[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5186-H5196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT OF 1999
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 235 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 235
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 10) to enhance competition in the financial
services industry by providing a prudential framework for the
affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial
service providers, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90
minutes, with 45 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services and 45 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Commerce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendments now printed in the bill, it shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules
Committee Print dated June 24, 1999. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the
[[Page H5187]]
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 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 amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
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.
{time} 1145
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us is a structured rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 10, the Financial Services
Modernization Act of 1999. Passage of this rule today is another step
in the long and carefully considered repeal of the Depression-era rules
that govern our Nation's modern financial services industry.
The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate, 45 minutes
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services and 45 minutes divided
equally between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce.
The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of the Committee on Rules print dated
June 24, 1999, as original text for the purposes of amendment.
The rule also waives all points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The rule further provides that no amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and opponent, and shall not be subject to
amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question.
The rule also waives all points of order against the amendments
printed in the report.
The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to reduce
voting time to 5 minutes on any postponed question, provided voting
time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15
minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of a total of 11
amendments, five which are offered by the Democrats on a bipartisan
basis. The rule, like the underlying legislation, deserves strong
bipartisan support.
Ten of the amendments made in order with this rule are debatable for
10 minutes each. They address important issues such as limitation of
fees associated with acquiring financial products and taking steps to
prevent institutions from requiring customers to purchase insurance
products as a condition of receiving a loan and other important items.
This rule also allows 30 minutes of debate on an important amendment,
crafted in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill's provisions
related to maintaining the privacy of a consumer's personal financial
information.
This privacy amendment is truly historic. It represents the strongest
pro-consumer privacy language ever considered by the House.
This work product that we present today comes as a result of
extensive work out of two major committees, including the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce who have
primary jurisdiction over this bill. In an intensely bipartisan effort
to bring together or to merge the best parts of both of these bills,
colleagues of mine on the Committee on Rules on both sides of the aisle
have crafted what I think is the best legislation for America. In fact,
a senior member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), yesterday stated in testimony
before the Committee on Rules, and I quote, ``Obviously the issues with
privacy that have been worked out here are stronger than either bill
from the other committees.'' This compromise is well crafted and
bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, this rule meets the twin goals the Committee on Rules
grappled with yesterday, allowing fair and vigorous debate on various
alternatives, yet moving this delicate compromise forward to House
passage.
Mr. Speaker, 65 years ago, on the heels of the great Depression, the
Glass-Steagall Act was passed, prohibiting affiliation between
commercial banking, insurance and securities.
However, merely 2 years after passage, the first attempt at repealing
Glass-Steagall was instituted by Senator Carter Glass, one of the
sponsors of the legislation. He recognized that changes in the world
and in the marketplace called for more effective legislation.
Two generations later, the need to modernize our financial laws is
more appropriate than ever.
There is no doubt about it, reexamination of regulation of the
financial services industry in America is a complicated matter.
Congress recognizes that busy American families where many times both
parents work to make ends meet have little time to consider complicated
banking law. But Congress now is working again to repeal Glass-Steagall
with exactly these hard-working Americans in mind.
This legislation is designed to give all Americans the benefit of
one-stop shopping for all their financial services needs. New companies
will offer a broad array of financial products under one roof, bringing
convenience and competition. More products will be offered to more
people at a lower price.
As a result of this legislation, Americans will have more time to
spend with their families, more money to spend on their children, and
the opportunity to save for their future.
Americans deserve the most efficient borrowing and investment
choices. Americans deserve the freedom to pursue financial options
without being charged three different times by three different
companies for a product.
This legislation is designed to increase market forces in an already
competitive marketplace to drive down costs and broaden the number of
potential customers for securities and other products that are before
us today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this well-balanced rule
that is an extremely complicated and delicate piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for
yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has been working on a banking modernization
bill for decades. Last night, June 30, 1999, we finally had a chance to
get it right. Last night, we had a bill that managed the confusing
crossroads where banks, insurance companies and securities industries
meet. It had bipartisan support in two committees. It would have passed
the House overwhelmingly. It would have been signed by the President
quickly. And for the first time since 1933, Mr. Speaker, the United
States would have updated its banking laws.
But, for some reason, the Republican leadership decided that it was
more important to keep Democrats out of the process than to pass this
banking bill. After years, Democrats and Republicans together worked
out a bill to modernize financial services, but the Republican
leadership decided to make war instead of history and remove several
important provisions because they were authored by Democrats.
This pattern of sabotaging bills with overwhelming bipartisan support
in committees then removing Democratic-authored provisions and passing
bills by the narrowest of margins with the fewest Democratic votes is
becoming more the rule than the exception.
[[Page H5188]]
Mr. Speaker, we do not have to look any further than the agriculture
appropriations bill, the legislative branch appropriations bill, the
DOD rule and the juvenile justice bill to see the pattern that has
emerged.
Mr. Speaker, why does the Republican leadership feel compelled to do
this? On a substantive level, it is the American people who ultimately
lose out.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had an amendment to require
insurance companies to treat people from low-income areas the same as
anyone else. It passed the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
It was part of the bill. And, last night, the Republican Committee on
Rules took it out.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) had an amendment to
strengthen family decision-making by requiring parents' signatures on
credit card increases for children under 18. Last night, the Committee
on Rules' Republican members refused to allow it.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had an amendment to
protect people's private information from becoming part of Big
Brother's marketing arsenal. Last night, the Republican leadership
refused to allow it.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) had a great amendment, to
enable the Federal Reserve to protect small towns and rural areas from
being taken over by mega-banks the way hardware stores have been taken
over by Wal-Mart. It was part of the Commerce bill. Last night, the
Republican Committee on Rules took it out.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) had an amendment to keep
people's personal medical records private. Last night, the Committee on
Rules refused to allow it.
The gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) had an amendment to
prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against victims of
domestic abuse. It passed the committee overwhelmingly, but the
Republican leadership took it out.
Meanwhile, for some reason, Mr. Speaker, that I still cannot fathom,
last night the Republican leadership included an amendment which will
shut down the Bank Secrecy Act and cripple law enforcement's ability to
trace and recover ill-gotten money.
In other words, the Republican leadership is protecting the privacy
of suspected felons while at the same time opening up the private lives
of American families. They are choosing enormous corporations over
victims of abuse and profits over progress.
Mr. Speaker, when this new Congress began, I was hopeful about the
new Republican leadership. I was hopeful they would put partisanship
aside, reinvigorate the committee process and pass some bills to help
the American people. But, Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to see that
party politics is still winning out over responsible legislating, and I
think it is time the American people get a little more from their
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the American people have had enough
investigations, they have had enough partisanship. They want their
Medicare protected, they want their Social Security shored up, they
want their medical records kept private, and they want their banks to
operate fairly.
{time} 1200
They want their Congress to pass some bills, even if Democrats vote
for them, that will make their lives just a little bit easier, their
children a little bit safer and their world a little bit fairer.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to withdraw my support from this
rule. I hoped we could have passed this bill with a wide range of
support. I had hoped the American people would be put first.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honored to have the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to stand up and to talk about this process
that we have been going through. As he is well aware, for many weeks we
have worked together in a bipartisan basis. It is absolutely true that
last night we came at the time a vote was necessary for us to decide
what would be made in order, and I would like to reiterate that there
were 11 amendments, 5 which were offered by Democrats or on a
bipartisan basis that were accepted, and one of those amendments that
was accepted was crafted very carefully, with a lot of hard work by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) to join in this debate.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of
this fair and balanced rule which the House or which allows the House
to debate and vote on the Financial Services Act. Updating our Nation's
antiquated banking laws has been a goal of Congress for nearly 20
years, and we are finally standing on the doorstep of success. The
journey to this point has been arduous, but those of us who have worked
on this legislation understand the great benefit to our Nation's
competitiveness and to American consumers who will enjoy more seamless
financial services as a result.
The delicately crafted compromise legislation that will allow us to
achieve these goals is protected by this balanced rule, and anyone who
claims to be for financial services modernization should support the
rule. It is our best chance to go forward.
There are many who have sacrificed their own key issues and set aside
their view of a perfect world in order to achieve the laudable goals of
financial modernization, but, Mr. Speaker, sadly last night the spirit
of compromise and sacrifice broke down in spite of the fact that 5 of
11 of the amendments that were adopted had Democratic names on them;
broke down, and my Democrat colleagues on the Committee on Rules
decided to undermine the years of hard work and jeopardize the success
of financial modernization over the fate of one amendment.
Perhaps more disappointing is their decision to dishonor a commitment
to bipartisanship on the bill and on an amendment that will protect the
privacy of consumers' financial personal information. This is not a
policy issue. The substance of the privacy amendment has not changed.
It is a case of political one-upsmanship that dismisses the interest of
the American people.
I hate to say it, but it appears that the Democrats are grasping at
straws to find any issue with traction that bolsters their political
advantage whether or not the policy is sound.
As a moderate Republican and a person who advocates reaching out
across party lines to build consensus, I have to say that today I
understand the public's cynicism about politics and politicians. It is
truly a sad day for America when their elected representatives expend
their energy to create chaos for political gain rather than progress
for the American people. It is no wonder the American people are jaded.
I know I am. But I cling to the hope that we will use our better
judgment and redeem ourselves by voting to pass this rule and moving
forward to pass historic bipartisan financial modernization
legislation. I urge a yes vote on the previous question and the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), a member of the Committee on Rules and the caucus
chair.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise in
opposition to this rule. I do so, Mr. Speaker, in spite of my efforts
to work with the Republican majority to pass a meaningful and
bipartisan financial services modernization bill.
Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this rule because the Republican majority
has deliberately given short shrift to redlining, an issue fundamental
to Democrats and has denied us even the right to bring this subject up
on the floor today. Democratic opposition to this rule because of this
move on the part of the Republican leadership should come as no
surprise. I would like to review how we reached this situation.
Several weeks ago, I was encouraged by the Republican leadership on
the Committee on Rules to work on a bipartisan solution to the issue of
financial privacy. I along with ranking Democrats on the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce) and the gentleman from Minnesota
[[Page H5189]]
(Mr. Vento) worked closely with my colleague on the Committee on Rules,
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to develop a reasonable
compromise on what has become a very contentious issue. We believed we
had come up with just such a compromise. While our amendment gained
support of a number of members of the Democratic Caucus, a significant
number of our caucus oppose it because they believe it does not go far
enough.
While my Democratic colleagues and I were working to fashion this
compromise, it came to my attention that the leadership of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on
Commerce had unilaterally dropped from H.R. 10 an important provision
relating to insurance redlining against minorities and women. This
provision had been part of the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services bill reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, and its inclusion had been instrumental in assuring the large
bipartisan majority approval of the bill in the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) had been told by his ranking
member that this provision had to stay in the text of the bill in order
for Democrats to continue to support the bill. Yet when the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce
Republicans met to reconcile the two differing versions of the bill,
the antiredlining language was dropped.
Let us talk about what was dropped. This is a provision that seeks to
prevent a financial holding company from engaging in the new activities
allowed by H.R. 10 if an affiliated insurance company engages in
discriminatory insurance redlining. Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental
issue for Democrats. This is an issue of fairness and equity. It is an
issue that divides right from wrong.
I told the Republicans on the Committee on Rules in no uncertain
terms that it would be unlikely that a single Democrat would vote for
this rule if this language were not restored to the bill either by
incorporating it into the base text or allowing an amendment to restore
it on the floor. Let there be no mistake. I made this very clear long
before last night's meeting. This was no surprise.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican majority on the Committee
on Rules cavalierly ignored my advice. By doing so they have created a
situation in which it is impossible to consider this bill on a
bipartisan basis. They have thrown away the bipartisan goodwill and the
hard work and dedication to the issue of financial services
modernization as well as the hard work that went into what could have
been a true bipartisan compromise on the most contentious issue of the
bill, that of financial privacy.
It is clear that the Republican leadership has decided to try to pass
this rule without Democrat support. In doing so they have made a
decision to jeopardize essential and critical legislation if even a few
members of their own party desert them. Stated more simply: The
Republican leadership runs the very real risk of snatching defeat from
the jaws of victory.
This is a tragedy for our country. It is high time that we pass
financial modernization legislation, that we leave behind the
depression era laws that hamstring the financial services industry and
prevent them from becoming truly competitive in the global marketplace.
With the hard work of a number of Members of good will on both sides of
the aisle, that objective was in sight, yet, Mr. Speaker, the Committee
on Rules majority last night denied the one amendment that could have
guaranteed passage of the rule and perhaps the bill.
I cannot understand how the Republican leadership could let this
happen. But their decision has been made, and now all of us must live
with the consequences.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from
Findley, Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman protested too much.
When I came to the Committee on Rules yesterday in support of the
bipartisan amendment on privacy and I was greeted by my friends on both
sides of the aisle saying that we had a positive amendment that was
going to deal with the privacy issue, it was supported by broad sectors
of both parties, and when I left the Committee on Rules late yesterday
afternoon, my assumption was that not only would that amendment be made
in order, but the amendment would be cosponsored by Democrats and
Republicans alike. When I found out later that evening, last evening,
that there had been a failure on the part of my friends on the
Democratic side to cosponsor the bill, I was deeply offended.
Now I do not get on this floor very often and get partisan, but I am
telling my colleagues, around this place your word is your bond, and if
you tell me that you are going to cosponsor an amendment with me, I
fully expect that you will carry through. And the fact is that because
of some political gamesmanship and somebody trying to take partisan
advantage of somebody of goodwill, we find ourselves today in a
partisan debate over an issue like financial services that has been
bipartisan and supported by bipartisan majorities in both the Committee
on Commerce and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. And I
think it is an outrage, an outrage, for people like me who acted in
good faith to have the rug pulled out from under me because of some
political game playing.
Now I want everybody to support the rule. This is a good rule, it is
a fair rule, and I suspect that when our amendment is offered on the
floor, there are going to be a lot of Democrats who were going to
cosponsor that amendment who were going to vote with us on that
amendment because they thought it was a good amendment last night and
they think it is a good amendment today.
So let us support the rule, let us get away from this nonsense of
partisanship, pass this rule and pass this historic legislation as
well.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member on the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I regret so very much that I must come here
and oppose the rule because from the beginning of this Congress I have
worked so closely with the chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier),
and so many Members on my side of the aisle such as the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento), et cetera, to craft a bill that we could wrap up
and give almost as a gift and say: Pass it. And I think we did, and
unfortunately last night the gift was unraveled.
We thought that there would be basic Committee on Banking and
Financial Services text. In considerable part there was, but in some
important parts there was not. For example, the issue of insurance
redlining, I advised my chairman that this was taking on increased
importance. I went to the Committee on Rules and said, I have a
consumer amendment that I would like to offer with four parts; the most
important part is the Barbara Lee amendment. I cannot begin to tell you
how many Democratic votes I might lose if this is not base text or at
least permitted as an amendment.
There was something else I said too: Look at the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley), he said we worked out a good bipartisan amendment on
privacy. He is right, it is good. It could be better, no question about
it, but it is very, very good. But on the issue of medical privacy,
which is totally different, I said we have a big concern.
Virtually every medical association and health association in the
entire United States is concerned. We can deal with that concern by
either making crystal clear, explicit that the language on medical
privacy does not preempt the right of the Secretary of HHS to issue
regulations subsequent to August 21, and the bill, the amendment of the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), just does not do that, it does not
address the issue. Or alternatively, take the amendment of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) which
[[Page H5190]]
would delete the medical privacy provisions. The amendment of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and myself and others does not deal
with that issue at all; that is in base text now.
They did not do that. They allowed some other amendments that are
atrocious, that undermine the Bank Secrecy Act. It would permit the
redomestication of mutual insurance companies that has nothing
whatsoever to do with financial services.
{time} 1215
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Atlanta, Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for House Resolution 235, a
structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 10, the Financial
Services Act of 1999.
Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing this afternoon is the politics of
legislative destruction. There are some in this Congress whose game is
to stop important legislation, especially historic legislation, and
there should be no doubt that this banking bill is an historic
accomplishment.
This bill has been painstakingly crafted to achieve a balance between
all of the parties, and we have a great opportunity to promote
competition, protect consumers and give firms the ability to compete
globally as we enter the 21st century, and this rule will hold together
the compromise legislation that Members have constructed after many
years of hard work. Unfortunately, because some Members did not get
everything they wanted, they decided to threaten the passage of the
legislation.
Earlier this week, we had a strong, bipartisan privacy amendment with
Democrat and Republican cosponsors. I sat through 4 hours of testimony
in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and leading Democrats on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services argued that this privacy
legislation was a great accomplishment and that the language would
benefit American consumers. Then last night, because they did not get
everything they wanted, some Members took their names off the
bipartisan amendment and decided for partisan purposes to jeopardize
this important legislation.
Perhaps because of this kind of partisan demagoguery, and we are
going to hear the minority demagogue privacy and redlining all
afternoon, much of the financial services industry remains the same as
it was 66 years ago. We have a chance to change the New Deal
regulations that locked down certain activities and interests of
financial security. H.R. 10 will free the market to determine the
future of the financial services industry.
I am also surprised that any Member would endanger banking
modernization, because the timing of this legislation is critical.
American institutions are losing market share to foreign financial
institutions. This bill will modernize the industry and relieve U.S.
financial institutions of their current international competitive
disadvantage.
It comes down to this: The philosophy of this Congress is to
encourage competition in order to provide more efficient service and
superior products to the consumer. We did that in telecommunications.
We put market forces to work in crafting Medicare. Today we lay the
foundation for a new financial services industry that creates more
choices and lower prices for consumers and enables companies to compete
in the global marketplace.
Are all the interested parties happy with everything in the bill? No,
certainly not; including me.
There is an amendment that I wish were made in order but it could not
be, and that is probably a pretty good indication that we have a good
piece of legislation in front of us.
I urge all of my colleagues to ignore the demagoguery, understand
that there is an effort here to make a partisan victory. Support this
rule and pass this historic legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was just handed a letter written by Robert Rubin,
Department of Treasury, who I am sure is not engaged in this political
plight. I would like to read a paragraph.
``While the amendment purports to be about bank customer privacy, in
reality it will significantly undermine the crucial law enforcement
tool, the Bank Secrecy Act. The amendment would eliminate the mandatory
reporting of suspicious activity, enabling money launderers to deposit
as much as $25,000 of dirty money with no report being filed, and
eviscerate provisions aimed at preventing money laundering at financial
institutions.'' Signed Robert Rubin.
This was done away with as a result of the Paul amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I include the letter for the Record.
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
Minority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Dick: I write to express my concern about the Paul-
Barr-Campbell amendment to H.R. 10, the Financial Services
Act of 1999. The Department of the Treasury strongly opposes
this amendment.
While the amendment purports to be about bank customer
privacy, in reality it will significantly undermine a
critical law enforcement tool--the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).
The amendment would eliminate the mandatory reporting of
suspicious activity enable money launderers to deposit as
much as $25,000 of dirty money with no report being filed,
and eviscerate provisions aimed at preventing money
laundering at financial institutions.
For nearly 30 years, the BSA has been a critical component
of our attack on money laundering. Its requirements help
prevent the placement of dirty money in our financial
institutions and provide information vital to detecting and
investigating money laundering. Combating money laundering,
in turn, has proven to be a remarkably effective way to
attack drug cartels and other criminal groups. In Operation
Casablanca, the largest drug money laundering case in U.S.
history. Customs used suspicious activity reports (SARs) and
currency transaction reports (CTRs) to identify subjects and
assets linked to the overall conspiracy. By weakening these
BSA reporting requirements, Paul-Barr-Campbell would mark a
retreat in our fight against narcotraffickers.
In addition to keeping drug money out of our financial
institutions, the record-keeping and reporting requirements
also help law enforcement detect and investigate financial
crimes aimed at those institutions. According to the FBI,
during FY 1998, it used SARs in 98 percent of the cases
initiated by its financial institution fraud unit. In the
same period, the Department of Justice secured 2,613 fraud-
related convictions in cases involving SARs, and restored
more than $490 million in proceeds to victims of fraud
schemes.
Every Administration since 1970 has supported the BSA.
Because of the BSA, the United States is viewed as a leader
throughout the world in assuring that individual freedom and
reasonable financial transparency are not only compatible but
go hand in hand. I urge you to support law enforcement and
protect the integrity of our financial institutions from drug
traffickers and other criminals by opposing the Paul-Barr-
Campbell amendment.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Rubin.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule. It is a bad bill, and
the process is arrogantly crafted to deny the House the opportunity to
consider important questions.
It is the function of the Committee on Rules to make possible an
orderly debate but also to see to it that important national questions
are discussed. This is not a rule; it is a gag rule.
The committee has chosen to deny the committees and the Members of
this body opportunities to discuss very important matters.
The rule is unfair to taxpayers. It greatly prevents us from
addressing the question of how we will assure that banking insurance
paid for by the taxpayer will not be used to cover risky, speculative
activities. No amendment can be offered on this point.
The rule is unfair to consumers. The rule does not permit amendments
to restore consumer protections stripped out of the bill by the
Committee on Rules.
The bill preempts more than 1,700 State insurance laws across the
country, and, if this bill passes in its current form, every State
insurance law that is to protect consumers of insurance products will
be essentially rendered null and void.
We will be allowed to consider one consumer-related provision. That
is an
[[Page H5191]]
amendment to deny consumers meaningful information on the costs of
products that they buy, and we will change that.
This rule is unfair to investors. The bill still contains enormous
loopholes in investor protections when securities are sold or
underwritten by banks. An amendment to close just one of those
loopholes was denied by the Committee on Rules.
The worst thing that this bill does is it denies protection of
privacy of American people. It does not allow the ordinary citizen to
know that his personal financial information is not going to be thrown
around wherever the holder of that particular information might choose
to place it.
We have an amendment which would have assured protection of that.
That amendment is prohibited by this rule.
In like fashion, the medical information of every citizen is, under
this legislation, thrown open to the gaze of all. The result of that,
of course, is going to be significant loss of personal privacy by
ordinary citizens with regard to medical conditions and medical care.
I think that is wrong. The Committee on Rules did not permit an
amendment to address that question.
My question to the Republican leadership, my question to the
Committee on Rules is: What are they afraid of? Why is it they are
gagging this body? Why is it that they refuse to allow these questions
to be debated?
Let us allow the House to work its will. Let us allow fair
consideration of all of the important questions that need to be
addressed. If my colleagues are right, I am sure they will prevail. If
they have the votes, they might even prevail when they are not right,
but the hard fact of the matter is at least allow the House to address
these questions. They are important.
I am sorry to see the day when the Committee on Rules would exert
such outrageous power.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Des Moines, Iowa (Mr. Ganske).
(Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, as Members on both sides of the aisle know,
I have stood on this floor night after night talking about abuses in
the HMO industry and insurance, and I do that not to bash the insurance
industry but to try to protect patients.
There is a provision in this bill that I think helps protect
consumers. We are talking about creating an entity that combines
insurance, banking and securities. I think there should be a provision
in this bill that protects a person who has insurance information on
their health from having that information transferred over to the
banking side.
I do not want information like this, or HIV positive status, being
transferred to the banking component. So in this bill there is a
provision that was passed by the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services with a lot of Democrat votes. Most of the Democrats on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services voted for this language
that says that unless a consumer authorizes, someone cannot take that
health information from the insurance portion and transfer it to the
banking portion, or outside of it.
Nothing in this legislation precludes the Secretary of Health and
Human Services from going ahead and issuing her regulations. I want it
to be on the record that the intent of the author of this provision,
me, specifically says this legislation does not preclude the Secretary
from going ahead and issuing regulations. Specifically in this bill,
this language, it says that if comprehensive medical privacy
legislation passes, it supersedes this language. This is an important
consumer consideration. We should have something in this bill that
protects a consumer from thinking that their private health insurance
information can be shared with those affiliates within that financial
services company.
This is a consumer protection. Does it go as far as some of the
people who want comprehensive language? No. Does it deal with research?
No. Those are very complicated issues that we need to deal with, but
this is something that we all should support, and I urge my colleagues
to support the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the author of the privacy amendment that
was not allowed.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible rule. The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services wanted an
amendment to protect against insurance companies redlining the poorest
people in our country. The Committee on Rules strips out the protection
for those poor people, just strips it out. That is not fair. It is a
bad rule.
I won my amendment in the Committee on Commerce guaranteeing the
protection of privacy for the checks, for the mortgages, for the
insurance records, for the brokerage receipts of every American, inside
the bank, outside the bank. The Committee on Rules strips it out. They
will not allow for those protections to be built into this bill, and no
amendment will be put on the floor which makes it possible.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) asked the Committee on
Rules to put in order an amendment which would allow for medical
records, your children's Ritalin, your daughter's anorexia, your wife's
breast condition, your father's prostate condition to be protected.
They will not allow the Condit amendment to be debated on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, there is a Dickensian quality to this wire. Yes, we want
financial industries to be able to work more efficiently, but it is the
best of wires and the worse of wires simultaneously.
The Republicans are saying we need commerce but commerce without a
conscience, without any protection for poor people, without any
protection for medical records, without any protection for everyone's
financial secrets that no one else has any business getting into.
Mr. Speaker, they are willing to protect people's secrets from being
robbed by third parties but not against embezzlement inside of a bank.
They can take someone's information and sell it to anybody they want.
This is a terrible rule. This is a rule which compromises the
individual integrity of every American in our country. I strongly urge
a no vote on the rule so that we can have the proper amendments put in
order to give the American individual the protections which they are
going to need as we move to this new era of cyber-banking.
Every American has a right to knowledge about information being
gathered about them, notice that it is going to be reused for purposes
other than that which they originally intended, and the right to say no
to banks, to hospitals, to insurance companies, to anyone else that
seeks to use a family's private information as a product.
The Ganske amendment does not provide that protection. The exceptions
in the Ganske amendment swallow this rule. There is no protection
against medical records being compromised. Vote no on this rule. Send
it back to the Committee on Rules. Allow for these amendments to be
brought out here on the floor for a full debate of the modern financial
era and what it means to every American in our country.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman who is the chairman of the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services and a gentleman who has been engaged in
the methodical, bipartisan effort to get this bill where it is.
{time} 1230
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, perspective is very difficult to bring to
situations like this. Let me say that I believe both sides have some
truth. I am not a great enthusiast for this rule, but I would urge
serious consideration to its passage. I will vote for it.
[[Page H5192]]
Frankly, the main two amendments that I asked to be placed in order
were the Largent amendment, which would have protected community banks
somewhat stronger, and the Lee amendment. By background, let me stress,
the Lee amendment comes from the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services. It passed by a one-vote margin in committee. I voted for the
Lee amendment. I would have supported it on the House floor.
But I would also say to my colleagues that if they look at the big
picture, two aspects have to be understood.
One, the principal committee of jurisdiction over the act that it
modifies is the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on the
Judiciary objected to its consideration in this bill before it had a
chance to look at it. That is something that in my view the Committee
on Rules gave disproportionate attention to, but it was a valid
consideration.
Second, let me just say on redlining, it is an important issue. But
the most important aspect on this bill relates to the Community
Reinvestment Act, which this bill broadens in two profound ways. One,
it makes CRA a condition of affiliation for banks if they want to
affiliate with insurance companies and securities firms, and second, it
applies the CRA to a newly created institution called wholesale
financial institutions. These are strong steps towards protecting
against redlining.
Finally, I would caution people on the rhetoric of privacy. There has
never been a bill in the modern generation that in its underlying text
has brought more privacy protection to financial services than this
one. The amendment that is being worked on brings even more. It may not
go quite as far as some might want, but it nonetheless is the strongest
privacy protection bill ever brought before this body in any modern
Congress.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure if the gentleman's two amendments had been adopted in the
Committee on Rules, we would not have had this fight on the floor. It
probably would have been passed already.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule. First, I cannot
believe that the Committee on Rules blocked several of our important
consumer protection amendments. It is shocking that the Committee on
Rules blocked the anti-redlining amendment adopted by the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services in markup.
Somehow this amendment was just deleted with no vote, no debate, by
the stroke of a pen or a computer error. When I asked my colleagues how
this could happen this morning, I was reminded of the many anti-
democratic maneuvers that we face each and every day in this House. How
tragic.
This anti-redlining amendment is to prevent insurance affiliates from
redlining. It fits squarely into our country's history to not tolerate
discrimination in its many forms, but particularly not to allow
discrimination in housing.
It was adopted in open session on a rollcall bipartisan vote. Whether
it was by one vote or by 20 votes, it was democratically adopted. The
amendment is an important tool in fighting redlining and racial
discrimination. It is inconceivable to me that members of the Committee
on Rules would go on record as opposing fair housing and in support of
redlining.
I urge rejection of this horrendous, outrageous rule.
Mr. Speaker, we have not allowed banks to discriminate--why should
we allow insurance Companies to discriminate?
It is vital to remember, to know that the Supreme Court, in recent
years, upheld the Fair Housing Act as covering the sale of homeowner's
insurance. The NAACP, and the Justice Department sued the American
Family Mutual Insurance company on discrimination in selling their
homeowner insurance. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor and the
company settled. Thus, there is no question of federal interest in the
sale of homeowners' insurance.
I have been informed that this amendment displeases the insurance
industry. I hope that I am wrong. We are almost forty years from the
blood, sweat and deaths of the civil rights movement. The cause for
that struggle remains in 1999. This modest amendment asks the minimum:
that insurance companies, just like banks, should not discriminate.
H.R. 10 is heavily biased toward the interests of the financial
services industry with little concern for consumers and communities.
Deletion of the Fair Housing Act protections exacerbates this
imbalance--and reinforces the image of H.R. 10 as an industry
legislative product.
The record of companies on fair lending, redlining, and
discrimination should be a consideration in establishing eligibility
for the formation of a financial holding company. Elimination of this
provision rewards the lawbreakers and allows the guilty companies to
have the same rights, the same privileges, the same benefits as the
majority of companies which are law abiding.
I am shocked. I do not want to believe that insurance companies, in
the lushness of our booming economy, would resist the idea behind the
legislation. As I said earlier, the goal of the legislation is modest.
It only asks insurance companies to not be in violation of the Fair
Housing Act. That they be fair in selling their policies. That the sale
of an insurance policy should be a business Transaction, not a
transaction that gives vent to prejudices, stereotypes as to who is and
who is not worthy of being a customer by virtue of their residence.
The Rules Committee has effectively blocked a formal, and
democratically arrived-at decision to eliminate redlining. This blatant
violation of our legislation process is outrageous and should be
illegal.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule and to support a motion
to recommit.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, in urging adoption of this rule, I want to
just touch on two issues that may be troubling some of our colleagues.
First, we are blessed in America with a greatly diversified financial
services industry. Oftentimes, however, these financial institutions,
their regulators, and Members of Congress find themselves at odds on
important policy, business, and competitive issues.
While some banks are a part of a very large, diversified holding
company and can take advantage of sophisticated delivery systems,
others are independent and must fend for themselves.
Regulations are written chiefly to keep the large, complex
organizations operating within the law, but then they are similarly
applied to the same small, independent bank. This situation is made
worse for the small community bank when we consider that their primary
competitors escape the consequences of heavy regulatory and tax burden.
This is wrong. Federal policies should not be implemented to create
an unfair competitive advantage that benefits one industry over
another, where they compete for the same customer base.
We often overlook the fact that small banks are small businesses
themselves. They serve as economic engines that drive the local rural
economies, benefiting millions of consumers, small businesses, family
farms, and local merchants.
Having said that, however, and as a free market proponent, I must
also add that I am sensitive to the community banks' concerns. Although
I am sensitive to those concerns, I cannot agree with their position
that we should act to isolate them from competition.
No, I say to my colleagues, that is not a satisfactory answer to
their concerns. Instead, let us work together in passing this rule and
H.R. 10 today, and then work to pursue regulatory and tax relief for
small community banks. It is crucial that we act to preserve the open
market competition, rather than attempting to burden their potential
competitors, and rather than attempting to turn back the clock.
Congress should work to help unburden the community banks in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, my second point concerns the unitary thrift issue. H.R.
10 is designed to help increase competition and to benefit consumers,
communities, and businesses. With those goals in mind, how can we
justify reining in the unitary thrift holding companies?
Mr. Speaker, for the record, I would like to clarify that the unitary
thrift holding company is not a loophole. More than 30 years of
experience and volumes of legislative history underlay the foundation
of its structure. Congress acted specifically to bring both capital and
management expertise into the thrift industry and to promote housing.
[[Page H5193]]
Simply put, restricting firms from transfering ownership in an
attempt to thwart competition disadvantages investors. In fact, some
thrifts were created at the urging of the Federal government. I am
strongly opposed to a legislative taking that might lead to significant
costs to the U.S. Treasury. I feel strongly that investors should not
have value taken from them through some arbitrary action of Congress.
No evidence based on safety and soundness has been presented that
would justify prohibiting unitary thrifts from being sold to other
companies. Likewise, no evidence suggests that financial companies that
buy unitary thrifts should not continue operating their commercial
activities.
Mr. Speaker, today we are focused on promoting economic efficiency
and growth. Congress should do something positive for our independent
community banks, rather than trying to do something negative to a group
of potential competitors.
I urge my colleagues to pass this rule and adopt H.R. 10, and let us
send it to conference.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.
Frankly, banking modernization, financial modernization, is one of
the important issues before the Congress. I want to commend especially
the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and my fellow members on the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services for working together. We
brought together a good bill, with a lot of effort in terms of the
private sector concerns, banks, securities, insurance firms, to deal
with issues and the administration.
The other side of financial modernization is how it affects
consumers. We protected CRA, we provided choice for corporations with
regards corporate structure and regulator. Frankly, I think we put
together a pretty good privacy solution that is embodied in this rule.
But beyond that, there is an important issue here of principle, one
that I cannot violate. That is that communities cannot be redlined by
insurance companies or anyone else. I know many stand for those same
civil rights, those same rights to poor people, to minorities and
others.
Frankly, the Committee on Rules last night extinguished that bright
light of bipartisanship on the basis of something to me that is
fundamental principle. We should correct that. We had before us a nice,
bipartisan meal, three courses, and this Committee on Rules turned that
meal to gruel. We should address that particular concern.
We cannot go back on the progress that we have made eliminating
discrimination moving forward in terms of home ownership in this
country, and the many other economic opportunities; that this financial
modernization should not just extend to the profit side the financial
institutions bottom line, but to the service of our constituents, to
the minority populations blacks, Asians and Hispanics, to all the poor
in our society who have a right to benefit from financial
modernization. We have a responsibility to make certain that this law
works for all.
That is what the promise of this bill is, and Members cannot stand up
for three or four insurance companies that want to get in the way of
extending that particular benefit to those who would be redlined. That
is what this rule does.
There is probably enough blame to go around on both sides regarding
the misunderstanding. There is much good in this bill. We could march
forward and change this rule and provide for the opportunity to in fact
challenge the redlining that occurs or may arise, and to fulfill really
what is the promise of this Nation to all people, the opportunity to
fully and fairly participate in the Nations economy and financial
market place without discriminatory barriers such as redlining!
Mr. Speaker, as late as yesterday afternoon, I fully expected to be
speaking in strong support of the Rule. That expectation was based on
the fact that the House would be considering a solid, bipartisan
legislative product. With Chairman Leach's leadership, the Financial
Services Modernization Act, as approved by the Banking Committee, laid
a solid base which Democrats and Republicans alike could support. It
had the support of the Administration and virtually most of the
affected financial entities. There were congressional jurisdictional
differences, to be sure, and pride of authorship disagreements but we
worked together and achieved a good bill prior to the rules action. The
reason for this broad support was simple--most Democrats and
Republicans had put aside most partisan differences and worked on the
issues. In the Banking Committee, very few votes were along party lines
and the debate was on the substance--not to score political points.
That is why our Committee reported H.R. 10 by a vote of 51 to 8.
My hope for this legislation was raised by the solid bipartisan
agreement that was achieved for a strong privacy policy within the
Rules Committee. I was proud to initially cosponsor that amendment with
my Democratic and Republican colleagues. It was an amendment which
would bring an effective, workable privacy protections for all
consumers and an amendment which Democrats and Republicans could
support.
Unfortunately, late in the night, the bright light of bipartisan
cooperation was extinguished. With a good meal of bipartisanship set
before us, the Majority Party leadership got a case of indigestion and
served the House a rule of thin gruel. Instead of using Rolaids, the
Leadership resorted to the old home remedy--muscle through a rule
without any Democratic support.
It is an unfortunate decision. What could prompt the Speaker and the
Republican leadership to walk away from the brink of bipartisanship?
Was it some new Democratic plot to gain control? Or a liberal demand
for more bureaucracy? No, it was a simple request for fairness. It was
a request that in order for insurance companies to affiliate under this
law of financial modernization, they had to comply with the Fair
Housing Act. Simple stated insurance companies that discriminate cannot
reap the rewards of this Act. Is that such an onerous demand? Should
this legislation protect and reward those who practice racial
redlining? That is what the House would be left with in this Rule. It's
a matter of fundamental fairness.
The Republican majority and leadership run this House and while
mistakes have occurred on both sides of the aisle, this issue of
redlining can still be fixed. Unfortunately stubborn partisanship and
special interests have won out. As a result, I cannot support this
rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, on the way to passing what
would have been a very good bill, would have worked out the privacy
issue in my regard, and I have worked with both sides to try and do
this and was trying to get the rule passed, but the leadership, the
Republican leadership, through apparently arrogant ineptitude, has
messed this thing up.
We told them not to take the Lee amendment out, that that would raise
the bar and make it impossible to get the rule done, but they did it
anyway. They say they do not want to stop redlining, they want to stop
commerce and banking, but then they made the Burr-Myrick amendment in
order. Do Members know who that helps? It helps one insurance company
in North Carolina. This is like a State legislative bill. This is like
a special interest tax bill.
We worked in a bipartisan way to get this bill done. I take a more
free market approach on these issues than probably most of the
Republicans do. We had a good bill going. They messed it up. Are they
going to do that to every piece of legislation that comes to the floor?
This is just ridiculous. This is an important issue that we should get
done and they failed, and they failed miserably.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill was supposed to be about financial
services, but it actually contains the most severe invasion of
Americans' right to medical privacy ever considered by the Congress.
As the L.A. Times wrote in an editorial today, ``not a shred of
protections are left. Health insurers can peddle patients' privacy with
little or no restraint.'' Under this bill, health insurers can sell
genetic records to credit
[[Page H5194]]
bureaus, life insurance companies, without the consent or even the
knowledge of the patient.
I have a high regard for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). I do
not think he realizes what he has opened the door to in terms of the
invasion of medical privacy. That is a different issue than privacy of
financial records. But this medical privacy provision allows
information to be made available and to be sold without us ever knowing
about it, about our most intimate medical problems.
I would rather have nothing on medical privacy than a provision which
takes us a big step backwards.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, here is another reason to oppose this rule.
In the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley),
chairman of the subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials and I
offered an amendment to prohibit entities that sell insurance from
discriminating against victims of domestic violence by selling,
underwriting, or paying insurance policies by using domestic violence
as an underwriting criteria.
This was an amendment unanimously supported in the committee, passed
the House last year. It is very important. We should have voted on it
by itself. Unfortunately, the amendment was not made in order by itself
and was included as part of a very controversial amendment offered by
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
What we are talking about here is trying to help businesses and
trying to help consumers. Instead, we are just getting too cute by
half. I think what we need to do is send this rule back to the
Committee on Rules so they can get all of these amendments straight,
and they can benefit consumers as well as businesses.
{time} 1245
Then we can all vote for the bill. We can send it on to conference,
and we can adopt it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for the purposes of rebuttal.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I point out that the language on medical
privacy says the insurance company shall maintain a practice of
protecting the confidentiality of individually identifiable consumer
health and medical and genetic information and may disclose such
information only with the consent or at the direction of the customer.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chief deputy whip.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this rule is defective. This rule does not
protect Americans' privacy. It protects piracy. It protects the
continued piracy of banks who are selling our credit card numbers,
selling our checking account information, selling even the account
numbers in our savings accounts to telemarketers who call us at night
and try to sell us products we do not want and we did not ask for.
Americans deserve the right to say no, to tell banks do not sell my
credit card number. Do not sell my account information. Do not sell my
checking account information.
If we kill this rule, we are going to give Americans that right. This
rule is a cruel hoax. It has a loophole big enough to drive an armored
car through. Because while it says they cannot give our information to
third party telemarketers, it allows banks to simply buy the
telemarketers and continue to commit the same crime, the same sin. All
they have got to do is change the name on the door, and they will
continue to violate our privacy rights.
Listen to the American people. Do not have industry dictate this
rule. This is the people's House. Kill this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not believe quite
this partisanship here. After all, this was the product of years of
careful negotiation. If it had been easy, we would have passed this
years ago.
But having said that, I want to get back to this question of privacy
because obviously this does not deal with all the issues of privacy.
But what is in this bill that has been stated is excellent.
Now, weeks ago, I, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit, announced that, given the
complexities of the privacy questions, we were going to have hearings.
Those hearings are being held in July.
This is not the vehicle to write comprehensive privacy reform. I know
that not only I, but certainly the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the Committee on Commerce
will be working with us to get a more comprehensive look at the privacy
issues.
This is not the vehicle for comprehensive privacy reform. This is
being used as an excuse to let us not do our job and hand over to the
regulators and the courts the continued rewriting of financial
institutions. That is abrogation of our constitutional responsibility.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. We had a
chance to protect the privacy of American consumers. The Republican
leadership blocked it. Instead, we have a bill that enables the
insurance and the banking industry to disclose an individual's personal
health and financial information without their consent.
What will failure to include these basic privacy provisions in the
bill mean for Americans? One could be denied medical coverage based on
incorrect information in one's medical record, records that consumers
would have no opportunity to correct. Medical research would be stifled
because no one would trust that their participation in a medical study
would be private.
As a cancer survivor, I can tell my colleagues that the thought of my
personal records being zipped around the Internet is frightening. This
is the Big Brother bill. Big Brother is watching, watching one's
medical records, watching one's financial records. He knows when one
has been sick. He knows how much one has in one's bank account.
Enough is enough Congress. This bill violates the constitutional
rights of American citizens. We can do better.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I am
known to be very concerned about the privacy of all Americans and am
tenacious in protecting the privacy of everyone.
I believe I am a well-known civil libertarian. But I do believe this
bill adequately protects privacy, except in one area. It has not
eliminated the potential Know Your Customer regulations. My amendment
permits this. It is the regulations such as Know Your Customer that is
the motivation for banks to collect so much information.
So I rise in support of the rule, but also mention that the Paul-
Campbell-Barr amendment will allow us to bring to the floor an
amendment that will eliminate once and for all the availability of Know
Your Customer regulations by the various regulators.
I am in strong support of this rule, believing very sincerely this
bill does protect privacy. But we can make it better by passing my
amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to ask the Congress to vote against this rule. I
want to tell my colleagues why. Whenever there are this many kinds of
constraints and hesitancies on the part of the body concerning a bill
so important as this one, the main thing to do is just to kill it. Get
rid of it. Vote against it because there are too many ifs in this
particular rule. The if in terms of the
[[Page H5195]]
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) who tried to make it better by
putting in something against redlining. All of the attempts at trying
to help in terms of privacy were ignored by the Committee on Rules.
Well, that means only one bottom line. Vote against the rule so that
they will have to go back and change this and consider some of the many
things which my colleagues have heard here.
Holding companies who seek to be qualifying financial holding
companies under H.R. 10 would be prohibited from violating the Fair
Housing Act if one were to take the amendment of the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee). But, no, they did not. They did not see the right
to take it. So now they take away the ability to pass a bill. Vote
against this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished ranking member
of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in opposition to the rule. So many
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have expressed very
eloquently their problems with the rule and why they oppose it.
My main reason and what brings me to the floor today in opposition is
for the reason of privacy, privacy, privacy, privacy. If there is
anything that runs through the veins of the American people, it does
not matter what party they belong to, it does not matter where they
live, it does not matter how much money they have, it does not matter
what color they are, they want their privacy protected.
There is something wrong when the Congress considers a bill where the
bankers know more than our doctors or have the same information. We
need to stand with our constituents in this battle, and we need to
stand next to what every red-blooded American understands, that what
they have in their checking account, what they have in their money
market account is no one else's business. It should not be sold. It
should not be marketed. It should be kept private.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Condit).
(Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule today. We
ought to do financial services reform. We ought to be doing that. But
we ought not to be doing it at the expense of the consumer, at the
expense of the patient and the citizen when it comes to protecting
their privacy. That is what we are doing today.
We have made a choice to do this bill, to pass this bill in the House
today at the expense of protecting the privacy of patients and
consumers, and that is wrong. That is flat dead wrong. We ought to
oppose this rule today.
I want to speak just for a moment to the reason why I think we ought
to oppose it beyond not protecting our citizens' privacy. But we ought
to oppose it on the medical privacy part of this bill. We offered two
amendments to the Committee on Rules yesterday, both were rejected,
that simply said let us set aside the medical privacy part of this
bill.
It has been suggested by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Roukema) that this is not the place or the time. She is right. We ought
to debate it in a more comprehensive bill coming in July.
I would ask my colleagues please vote against this rule. Protect the
privacy of the American people. Let us have a privacy debate at the
appropriate time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are now at the very end of this debate on the rule.
We have heard and had a vigorous debate today about. We have had a
vigorous debate about the various aspects of this rule and of the bill
that is before us.
I am pleased to say that, until last night, we had been working for
weeks to craft a compromise, not only on privacy, but other issues. I
can tell my colleagues that the compromise that was crafted up until
last night is the one that is in the rule. It was bipartisan until
then, and I am very proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding to me, and I congratulate him on the
superb management of this rule.
The framers of our Constitution wanted the process of lawmaking to be
difficult, and they wanted this place to actually be inefficient
because they did not want one person to get too much power.
When I think about where I was 13 years ago, I was a Member of the
House Committee on Banking, and I joined with the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce) and several of our former colleagues who are no
longer here, Doug Bernard, Steve Barlett, Jack Hiler and others. At
that time, we began crafting legislation that allowed for the
establishment of financial services holding companies with what is
known as a three-way street for affiliation among securities, banks,
and insurance. It obviously was the wave of the future, and it is
something that we are finally dealing with today.
Those efforts are finally coming to fruition after nearly a decade
and a half. It is happening because of the work of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bliley) sitting back there in the back of the Chamber,
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the chairman of the Committee on
Banking, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is back in the
cloakroom who last year brought us very close to a victory.
I think that we unfortunately have gotten to the point where we are
allowing what has been said earlier, very, very petty partisanship, to
undermine what is a very, very important issue that needs to be
resolved.
Before we get to the issue of H.R. 10, as we all know, we have to
pass this rule. This is a good rule which should have Democrats and
Republicans supporting it. It makes in order as the underlying bill an
amendment in the nature of a substitute which represents the
extraordinary work of those people I have mentioned. I think that it
helps us deal with these very, very competing interests that have been
out there.
This amendment, the bill that we are going to be considering once we
pass this bill is, as the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) said
when he stood up, the strongest pro consumer effort we could possibly
have, the strongest privacy language that we could possibly have.
{time} 1300
Now, there has been a lot of criticism leveled at my friend, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). He and I were mentioned in my
hometown newspaper today. The fact of the matter is, I encourage those
critics on the medical privacy issue to read the bill, and I am just
going to share a couple of lines.
It says: An insurance company shall maintain a practice of protecting
the confidentiality of individually identifiable customer health and
medical and genetic information, and may disclose such information
only, only, with the consent or at the direction of the customer or as
otherwise required, as specifically permitted, by Federal or State law;
and compliance with Federal, State and local law, compliance with a
properly authorized civil, criminal or regulatory investigation by
Federal, State or local authorities is governed by the requirements of
this section; or in broad protection risk control.
The fact of the matter is there are tremendous consumer protections
in here to maintain the privacy.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to complete my closing statement. I
encourage my colleague to actually read the bill.
Now, let me make a couple of comments here about the rule.
If I can close my statement, because I am talking about this issue.
We are trying to pass this rule. I have read the bill, and I encourage
my friend to read exactly what I have read.
Let me say that as we look at efforts by my friend, the gentleman
from Massachusetts, and by my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), these issues were put forward with one thing in
mind, to try to delay this process even more than it already
[[Page H5196]]
has been delayed. The goal is, in fact, to put this off for weeks. They
would very much like to do that.
So I think that we have, in fact, put together a very, very important
measure that finally moves us beyond 1933 and depression-era
legislation. I do not think it moves us far enough, but this is a small
and first step.
We know there is bipartisan support for most of the provisions in
this bill. We know that there is bipartisan support for these packages.
I hope very much that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
join in supporting what is a very, very important measure.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule.
I support financial services modernization, Mr. Speaker, and voted
for H.R. 10 during committee consideration of the bill in the House
Banking Committee. In order to deliver financial services to consumers
effectively in today's economy, and in order to compete with financial
conglomerates from overseas, American financial institutions need a
modernized legal and regulatory environment. American consumers deserve
the opportunity to take advantage of technological advances that have
made one-stop shopping for financial services possible.
However, the Republican leadership and the Rules Committee have
denied this House the opportunity to vote on several significant
amendments on both sides of the aisle. Amendments preventing
``redlining'' and discrimination by insurance companies, promoting
community banks in rural areas and protecting consumers' medical
privacy information, just to mention a few. If we want a good bill, one
that we can be proud of, we must vote against this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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 227,
nays 203, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 264]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--5
Brown (CA)
Fossella
Graham
Green (TX)
Serrano
{time} 1323
Mr. SKEEN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________