in meting out particular sentences. It is the 
ultimate in arrogance.
  I say to my colleagues again, ``if you want to tell the States how to 
run the criminal justice system, leave here, go back to the State 
legislatures and run for the legislature.''

                              {time}  1840

  And change the laws in the various States if that is what you want to 
do.
  In addition to the fact that there seems to be a misperception around 
here about the Federal courts, they are courts of limited jurisdiction. 
We do not prosecute street crime. That was never intended. The framers 
of the Constitution never envisioned that. They are not structured to 
handle street crime.
  In fact, if U.S. attorneys exercised the right to prosecute and to 
federalize basically a State offense, we would have disparate sentences 
again throughout the country.
  Sometimes just across State borders we would have disparate sentences 
again, depending upon how the U.S. attorney exercised that authority.
  We set up a whole new sentencing structure called the Sentencing 
Commission to try to limit disparity. We are going to create more 
disparity. That is terrible policy.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States pointed out, I think 
aptly, that in the State of California there are more superior court 
judges than we have on the Federal benches around the country. There 
are more superior court judges in California alone than all of the 
Federal judges in our system.
  In some parts of the country they are not trying civil cases at all, 
because they cannot reach them because of the present criminal backlog, 
and we want to federalize basically all gun offenses which are 
prosecuted at the State level. It is a flawed motion to instruct. It is 
opposed by the States. It is opposed by the Attorney General. It is 
opposed by the administrative office of the courts, and it is opposed 
by the Sentencing Commission because it does not make sense.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to several of the critics who 
have talked about this. Just to summarize what we are doing, in 
closing, this is a motion to instruct conferees that directs them, our 
wish is at least that they would accept a Senate provision that 
provides for a portion of the law to be changed that deals with the 
situation where we have a State crime that is a violent crime or a drug 
trafficking offense and we have a gun that is being used in that State 
crime, that violent crime, or that drug trafficking offense, or at 
least possessed in it, and in that situation while you leave alone the 
underlying crime you do not federalize it, it is still a State crime 
whether it is murder or whatever it is, which is tried in the State 
court, and you create under this provision a new Federal crime for the 
simple use or possession of the firearm in that underlying crime.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have two prosecutions 
instead of one. Is that what the gentleman is saying?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. If I may reclaim my time, I am saying we are going to 
have a second prosection if the Federal prosecutor chooses, not on the 
underlying crime, a second prosecution only for the gun crime after the 
State conviction. The only thing required to be proved will be the 
underlying conviction and the fact that a gun was used or possessed in 
it.
  I think it is important to note that is simple to prove, very simple 
to prove. It is very much patterned after the existing Federal law as 
an extension of it which says that if you are a convicted felon today, 
whether you are convicted in a State court or a Federal court, just any 
convicted felon and you possess a firearm, you have committed a new, 
separate Federal crime for which there is a mandatory minimum sentence. 
I think that is a very important concept that exists already, and that 
is the precedent for this. This is a Federal law because it reaches 
interstate transportation of firearms, and it is there for the same 
reason we want to put this in law, because it is there to discourage 
people from the use of firearms who are the bad guys out there doing 
these crimes, and we already have a precedent of the State felon being 
convicted of committing a Federal crime which is just simple possession 
on the books. What we want to put on the books is an additional new 
crime, if you are out there for the first time committing a felony or 
drug trafficking offense, which is undoubtedly also a felony, if it is 
violent or drug trafficking, you can, in that situation, even if you do 
not have the additional sentence, you can get the additional punishment 
that goes with it.
  I would like to address the concern that suddenly we are going to 
flood the Federal system. We have had this other one on the books for a 
long time and we have not flooded the Federal system. We have minimum 
Federal sentencing out there for using a firearm as a separate 
punishment, and we have not flooded the system. We would like to see 
more convictions. I would like to see more sentences in this area of 
minimum mandatory at the Federal level, but this is a discretionary 
tool for selective use by U.S. attorneys around the country. No 383 
percent or 384 percent increase in Federal prison populations is going 
to occur because it is not going to be used that consistently. There is 
disparity in sentences because these are minimum mandatory sentences in 
a given stated statutory crime. If you commit the crime and are 
prosecuted and convicted for it, you are going to do the amount of 
time, in fact. That is the important part.
  We need to put certainty and swiftness of punishment back into our 
criminal justice system if we are ever going to have deterrents in 
there today for violent crime, and this would go an enormous way toward 
putting certainty and swiftness back into sentencing and sending a 
message. The very fact it is on the books would give a plea bargaining 
tool at the very least for Federal and State prosecutors in dealing 
with the hardened criminals and those out there who would commit crimes 
with guns. I can see that message sent today if we adopt this and it 
becomes law. If you use a gun anywhere in the country in the commission 
of a violent or a drug offense, boy are you in trouble. It is long 
overdue that we send that message. That is the ultimate control of guns 
in the way they should be, by locking up the person who uses them and 
not trying to control what is uncontrollable, and that is the gun 
itself. This is a way to deal with the violent crime problem in 
America, one of the ways, one of the critical ways. By passing my 
motion to instruct tonight, we go a long way toward sending that 
message, asking our conferees to bring some reason into this debate 
over violent crime and some resolution to it by giving our prosecutors 
the tools that they need.
  Again, it is a very important message and I urge my colleagues to 
vote yes on the McCollum motion to instruct to send this that message 
to the criminals: ``Don't use the guns or you are going to do the 
time.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torres). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. McCollum].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCollum. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present, and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER. pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 291, 
nays 128, answered ``present', not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               YEAS--291

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--128

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Edwards (CA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Towns
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bateman
     de la Garza
     Dicks
     Ford (MI)
     Gallo
     Hutto
     Livingston
     McCurdy
     McMillan
     Michel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sharp
     Stark
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1909

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Messrs. ROHRABACHER, HOKE, SCHUMER, and WISE 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. TORRES, Ms. FURSE, and Mr. MOAKLEY changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________