[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 110 (Friday, July 30, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6728-H6738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S. 900, FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT OF 1999
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 900) 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, with House amendments thereto,
insist on the House amendments, and agree to the conference asked by
the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. LaFalce
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. LaFalce moves to instruct the conferees on the part of
the House on the Bill S. 900 and the House amendment thereto,
to ensure, consistent with the scope of the conference, that:
1. Consumers have the strongest consumer financial privacy
protections possible, including protections against the
misuse of confidential information and inappropriate
marketing practices, and ensuring that consumers receive
notice and the right to say ``no'' when a financial
institution wishes to disclose a consumer's nonpublic
personal information for use in telemarketing, direct
marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail; and
2. Consumers enjoy the benefits of comprehensive financial
modernization legislation that provides robust competition
and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services
and economic opportunities in their communities; and
3. Consumers have the strongest medical privacy protections
possible, and thereby prevent financial institutions from
disclosing or making unrelated uses of health and medical and
genetic information without the consent of their customers,
and therefore agree to recede to the Senate on Subtitle E of
Title III of the House amendment.
Mr. LaFALCE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce)
and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes
for the purpose of controlling time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
(Mr. LaFalce asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I move that the motion to instruct be adopted by this House, Mr.
Speaker. This bill is very important to American consumers for many
reasons, particularly two.
It includes the important new financial privacy protections to ensure
that financial institutions do not share private financial information
with other companies. Consumers are tired of the barrage of phone and
mail solicitations to which they are now subject and the careless use
of their credit card and other private information which makes these
solicitations possible. This bill would protect consumers against such
practices and impose significant new obligations on financial
institutions to protect consumer privacy.
This bill also contains strong community reinvestment provisions to
ensure that consumers and communities
[[Page H6729]]
receive fair and nondiscriminatory access to financial services in the
new marketplace that is evolving.
Our motion, therefore, instructs the House conferees in negotiations
with the Senate to insist on the strongest possible provisions on
financial privacy, community reinvestment and nondiscrimination and
medical privacy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important to American consumers for
two reasons. It includes important new financial privacy protections to
ensure that financial institutions do not share private financial
information with other companies. Consumers are tired of the barrage of
phone and mail solicitations to which they are now subject, and the
careless use of their credit card and other private information which
makes these solicitations possible. This bill would protect consumers
against such practices and impose significant new obligations on
financial institutions to protect consumer privacy. This bill also
contains strong community reinvestment provisions to ensure that
consumers and communities receive fair and non-discriminatory access to
financial services in the new marketplace that is evolving.
This motion therefore instructs the House conferees, in negotiations
with the Senate, to insist on the strongest possible provisions on
financial privacy, community reinvestment and non-discrimination, and
medical privacy.
H.R. 10 contains strong financial privacy provisions which received
virtually unanimous support, passing this House 427-1. Those
provisions: Impose an affirmative obligation on all financial
institutions to protect confidential information; require full
disclosure of privacy policies and consumer rights to opt-out; direct
regulators to establish standards for assuring the safety and
confidentiality of financial records; prohibit the sharing of account
numbers and access codes for marketing, including direct mail and e-
mail marketing; permit consumers to block release of their private
financial information for use in marketing; limit entities that receive
financial information from reusing or reselling it to others; prohibit
pretext calling and other deceptive means of obtaining private
information; and provide for strong regulatory enforcement of privacy
rights.
The Senate financial modernization bill--S. 900--contains only
minimal privacy provisions regarding pretext calling. This motion
instructs the House conferees to insist on the House provisions and the
strongest consumer financial privacy protections possible.
Secondly, H.R. 10 contains strong community reinvestment provisions
that ensure that publicly insured financial institutions equally and
fairly serve all members of their communities in the new financial
system that this bill otherwise creates. H.R. 10 ensures that community
reinvestment laws remain relevant and viable in a more integrated
financial services system. These provisions have enjoyed bipartisan
support throughout this process.
Community reinvestment legislation was passed by Congress over twenty
years ago to combat discrimination by publicly insured financial
institutions and provide equal access for all Americans who qualify for
home and small business loans and to community groups seeking loans to
revitalize poor neighborhoods.
H.R. 10 maintains the central importance of these laws in our
financial services system. S. 900 contains three provisions which
substantially weaken community reinvestment laws and render them
virtually irrelevant in the changing financial marketplace. President
Clinton has made it abundantly clear that he will veto any bill that
contains the Senate provisions. In contrast, the Administration can
strongly support the bill passed by the House and the community
reinvestment provisions it contains. This motion instructs House
conferees to insist on the strongest possible community reinvestment
provisions, reflected in the House product.
Finally, H.R. 10 contains a provision authored by Congressman Ganske
on medical privacy which the Administration, privacy groups, medical
groups and many commentators argue contain substantial loopholes. In
their current form, these provisions in fact represent less protection
than what is available under existing law, and preempt strong privacy
provisions available in the states. The Administration strongly opposes
the Ganske provision. This motion instructs House conferees to insist
that any medical privacy provisions give consumers the strongest
medical privacy protections possible, prevent financial institutions
from disclosing or making unrelated uses of health, medical and genetic
information without consumer consent, and therefore recede to the
Senate.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, Mr. Speaker, let me say I intend to yield 15 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) as a representative of the Committee
on Commerce at the appropriate point.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with, in fact, the first two provisions of the
motion to instruct and will reluctantly accede to the third, but I am
compelled to note that the controversy over the medical privacy
provisions that this motion to instruct seeks to strike from the bill
presents one of the most ironic circumstances that I have dealt with as
a committee chairman.
The same Members who have quite properly insisted on placing privacy
protections for consumers of financial services in the bill are now
strenuously insisting on deleting from it a provision that would offer
consumers powerful new protections in an area where there is perhaps
the greatest sensitivity to privacy, that relating to personal health
and medical records.
I continue to believe that the medical privacy provision championed
by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and others has been widely
misunderstood both by Members of this body and outside groups that have
expressed certain skepticism.
Here let me be clear. The provisions would block the sharing of the
individually identifiable customer, health, medical, and genetic
information by an insurance company either within an affiliate
structure or with outside third parties unless the customer expressly
consents to such disclosure with a limited number of exceptions related
to medical research or normal and customary underwriting in business
functions.
It should be emphasized that the Ganske language does nothing to
undermine the more comprehensive medical privacy proposals being
developed by other congressional committees or by the Clinton
administration. The provision plainly states that it will not take
effect or shall be overridden if and when Congress enacts comprehensive
medical privacy legislation satisfying the requirements of the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Moreover, as both the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and I made
clear as legislative intent in House debate on the subject, the
provision in no way undermines the authority of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to promulgate regulations in this area if the
Congress fails to meet its statutory mandate by August 21 of this year.
In short, the provision was carefully designed to supplement rather
than supplant or supersede other private and public sector legal and
institutional barriers to the sharing of private health and medical
information.
As I have repeatedly stated, I was prepared to work at conference to
further clarify the bill's text. The future HHS rulemaking would not be
preempted. I also agreed to seek to remedy any imperfections in
language that might realistically be deemed to compromise patient
confidentiality. However, in light of the controversy generated by the
provision and because I would like to proceed in as bipartisan a
fashion as possible in producing a financial modernization bill that
the President can sign into law, I am prepared not to fight instruction
that the House recede to the Senate position on this issue. But in so
doing I would reiterate my belief that opposition to the Ganske
approach is based upon an underlying premise that is frail and upon
outside advocacy that may be misdirected.
Accordingly, it is my hope that those Members and outside
associations that have so vehemently opposed addressing the issue of
health and medical privacy in this bill will re-examine their
positions. Little, after all, would seem more self-apparently
appropriate than to prohibit sharing of medical records within or
outside financial services companies without patient consent.
Future Congressional and administrative actions to fashion law and
regulation in this complex area will no doubt be modeled in large part
on the provision that this instruction is designed to delete. But here
the irony should further be underscored that HHS discretion, which the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and I are totally willing to protect,
in any event only goes to health insurance. So what is happening here
is that the motion to instruct is knocking out legislative
[[Page H6730]]
protections for all medical privacy without the prospect that privacy
protections for life and disability insurance can be addressed through
administrative action.
After all the contentions on the minority side that privacy
protections should be in the bill, the argument now is that they should
not be in the bill. I want bipartisanship and administration support
for this legislation so I am willing to accede, but let me stress not
without a degree of incredulity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman seek to claim the time
allocated to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)?
Mr. MARKEY. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the LaFalce
motion to instruct the House conferees. With this legislation the
Congress will be breaking down the Glass-Steagall walls that long have
restricted limited affiliations between banks, securities firms and
insurance companies and allow these financial services institutions to
merge and to affiliate with one another.
I support this effort. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
supports this effort. This is not really what we are debating here
today. The great truth, however, of finance in the information age is
that it is the telecommunication wires that have re-shaped the
financial services industry. It is the telecommunications revolution
which has made possible this global financial revolution. It is this
telecommunications revolution which makes it possible for the first
time to really bring together all of these various services in a way
that can serve individuals and nations much more efficiently than they
ever have in the past.
But, as I have said before, there is a Dickensian quality to this
wire. It is the best of wires, and it is the worst of wires
simultaneously. Yes, it can make the banking and insurance and
brokerage industries more efficient, but yes, at the same time it can
also compromise the privacy of every single family in the United
States.
The LaFalce motion to instruct says that the conferees shall ensure,
consistent with the scope of the conference, that consumers have the
strongest consumer financial privacy protections possible, including
protections against the misuse of confidential information and
inappropriate marketing practices. The conferees must also ensure that
consumers receive notice and the right to say no when a financial
institution wishes to disclose a consumer's nonpublic personal
information for use in telemarketing, direct marketing, or other
marketing through electronic mail. Now I ask my colleagues what is
wrong with that? What is wrong with that?
Second, the motion instructs the House conferees to ensure that
consumers have the strongest medical privacy protections possible and
thereby prevent financial institutions from disclosing or making
unrelated uses of health and medical and genetic information without
the consent of their customers and strike the flawed Ganske language
that would weaken protections under current State or federal laws or
regulations.
{time} 1300
Finally, the motion by the gentleman from New York, the LaFalce
motion, instructs the House conferees to ensure that consumers enjoy
the benefits of comprehensive financial modernization.
These are critical issues that need to be properly addressed. There
are tremendous opportunities for innovation and for entrepreneurship in
finances, banking moves online. But we have a difference that is
developing between the privacy keepers, on the one hand, and the
information reapers on the other.
The CEO of Capital One Financial recently noted, credit cards are not
banking, they are information. And the data miners fully intend to
exploit their access to and control of consumer personal information
for fun and for profit.
We believe that is wrong. We believe that the LaFalce instructions
are critical to ensuring that, as we move forward with all of the new
efficiencies in the financial services world, that we also ensure that
we are protecting individuals against those that might seek to take
advantage of it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a lot of miscommunication,
misunderstanding about the medical privacy provisions that we passed
here in the House. I will just briefly go over those.
Those medical privacy provisions would not preempt State privacy
laws, they would not obstruct future State privacy laws, they would not
allow insurance companies to sell medical information to drug
companies, they would not block the Secretary of HHS from issuing
provisions under HIPAA, which interestingly, as the chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services pointed out, is limited to
health insurance, whereas the provisions on medical privacy in the bill
that we passed here in the House goes for all insurance. So it is more
inclusive than what was in HIPAA. And it would say that, unless a
customer specifically agreed, an insurer could not give any medical
information to its affiliates, much less any third party; and I think
that is important.
I think the bill would be better with that provision in there.
Now, there has been a lot of controversy about some of the exceptions
in that provision, and I have shared with all of the colleagues in the
House, Republican and Democrats, a ``Dear Colleague'' that goes into
some detail on this, which I will insert into the Record at this time.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 12, 1999.
Dear Colleague: The medical privacy provision in H.R. 10
restricts disclosures of customer health and medical
information by insurers.
Some concerns have been raised about the exceptions to the
opt-in policy. I would like to take this opportunity to
define some of the terms found in the exceptions and dispel
the misinformation that is being circulated regarding these
provisions.
Under current law, an insurance company obtains medical
record information only with an individual's authorization.
The medical privacy provision in H.R. 10 relates to how an
insurance company shares the data after it has acquired it.
The provision states that insurers can only disclose this
information with an individual's consent except for limited,
legitimate business purposes. These provisions would apply to
all insurers who are currently engaged in the insurance
business, and who have millions of contracts in force right
now. Without these exceptions, these insurers would no longer
be able to serve their customers.
The exceptions include ordinary functions that insurance
companies are already doing in their day-to-day business.
Such operations include:
Underwriting: Insurers use health information to
underwrite. The price someone pays for insurance is based in
part on an individual's state of health. Insurers gather
medical information about applicants during the application
and underwriting process. Underwriting is fundamental to the
business of insurance. During the underwriting process, an
insurer may use third parties, such as labs and health care
providers to gather health information and/or to analyze
health information. The insurer may also use third parties to
perform all or part of the underwriting process and must
disclose information to these third parties, such as doctors
or third party administrators, so that they can enter into
the contract in the first place.
Reinsuring Policies: Insurance companies sometimes assume a
``risk'' and then further spread the risk by ``reinsuring'' a
policy. While often a ``reinsurance'' arrangement is made at
the initiation of a contract, there are also times when
reinsurance occurs after the policy is issued. The reinsurer
needs access to the first insurer's underwriting practices as
part of its due diligence. Without this language, the wheels
of the reinsurance industry could literally grind to a halt.
Account Administration, Processing Premium Payments, and
Processing Insurance Claims: In order to pay a claim for
benefits, the insurer has to process the claim. This is a
basic business function. These activities are the very
reasons an individual signs up for a policy in the first
place. Companies may use third party billing agencies and
administrators to process this information. A company that
doesn't today, may tomorrow; and we need to ensure that they
can, so that consumers can be served.
Reporting, Investigating or Preventing Fraud or Material
Misrepresentation: There are certainly times when individuals
may not want to disclose all of their health information for
valid reasons. However, there are
[[Page H6731]]
those that may try to hide health information relevant to
whether a policy would be issued or what would be charged for
that policy. For example, nonsmokers usually pay less for
insurance than smokers. On the other hand, if you have a
chronic illness your premium may be higher. If an individual
is engaged in fraud of material misrepresentation, it is
highly unlikely that they would give their consent so that
the insurer could disclose this information, for example, to
its law firm to undertake an investigation of the matter or
to the insurance commissioner or other appropriate
authorities.
Risk Control: Credit card companies and other financial
institutions involved in billing, conduct internal audits to
ensure the integrity of the billing system. During this
process, the company verifies that merchants, credit card
holders and transactions are legitimate. These audits are
done on random samples in which transactions dealing with
medical services are not segregated or treated differently
from other types of transactions. However, if this exception
were not included, the company would be prevented from
verifying the validity of transactions dealing with medical
services. This would open the door for much fraud and abuse
or the inability for consumers to write checks or use credit
cards to pay for medical co-payments.
Research: Insurers do research for many purposes. For
example, life insurers will do research related to health
status and mortality to help them more accurately underwrite
and classify risk. This provision is needed so that insurers
can continue to do research.
Information to the Customer's Physician: This exception is
necessary to allow insurers to release information to an
individual's physician. For example, during the underwriting
process, an insurer may conduct blood test on an applicant.
If the blood tests indicate that there may be something
wrong, the insurer needs to be able to share the information
with the individual's designated physician or health care
provider so that they, together, can determine the best
course of treatment.
Enabling the Purchase, Transfer, Merger or Sale of Any
Insurance Related Business: No one has a crystal ball. A
company does not know in advance when they will engage in
these activities. It would be impractical if not impossible
to obtain the tens of thousands of authorization forms signed
and returned to the company so that a company could purchase,
transfer, merge or sell an insurance related business.
Without this language, companies will not be able to serve
their customers by forging new business frontiers. Since the
privacy provision covers all insurance companies, the
purchasing company will have to abide by the same
restrictions as the original company.
Or as Otherwise Required or Specifically Permitted by
Federal or State Law: There are some states that require or
specifically permit the disclosure of medical information by
insurance companies. For example, a company may have to
disclose health information to a state insurance commissioner
so that the commissioner can determine if the company is
complying with state law banning unfair trade practices. A
company may have information that would help the police in an
investigation where they suspect an individual has murdered
someone in order to collect life insurance benefits. This
language is necessary for these and other important public
interests.
I hope that this brief explanation of the exceptions to the
strong ``opt-in'' provisions of the medical privacy
provisions of H.R. 10 clears up some misperceptions. During
floor debate, I said I would work to include explicit
language stating that this provision does not prohibit the
secretary of HHS from issuing regulations on medical privacy
as specified by HIPAA.
Furthermore, I hope consensus can be achieved on a
comprehensive medical privacy bill. However, I remain
convinced that as new financial services entities that
combine banking, securities and insurance are created by H.R.
10, it is important that personal health data can be shared
inside, or outside, the company only with the patient's
permission. That is what the Ganske Amendment did.
If you need additional information, please contact Heather
Eilers at 5-4426.
Sincerely,
Greg Ganski,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a very important bill. And I do not
think this bill should rise or fall on this issue. Clearly, there are a
number of privacy groups that have thought that the provisions were not
as complete. On the other hand, many of the insurance companies we have
received communications from have said that they are more than what
they are comfortable with.
So at this point in time, I would agree with the chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and I would accede to his
decision in terms of the motion to instruct. I hope that we are able to
come up with a comprehensive bill on medical privacy. Our committee
will be working on that. I regret that without this provision I think
the bill is not as strong as it should be, but I think that we will be
working on this in other venues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise in support of the LaFalce motion to instruct.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Senate and House bills, with regard
to financial modernization, are significantly different. While they
both embrace financial modernization and extend new powers and
responsibilities to the insurance securities and banking entities,
bringing about really a revolution in terms of the way we engage our
financial services, the fact is that it is only the House bill that
offers strong, new consumer protections that are vitally necessary in
that electronic world, including the privacy provisions that have been
written by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the
Committee on Commerce and strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, at
least on the floor.
The fact is that those provisions ought to be retained in terms of
this conference. I think that the House can empower the conferees by,
in fact, supporting this motion and giving us a strong vote and a
reendorsement in defiance to the Senate's position, which has very few
protections or hardly addresses this basic issue. They do have pretext-
calling and some other matters, but we need the power of the House
behind us in conference, and a vote for this motion will do that.
Similarly, the provisions that deal with service to consumers and
community reinvestment, the House bill actually expands on those powers
and maintains them, while the Senate bill actually draws back and would
reduce the effectiveness of financial institutions in terms of serving
their community, taking away the responsibilities, and these are
basically the consumer games.
On the issue of medical privacy, obviously there is a great deal of
concern here. Many are happy with the bird in hand and the language in
the bill and think that it can be corrected; others are looking at two
birds in the bush and think that they can actually gain more through
the administrative procedures and through a separate act in terms of
action. I would just point out that most of the issue with medical
privacy and the way we approach it has dealt with what doctors and
patients do. The fact of the matter is we need to address insurance
companies, we need to address life insurance, we need to address
disability. The facts I think are somewhat clouded today as to what
that affects.
So I think people will keep somewhat of an open mind. I think we are
seeking a common cause in terms of the greatest privacy, the greatest
medical privacy that can be written. I just think it is important to
point out with the whole issue of privacy that we are with financial
institutions going to have the strongest statement in terms of law with
regards to privacy that exist in any entities, any businesses in this
Nation, including commercial and many other businesses, and the
Internet itself, incidentally, which has few, if any restrictions on
it, and even there, the regulators, which some had sought to empower,
are offering voluntary compliance as adequate.
Privacy is increasingly on the minds of consumers as they see the
technological advances eroding barriers, linking heretofore random
data, shrinking the world, and sharing their personal profiles with
others.
In these post-H.R. 10, post-Know Your Customer days, we have become,
finally, a very sensitized Congress. With every day it becomes clearer
that the American economy is running on data: customer data. We
collect, disseminate, study, share and peddle profiles and preferences
of people to run companies, enforce laws, and sell products. But what
voice and choice does any consumer have over their own personal and
public data? What is the right balance of free information flow vs.
privacy protection? Should the only choice a consumer has be that she/
he not do business with a company or a group of companies because she/
he doesn't like their privacy policies?
This House passed strong privacy provisions when it passed H.R. 10
earlier this month. This motion to instruct would serve as a notice to
the House Conferees and the Senate's Conferees that we will be looking
for the
[[Page H6732]]
strongest privacy provisions for American consumers. As passed by the
House, the bill affords consumers with new important safeguards for
their financial privacy, putting banks, credit unions, securities and
insurance firms at the forefront of many other U.S. sectors.
H.R. 10 provides strong affirmative provisions of law to respect and
provide for a consumer's financial privacy and to have a privacy policy
that meets federal standards to protect the security and
confidentiality of the customers personal information. H.R. 10
prohibits the sharing of consumer account numbers for the purposes of
third party marketing. This protection applies to all consumers and
requires no action on their part. Consumers can ``opt-out'' of sharing
of information with third parties in a workable fashion that protects
consumers' privacy while allowing the processing of services they
request. And importantly, regulatory and enforcement authority is
provided to the specific regulators of each type of financial
institutions.
H.R. 10 specifically prohibits the repackaging of consumer
information. Data can not be resold or shared by third parties or
profiled or repackaged to avoid privacy protections. Further, consumers
must be notified of the financial institution's privacy policy at the
time that they open an account and at least annually thereafter.
These are giant steps forward. These common sense, hopefully workable
provisions were added to the substantial protections already included
in H.R. 10 that prohibit obtaining customer information through false
pretenses. They will also augment what is currently in law for
consumers to protect their privacy.
Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that a law that requires consumer
action is appropriate but third party and affiliate ``opt-out'' is
hardly the first and last word in consumer rights. We can do more and
can do better. The fact is that a number of consumers have such a right
today under Fair Credit Reporting Act or institution policies. Even
with that authority, only a small fraction of individuals, less than 1
percent, exercise that option. Consumer choice may give us a positive
feeling of a remedy but what does it really accomplish--what is the
bottom line? Does it provide choice if only a fraction of 1% responds
to ``opt out''?
The fundamentals of this are that people want to know what
information is being collected, how and why. U.S. citizens want to know
how the data about them is being protected. Consumers want to know to
correct false information. Americans want to know how the laws are
enforced. Businesses seeking customers ultimately need to bear this in
mind, or they will not be in business. Business wants a fair
opportunity to provide options and use information to better serve
their customers. Business wants a level playing field across economic
sectors. Business wants to develop the means to keep data confidential
and accurate. The Conferees must advance the strongest possible privacy
provisions within this framework.
Additionally, this motion would instruct the Conferees to seek the
best possible conclusion for consumers and communities so that they
remain a core constituency that can benefit from passage of financial
services modernization. Consumers must enjoy the benefits of
comprehensive financial modernization legislation that provides
vigorous competition. All consumers regardless of race, class or creed,
need and deserve access to financial services and economic
opportunities in their communities, wherever they may be in this
country: rural or urban, suburban or exurban, East or West, and North
and South. All are entitled to investment in their communities and
equal opportunity for credit and services. The Conferees for the House
will do well for this House and the American people if they endeavor to
balance such consumer concerns with those of the giants of industry
seeking to blend their products and companies to be competitive for the
future.
Thousands upon thousands of successful partnerships have been forged
to provide local businesses with access to credit, homeowners with
mortgages and community development organizations with the wherewithal
to make a difference in their neighborhoods. Laws like the Community
Reinvestment Act provide the bedrock, the foundation for such
partnerships and we must work to strengthen CRA and other laws that
help assure the creditworthy needs of communities are served fairly.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, with regard to medical privacy, we seek to have
the highest and best protections for consumers that have relationships
with financial institutions that could receive and share confidential
health and medical information. While I have differences regarding the
language in the motion, we all agree that we must seek the strongest
provisions that prevent the unrelated use or disclosure of health,
medical and genetic information. Further we should not weaken any
federal or state protections in law or regulation.
As most are aware, there is currently a much larger process outside
of this bill. Many interested parties are working on either a
legislative solution or the possibility of regulations from the
Department of Health and Human Services to address comprehensively for
all health industry businesses and entities, regardless of corporate
structure, that will hopefully provide the framework for what is the
definitive and proper practice for sharing medical information. To the
degree that that process works to cover the affiliated structures, life
insurance and property and casualty insurance entities that would
affiliate with banks, we do not want to undermine it. Where it is not
sufficient, we hope to complement and strengthen it.
This motion should not be out of line with what we have tried to do--
in good faith--in the House-passed version of financial services
modernization. The statements of so many members allude to their firm
belief that we should not and would not supersede the work of HHS in
response to the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996 (HIPAA), passed by this Congress and signed into law. We
must assure that the language neither supplants nor has a negative
effect on the law or the regulations. Moreover, we must be absolute in
assuring that stronger state laws are not preempted. Finally, we must
be diligent in assuring that we are prepared for the possibility that
the HHS regulations or potential law passed by Congress regarding the
health insurance industry will not entirely apply to other insurance
entities. In that event, we must with no uncertainly, obtain the
strongest possible medical privacy provision so that all Americans are
not vulnerable to the misuse of such information in credit or other
decisions made by affiliated companies.
I understand that this is a priority of the President, who spoke to
this in his State of the Union address to the Nation. We share the goal
that we must make true medical privacy a reality for all Americans as
soon as is practically possible. Medical privacy should not be breached
by financial modernization. The ultimate legislative and regulatory
solutions must properly affect the structures we hope to create under
financial services modernization so that we are not left with a void
that leaves customers vulnerable to inappropriate medical information
sharing.
So I rise in support, and I urge Members to give us this vote of
confidence.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement, mostly in
agreement with what has been said on different sides of this subject
today, and I certainly agree with my chairman and with what the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) has stated in terms of conceding to
this motion to instruct.
However, I think there are two important things that should be
included here, and one is that when we are in conference, we not only
have to look very carefully at whatever was done with the Ganske
amendment, as this motion instructs us to do; but also, we want to be
very sure that in doing this, we are not opening up another loophole. I
think we all have good intentions here and intellectual competence in
this area so that we can constructively and honestly address that.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to state that I have been working for a long
time, both in my subcommittee with hearings, as well as outside the
subcommittee, with those medical groups that have raised some
legitimate concerns on this subject. I am going to continue those
hearings on privacy, whether it be financial privacy or medical
privacy; but whatever is done here is only a first-step foundation. The
issue of privacy, more comprehensive, will have to be addressed by this
Congress across the board. I want to be part of that project.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to transfer control
of the remaining time of the Committee on Commerce minority to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of that full
committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct the
conferees on H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999.
I support the idea that we should have responsible modernization
legislation. That legislation must contain strong protection for
taxpayers, consumers, investors, that ensures the safety and the
soundness of the banking system, as well as the efficiency,
[[Page H6733]]
competitiveness and integrity of the capital markets of the United
States, and also fair and nondiscriminatory access to our economic
opportunities by all Americans.
I voted against H.R. 10 on final passage earlier this month because
it did not meet these tests, and I intend to work hard in the House-
Senate conference to improve this legislation so that all Members can
support it in good conscience. We cannot come back to the House with a
conference report that does not give consumers adequate control over
their private, financial, and medical records.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that the so-called health information
protections in H.R. 10 serve only to protect the insurance industry,
not consumers. Proponents of the medical privacy provisions of H.R. 10
contend that consent is required before the insurer discloses
personally identifiable health information to another party, but they
never note that there is a two-page list of exemptions to this rule
that basically guts any real right of the consumer to be protected, or
his right of consent.
In fact, there is nothing in H.R. 10 that would prevent insurers from
selling one's health information for profit. Neither are there any
restrictions whatsoever as to what people or companies that receive
one's medical records may do with them. They are free to sell one's
records to employers, information brokers, banks, pharmaceutical
companies, or anybody else they please for good motive or bad. Once one
loses one's medical privacy, they cannot get it back.
The medical privacy provisions of H.R. 10 would actually preempt
stronger State protections already in effect. It would wipe out over 57
State laws, many of which have stricter safeguards for sensitive
medical records such as mental illness or HIV. There is also a question
of whether enactment of the medical privacy provisions of H.R. 10 would
preclude authority otherwise already available to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, to go forward with the issuance of real
consumer privacy protections that apply to health information held by
doctors, hospitals, and government agencies.
In addition, the bill contains some rather laughable financial
privacy provisions that tell a bank simply to disclose its privacy
policy, if it has one. H.R. 10 also gives very weak protection to
investors for transfers of sensitive financial information to third
parties, leaving the door wide open for sharing one's personal
financial information with affiliated telemarketers and others.
By voting to instruct the conferees on this bill, the House will be
on record in favor of the strongest possible provisions to protect
consumer privacy, both with regard to financial records and health
records. A vote in favor will also put the House on record in favor of
ensuring that this legislation will allow all consumers to ensure not
only the benefits of the legislation and nondiscriminatory access to
financial services and their communities. I urge all of my colleagues
to support this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas).
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Health in
1996 and working on the legislation commonly known as HIPAA, there was
a clear understanding that more and more as we computerize records and
indeed, even today with paper records, we need a greater degree of
security to provide for confidentiality for patients. That is why we
purposefully put Congress under the gun. That is, we said in that
legislation in 1996 that Congress had 3 years to act. If Congress did
not act in 3 years, the Secretary of Health and Human Services would
then write the provisions.
One would think that Congress would act on its own. I have to tell
everyone within my voice, Congress is an institution that almost always
reacts instead of acts. One of the best ways to get Congress to act is
to create a time anvil. That is exactly what we have here.
At the end of August, the Secretary begins promulgating
confidentiality and privacy regulations, unless Congress acts. It
creates a requirement that Congress act.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee
on Ways and Means and myself have been working on confidentiality
legislation which will be bipartisan and comprehensive.
{time} 1315
What was placed in this financial services package because of the
timing of the movement of this product is absolutely appropriate. It
says that the paragraph will not take effect, or shall cease to be
effective, on and after the date on which legislation is enacted that
satisfies the requirements. It says, if Congress does its job, this
provision does not do its job.
I want Members to understand what the Democrat motion does. It says,
they will recede to the Senate on that provision I just read. What is
in the Senate? Nothing. In other words, they are asking us to recede to
the Senate on nothing.
Everybody knows the phrase, less is more. This drives it to the
position that nothing is maximum. It removes the anvil. It means there
is less pressure on us to do our job that we said we were going to do 3
years ago. Where is the pressure to force the appropriate compromise if
we have no pressure at all on these Members, without the administration
to write the regulations?
We think Congress ought to do its job. It makes no sense whatsoever
to recede to the Senate when the Senate has nothing. The only useful
language is to say that this is a holder, and it will be here until
Congress does its job.
Please, let Congress do its job using the time frame that forces us
to agree. Do not vote on this. Do not recede. Do not say there should
be nothing, instead of the very excellent amendment that the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) put in that is in this measure.
When we go to conference, keep the anvil. Make us do our job.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce), in his absence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) claims the time of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce).
There was no objection.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, despite the rosy picture of unprecedented
wealth on Wall Street and the strong performing economy for some
Americans, many Americans still face social and economic problems. As
conferees prepare to negotiate H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of
1999, there are two ways that the conferees can help to eliminate the
unfortunate predicament of America's less fortunate persons.
First, conferees must take an uncompromising position on strong
Community Reinvestment Act language. The Community Reinvestment Act was
enacted in 1977 to cure the lingering effects of past discrimination
and to revitalize decaying American neighborhoods, to help Americans
realize the dream of home ownership.
CRA has led to over $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income
communities. However, language in the Senate's financial services
modernization bill, S. 900, threatens to undermine the progress of
community revitalization. The Senate bill undermines the Community
Reinvestment Act by weakening the CRA enforcement provisions in H.R.
10, eliminating the ability of community groups to participate in the
CRA review process, and by providing unconscionable small bank
exemptions that would cause harm to rural communities.
Conferees must be strong on CRA. Americans deserve nothing less.
Second, we must understand that lifeline banking provides banking
services to low-income persons, and I had in the last bank
modernization bill an amendment for lifeline banking. This time we were
not able to get it in on the House side, but it is extremely important.
It is necessary because over 30 million Americans do not have bank
accounts with a traditional financial institution. Lifeline banking is
good commonsense public policy that will help to bring America's poor
into the banking mainstream.
Additionally, the conferees must address the important issue of
financial
[[Page H6734]]
privacy. So I would submit for the conferees that they should include
this information.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct the
conferees on H.R. 10. In particular, I want to commend the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) for the language contained in this motion regarding the
importance of medical privacy.
Let me say first that I strongly believe this Congress should pass
financial services modernization this year. Laws governing this
industry are outdated and inefficient. They increase consumer costs and
they limit consumer choices. They need to be changed. But in so doing,
we must ensure that we protect not only the privacy of consumers'
sensitive financial information, but also of their medical records, as
well.
As a nurse, I know that in order to be effectively treated, patients
must share all their health information with their doctors, therapists,
and other providers. No diagnosis is complete without it. But if
patients do not feel that their information will stay put with their
health care provider or insurance company, if they cannot be sure that
their most private and sensitive information will be kept confidential,
they will not be so forthcoming. That would hurt patient care.
I wish to submit now for the Record a list of national organizations
opposed to the medical records provisions in H.R. 10.
In contrast to the House version of H.R. 10, we must ensure that the
financial modernization legislation that comes out of conference
protects patient privacy. With that in mind, I urge a yes vote on this
motion to instruct.
The list of organizations opposed to the medical records provisions
in H.R. 10 is as follows:
Organizations Opposed to the Medical Records Provisions in H.R. 10
physician organizations
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
American College of Surgeons
American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Psychological Association
nurses organizations
American Nurses Association
American Association of Occupational Health Nurses
patient organizations
National Breast Cancer Coalition
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Privacy Working Group
National Association of People with AIDS
AIDS Action
National Organization for Rare Disorders
National Mental Health Association
Myositis Association
Infectious Disease Society
privacy/civil rights organizations
Consumer Coalition for Health Privacy
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Democracy and Technology
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
labor organizations
AFL-CIO
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Service Employees International Union
senior and family organizations
American Association of Retired Persons
National Senior Citizens Law Center
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
National Partnership for Women and Families
American Family Foundation
other organizations
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
American Counseling Association
American Lung Association
American Occupational Therapy Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychoanalytic Association
American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons
American Thoracic Society
Anxiety Disorders Association of America
Association for the Advancement of Psychology
Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Health
Center for Women Policy Studies
Children & Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Corporation for the Advancement of Psychiatry
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services
Legal Action Center
National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors
National Association of Developmental Disabilities Councils
National Association of Psychiatric Treatment Centers for Children
National Association of Social Workers
National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
National Depressive and Manic Depressive Association
National Foundation for Depressive Illness
Renal Physicians Association
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am standing here because I think there has been a
gross mischaracterization of the medical privacy provisions in this
bill. When we had the debate on H.R. 10, legislation which I am very
pleased got 343 votes when it was reported out of this House,
criticisms that came from many on the other side, and frankly, from
many in the media who took advantage of that mischaracterization, I
think, make it necessary that we address it.
H.R. 10 and the provisions that were included here in fact will not,
as we pointed out in the debate at that time, preempt State privacy
laws. It does not in any way allow insurance companies to sell medical
information to drug companies. It does not, as we found already in this
debate, block the Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing
privacy regulations as required by current law.
I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske),
who has spent a long time working on this, and at the same time, my
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of
the subcommittee, does make a very valid point in his call to make sure
that we continue to have that pressure point recognized there.
I think that the only real, legitimate debate here is whether the
medical privacy issue is better addressed in H.R. 10 or in some other
fashion. So I think we are going to see what obviously is going to be
an interesting challenge here.
I think it is important for us to clarify exactly what the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) was trying to do. Clearly we want to make sure
that privacy is recognized and is in no way jeopardized.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the time previously
claimed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) will be reclaimed
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
There was no objection.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, most of the debate up to
this point has been focused on the issue of privacy. That is, in fact,
an important issue as we move forward to modernize financial services.
We have to assure the protection of the privacy of consumers' financial
and medical records.
[[Page H6735]]
I want to direct my colleagues' attention to paragraph 2 of the
motion to instruct and rise in support of the motion to instruct
conferees, because that paragraph gets to the heart of what financial
modernization is about.
We are instructing the conferees to ensure that we come back with a
bill that ensures consumers enjoy the benefits of comprehensive
financial modernization legislation, that provides robust competition,
and equal and nondiscriminatory access to financial services and
economic opportunities in their communities.
As we move forward in this process, we are modernizing financial
services, but we have to keep in mind that this is for the benefit of
consumers and communities. Let us support the motion to instruct for
that reason.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce) for his leadership on this issue, and to urge support of his
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 10.
Today's motion to instruct contains three important elements. It
would ensure the strongest consumer privacy possible, it would provide
equal and nondiscriminatory access to financial services, and it would
protect medical privacy.
Unfortunately, the House hastily included medical privacy provisions
in H.R. 10 that may actually be harmful to consumers because they do
not rise to the level of basic protections afforded under any of the
major medical confidentiality bills now being considered by Congress.
That unintended result may in fact deter many patients from seeking
necessary health care out of fear of disclosure.
The motion instructs the conferences to restore the confidence of the
American public in the privacy of their sensitive health care
information by removing medical-related provisions currently contained
in H.R. 10.
Mr. Speaker, we have an historic opportunity to pass a balanced bill.
I urge passage of the motion to instruct.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, today we send our Members of the
House to work with the members of the Senate to work out a compromise
on the Financial Services Act of 1999. While we know, understand, and
recognize that banks and other financial companies must be able to
compete in an environment that will allow them to expand their powers
and become competitive globally, and that our financial institutions
are one of the most critical components to ensuring a healthy U.S.
economy, our first and foremost responsibility is to those individuals
who send us here to Washington each and every election day.
Therefore, we must ensure that consumers as well as financial
institutions benefit from banking reform. It is meant to protect them
from the misuse of their confidential personal information, this
amendment, for marketing or other purposes, maintaining their medical
privacy, and to make certain that our financial institutions that
receive the benefit of government support continue to contribute to the
economic health of low- and moderate-income communities.
Let me say, we must support CRA. It is an absolute necessity if we
are to have a successful bill.
Mr. Speaker, today we send our members of the House to work with the
members of the Senate to work out a compromise on the Financial
Services Act of 1999. The purpose of this act is to provide banks and
other financial companies with an environment that will allow them to
expand their powers and become more competitive globally. Our financial
institutions are one of the most critical components to ensuring a
healthy U.S. economy. They are so critical that this Nation develop an
independent body known as the Federal Reserve to regulate these
institutions. Thus it is vital that this House and the Senate work
diligently, and efficiently to develop a final version of the Financial
Services Act that will make certain American institutions have a fair
opportunity to be the most competitive in the world. However, each of
the conferees must remember that their primary goal as members of this
House is to protect the interest of the individual citizens of this
nation who send us to Congress and who own this nation.
Therefore, we must insure that consumers as well as financial
institutions benefit from banking reform. It is meant to protect them
from the misuse of their confidential personal information for
marketing or other purposes, maintain their medical privacy, and make
certain that our financial institutions that receive the benefit of
government support continue to contribute to the economic health of
low- and moderate-income communities.
Let me take a moment to emphasize the importance of the Community
Reinvestment Act or CRA. There are some in the Senate who believe that
CRA is a burden to banks. Let me assure those individuals that they are
mistaken. The facts are clear, the overwhelming majority of evidence
states that CRA has been a major success. It has been a benefit to low
and moderate income individuals, their communities, and most of all to
banks. Since 1977, banks and thrifts have made over $1.057 trillion in
loan pledges to low-income areas. CRA investments have been widely
credited with dramatically increasing home ownership, restoring
distressed communities, helping small businesses and meeting the unique
credit needs of rural communities. Financial institutions such as
Citigroup, BankAmerica, Southwest Bank of Texas, Iron and Glass Bank,
and a host of others have all made it clear that CRA is good policy and
good for business.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of banking legislation that is
good for banks and good for consumers. Vote for the motion to instruct.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is getting curiouser and curiouser. In
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, when this bill was
going through it was the Democrats, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee) who demanded privacy language, very strict privacy language.
It was the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) who, with the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) late at night worked out a compromise
on the privacy language, the first consumer protection language in the
banking bill .
It got to the Committee on Commerce and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) passed on a voice vote strong consumer
privacy language, but even he was shocked it passed, and made it a huge
point on the floor of the House that his language was not being adhered
to. It had to be stronger.
Now they come out today and say, we do not want anything; accede to
the Senate's nothingness, no consumer protection at all. Or is it maybe
that they would rather have the administration write the language? They
are acceding to a bill that is absent the language. They cannot have it
both ways.
{time} 1330
This banking legislation, as it left this House, had some of the best
privacy language of any banking legislation, and now my colleagues want
to walk away from it, and they ought to be ashamed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair advises Members that
the proponent of the motion is entitled to close debate. The Chair
anticipates that Members controlling time will close in the reverse
order of the manner in which time was allocated; to wit: the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce).
The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), however, still has time
remaining.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the tremendous error of the last
statement made by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder). What we are
doing is insisting upon each and every one of the privacy provisions
that we were able to produce within this bill with the exception of the
medical privacy provisions, because virtually every medical
organization in the United States thinks that they will water down
privacy protections that presently exist under Federal or State law.
The gentleman from Georgia just totally, totally misunderstands that
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the LaFalce motion to
instruct the conferees on H.R. 10. It is important to support and
protect the House
[[Page H6736]]
version of the Community Reinvestment Act sections of H.R. 10.
Although the House version, for me, is weak on ensuring that these
provisions are extended to other financial institutions now with this
enormous extension of the powers of banking, at least the House version
ensures that the Community Reinvestment Act conditions apply to
banking. The Senate version does not.
We must remember the CRA was passed as a creative response to blatant
ethnic gender and neighborhood discrimination in the lending of money
for housing. A red line would be drawn around a neighborhood that a
bank or an insurance company perceived to have a majority of people
with risky credit. The bank or the insurance company would then not
lend to anyone within those red lines. Unfortunately, this
discriminatory behavior exists today.
The Community Reinvestment Act, however, encourages banks that do
business in communities to reinvest in those communities. It is a
positive way to encourage banks to do the correct thing, to not
discriminate.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on the LaFalce motion to instruct.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the
ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services in
support of the motion to instruct the conferees.
We need strong consumer protection for the final bill, H.R. 10. We
need strong community reinvestment provisions in the final bill,
because if the communities are like the City of Cleveland, CRA has had
a significant impact in providing affordable housing for those people
who have not had the opportunity previously.
We need a bill that fairly and equitably represents, not only the
financial institutions, but the consumers involved as well.
Finally, we need the House version of this bill, because it is the
best bill for all the citizens of America.
I urge the conferees to pay attention to the House bill in the time
that they have to come back to the floor with a bill.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, as a consumer advocate, I have been
asking from day one what is in this financial modernization act that I
can bring home for ordinary consumers in my district, the soccer moms,
schoolteachers, small businesses.
Face it, they are not worrying about the ability of banks, insurance
companies, and security companies to merge. But I warn my colleagues,
they will be interested if we let those companies poke around in their
most private medical and financial records.
Do not underestimate the American appetite for privacy. They will be
interested if hopes for their small businesses and mortgages and
investments to improve their neighborhoods dry up, which is what the
Senate bill will do because it dangerously undermines the Community
Reinvestment Act.
This motion to instruct addresses both the issues of privacy and CRA,
possibly the only two provisions most of our constituents care about.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this motion,
and I do it because I have been listening to my constituents a lot
lately about financial privacy in banking.
What they have been asking me to do is simple. They have been asking
me to try to win for them the right to tell their banks not to give
their bank account numbers and their identities to telemarketers so
that they can be called at night.
They have been asking me simply to win for them the right to tell
their banks not to give their credit card numbers to telemarketers so
that they can be called at night.
Those constituents deserve that right. What possible reason is there
to be not to accept this motion to give consumers the simple right to
financial privacy that we supported 427 votes to 1? Well, the reason is
that there are certain folks who want to defend their privacy.
I want to tell my colleagues about something I learned in hearings in
the last 2 weeks. I asked five lobbyists of the banking industry a
simple question. Let us say Emma Smith writes her bank and says, Mr. or
Mrs. Banker, do not share my financial information with anyone.
Two days later, Mrs. Smith inherits $10,000. Should the bank be able
to call a telemarketer and tell them to call Emma Smith and try to sell
her a hot stock in hotstock.com? Should they be able to ignore her
request not to violate her privacy? Do my colleagues know what those
five lobbyists said for the banking industry? To a person, they said
no, that would be wrong.
Those five lobbyists for the banking industry were right. Consumers
ought to have the right to protect their privacy. Those five lobbyists
were right. Four hundred twenty-seven Members of this House were right
when they stood up for consumer privacy. Americans ought to be right,
too, in insisting that we pass this motion.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I think the debate on the floor on this issue
demonstrates what a Gordian knot the whole issue of medical privacy is.
The provisions that were in this bill on health care privacy are good
ones. I think that if my colleagues look at the ``Dear Colleague'' that
I have sent out, it explains it. It is not a comprehensive piece of
medical privacy, but I thought it would improve the bill. The
intentions were good for that.
However, a very large number of privacy groups have argued against
this provision. I think it has been mischaracterized. It will be a
serious impediment in terms of our getting the overall bill passed.
If, in fact, my colleague from California and others on the other
side of the aisle can come up with a bipartisan agreement, then I am
sure that it can be reintroduced at some time.
I am for a comprehensive bill. I will vote for the motion to
instruct.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would begin by expressing great respect and affection
for everybody who has participated in this debate, especially the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) who is an outstanding Member of this
body in all particulars.
I do think it is important we understand what is at stake here. I
will address only the question of protection of medical privacy.
Here is what the administration says. The administration strongly
opposes the medical privacy provisions of the bill. Unfortunately,
those provisions would preempt important existing protections and do
not reflect extensive legislative work that has already been done on
this complex issue.
The administration thus urges striking the medical privacy provisions
and will pursue medical privacy in other fora.
Now listen to what some of the unanimous voices of all professional
organizations in the field of medicine have had to say. First, the
American Medical Association, I quote, ``Medical records provision of
H.R. 10 undermine patient privacy. The bill would allow the use and
disclosure of medical records information without consent of the
patient in extraordinarily broad circumstances. Unfortunately, the
medical records confidentiality provisions of H.R. 10 will deter many
patients from seeking needed health care and deter patients from making
full and frank disclosure of critical information needed in their
treatment.''
The American Nurses Association said this, ``The proposed language
would facilitate the broad sharing of sensitive health and medical
information without the consent of the consumer.''
Here is what the American Civil Liberties Union said, ``This proposal
will preempt existing medical privacy protections and offers
essentially no privacy rights to replace the ones which the amendment,
if enacted, will usurp. It is deeply flawed.''
[[Page H6737]]
AFL-CIO: ``This provision would facilitate the broad sharing of
sensitive medical information in a matter that is harmful to health
care consumers.''
That tells my colleagues what is said about this. I would urge the
adoption of the motion.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The
consequences that the gentleman described, in fact, may take place if
given this language as a sunset does not produce congressional
legislation; is that correct?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, no, that is not correct.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is not a trigger that says it will
sunset?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, what is correct, I would observe to the
gentleman from California, is that, if this language is in here, the
fears that I have expressed and the fears that are expressed by the
professional health care organizations and individuals would occur.
Mr. THOMAS. But if we passed legislation, that language goes away,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. DINGELL. The way to address the matter is to take out unfortunate
language and put in good language in a separate medical records privacy
bill. At least, if we do not allow this language to remain in the
legislation when it finally does go to the President, if that occurs,
it would then assure that we would keep in place existing protections
of patient privacy which are superior.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if we pass better legislation, we will
improve privacy.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are three aspects of this motion to instruct. As
chair of the committee, I strongly support the first two. On the third,
I remain somewhat bewildered.
What the third instruction suggests is that the committee should
advance strong medical privacy provisions. Then it goes on to say that
we should delete the title related to medical privacy and recede to the
Senate which has no title on medical privacy. It is a conundrum, a
logical inconsistency.
I would say to the gentleman in furtherance of certain earlier
comments that only about 18 States have prohibitions on the sharing of
information. This bill is not designed to supplant, replace, or weaken
any State provision or deny future State provisions. It may not be
quite as strong as the gentleman would prefer, but it is the first
serious prohibition on an insurance company giving medical privacy
information without patient consent to an affiliate or third party.
As chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and as
a conferee, I am willing to accede to this motion under the
understanding that it is a conflicted motion. There is a call for
medical privacy and then a call for a deletion.
So what I think the gentleman and what this instruction is saying is
that there should be a medical privacy provision in this bill. That
being the case, I cannot object to this particular instruction as a
conferee.
So I would urge my colleagues to recognize that the first two
provisions are a call to support the House provision. The third
provision is a call to maintain medical privacy, although in a way that
is perhaps illogically stated.
So my recommendation is to vote ``yes'' on a deeply flawed, deeply
ironic motion to instruct.
{time} 1345
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would observe something in response.
There is a conflict here on the part of some of my colleagues,
including my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
This medical privacy provision has no more assurance of protection of
the ordinary citizen or patient than does a lace doily of stopping a
flood. The simple fact of the matter is existing law is better than the
provision that we are talking about.
And I would observe something else. Very shortly the provisions of
HIPAA will kick in and the secretary will come forward with decent
regulations which will protect the people.
I am not going to enact a fraud, sham or delusion of the magnitude
that we have before us with regard to medical health care protection
and protection of medical information when I know full well that
existing law is better and that further improvements will be coming
along when the secretary issues her regulation.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and in closing I will be extremely brief.
I am absolutely delighted that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske)
and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) are going to be joining in
urging approval of this motion to instruct. I know they do it with full
enthusiasm with respect to the first two provisions but with some
concern with respect to the third.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has said the third presents
somewhat of a conundrum. Let me articulate again what we are attempting
to do. We are attempting to insist upon the strongest possible privacy
protections for every American consumer, the strongest possible
community reinvestment protections for every American consumer.
With respect to title III, there sometimes can be a difference
between the principal purpose and the primary effect of proposed
legislation. I do not think there is any difference whatsoever between
the principal purpose of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) and myself at all. There is a difference of opinion as to what
the primary effect of that language would be.
The conferees will work to make sure that there is a complete
marriage between principal purpose and primary effect.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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 New York (Mr. LaFalce).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DINGELL. 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 241,
nays 132, not voting 61, as follows:
[Roll No. 355]
YEAS--241
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Castle
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Hall (OH)
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
[[Page H6738]]
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McInnis
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
NAYS--132
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bliley
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cannon
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cunningham
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Fossella
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
King (NY)
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Paul
Pease
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (TX)
Spence
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--61
Baker
Ballenger
Berman
Bilirakis
Boehner
Bonior
Boucher
Burr
Buyer
Camp
Carson
Chabot
Clay
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Danner
Deal
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Gallegly
Goode
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hoekstra
Hutchinson
Jefferson
John
LaHood
Luther
Manzullo
McDermott
McIntosh
Meehan
Mica
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Ortiz
Oxley
Peterson (PA)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Quinn
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Salmon
Shaw
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Tauzin
Tiahrt
Watkins
Wise
Wu
{time} 1412
Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. WHITFIELD and Mrs. WILSON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SHOWS, ROGAN, WELLER, KINGSTON, COOK, McCOLLUM, Mrs. CUBIN,
and Mrs. EMERSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, due to a family commitment I was unable to
cast House rollcall vote 355 on July 30th, 1999, to instruct conferees
on the Financial Services Modernization bill, H.R. 10. If I had been
present I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the Chair
appoints the following conferees:
From the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, for
consideration of the Senate bill, and the House amendment, and
modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Leach, Mr. McCollum, Mrs. Roukema, and Messrs. Bereuter, Baker,
Lazio, Bachus, Castle, LaFalce, and Vento.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, for consideration of titles I, III (except section 304), IV
and VII of the Senate bill, and title I of the House amendment, and
modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Kanjorski, Ms. Waters, and Mrs.
Maloney of New York.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial
Service, for consideration of title V of the Senate bill, and title II
of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Watt of North Carolina
and Mr. Maloney of Connecticut.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, for consideration of title II of the Senate bill, and title
III of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms.
Hooley of Oregon.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, for consideration of title VI of the Senate bill, and title
IV of the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Ms. Waters, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Bentsen.
As additional conferees from the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services, for consideration of section 304 of the Senate bill, and
title V of the House amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Kanjorski, Ms. Waters, and Mr.
Ackerman.
{time} 1415
From the Committee on Commerce, for consideration of the Senate bill,
and the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Bliley, Oxley, Tauzin, Gillmor, Greenwood, Cox, Largent,
Bilbray, Dingell, Towns, Markey, Waxman, Ms. DeGette and Mrs. Capps.
Provided, that Mr. Rush is appointed in lieu of Mrs. Capps for
consideration of section 316 of the Senate bill.
From the Committee on Agriculture, for consideration of title V of
the House amendment, and modifications committed to conference:
Messrs. Combest, Ewing, and Stenholm.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for consideration of sections
104(a), 104(d)(3), and 104(f)(2) of the Senate bill, and sections
104(a)(3), 104(b)(3)(A), 104(b)(4)(B), 136(b), 136(d)-(e), 141-44, 197,
301, and 306 of the House amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Messrs. Hyde, Gekas, and Conyers.
There was no objection.
____________________