[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14964-14975]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 14965]]

     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 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.

[[Page 14966]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 14967]]

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 (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. 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. 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

[[Page 14968]]

(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 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

[[Page 14969]]

     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. 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 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. 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

[[Page 14970]]

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.
  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

[[Page 14971]]

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.
  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. 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

[[Page 14972]]

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. 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. 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 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. 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

[[Page 14973]]

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. 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. 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 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. 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

[[Page 14974]]

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 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

[[Page 14975]]


     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.

                          ____________________