[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18750-18761]
[From the U.S. 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. 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 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

[[Page 18751]]

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

[[Page 18752]]

only goes to health insurance. So what is happening here is that the 
motion to instruct is knocking out legislative 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

[[Page 18753]]

     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 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.

[[Page 18754]]

  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 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,

[[Page 18755]]

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, 
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. 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

[[Page 18756]]

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 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. 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. 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

[[Page 18757]]

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.
  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

[[Page 18758]]

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 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. 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. 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.

[[Page 18759]]

  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.''
  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.

[[Page 18760]]

  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
     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,

[[Page 18761]]

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.

                          ____________________