Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Became Public Law No: 108-44.
July 3, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in House
February 11, 2003
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
February 11, 2003
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
February 27, 2003
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
March 20, 2003
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
March 20, 2003
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
March 26, 2003
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
March 26, 2003
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 108-63, Part I.
April 8, 2003
House Committee on Government Reform Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than June 2, 2003.
April 8, 2003
Committee on Government Reform discharged.
June 2, 2003
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 69.
June 2, 2003
Mr. Baker moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
June 17, 2003 • 12:26 PM
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5421-5424)
June 17, 2003 • 12:26 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 658.
June 17, 2003 • 12:26 PM
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
June 17, 2003 • 12:39 PM
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5438)
June 17, 2003 • 2:45 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423 - 0 (Roll no. 281).(text: CR H5421)
June 17, 2003 • 2:52 PM
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 423 - 0 (Roll no. 281). (text: CR H5421)
June 17, 2003 • 2:52 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 17, 2003 • 2:52 PM
Received in the Senate.
June 18, 2003
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8260)
June 19, 2003
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
June 20, 2003
Presented to President.
June 24, 2003
Signed by President.
July 3, 2003
Became Public Law No: 108-44.
July 3, 2003
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.R. 658 on the floor
AS
PS
ALH
DS
GGM+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.R. 658 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on…
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.
168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.
197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 276 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a standard rule for consideration of conference reports and waives all points of order against consideration of the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, the process of reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and the Family Violence Prevention Treatment Act completes a promise made to the American people that was begun in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, the last Congress adjourned before consensus was reached between the two bodies on this very important issue. By taking up the conference report on the reintroduced legislation today, Congress is demonstrating an ongoing commitment to ensuring that programs to prevent child abuse, neglect, and family violence can continue to work and to protect American families.
The underlying conference report that we are debating maintains important Federal resources for identifying and addressing issues of domestic violence. It supports efforts to ensure that the current programs designed to address these issues are operating effectively and efficiently, and that they promote the prevention of child abuse before these heinous acts can occur.
The conference report retains language promoting partnerships between child protective services and private and community-based organizations, including education and mental health systems, to provide child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment services. It improves the training, recruitment, and retention of individuals who are capable of providing services to children and families. It also increases the availability of casework supervisors for oversight and consultation, while simultaneously improving public education on the role of the child protective services system and appropriate reporting of suspected incidents of child abuse and neglect, to reduce the number of false or malicious allegations.
This conference report requires States to have provisions and procedures for administering criminal background checks to prospective foster and adoptive parents, and other adult relatives and nonrelatives residing in the household, and helps to improve the training opportunities and requirements of child protective services personnel to ensure their active collaboration with families, and their knowledge of legal duties with these individuals to protect children's individual rights.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires States to implement policies and procedures to address the needs of infants born and identification as being affected by illegal substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure, including the requirement that healthcare providers involved in the delivery or care of such infants notify child protective services of the occurrence of such conditions in infants. It then requires the development and planning of safe care for such infants.
Lastly, the conference report retains language that expands priority services to infants and young children who are born with a life- threatening condition or with other very special medical needs, to ensure that these special needs are met and that these special children have a chance in life.
If there is one issue upon which every single Member of this institution can agree, regardless of his or her political belief, it should be the need to prevent child abuse and domestic abuse. These atrocities and often silent crimes do lasting damage to the lives of individuals and the moral fabric of our society. There exists a responsibility incumbent upon each of us to enact laws that protect the most vulnerable in our society, and this conference report will go a very long way to accomplish that exactly that noble and moral goal.
I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation, H.R. 14, easily passed through its committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, earlier this year and then through the House by voice vote. Today's conference report should continue to enjoy widespread and overwhelming bipartisan support as it has already enjoyed tremendous support throughout the child abuse and family violence prevention advocacy communities.
I would ask each of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to demonstrate their commitment to American families, to American communities, and to America's future by supporting this conference report. In particular today, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the House sponsor of this legislation; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their hard work in producing this conference report. I would also like to take this moment to commend the conferees from both bodies that have labored to produce this fine product.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the issue we have before us, this rule, this conference report that we are working on, really does talk about ways in which we can go and improve the lives of millions of children, where we can help families. Families, many times single parents, who are under the stress and strain of attempting to go to work, raise their family, meet their obligations in the community, to their schools, need some help, and I think that that is exactly what this bill does. It does it in a way that community-based organizations can become involved in the life and the opportunity to make not only their neighborhoods and their schools and their communities is safer and better, but they did it in a way that is a partnership.
This administration, this President, supports this. This administration, our President, when President Bush was the Governor of Texas, worked extensively in Texas across Texas in poor communities to try to make the lives better of children to provide them an opportunity to grow up and not only be in safe neighborhoods, but also have safety in their schools. So I think that the underlying legislation in this conference report is fabulous. It does a lot of things to make sure that as a Member of Congress, that all of us as Members of Congress, that we can become engaged in things that we not only can hold our head up high about but we can mentor with our President to make sure that people see this Congress as a caring group of men and women who not only want to ensure the success of people who many of whom we will never know their names but the children who live their lives and are prepared for the future.
I think that in the scheme of things this is a question that comes about not just to Members of Congress but as a demand on this country. The demand on our country is do America's greatest days lie in our future? Are we doing those things throughout the 40 some weeks that we are here in Washington, D.C. away from our families, are we handling the business of the people to
make sure that we make life better? And I think that answer is yes. Today the underlying legislation is yet another example of this Congress working together with this President to make sure that America's greatest days lie in our future because we are active, engaged, and involved with our communities and with people back home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, hearing the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Pennsylvania speak about children, about the things that we encounter and learn from time about tragedies that occur in people's lives with women who have problems along life, either drugs or alcohol, and also at the same time at which they are birthing babies and carry life within them, and the impact that it has on those children, not just at birth but throughout their life, it is a stunning problem in America.
But to hear the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Pennsylvania speak about the great parts about this bill, about how this Congress can reach out, how we as a government can keep working with local communities to bring out the best, not only in their interaction with these mothers that are at risk, but also child abuse victims, it is all important.
I am hopeful we can also learn a lot from the things we have learned over the last few years about people who perpetrate crimes upon children, the identification of those kinds of people, so that communities can do a better job spotting these people and protecting their children. That is what this bill is about. That is the good part of what this bill is about.
I appreciate both these gentleman for coming and telling their stories, not only about why they support this bill, but why this rule is fair and important for us to pass and this conference report. Let us get it to the President and let the President continue to do the things for the American people that he did for the people of Texas when he was Governor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of our bright young Republican Members.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for his support of this conference report, S. 342, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate today. We have talked about the children of this country. We have talked about our communities. We have talked about our schools. We have talked about the desire that we have as this United States Congress, this administration, President George W. Bush and the kind and gracious leadership of this House, including our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and our majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), to time after time take time out of their schedule not only to talk about children, children that are the future of this country and will make a difference, but also that these three gentleman, as leaders of our country, take time to make sure that this administration and the laws of this country are there to protect children, the most vulnerable part of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what this will do. This conference report will go to help people. It will strengthen our communities. It will strengthen community-based organizations who work in a way that we need them to become efficient and be efficient and to offer these services.
I am proud of what we are doing. I am proud of what this Congress is doing, and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying conference report for the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. My colleagues know that the rules for conference reports in the House are typically closed, and today's rule is reflective of the longstanding tradition in the House to bring conference reports to the floor in a similar fashion.
Mr. Speaker, every time a child is abused or neglected, the whole human race suffers. With that sobering thought in mind, I support the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. I support this conference report, because most States are facing severe budget deficits, and this is the only Federal legislation that targets child abuse and neglect. I support this conference report because States are dependent on Federal money to meet the increasing demand for community child abuse prevention programs. But realize this legislation does not begin to solve the overwhelming financial problems that the States are currently experiencing. In fact, critics of this bill including the director of the National Child Abuse Coalition say that there is a $2.5 billion spending gap between the amount currently allocated towards prevention and protection and the amount required to handle this problem effectively.
The statistics on child abuse and neglect in this country are heart- wrenching. The Department of Health and Human Services estimated that in 2001, 903,000 children in this country were victims of abuse or neglect. This figure represents an 11 percent increase from the previous year, and many child advocates say the stress of a bad economy and unemployment could be two reasons for the increase.
This bill includes funding for training and preventative programs for social workers and families and encourages partnerships between State child protective services and community organizations. It also requires foster parents and adoptive parents to undergo criminal background checks and mandates that States expand child abuse services to children born with drug-related problems.
Child abuse and neglect is everyone's problem and it affects us both morally and financially. The cost of training and preventative programs will be offset later when children who might have been burdens on society grow into upstanding citizens. From a financial perspective, the costs of child abuse and neglect to our society as a whole are staggering. Studies have documented the link between abuse and neglect in childhood with medical, emotional, psychological and behavioral disorders in adulthood. Those who are abused as children are more likely to suffer from depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse.
The abused are also more likely to become juvenile delinquents and are 29 percent more likely to become criminals. Using that estimate, 36,000 of the children who were victims of abuse or neglect in 2001 can or may become criminals.
I certainly hope that the work we are doing in this conference report will help curb this number and help those who need it. However, if we are going to come to the floor today and talk about child abuse and neglect, we will be remiss to not talk about the child neglect that occurred last week in this very Chamber when Republicans in this body refused to extend the child tax credit to more than 12 million children living in low-income families without attaching a significant cost to the bill that would have provided for those 12 million children.
Frankly, it baffles me how the rhetoric of Republicans in this body rarely meet the reality of their policies. The All-American Tax Relief Act, which passed this House last week was filled with tax cuts that benefit the more well off in our society more than six times as much as they do the needy. The bill was another tax cut to the wealthy that further drives our country into debt and deficit spending, and it lacked even the slightest bit of fiscal responsibility. In truth, the child tax credit failed to provide relief to more than 12 million children who are growing up in low-income families. In truth, families making between $10,500 and $26,625 were excluded from this tax relief, including 1 million children of U.S. Armed Forces personnel. Perhaps when Republicans talk about all Americans, they are really talking about all Americans in the upper tax brackets.
Mr. Speaker, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson noted, ``A Nation as compassionate as ours should ensure that no child is a victim of abuse or neglect. The number of children that are being abused and neglected in this country is an unacceptable daily tragedy.'' Indeed, Secretary Thompson is correct.
But while this body helps communities fight child abuse and neglect throughout the country, we ought to first fight it right here in the House of Representatives. That we do not, Mr. Speaker, is an unacceptable daily tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague by indicating that the President's remarks were to pass the Senate bill, and what we did last week was force a conference which is going to delay the tax cuts for the 12 million persons about whom I spoke earlier.
That is a reality, and, to my way of thinking, that is, in some respects, uncaring. It certainly is not compassionate. Everybody that is wealthy, including those of us here in Congress, will get our tax benefits, but many of the persons about whom I speak, including some in the military, will not receive a dime this year by virtue of the actions that we took last week.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), who has been a leader in the fight for protecting children.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I will just respond to my friend from Pennsylvania, who is an extremely thoughtful Member of this body, when he cites the fact that Democrats want to spend. Let me isolate that on the child tax credit: Democrats did want to spend the $3.5 billion that the United States Senate wanted to spend, and each nickel of it was offset. Toward that end, I would urge that that kind of spending redounds to all of our benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taking care of children, I just wonder, and pardon me for asking, what $1.1 trillion in the original tax cut during the President's administration and the $350 billion that we passed recently, in addition to the tack-on to the child tax credit, they ran it up to $82 billion, I wonder what those funds could possibly have done for the children of America? I, for one, would have preferred to spend it on them, rather than on rich people.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a continuing fighter and champion for children.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), my good friend who has been a continuing champion for children in this body and in his previous life before coming here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the close of this matter, I will urge that Members pay attention to a request on the previous question, and I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule, and my amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes the conference report, it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. My amendment will also add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R. 1308, as passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the Republican tax bill passed last month.
This will allow the House to combine these two Senate-passed bills and immediately send them back to the Senate and then, hopefully, on to the President's desk for his signature. If this happens, we can begin helping America's lower- and modest-income families right away, and we can give tax relief to those members of the military who are bravely fighting for this Nation as we speak.
Is it not about time we started giving tax breaks to those Americans who really need it? And is it not about time we put an end to legislation that has no chance of becoming law?
Last week, the President said he would sign H.R. 1308, as it was passed by the Senate, and restore the refundable tax credit to those families making between $10,000 and $26,000. H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax relief to America's hard- working, but struggling, families by extending the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working families and nearly 12 million additional children. This measure will provide help to the families of 8 million children whose parents serve in the military or are veterans. It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan by extending the child tax credit to many of them.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1307 will also help our brave men and women serving in the military. It will help with travel costs for those called up for the National Guard and Reserves, and it will provide benefits for the families of the Columbia astronauts.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can combine and then consider these two important tax relief bills as they passed in the Senate and rush them back to the Senate. Let us not let tax relief for these two important and deserving segments of our society wither on the vine.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can consider tax relief that can actually become law and really help those most in need of tax relief.
I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not prevent the House from considering the conference report for this very important legislation, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. It will allow us to consider the Senate-passed versions of the refundable child tax credit and the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, in addition to this important conference.
However, a yes vote will stop us from voting on this package of true tax relief for lower income Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to vote no on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for his sterling leadership on this issue and for this piece…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for his sterling leadership on this issue and for this piece of legislation as we recognize June as National Homeownership Month.
Today the House takes up this important housing resolution to recognize National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. In addition to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), I certainly want to recognize and thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, for his leadership; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member; the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), our ranking member on the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee; and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), our chairman on the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, homeownership is a dream that millions of Americans strive to achieve every year. Our national homeownership rate has risen dramatically during the past 50 years and now stands as a record 68.8 percent. This is an extraordinary accomplishment that all Americans should be very proud of.
But in the midst of this record housing boom, there are yet millions of American families, particularly low-income families and minority households, who have been left behind and unable to make this dream a reality.
So as we celebrate June as National Homeownership Month, this Congress must seize on opportunities to help more Americans reap the benefits of owning their own home.
I will just enter into the Record this article from the front page of my home newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, yesterday, which is headlined ``Black Women Find Places of Their Own,'' written by Janet Frankston, an Atlanta Journal Constitution staff writer. And it starts with this story that I think is very appropriate as we start this. It says: ``The day before she closed on her three-bedroom house, Thommi Odom couldn't eat. `Even at the day of closing, I was physically sick,' said Odom, a 30-year-old information technology manager originally from Savannah. `Just the whole process, knowing I'm ultimately responsible, was very scary.'
``Now, more than 5 years later, Odom has tripled her income and is looking for her second house, an upgrade from her 2,036 square foot home in Lithonia. And now she's not even blinking at the finances.''
She is building wealth, but it started with the purchase of a home.
America's families and neighborhoods and our national economy all prosper from homeownership. Homeownership enables families to build wealth that transcends generations. Homeownership transforms neighborhoods into centers of civic engagement and community strength, and housing is a vital part of the national economy, accounting for about 14 percent of the gross domestic product. Indeed, it is housing that has played an essential role in the economy and the economic recovery over the last 2 years, creating new jobs and serving as an engine of economic growth.
And there is such great news from my home area of metro Atlanta, which I represent. And I represent 11 counties, and of those 11 counties, eight of them are among the fastest-growing counties in terms of homeownership in this Nation. The number of African American homeowners, for example, has increased by 97 percent in the 1990s; yet there is a lot of work to do with African American homeownership that is fluctuating as we speak.
For Hispanics it increased 258 percent, and for Asians it increased 241 percent. These numbers compare to an increase of 38 percent for white homeowners. From 1997 to 2002, conventional mortgage loans to African American women increased by 114 percent.
Clearly, the homeownership gap is closing, and this Congress should be proud of the work that we are doing. But there is much more work to do. We must pass the Financial Literacy Act, which I introduced, and I am working with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), subcommittee Chair; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
The House of Representatives can take an important step to expand homeownership opportunities by also passing H.R. 3755, the Zero Downpayment Act of 2004. This legislation, which I introduced with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), would help thousands of families get into homes by helping them overcome one of the top obstacles of homeownership: assembling the necessary funds for a down payment.
H.R. 3755 enjoys strong bipartisan support and passed by the House Committee on Financial Services by voice vote. By swiftly passing this legislation, the House will be paying fitting tribute to National Homeownership Month by helping thousands join America's ownership roster.
[From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 21, 2004]
(By Janet Frankston)
The day before she closed on her three-bedroom house,
Thommi Odom couldn't eat.
``Even at the day of closing, I was physically sick,'' said
Odom, a 30-year-old information technology manager originally
from Savannah. ``Just the whole process--knowing I'm
ultimately responsible--was very scary.''
Now, more than five years later, Odom has tripled her
income and is looking for her second house, an upgrade from
her 2,036-square-foot home in Lithonia. And she's not even
blinking at the finances.
``Making the payments is easy,'' she said, sitting in her
living room with a group of black girlfriends who are also
homeowners. ``The maintenance is difficult.''
In 2003, unmarried women were nearly twice as likely to buy
homes as unmarried men. Single women make up the second-
largest group of homebuyers, according to a nationwide survey
by the National Association of Realtors. In metro Atlanta,
Odom's demographic, single African-American women represent a
particularly fast-growing group.
From 1997 to 2002, conventional mortgage loans to black
women increased in 114 percent in metro Atlanta, a draw for
middle-class blacks from across the nation. That growth
greatly outpaced mortgage loans to white men and white women,
which increased in the region by 35 percent and 26 percent,
respectively. Mortgage growth in the region was highest among
single black men, but they bought fewer homes than single
black women.
Women are buying homes as they gain access to more and
better-paying jobs. They like the tax advantages and want to
start building wealth. And they benefit from a societal shift
that accepts their marrying later or not at all. That shift
is especially prevalent among black women, 64 percent of whom
reported being single in the most recent nationwide census
survey.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), who has consistently provided sterling leadership to make sure that all Americans have access to home ownership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who is a strong voice for working people, to make sure all people have access to housing, and especially those in the lower income and housing projects, of which he represents 80 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out in this afternoon's discussion on this very, very important piece of legislation, to own a home is the foundation for wealth building in our country. We are making great progress, but there is yet much more that we have to do, especially when it comes to the minorities, African Americans, and Hispanics, particularly.
But I am so proud to be a part of the Committee on Financial Services and on the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for we are making great progress, and not only making sure that we address the issue of homeownership, but, in addition to that, making sure that we put policies and programs in place that will make sure they maintain those homes and to build on that progress.
A measure that we have in our committee, the Financial Literacy Act, is to make sure that people are not taken advantage of when they do own a home. Very important. A key point of that bill is to set up a toll- free number so that individual homeowners will have access to get information and know where to call to get information before they sign on the dotted line. And it is so important that at the other end of that phone line that there be a human being, not a recorded voice, but a human being answering and responding to that measure. We are very proud of that bill.
Our housing counciling bill under the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney); our zero down payment which eliminates the down payment for those FAA- guaranteed mortgages; and again, an issue that was pointed out by my distinguished friend, the gentleman from California, as well as my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and that is we must expand FHA loan limits to include high-cost areas like California and Massachusetts; and we are working on that.
Mr. Speaker, free credit reports, and some financial education creative matters that we are working on that I want to mention very briefly as I close. We have got to get down to the nitty-gritty with our young people and start financial literacy programs in the early grades; and I am proud to work with my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), in putting forward a piece of legislation that will require financial literacy, age-appropriate, K through 12; and we will get that funded by using the Global Fund of Securities and Exchange Commission. And the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is working to make sure that we set aside monies in the Treasury Department to make people aware of financial literacy programs.
Mr. Speaker, this Congress is doing a wonderful job, and I am so delighted that we are here with this legislation, H.R. 658, to recognize Homeownership Month as the month of June.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 658) recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 658) recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate homeownership in America. As part of this homeownership initiative, President Bush is expected to designate June, 2004, as National Homeownership Awareness Month, as he has the past 2 years. To complement this designation, I have introduced House Resolution 658 to recognize National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
This resolution expresses a sense of Congress and the U.S. House of Representatives that we, one, fully support the goals and ideals of National Homeownership Month, and, two, recognize the importance of homeownership in building strong communities and families.
Now is a great time to talk about the American dream of homeownership because for the past 3 years the housing industry has been the pillar of our economy. The housing and refinance market helped keep our recently struggling economy moving until the rest of the economy was able to accelerate. National housing generates more than 22 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and accounts for nearly 40 cents of every dollar spent.
America's housing market is the envy of the world. We enjoy the lowest interest rates and the highest homeownership rate of any developed nation. In fact, the national homeownership rate in the United States has reached a record high of 68.6 percent, and for the first time, more than half of all minority families own homes.
Homeownership is the single largest creator of wealth for most Americans. It is a key to promoting long-term economic stability for citizens and nations. For these reasons it is imperative we maintain a strong housing market.
There are many components involved in helping people achieve the dream of homeownership. We need land to build on, developers to prepare the land, architectural plans and building materials, builders and contractors to construct the home, certainty on who owns what and how much it is worth, and available credit. We need to work to make sure that each component can work and that government helps rather than impedes the process.
As many of the Members know, I have been a home developer for over 30 years. I know all too well the impact of regulatory barriers at all levels and the cost of homes. When I came to Congress, I made it my top priority to highlight federal policies that have hindered the availability of housing in this country and to find ways for government to positively impact homeownership in America.
I firmly believe that Congress must help cultivate an environment where more Americans can turn the dream of homeownership into reality. I am pleased that the President, in partnership with Congress, has made it his priority to ensure that government does something positive to foster homeownership. The administration is committed to finding ways to increase homeownership particularly among minorities and has set forth an ambitious agenda for HUD, focused on building on the progress that work and finding innovative ways to reform those in need of improvement.
To focus more attention on the need of regulatory reform, HUD launched in June, 2003, America's Affordable Communities Initiative, a department-wide effort to help communities across America identify and overcome regulatory barriers to affordable housing. I commend HUD for its commitment to work with States and local communities to reduce regulatory and institutional barriers to the development of affordable housing. I look forward to continuing to work with the administration and Congress to address our Nation's housing needs.
I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 658, which expresses the U.S. House of Representatives' dedication to forming policies that will help ensure every American family realizes the dream of homeownership.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend all of my colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services, on the Democrat side and Republican side, especially the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney), who have had a real interest in housing, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who is a good friend of mine. We have probably done more legislation on housing than any two Members that I know of. But he and I are like-minded on the needs of housing for our future.
This is not a Republican, issue nor is it a Democratic issue. It is an issue for our future, for our children, for our grandchildren. Do we want to continue the situation with the shortage of housing in this country, or do we want to change that? In many cases, it is the government's responsibility to look at what we have done, and sometimes we need to step back and change some of that. FHA reform, I applaud my colleague for emphasizing that, again. We are ready for markup on that. It is about time FHA kept pace with the market. It is a good program that works. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and I have introduced legislation to resolve this problem and, hopefully, before this year is over, can have a bill signed into law that will work.
But I would also like to commend the builders in this country, the Realtors, the subcontractors, mortgage brokers, the mortgage bankers, the financial markets, the title companies, the escrow industry, all of those people who work hand in hand, putting together a large puzzle to provide housing in this Nation. They do a wonderful job, they work very hard, and we need to do what we can to assist them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 658. It is a bipartisan bill. It is a good bill. Let us start to continue to look and focus on the housing needs of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate the comments of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) with myself. I could not agree with you…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate the comments of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) with myself. I could not agree with you more. There are things we disagree on. This is not one of them. We look at our children and our grandchildren and realize that there is a problem in this country, and we need to effectively address that problem.
Last week I have a bill that was heard in committee on FHA, basically because as she said, you cannot use FHA loans in California and New York, Massachusetts and other States, because the limits are so low, they do not meet the needs of the citizens of these States, and you could not be discriminated against based on where you happen to live.
And nobody should be confused. FHA is not a program where the government is giving anybody anything. The government makes money on FHA loans. They are good for citizens. They have been proven good for government, but we need to really aggressively attack the problems for housing in this country. We deal a lot with section 8 housing, which we all agree there is a need for, but the problem we face when we talk about section 8, we want people to own a home, and we have created such a situation in this country where people cannot afford to move out of section 8 housing because the cost of housing in the next level is so great, that there is no way people can move to that next level.
A lot of those things have occurred over the years because the government has done things that we believe felt good, and States have done things that they believed felt good at the time but they did not work in reality.
I remember 25, 30 years ago I could introduce a tentative track map in California, and in 58 days, the government had to come back and say yes or no to that subdivision application so you could build a home.
Today it goes for 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15 years in many cases before a builder actually has a surety that he is going to be able to go build a home or not build a home, and everybody needs to realize when you require a property owner to hold property for 2, 3, 5, 10 years, the cost of carry on that property and the cost of the process is passed on to the homeowner.
So when we look at people who we are trying to provide affordable housing, it is almost impossible, in many cases, because of the problem government has created in and of itself.
The Endangered Species Act, when it was implemented, and nobody argues that we should not do everything we can to preserve the environment. That is necessary, but nobody ever dreamt when that concept was created that we would be preserving rats and flies and snails and stuff like that. My parents were smarter than we were. Our parents used to swat flies and poison rats. Now we set aside habitat for them; and when we do that, some private property owner is impacted by that habitat.
And the question I want to ask all of you, who wants to live next to a rat habitat? I do not know who wants to live next to a rat habitat, and the problem with that is you have a rat in your house, we all respond in the common way. We put a rat trap out there or poison out there. Well, if you trap an endangered rat, you have committed a felony. You can go to jail. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Yet, that is the law in which we have to work with in this Nation to provide housing.
There has to be some regulatory barriers that are removed, where people can get product to the market rapidly and move people into houses. The problem we have at the local level is the Federal Government takes more money, the States take more money, and local community cities are left without revenues. And the first person they look to go to is a builder in town as a cash cow. I am not trying to criticize them for it, but I am saying when you assess a fee that is not associated with a project on a project, the people who buy those homes have to pay those fees.
Nobody argues that if you are impacting traffic and intersections, you should mitigate that through fees. Nobody is arguing that. You have building and you have school fees. But oftentimes you pay all of those, and then we take it far, far beyond that.
In California, we have an unusual problem that many States do not face. There is very, very little attached homes being built, town homes and condominiums. The problem is because litigation is so prevalent. And it is not generally started by the people who own the town homes or condos, it is started by some attorney who sues, goes to the Board of Directors and says you either join in this lawsuit or you can be held personally liable, and then the associations in the lawsuit, that all adds to the cost of providing basic housing for this Nation. Condos and town homes generally are the entry level homes you try to address first, because people need them.
We are trying to do tort reform in the medical industry. We also need tort reform in the housing industry. We need to do everything we can to protect the environment, we need to do everything we can to make sure people are legally protected from people who provide housing below standard, but we also need to be real in this country, realizing that people need homes. Kids many times cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods within which they are raised.
We need to change the laws in this country to fast track housing, and yet assure that the environmental levels will be addressed correctly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 658, the Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003. Investor protection is one of my top priorities for my work on the House Financial Services…
Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 658, the Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003. Investor protection is one of my top priorities for my work on the House Financial Services Committee, and H.R. 658 will improve investor protection by allowing the Securities and Exchange Commission to accelerate the hiring process for hundreds of accountants, economists, and compliance examiners. As a result, I support this bill.
During the last year, Democrats led the efforts in Congress to significantly augment the resources available to the Securities and Exchange Commission, including increasing its annual budget by more than $270 million. We increased this funding to help the Commission to effectively implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which we enacted in 2002 in response to a series of large-scale corporate scandals at companies like Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia, and Rite Aid.
The increased appropriations provided to the Commission have permitted the hiring of hundreds of new professionals to police the securities industry. The SEC estimates that the additional resources provided by the fiscal 2003 budget will result in the hiring of 200 lawyers, 250 accountants, 300 examiners, 10 economists, and some other specialists. This increase in the Commission's labor force comes on top of the additional 125 professionals that we allowed the agency to hire as a result of the fiscal 2002 supplemental appropriation law.
Unfortunately, as it has worked in implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and restore investor confidence in our capital markets, the Commission has encountered some difficulties in identifying and expeditiously hiring the best workers for many of these new positions. H.R. 658 seeks to address this problem by streamlining the hiring process at the Commission for a number of specialized professions. The Commission, like all other government agencies, already has similar authority for recruiting and hiring attorneys.
The legislative language contained in this bill resulted from negotiations between the
Commission's management and the National Treasury Employees Union's leaders. As a result, this legislation will accelerate the hiring of mission-critical workers at the Commission, it will protect the rights of these employees, and it will advance investor protection. I support each of these worthwhile goals, and congratulate the Commission and the National Treasury Employees Union for their good work. Their joint efforts help to demonstrate the effectiveness of labor-management cooperation in the federal workplace.
I am also pleased that the legislation we are considering today, unlike the introduced bill, will require the Commission to conduct two studies about the implementation of this special hiring authority. The inclusion of this study provision, which I requested, will provide the Congress with information on the use of the authority, including its impact on the hiring of veterans, minorities, and other demographic groups, that will be needed to evaluate the effects of this change in the law. It is my expectation that the Commission will use the expansion of its professional ranks as an opportunity to aggressively seek qualified veterans and minorities to serve at the Commission.
Although I support this bill, I differ with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on one remaining issue: the length of time that the Commission should have this special hiring power. As currently drafted, H.R 658 would provide the SEC with the permanent authority to bypass civil service rules in order to accelerate the hiring process for accountants, economists, and compliance examiners. I believe that this special authority, requested by the Commission in a time of urgency, should sunset so that the Congress can evaluate the effectiveness of the program at an appropriate time. Because H.R 658 will make extraordinary changes in the normal hiring process and because this power has the potential to be abused, the prudent course of action would have been for the Congress to sunset the law on a date certain and determine at that time whether to continue it. In short, the Congress should jealously guard the special powers that it grants government agencies.
Accordingly, during the consideration of H.R 658 by the Financial Services Committee and the Government Reform Committee, I sought to make a good bill even better by offering an amendment to sunset the expedited hiring authority at the end of fiscal 2008. This amendment would have provided the Commission with sufficient time to meet its short-term staffing needs and preserved the ability of Congress to reevaluate this special power on a date certain. Although we did not include a sunset in this bill, H.R 658 is still pragmatic and desirable legislation.
In closing, Madam Speaker, H.R 658 will streamline the hiring process for hundreds of new professionals at the Commission, it will safeguard the civil service rights of these workers, and it will enhance investor protection. Notwithstanding my one reservation concerning a sunset, which I hope my colleagues in the Senate will fix during their consideration of this bill, I support H.R 658 and urge its adoption by the full House.
Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for yielding and for his leadership in a very short time in terms of his leadership on our Financial Services Committee,…
Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for yielding and for his leadership in a very short time in terms of his leadership on our Financial Services Committee, specifically in the areas of housing and home ownership. So thank you for your leadership and for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say how delighted I am today to be able to speak in support of this bipartisan bill, with the hope that it will spur a movement toward more aggressive quality affordable housing for all Americans, and I want to thank my colleague, a member whom I had the pleasure to serve with in the California Legislature, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), for bringing forth this bill, H.R. 658, because he certainly understands the critical need for home ownership and the affordability factor in terms of home ownership. So thank you for making sure that this is a bipartisan bill and for your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, we all understand the challenges of home ownership and the need to build more affordable housing and to market products that will help more middle- and low-income individuals and families, more people of color to acquire a home.
The FHA program is a very necessary tool to get these target communities into a home. It uses flexible down payment amounts ranging from 0 to 3 percent of the loans total, and it also helps with closing costs and considerable foreclosure and loss mitigation assistance.
Now, FHA is pioneering in the areas of not only helping people get into their homes and purchase their homes but also helping people keep their homes. This is key to home ownership in our current economy, where bankruptcy and foreclosures have become a reality for far too many people.
FHA is successful, but it, of course, is not perfect. In areas like California, currently, also areas such as Massachusetts and New York, the FHA program is crippled by the expensive housing market, and it, in fact, limits the amount of people who can participate in home ownership solely because of their geography.
FHA uses a market median to calculate their loan amounts and caps loans in high-cost areas to $290,000. Our goal today is to provide a vehicle for Americans to achieve the American dream, which is very quickly, quite frankly, turning into a nightmare.
We all know that it is not the stock market that provides the foundation for the accumulation of wealth for ordinary working Americans. It is the equity in one's home that allows people to, for instance, start a small business or send their children to college or to travel or to do whatever they desire to be part of the American dream, and while I recognize market forces dictate the cost of housing, in no way should we let market forces run away out of control without helping those individuals and families who really do play by the rules.
When I see a dilapidated house in California, just this weekend the average cost of housing in my area, northern California, I think is $509,000. That is for a dilapidated house, quite frankly, a small shack. That is $509,000. So when I see houses going for that, I shudder at the numbers of families who are permanently shut out of homeownership.
When we see a bill today, such as we have before us, that increases this limit to 100 percent of the local median price, I am very excited that finally, finally we have a vehicle now that will allow not only those individuals in California and my district to begin on the path to home ownership, but people
throughout our country will see that we are for real in terms of making sure that we do something to allow them to realize the American dream.
In addition, let me just close by saying how important it is to prevent foreclosures and to build more quality affordable housing that establishes through the establishment of what we are calling the National Housing Production Program, using some of the FHA reserves.
So let me just say thank you once again to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). Thank you to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott). I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for making sure our subcommittee works in a bipartisan fashion on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), one point I want to emphasize also as to why this is so important is that in many of our communities that are diverse economically and ethnically, what we are seeing is the resegregation of America because of income disparities. In many communities, such as mine, for instance, you have a diminishing African-American population because the cost of housing has gone up so high and the income level has not been on par with the cost of housing.
So I just want to say this bill has far-reaching implications, because, in fact, we all agree that an integrated America is also the American dream, and we want integrated communities, not communities where one cannot afford to reflect the ethnic diversity of our great country.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am glad to join in urging support for this bill. I want to recognize the good work done by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski)…
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad to join in urging support for this bill. I want to recognize the good work done by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) who is the ranking Democrat on this subcommittee, who could not be here with us today, but he spent a lot of time on it, and we have a very useful compromise.
Essentially, we had this situation where we all agreed there was a need to expand the Securities and Exchange Commission. We responded more slowly than it would have liked, but we responded by increasing the budget to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Essentially, what happened is the legislation passed last year to improve the regulation of the corporate sector authorized increased spending for the SEC. The Congress was slow in living up to that promise, but finally, by early this year, we did it, but then the question was having voted on the additional money, in their case overwhelmingly for staff, how quickly could we hire people because under the normal rules the Federal Government is not expeditious in hiring people, and that is reasonable. There is often not an emergency, and we want to make sure we do it right.
In this case, we wanted to see that hiring was done more quickly. There was an original proposal that came that would have allowed people to be hired very quickly and, once hired, to remain in a somewhat separate status from other employees.
I want to acknowledge the very responsive attitude of the union that represents employees at the SEC, the National Treasury Employees Union. I met and talked with them, as did the gentleman from Pennsylvania whom I have mentioned, and we found them to be, not surprisingly, as they usually are, in a very cooperative mood, and they understood that there were two important issues. One was to enhance the ability of the SEC to hire people quickly so we could put the regulatory structure in place, but also to make sure that employees hired had the protections that any employee is entitled to have against political abuse, against arbitrary mistreatment, et cetera.
So what this legislation embodies is a very sensible compromise. The SEC will be given under this bill the ability to hire quickly. It will be able to hire without some of the normal rules that would slow them down, but once the people are hired, they will then have all the rights and all of the protections that any other employee would have had. It meets the need and sometimes what we do in government is kind of overdo or underdo.
The need here was to hire quickly. There was not the need, we felt, to totally revamp the employee procedures of the SEC. This bill is carefully tailored to do exactly what was needed and no more. It allows the SEC to hire quickly, to take full advantage of the additional funds. My understanding is that over 500 people will be hired under this, accountants and economists and others, but once they are hired, they will not be different than the other employees. We will not have this problem of two classes of employees, some with this set of rights, some with that set of rights. They will be fully integrated into the SEC's workforce.
It is a workforce which does very good work, which has been overstressed because we gave them a lot more to do and did not immediately give them the resources. This is a case where taking the appropriation bill, together with this bill, we will have given the SEC, whose new chairman, I must say Mr. Donaldson seems to be performing admirably, and I think we are all encouraged that he has done so well, and I think that contributes to the enthusiasm with which we support this legislation. There is a great deal of confidence that he will use this authority in a very appropriate way.
What we have done now is to structure things so the SEC will be able to take full advantage of the appropriation. They will be able to hire the people and the investing public and the American economy will get the protection they deserve.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman has no further requests for time, I congratulate the gentlewoman on being given the right to control nothing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support in H. Res. 658, which recognizes National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Offered by my colleague and friend from…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support in H. Res. 658, which recognizes National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Offered by my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Gary Miller, this resolution is a testament to the benefits of a strong and robust housing market in this country.
A home is more than just the symbol of the American Dream; it is the backbone of the American way of life.
Over the past three years, the housing market has driven the national economy, as Americans bought and refinanced homes in record numbers. Many regions were spared the worst of the recent recession due to the strength of some local housing markets.
Today, the housing sector directly accounts for about 14 percent of the country's total Gross Domestic Product. Building a home involves multiple segments of our economy, including builders, bankers, mortgage lenders, realtors, and numerous others. For every 1,000 single-family homes built, we see 2,500 jobs created, $75 million in wages earned, and $37 million in tax revenues generated.
June is National Homeownership Month and so many of our partners celebrate this because in America, every citizen--regardless of race, creed, color, or place of birth--has the opportunity to own a home of their own. And, new homeowners can create wealth for their families for generations to come, while also helping transform neighborhoods and communities.
Right now 68 percent of all families own homes.
However, the homeownership rate for minorities is around 50 percent. This must improve.
Lagging minority homeownership rates are a serious concern. Minority households are expected to account for two-thirds of household growth over the coming decade.
Improving the ability of such households to make the transition to homeownership will be an important test of the nation's capacity to create economic opportunity for minorities and immigrants and to build strong, stable communities.
Last year, the Housing Subcommittee assisted in the successful enactment of 11 housing related bills. Through bipartisan cooperation with Congresswoman Katherine Harris and Cong. Artur Davis, Congress and the Administration were able to enact legislation
that today is making existing housing programs work better.
Of those enacted last year, the American Dream Downpayment Act and the proposal to raise the FHA multifamily loan limits are helping thousands of individuals and families realize the dream of homeownership. I am especially proud of the American Dream Downpayment Act, which will provide $200 million in grants to help homebuyers with the downpayment and closing costs.
Sponsored by Ms. Harris and Mr. Davis, this bill will assist 40,000 families annually achieve the dream of homeownership and will make available subsidy assistance averaging $5,000, to help low-income, first-time home buying families.
In an effort to continue the goal the increase minority homeownership, on June 3rd of this year the House Financial Services Committee approved HR 3755, the FHA Zero Down Payment Act. This bill, introduced by Congressmen Tiberi and Scott, would provide a program to eliminate the downpayment requirement for certain families and individuals who buy homes with FHA-insured mortgages.
During the enactment of the American Dream Downpayment Act last year, we learned that the biggest obstacle to homeownership for most families is the inability to save enough cash to meet down payment and closing costs. HR 3755 is a good bill that represents another important step forward in helping all Americans achieve the dream of homeownership.
In closing, let me say that the federal government, consumers, and the housing industry are linked by our mutual goal of creating housing opportunities for more Americans.
We have much to achieve together for the American people, and our best hope of being successful is to work in close concert with each other--guided by the same high standards and principles and motivated by the same goals.
In that way, we will continue to open up our communities to new opportunities for growth and prosperity.
Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 658) to provide for the protection of investors, increase confidence in the capital markets system, and fully implement the…
Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 658) to provide for the protection of investors, increase confidence in the capital markets system, and fully implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 by streamlining the hiring process for certain employment positions in the Securities and Exchange Commission, as amended.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is not long ago that the revolutions of corporate misgovernance became apparent to not only those within the corporate world, but to investors around the country. The resulting consequences led many hard- working families who had planned on retirements to reconsider those plans, as the value of the 401(k)s and pensions and savings plans eroded, literally overnight.
In addition to those concerns, it was revealed to the American people that there were corporate executives who
had abused their privileges as the leader of an important national corporation and taken resources inappropriately, illegally, and used them for their own personal gain.
In light of these revelations, the SEC came to this Congress and first asked for additional funding to enhance their regulatory and enforcement capabilities, and this Congress responded. Unfortunately, because of the rules in which the Securities and Exchange Commission is constrained, the ability to utilize that $300 million was greatly inhibited.
In fact, there is a provision within the securities and exchange civil service law which provides for expedited hiring of legal counsel. This particular provision is very narrow in scope but has been utilized successfully over the years to enable the SEC to acquire those legal services as it deems necessary. This provision is known as the excepted service. It is the purpose of this resolution to expand the scope of the excepted service to enable the SEC to further respond to identified problems in the area of accountancy, examination and economics.
If passed, this resolution would enable the Commission to move in an expedited manner to hire the needed accountants, examiners and economists in order to fulfill the mission described for them by this Congress. It solves these problems in a proficient and expedited manner and is important that the SEC have these authorities as stipulated to restore confidence to the investing public.
This is achieved without, I am aware, any opposition to the manner in which the bill is currently constructed. In fact, the union that represents the affected class of employees has now endorsed the legislation in its current form. I am not aware of any pending objection. I am aware of broad-based support, bipartisan support, and the legislation was reported out of committee without objection.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, for the purpose of just complimenting the gentleman on his statement and expressing my appreciation to him for the courtesies extended during the formulation of this legislation.
At the outset, there were modest differences. I think we were able to reach compromise, and I think not only for the SEC function but for taxpayers, shareholders as well, and I appreciate the courtesies extended.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that when we are here to debate a bill on child abuse prevention, that we get into a debate about a…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I do think it is unfortunate that when we are here to debate a bill on child abuse prevention, that we get into a debate about a legitimate difference of opinion as to tax policy. I think that that is unfortunate.
But, be that as it may, I also would say ironically I think it is unfortunate to hear the minority party constantly talking about their hatred of deficits, when every single subcommittee markup of any kind I have been in for the last several months, it is the other party trying to spend more money, more money, more money, and us trying to hold the line.
Let us talk about the rule before us. I rise in support of the rule, which I think is a fair rule, but I also rise in strong support of the bill.
I would like to talk about a particular provision that I worked very hard to get in in the Committee on Education and Workforce, and which I think will do a tremendous amount to actually prevent child abuse, which is what we want to do.
What it does is it says that we look at the causes, the root causes, of child abuse. When you look for the root causes of child abuse to try to prevent it, you find this constant association between abusers of children and abusers of substance. We find it over and over again. Parents who are caught in abusive cycles with drugs and alcohol bring their problems to bear on their children, with often very devastating results in terms of physical brutality against children, sexual abuse of children and psychological abuse of children.
What we noticed, and I bring to bear on this experience my own time spent as a child protective service worker in my home of Bucks County, what we find is that children are born in hospitals every day in this country, and it as clear as can be they are born to mothers who are addicted. These are women who come to the hospitals and bear children who either suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or they suffer from the systemic presence of a drug or actually have what is called neonatal abstinence syndrome. The child is in withdrawal from the drug. It is a pretty good indicator that this child may be returning to a home where it is not safe.
We have wrestled as a society with how do you protect these children. We do not want to necessarily deem the mothers as having abused the child by virtue of their abuse of the substance. We want to provide intervention, but how do you do that?
What this underlying conference committee report says is that when children appear in a hospital and are delivered and have these symptoms of substance abuse apparent, that the mandated reporters, the health care providers, must notify the child protective service agency, and that child protective service agency then must come in and make sure that there is a safe plan of care for the child.
It does not say that it finds abuse necessarily, it does not say that it finds dependency, it just says we need to intervene, we need to talk with the parents of this child and find out how they intend to overcome their own personal issues so that they can be prepared to nurture this vulnerable child.
I think this provision will go in a tremendous way to provide intervention for young children before they are ever subject to abuse, and help not only that child, but help the mother certainly and the father involved as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend and thank the staffs of the committees that worked with us in the House and Senate, and the Committee on Rules for providing a rule under which this conference report can be considered.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, of course, as a freshman legislator, I am here to speak in favor of the rule for…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, of course, as a freshman legislator, I am here to speak in favor of the rule for the conference agreement to S. 342, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, and to speak in favor of the overall piece of legislation. But I stand here and I am listening to the other side and all of the discussion I hear is about a tax bill, and it just makes me wonder if the speakers from the other side plan to vote against this bill, if they are opposed to keeping children and families safe for the foreseeable future.
I am, as most of my colleagues know, a physician Member, Mr. Speaker, of this body; and, in particular, I am an OB-GYN doctor. As such, over the past 28 years, I have delivered over 5,000 precious children. Unfortunately, I wish I could say they were all born healthy and well and in the best of circumstances, but unfortunately, some
were not. I think that my passion for this type of legislation, for protecting children and making sure that every child has an opportunity to be well born and in a healthy environment and going into a healthy family situation, that is what this legislation is all about.
We can talk about the child tax credit and tax issues ad infinitum, but we have already had that debate. What we are talking about here today on the floor of the House is this conference committee report and the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, the Adoption Opportunities Program, the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. That is what this debate is about. I would hope and trust that the Members of the other side will support unanimously this legislation, because we desperately need to protect those of our society, the most precious and vulnerable members of our society; and that is what this great piece of bipartisan legislation is all about.
I am very proud to serve on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and to serve under my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), who brings this bill to us, this reauthorization. It was an honor, it was an honor indeed for this freshman Member of Congress to be appointed to the conference committee on this bill. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) said to me, he had been here 10 years before having an opportunity to be appointed to a conference committee.
So it is indeed a privilege. I think it shows a lot of respect for me as a physician Member and someone who is often in that delivery room seeing these children who may be very possibly born in a situation where the mom has been on substance abuse or drugs during the pregnancy and we, many times, are highly suspicious of that situation because of the condition of the child, the irritability of the child during the physical examination. These children have a certain physical appearance which is very suggestive in some instances of alcohol or substance abuse. And to just simply go from that delivery room to the next one or the next one, or go from there to a surgical procedure, and then back to the medical office where you might see an additional 30 patients a day would be unconscionable.
So this bill calls for, among other things, reporting these instances. I cannot tell my colleagues how supportive I am of this legislation, and I am proud of the leadership for bringing it to us.
Show 11 more
Madam Speaker, this no-cost, commonsense legislation will help the Securities and Exchange Commission carry out its critical mission of protecting investors and promoting capital formation and…
Madam Speaker, this no-cost, commonsense legislation will help the Securities and Exchange Commission carry out its critical mission of protecting investors and promoting capital formation and economic growth.
With the passage of last year's corporate accountability legislation and a substantial budgetary increase, this year the understaffed SEC must hire over 800 new professionals--accountants, securities compliance examiners, and economists--in order to fulfill its regulatory obligations.
In a troubling development, the Commission has had an extraordinarily difficult time hiring these accountants and other professionals responsible for monitoring compliance with the securities laws. Under current bureaucratic rules, it takes the Commission up to 6 months to hire a single accountant, examiner, or economist. Attorneys are classified as ``excepted service'' employees and thus fall outside these burdensome hiring requirements.
Quite simply, this legislation will make it easier for the SEC to hire these professionals in an expeditious manner. That is good news for investors, and will help restore public confidence in the markets. It is strongly supported by both the union and management at the Commission.
I want to commend Chairman Baker for crafting an excellent bipartisan bill and urge all my colleagues to join me in support. I yield back.
Madam Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for his cooperation and assistance in moving this important measure forward. I am placing in the Record an exchange of correspondence regarding our committees' jurisdiction on this matter.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 16, 2003.
Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Oxley: Thank you for working with me in developing
H.R. 658, ``Accountant, Compliance, and Enforcement Staffing
Act of 2003.'' As you know, the Committee on Government
Reform reported the bill, H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and
National Security Personnel Improvement Act. Included in that
Act was Title III, Subtitle A, Securities and Exchange
Commission. It is my understanding that you intend to move
H.R. 658 to the floor through the suspension process with an
amendment that will be substantially the same as Title III,
Subtitle A of H.R. 1836, as reported.
In the interests of moving this important legislation
forward, I am supporting your request to move H.R. 658
through the suspension process with an amendment in the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. The
Committee does hold an interest in preserving its future
jurisdiction with respect to issues raised in the amendment,
and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of
this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a
conference with the Senate. Therefore, I respectfully request
your support for the appointment of an appropriate number of
Members from our respective Committees should such a
conference arise.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional
Record during floor consideration. Thank you for your
assistance and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for yielding me this time. The underlying bill here I think reflects not only bipartisanship, but our common…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my friend, for yielding me this time.
The underlying bill here I think reflects not only bipartisanship, but our common set of values. It is the right approach to how to protect our children.
As the brother of a sister who is adopted, I applaud the efforts that are reflected here and the attempt here. But that bipartisanship, also those common set of values that we come together on, is in sharp contrast to what was done on the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, the other day The New York Times reported that in Iraq right now, 200,000 Iraqis are getting $20 a day who do not show up for work. Mr. Speaker, 200,000 Iraqis, $20 a day who do not show up for work. I come from Chicago. We know something about no-show jobs. We think they are a good thing, periodically. But that stands in stark contrast to the 200,000 active duty troop members who are over there putting their lives on the line who will not get the full child tax credit. Now, where in our common values do we respect the people of Iraq, give them 20 bucks a day who do not show up for work, and yet, to our troops who are over there in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose families are only getting $450 per child tax credit, but not the full $1,000. Where in our common set of values do we say that is the right thing to do?
Over the weekend the AP ran a story that Halliburton's bid for the oil drilling and oil work that they are doing in Iraq originally for $77 million is now running double. It was a no-bid contract and Halliburton, in the year of 2001, did not pay any Federal income taxes and, in fact, got an $85 million rebate. Last week when we were debating the child tax credit, some people described welfare as the full refundable credit; and I have a description of welfare, it is known as corporate welfare, that was done in Halliburton's case.
We here in Congress earn $12,800 a month. That is equivalent to what some of these families earn in a full year who are worthy of this child tax credit.
So I applaud the efforts that were done here to reflect our values and to take care of our children. I applaud the work done here on this bill; but I want to remind our colleagues, this bill's success comes from not only our bipartisanship but working on a common set of values. We need now to come together, come together, work on the conference, Democrats and Republicans, produce a bill, because as July approaches, some families will get this tax cut and other families, 12 million children, 6.5 million families who work full-time, sometimes more than 40 hours a week, will not be getting that tax credit.
Now, originally this bill was passed to get a tax cut to get the economy moving. It was in there in the Senate when they went to conference, but when the Vice President showed up, somehow it got dropped. We all have an obligation from the White House to the Senate to the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to give these middle-class families a tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 276 the Rule governing debate on S. 342, the ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.'' This rule waives all points of order against the…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 276 the Rule governing debate on S. 342, the ``Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003.'' This rule waives all points of order against the Conference Report and its consideration.
Just last week, this Chamber vigorously debated the Child Tax Credit bill. The Republican members of the House of Representatives refused to adopt the Senate-passed tax bill that would have provided relief to 12 million children of hard-working American families. My Democratic colleagues offered a substitute to aid America's children but it was voted down. We have still not passed a Child Tax Credit for America's low-income children.
Now, we prepare to debate the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003. Another bill that is beneficial to America's children by taking strong steps to prevent child abuse. This bill governs dissemination of information about abused children, expands valuable research programs, authorizes grant programs, and many other valuable programs.
The Keeping Children and Families Safe Act was an opportunity to redress the failures of this body in our failure to pass the Child Tax Credit bill last week. By passing this rule, we continue to neglect and jeopardize the welfare of America's children and families, by not immediately passing the Senate Child Tax Credit bill so the President can immediately sign the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Rule governing debate on the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act. I find it ironic that the title of the bill is the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act, and yet will have not passed real Child Tax Credit. This rule jeopardizes America's children, bill for America's most vulnerable children.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res 276
Rule on Conference for Keeping Children & Families Safe Act
At the end of the resolution insert the following new
section:
``Sec. 2. Immediately after disposition of the conference
report, the House shall be considered to have taken from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1307) to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of
the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain
from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax
exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the
uniformed services, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendment thereto, and a motion that the House concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of
the Senate amendment to the text of H.R. 1308 shall be
considered as pending without intervention of any point of
order. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.''
Mr. Speaker, today as we stand here and discuss the conference report on the Keeping Our Children and Families Safe Act, I find it ironic that this week the Republican leadership can find it in their…
Mr. Speaker, today as we stand here and discuss the conference report on the Keeping Our Children and Families Safe Act, I find it ironic that this week the Republican leadership can find it in their hearts to provide much-needed funding to prevent child abuse, which is decent and necessary, but last week they could not provide critical funding for low-income children without voting for additional tax breaks for the rich. These are the very children from low-income families who are statistically likely to suffer from child abuse, perhaps because of frustration piled on families struggling to make ends meet. This week, the Republicans care about children; last week, they did not. What kind of message is this?
The Republican's child tax credit bill, which the House debated last week, was a squandered opportunity to invest in all of our children and their families. We missed the chance to pass a child tax credit bill which would immediately grant our Nation's hard-working families their fair share of the tax credit.
The families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that work long hours at low pay, who pay taxes and earn less than $26,000 a year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break, a break now, like higher income families will get.
Republican actions last week left me no doubt that Republican priorities are dead wrong. Last week the House Republicans should have followed the other body and brought a child tax credit bill before us that would help children now, without burdening them with a tax debt later in life. But, according to the majority leader, ``If we are going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it is welfare.''
Well, Mr. Speaker, these families do pay taxes. They are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich received in the Republican tax package. They deserve tax relief at the same time as other American families. Instead, this supposed party of ``compassionate conservatism'' has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Instead of bringing up the other body's child tax credit bill costing $3.5 billion with offsets to fully pay for it, they passed a bill costing over $80 billion not paid for.
Mr. Speaker, this is at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion, which, by the way, will be paid for by our children, their children, and their children, and on down the line.
Mr. Speaker, our priority must be putting money in the hands of working Americans while keeping our fiscal house in order. That way we can create jobs and build a strong economy. We are helping our children today by protecting them from child abuse, but being poor is abuse of another kind.
Mr. Speaker, children are 25 percent of the population of this Nation, but they are 100 percent of our Nation's future.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would authorize $312 million for several programs that seek to prevent child abuse, expand adoption opportunities, assist abandoned infants, and prevent family violence;…
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would authorize $312 million for several programs that seek to prevent child abuse, expand adoption opportunities, assist abandoned infants, and prevent family violence; good goals, good values, good measures. Child abuse is an important issue. It has many, many manifestations. It is attributable to many causes, including, and let me just mention, there is a pending issue in this body, a piece of unfinished business that pertains to our Nation's children; and, if you will, our delaying on this issue directly abuses American children.
What we need to do is to restore the child tax credit to the 6.5 million families this Republican leadership continues to leave behind. That is child abuse. The families of 12 million children generally earn minimum wage. They are tax-paying families. They deserve tax relief like every other family. They have bills to pay, mouths to feed, children to care for, just like every other family. And with the economy stuck in a rut, they cannot go to bed at night knowing whether their job will even be there for them the week after next.
These families pay taxes. They make between $10,500 and $26,600 a year. They pay taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes. And they pay a greater share of their income in taxes than Enron did; and for the last 5 years, I say to my colleagues, Enron paid zero taxes. There are lots of individuals who are getting the benefit of $93,000 worth of tax cuts every year, those who are the 184,000 millionaires in this country. I will bet some of them have not paid all of the taxes that they were supposed to have been paying all of these years.
That is why what this House needs to do is to take up the other body's child tax credit legislation, legislation that was denied a simple up or down vote in the House of Representatives.
Let me be clear. The majority has said that these 6.5 million families are not their priority. What they tried to do last week is, in essence, they passed a bill here which would kill the opportunity for the $3.5 billion to address this issue and it would be taken care of. I would just quote the Committee on Ways and Means chairman. He says he is going to be heavily focused on a different issue and that they would be surprised if a conference between the House and Senate could begin this week. They are going to kill this piece of legislation because they do not really care about the 6.5 million families or the 12 million children.
Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us address this issue. Let us end this kind of child abuse.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 658, the Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003. This legislation will help streamline the hiring process at the SEC, and it will…
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 658, the Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003. This legislation will help streamline the hiring process at the SEC, and it will allow the Commission to employ additional, much-needed securities industry accountants, compliance examiners and economists in an expedited manner. Believe me, they need it.
As we work to improve investor confidence, I think it is very important that we work to strengthen the SEC and send a clear message to the American people that we are not going to tolerate corporate misconduct.
Last year, Congress increased the funding for the SEC by more than $270 million. It was a 62 percent increase. We did that because we want to help America understand that we are not going to tolerate corporate misconduct. This monumental increase will help the SEC to enhance their overall operations which are crucial to implementing and enforcing new corporate governance requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, but the Commission is still severely hamstrung by current hiring practices. Now the need for this legislation is more urgent than ever.
With the hiring of accountant positions lagging far behind other professionals in the SEC, it is imperative that Congress give the Commission direct hiring authority for these critical positions. What we must do is enable the agency to fill them in a timely manner, the quicker the better, and that is what this legislation does.
I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for introducing this important legislation and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for moving it through the committee and
working with the House leadership to get it on the floor. They have continued to work tirelessly on these issue and they are to be commended.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help the SEC protect America's investors and restore integrity in the market.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to control the remainder of the time for consideration of
Madam Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and we yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me time. I also want to commend the subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services that is dealing effectively in…
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me time. I also want to commend the subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services that is dealing effectively in many ways with the creation and development of instruments that lend themselves to increasing homeownership. So I come to support this resolution.
We have heard how home ownership is a part of the American dream. I think it is commendable that we can boast of 68 percent homeownership in America. But, at the same time, I am reminded of disparities that exist.
For example, in my Congressional district only 38 percent of the people own their homes. Only 28 percent of the African Americans in my Congressional district own their homes. Yet I
commend Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, local mortgage companies, banks, the City of Chicago, for programs that have been established and are working well.
I also commend the Congressional Black Caucus, who recognized that with ownership comes wealth, and has created a national program called WOW, With Ownership Wealth, pointing out to people that you can spend 50 years paying rent, and at the end of 50 years all that you really have to show is a drawer full or a desk full of rent receipts; that you have no ownership, no equity value, nothing that you can pass on to those coming after you.
So we still need additional instruments, because, for many Americans, the dream is still a horrible nightmare, because they feel that there is no way they can purchase a home. They think that you have got to have too much down payment. They think that their credit does not meet the standards or the requirements.
So as we commend ourselves, we also need to continue to look for instruments that can help make the American dream for more of our citizens a reality, so that they too can have that dream of living in the house by the side of the road, watching men and women go by.
So I commend the subcommittee for its progress, I support this resolution, and urge that we continue to find those ways that can include and bring more people into the system.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this resolution and the gentleman from Georgia for his support. America is a great country for a lot of reasons, but amongst…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this resolution and the gentleman from Georgia for his support.
America is a great country for a lot of reasons, but amongst the most important is the wide distribution and ownership of real estate in this country. We are a Nation of owners, not of tenants, and that sets America apart. And in the last decade, we have had dramatic change because of dramatic leadership.
I entered the real estate industry in 1968, and then it was hard to buy a home; with the exception of VA loans and FHA loans, almost impossible. But things have changed because of the leadership of this Congress, because of the leadership of this President, and because of the leadership of the financial industry in this country.
Jim Johnson, in his book of a decade ago Showing America a New Way Home, declared through Fannie Mae an ability and a desire to see to it that Americans who could not find homeownership could, in fact, find it. And, boy, did they ever. Through creative financing mechanisms and through targeted programs, today Americans who never dreamed of owning homes do. Through the National Association of Home Builders, easy- living homes were created; where handicapped and disabled Americans now find available, affordable, accessible housing in the competitive marketplace, which 30 years ago was not possible.
Those who do not own their own automobile now find financial incentives and preferences in financing to locate in housing near Metro centers, bus stations and rapid transit.
In essence, through the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Learning Institutions of America, this Congress and the President of the United States, the American dream of 100 years ago is the American reality for 2 out of every 3 Americans, and in the months and years ahead, as we work forward to improve that, we will only improve the greatness of the United States of America and the distinction that separates us from the rest of the world.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 658, the ``Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003,'' which was introduced by Chairman Richard Baker of the Financial Services…
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 658, the ``Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003,'' which was introduced by Chairman Richard Baker of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises in February of this year. The legislation would grant the Securities and Exchange Commission the flexibility to circumvent current federal hiring procedures in hiring accountants, economists and compliance examiners at the Commission.
The legislation being considered today is identical to the provision granting hiring flexibilities for the Securities and Exchange Commission that was considered and approved by the Government Reform Committee on May 7 as part of H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act. The Government Reform Committee and the Financial Services Committee worked together with the Securities and Exchange Commission to craft this important legislation that should help to resolve some of the staffing shortages facing the Commission at a time when oversight of the financial markets is essential to restoring public confidence in the economy.
One of my goals as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over federal civil service policy is to reform agency hiring processes government-wide. However, in considering some of the immediate challenges and staff shortages facing the Commission, I felt it was important to address their situation immediately, and then begin to focus on the rest of the federal government.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to working with them in the future as we move toward comprehensive reform of federal hiring procedures.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as we discuss keeping children and families safe, I cannot help but be reminded of a popular song that Marvin Gaye used…
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as we discuss keeping children and families safe, I cannot help but be reminded of a popular song that Marvin Gaye used to sing, and the words went sort of like this. He says, ``Who will save the children? Who is willing to try? Who will save a world that is destined to die? Save the babies.''
The reality is, Mr. Speaker, that when we talk about protecting families and saving children and refuse to provide a meager tax credit for those at the bottom of the barrel, for those who can barely survive, who can barely make it, it seems to me we are being contradictory.
It is abusive in my mind when we refuse to fully fund education so that every child can have a meaningful head start, to get a grip and a handle on life. It is abusive when we leave children out of being protected so that they can have the kind of health care that they need. And it is certainly abusive that we have 2.7 million people who have lost their jobs in the last 2 years and cannot find a way to really make it. And while I agree that programs and activities are always good and meaningful and beneficial, policies are even better.
I would hope that as we try and find these ways to protect our children, that which would protect their families by giving them a meaningful opportunity to earn a living, to have a job, to have the monies that are needed so that they are not frustrated and resort to behavior that causes them, in many instances, to abuse children.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask, who will save the world? Who is willing to try? Who will save a world that is destined to die? Let us save the children.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 658, the Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003. This very critical legislation will allow the Securities and Exchange Commission…
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 658, the Accountant, Compliance and Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003. This very critical legislation will allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to hire much-needed accountants, compliance examiners and economists outside of the bureaucratic and burdensome civil service hiring guidelines.
In fiscal year 2003, we increased the Securities and Exchange Commission's budget by 63 percent, largely to allow for an additional 800 professional staff members. On top of that, last year's supplemental appropriation bill provided $25 million to the SEC for the purpose of hiring 125 new accountants, examiners and economists. This increased funding was provided because the SEC desperately needs these professionals to enforce the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate accountability reforms, corporate accountability standards that were established by this body and standards that are very vital importance for investor protection. Yet, because of the bureaucratic civil service hiring guidelines, these positions have not yet been filled.
H.R. 658 does not set new precedent. Indeed, all FBI employees, as well as health care professionals at the Department of Defense, are exempt from civil service hiring standards. This is good, common sense legislation that will significantly help the Securities and Exchange Commission protect investors.
I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for crafting this important and very timely bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support.
Bill Text
6 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 658 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
H.R.658
One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the seventh day of January, two thousand and three
An Act
To provide for the protection of investors, increase confidence in the
capital markets system, and fully implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 by streamlining the hiring process for certain employment positions
in the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Accountant, Compliance, and
Enforcement Staffing Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. APPOINTMENT OF ACCOUNTANTS, ECONOMISTS, AND EXAMINERS BY THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 31 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3114. Appointment of accountants, economists, and examiners by
the Securities and Exchange Commission
``(a) Applicability.--This section applies with respect to any
position of accountant, economist, and securities compliance examiner
at the Commission that is in the competitive service.
``(b) Appointment Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Commission may appoint candidates to any
position described in subsection (a)--
``(A) in accordance with the statutes, rules, and
regulations governing appointments in the excepted service; and
``(B) notwithstanding any statutes, rules, and regulations
governing appointments in the competitive service.
``(2) Rule of construction.--The appointment of a candidate to
a position under authority of this subsection shall not be
considered to cause such position to be converted from the
competitive service to the excepted service.
``(c) Reports.--No later than 90 days after the end of fiscal year
2003 (for fiscal year 2003) and 90 days after the end of fiscal year
2005 (for fiscal years 2004 and 2005), the Commission shall submit a
report with respect to its exercise of the authority granted by
subsection (b) during such fiscal years to the Committee on Government
Reform and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate. Such
reports shall describe the changes in the hiring process authorized by
such subsection, including relevant information related to--
``(1) the quality of candidates;
``(2) the procedures used by the Commission to select
candidates through the streamlined hiring process;
``(3) the numbers, types, and grades of employees hired under
the authority;
``(4) any benefits or shortcomings associated with the use of
the authority;
``(5) the effect of the exercise of the authority on the hiring
of veterans and other demographic groups; and
``(6) the way in which managers were trained in the
administration of the streamlined hiring system.
``(d) Commission Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term
`Commission' means the Securities and Exchange Commission.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 31 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 3113 the following:
``3114. Appointment of accountants, economists, and examiners by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.''.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.