Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
November 21, 2003 • 7:33 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
November 20, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-389, by Mr. Linder.
November 20, 2003
Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules: (1) a bill or joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2004 or any amendment thereto; (2) a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, any amendment thereto, or any conference report thereon.
November 20, 2003 • 10:24 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 134.
November 20, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H12181-12186)
November 21, 2003 • 4:36 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 458.
November 21, 2003 • 4:36 PM
DEBATE - The House resumed debate on H. Res. 458.
November 21, 2003 • 4:45 PM
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 458, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Frost demanded the yeas and nays and pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX the Chair postponed further proceedings on ordering the previous question until later in the legislative day.
November 21, 2003 • 5:10 PM
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H12225-12226)
November 21, 2003 • 7:16 PM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 225 - 202 (Roll no. 661). (consideration: CR H12185-12186, H12225-12226; text: CR H12185)
November 21, 2003 • 7:25 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 224 - 203 (Roll no. 662).(text: CR H12181)
November 21, 2003 • 7:33 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 224 - 203 (Roll no. 662). (text: CR H12181)
November 21, 2003 • 7:33 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
November 21, 2003 • 7:33 PM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 458 on the floor
MGO
SB
MF
SWK
BF+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 458 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2622) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to prevent identity theft, improve resolution of consumer…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2622) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to prevent identity theft, improve resolution of consumer disputes, improve the accuracy of consumer records, make improvements in the use of, and consumer access to, credit information, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report and insert extraneous material thereon.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring before the House today the conference report on H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. This is a bipartisan bill that will foster economic growth and development throughout this country. When 9/11 hit our country, Congress responded quickly with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. When corporate scandals threatened to undermine the integrity of the stock market, we responded with the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. And today, as the laws governing our national credit markets are set to expire, we must again respond swiftly and responsibly with the passage of this bipartisan solution to keep the American economy stable and growing and assure that the American consumer continues to enjoy the benefits of a robust national credit granting system.
One of the hallmarks of the modern U.S. economy is quick and convenient access to consumer credit. Though it would seem unimaginable a generation ago, consumers can now qualify for a mortgage over the telephone, walk into a showroom and finance the purchase of a car in one sitting, and get department store credit within minutes. As the distinguished Federal Trade Commission chairman Tim Muris has stated, the ``miracle of instant credit'' created by our national credit reporting system has given American consumers a level of access to financial services and products that is unrivaled anywhere in the world. The protection and growth of these services, as provided for in this legislation, are critical to the success of our economy.
Since the Fair Credit Reporting Act's uniform national standards were established in 1996, we have achieved some of the lowest mortgage rates and credit rates on record, with more competition and more offerings for consumers than ever before. This has led to the record level of credit available today to all Americans, regardless of income level. Over the past 30 years, the availability of nonmortgage credit to households in the lowest income bracket has increased by nearly 70 percent, including a nearly threefold increase in the number of low- income households owning credit cards just in this last decade. The increase of available credit, coupled with the declining price of this credit, has also fueled the record homeownership levels we are experiencing today, again with the largest gains achieved by low- and moderate-income groups. These improvements in the credit and mortgage systems have saved consumers nearly $100 billion annually, according to some estimates.
In addition to preserving our vital national credit system, this legislation is an extremely comprehensive consumer protection bill. The protections are designed to meet head-on the growing crime of identity theft which has accompanied the expanding credit market in our country. The FTC released a study in early September which revealed the damaging extent of this crime in our country. Ten million Americans were victimized by identity thieves last year alone, costing consumers and businesses over $55 billion, not counting the 300 million hours spent by victims to try to repair damaged credit records. The financial costs are staggering, with over $10,000 stolen in the average fraud.
The Committee on Financial Services has worked tirelessly to explore and find solutions to this destructive crime. Over 100 witnesses have come before the committee since last April to discuss the renewal of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and many of them focused their statements on the urgent
need to increase safeguards designed to protect consumers and businesses alike from this crime. With the bipartisan support in the House, as well as valuable input and assistance from our friends in the Senate, we have a bill before us today that empowers both consumers and businesses as we attempt to eliminate this terrible crime. Congress needs to pass strong, uniform identity theft protection; and it needs to do it now.
This conference report preserves many key elements designed to fight identity theft from the bill that passed the House with close to 400 votes. These strong new identity theft provisions standards established by the bill will be national, ensuring uniform protection for consumers in all 50 States.
This legislation includes provisions that allow consumers to place fraud alerts, allowing consumers to block information from being given to a credit bureau, providing identity theft victims with a summary of their rights, giving consumers the right to see their credit scores, giving all consumers the right to a free copy of their credit report, restricting access to consumers' sensitive health information, simplifying the way consumers can limit unsolicited marketing offers, ensuring improved accuracy of credit reporting procedures, and providing consumers with one-call-for-all protection by requiring credit bureaus to share consumer calls on identity theft, including requested fraud alert blocking.
This legislation also provides valuable tools and resources to financial institutions to ensure accuracy and prevent identity theft. These provisions include requiring creditors to take certain precautions before extending credit to consumers who have placed fraud alerts in their files; prohibiting merchants from printing more than the last five digits of a payment card on an electronic receipt, and others.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rather lengthy and long statement, and I will submit this for the Record.
I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for taking on this challenging and important legislation. Also to the chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who sat through hours of hearings, over 100 witnesses in eight separate hearings; to Chairman Shelby who chaired the conference committee and also, of course, is the chairman of the Banking Committee in the Senate, as well as Ranking Member Sarbanes for working in good faith on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, this was indeed truly a bipartisan, bicameral effort. We worked very closely with the White House and the Treasury to put together this conference report. This is good public policy. It is good for the country's economy, maintaining this constant flow of credit that we have come to take for granted. This is positive legislation, and I urge all Members to give it their strong support.
This legislation also provides valuable tools and resources to financial institutions to ensure accuracy and prevent identity theft. These provisions include:
Requiring creditors to take certain precautions before extending credit to consumers who have placed ``fraud alerts'' in their files; prohibiting merchants from printing more than the last 5 digits of a payment card on an electronic receipt; requiring banks to develop policies and procedures to identify potential instances of identity theft; and requiring financial institutions to reconcile potentially fraudulent consumer address information.
It is our duty to protect our national credit system and the economic growth that this system promotes by continuing to provide Americans with the most affordable and accessible credit market in the world today. We must ensure that the U.S. remains the engine of growth for the global economy.
I want to thank my ranking member from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, for taking on this challenging and imperative legislative project and for engaging all the major stakeholders in crafting a bipartisan piece of well balanced, highly effective legislation. I would also like to thank my friends from the Senate Banking Committee, Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes, for working in good faith to resolve differences between the House and Senate products. And finally, a huge debt of gratitude is owed by Members of this body to the gentleman from Alabama, Spencer Bachus, who wrote the House version of this bill; presided over countless hearings in his capacity as Chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee; and helped lead the House conferees to a successful outcome in our negotiations with the Senate. Without the gentleman from Alabama, we would not be standing on the House floor today about to pass this historic consumer protection legislation.
The final FCRA legislation states that no requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State with respect to the conduct required under the nine specific provisions included in the new identity theft preemption provision of the law. Accordingly, States cannot act to impose any requirements or prohibitions with respect to the conduct addressed by any of these provisions or the conduct addressed by any of the federal regulations adopted under these nine provisions. All of the rules and requirements governing the conduct of any person in these areas are governed solely by federal law and any State that attempts to impose requirements or prohibitions in these areas would be preempted.
I should note that the legislation lists the provisions to be preempted. However, to the extent such provisions would enjoy preemption under another provision in the FCRA, the other provision would control.
One of the central elements of the approach taken by the bill that the House passed overwhelmingly last September was to make the new fraud prevention and mitigation provisions contained in the legislation the new uniform national standards on those subject matters. The bill was drafted in this way because identity theft is a national concern, not only because of its impact on our system of granting credit, but because it knows no boundaries. The consumer victim may be in one State, the financial institution victim in another State, and the perpetrator may be in a third State. The credit bureaus that receive and report information relating to a fraudulent account may be in yet a fourth State.
In drafting the House bill, we were careful to stipulate--and to clarify in a colloquy on the House floor among the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, and myself--that the uniform national standards for identity theft were limited to the subject matters that the bill's provisions actually address, such as fraud alerts, blocking bad credit information, and truncating credit card account numbers at the point of sale. Thus, for example, this national uniformity would not affect State criminal statutes, or State laws governing the public display of social security numbers.
The conference committee further refined this standard, by providing that the new uniform national standards on identity theft created by this legislation apply with respect to the conduct required by those specific provisions.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this Conference Report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, who has done such a wonderful job on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, who has an important measure in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), a valuable member of the committee.
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), a former prosecutor, who has done such great work, particularly in the identity theft part of the legislation.
(Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any further speakers?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
I have the right to close, is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
First of all, I want to thank the staff. I always tend to forget to do that, and we have been through a lot on this bill. This is a complicated piece of legislation that got more complicated as we took on this whole issue of identity theft, and throughout this process, the staff on both sides of the aisle have been just superb, working late nights and early mornings to get us where we are today, and I want to personally thank them for their efforts. They know who they are, and I know who they are and we most appreciate it, and also to the Members, I think this is, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a textbook example of how the legislative process ought to work in terms of hearings, in terms of everybody having an opportunity to have their say, involving Members on both sides of the aisle, many of them newer Members, freshmen Members, to really get their feet wet on an important piece of legislation that we bring to the floor today and this conference report that will close it out.
This is truly a historic day, and I think in the real traditional way that we have started in the Committee on Financial Services of turning out good legislation in a bipartisan manner, and for that, I am very thankful to all concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I am going to limit my time to thanking Members, because this legislation I think more than anything is a testimony of what we as Members…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
I am going to limit my time to thanking Members, because this legislation I think more than anything is a testimony of what we as Members do when we all work in the best interests of the American public.
This bill contains sweeping new protections against identity fraud. It also will enable consumers, which make up 70 percent of our economy, to have available more credit and more choices. And as important as that is, it does a third thing. It has many different tools to ensure that our credit information is accurately reported and that our private information and confidential information such as medical records are not shared.
At this time, I would like to thank the cosponsors. This bill was introduced by me; the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), whom we have heard from; the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert); and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore). The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) all had significant input into this legislation. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), a lot of the fraud provisions were drafted by him or the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ross), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).
All of these Members participated in this process, and the bill, which was passed almost unanimously by the House, went over to the Senate; and I would like to credit the other body for working, I think, in a professional manner and improving what we thought was a wonderful bill. And then, in conference, I would finally like to salute the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), first, for giving me the opportunity of working on this legislation; and secondly, I would like to salute him and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our conferees, Mr. Sarbanes and Chairman Shelby. All of the people I have named deserve particular praise for a wonderful piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (``FACT Act''). H.R. 2622 represents the culmination of my efforts, and those of my colleagues, to craft legislation to strengthen our economy and to provide consumers with meaningful identity theft protections. The FACT Act is the bi-partisan product of a thorough review of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (``FCRA''), identity theft, and related issues, Indeed, the legislation was approved overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 392-30 and in the Senate by a vote of 95-2.
I want to express my deepest sense of gratitude to Chairman Oxley who gave me the opportunity to introduce this landmark piece of legislation and then skillfully guided it through the legislative process. In my career as a legislator, it is only on a rare occasion when you get the chance to draft legislation in such a bipartisan and cooperative atmosphere. The Chairman deserves a lot of credit for establishing such a collegial process, and I think our legislative product is better because of his efforts.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. I conducted 8 hearings on the FCRA and related issues over the past year, receiving testimony from nearly one hundred witnesses including consumer groups, businesses, law enforcement, and various government regulators. On June 26, 2003, I introduced H.R. 2622 with Representatives Hooley, Biggert, and Moore. The FACT Act--a byproduct of our hearings and bipartisan cooperation--passed its version of FCRA legislation--S. 1753--by a vote of 95-2. This week, the conference report to H.R. 2622 was approved almost unanimously by the conferees from both the House and Senate. H.R. 2622 is supported by a broad coalition of interested parties, including large financial institutions, community banks, credit unions, retailers as well as the Administration.
H.R. 2622 will benefit consumers and our economy by ensuring the continuity of our national uniform credit system. Indeed, our economy depends on several national delivery systems--each represented by incredible amounts of investment and infrastructure. For example, the national interstate highway system and our telecommunications networks are all critical to our national economy. Today we can drive from state to state without worrying
about whether a road will come to an abrupt end at the state line. Our consumer credit system is similar to these examples--we do not really think about it, we just expect that it will work. Although not perfect, our consumer credit system makes life better, easier, and cheaper for American consumers.
Just as our highway and telecommunications networks have improved and become more efficient over the years, so has our credit system. Creditors have always needed to evaluate the likelihood that a borrower would repay a loan. As a result of the framework established by the FCRA, creditors, no longer need to ``eyeball'' an applicant and review application materials for days or weeks. Rather, our national credit system has produced a virtually seamless system whereby consumers can apply for, and receive a decision on, credit within minutes. The national uniform system has also lowered costs and increased choice and convenience for American consumers. By far the most striking result of our national credit system is the dramatically increased availability of credit--or the ``democratization'' of credit. However, this system could be put in jeopardy if the state law uniform standards in the FCRA were permitted to expire on January 1, 2004. H.R. 2622 would ensure the continuity of our national credit system by making these standards permanent.
The conference report also directly addresses the problem of identity theft.
Sec. 151 of the conference report requires that the FTC and the federal banking regulators provide identify theft victims with a summary of their rights. It is important for the agencies to let consumers know that identity thieves target home computers because they contain a goldmine of personal financial information about individuals. In educating the public about how to avoid becoming a victim of identity theft, the FTC and the federal banking regulators should inform consumers about the risks associated with having an `always on' Internet connection not secured by a firewall, not protecting against viruses or other malicious codes, using peer-to-peer file trading software that might expose diverse contents of their hard drives without their knowledge, or failing to use safe computing practices in general.
Identity theft occurs when a criminal obtains enough information about an individual to allow the criminal to ``assume'' that individual's identity for nefarious purposes. My Subcommittee heard from two identity theft victims. Their stories were truly nightmarish, and we need to work to prevent countless others from joining the ranks of identity theft victims. Not only does identity theft harm the direct victims, but it also has an impact on all consumers. Financial institutions lose millions of dollars each year as a result of identity theft. This increased cost on financial institutions is absorbed, at least in part, through increased costs of financial products and services to all consumers.
H.R. 2622 will also improve consumers' access and understanding of their credit information by allowing consumers to request a free credit report annually from each credit bureau. In addition, consumers will have the opportunity to obtain their credit scores from credit bureaus. Transparency in the credit granting and reporting process will increase consumers' financial literacy and improve their confidence in the financial services system in general.
I want to commend Chairman Oxley for the tremendous leadership he has shown in steering this complex bill through the legislative process. I also want to thank the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Frank, for his support of this important piece of legislation. In addition, let me commend Ms. Hooley, Ms. Biggert, Mr. Moore, Mr. LaTourette and the Members of the Financial Services Committee on each of their efforts. I also appreciate the efforts of Mr. Sanders, the Ranking Member on my subcommittee, for his work on this issue. Lastly, I want to mention my appreciation for the input we received from the Administration, particularly from Treasury Secretary John Snow and Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Wayne Abernathy.
Let me also take this opportunity to thank the staff members on the House Financial Services Committee who worked on this legislation. Both Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank are to be commended for assembling such a talented group of staff to work on H.R. 2622. On the majority side, I would like to thank Bob Foster, Hugh Halpern, Carter McDowell, Jim Clinger; Robert Gordon, Charles Symington, Karen Lynch-- who no longer works for the committee but did a lot of work on this issue before leaving--and Dina Ellis, my designee on the Committee. I would also like to thank Warren Tryon of my staff for his work on this issue. On the minority staff, I would like to thank the following staff members: Jeanne Roslanowick, Jaime Lizarraga, Ken Swab, Erika Jeffers, Dean Sagar and Warren Gunnels.
In conclusion, I would like to note that I am proud of the work we have done in crafting H.R. 2622. This has been, by necessity, a long and thorough process. I believe H.R. 2622 presents a solid achievement in protecting the security of consumers' personal information, enhancing the transparency of the credit reporting process, and ensuring continued access to a wide variety of financial products at low cost.
Mr. Speaker, our economy today is important to all of us. That goes without saying. But what a lot of people do not realize is that two- thirds of our economy is consumer spending. That is the driver in our economy today. And consumer spending today is contingent upon maintaining a national uniform credit reporting system. I urge all of my colleagues to support our economy by voting for H.R. 2622.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
Mr. Speaker, it is, yes.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I share that understanding. Not only
should consumers know they can opt out of getting these offers, they should also know that opting out or not affects their chances of getting additional credit offers with competitive terms.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I agree.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I would be glad to engage in a colloquy. I think what the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) was inquiring into was that the Florida Banking Association has created a system that permits banks to combat identity theft, check fraud, and other criminal activity. And as I understand it, this system it produces reports that banks use exclusively to fight fraud not for the purpose, either in whole or part, of determining an individual's eligibility for credit insurance and employment.
And she has asked me to confirm that information that is provided for the exclusive purpose of detecting, preventing, or deterring a financial crime identity theft, or the funding of a criminal activity does not constitute a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even as amended by
this bill. And my response to that is that is correct. Such information was not a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as it existed before this legislation, nor will it constitute a consumer report as amended by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Speaker, marshal law rules like this one are symptomatic of…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, marshal law rules like this one are symptomatic of the failure of this Republican government. Republicans are doing such harm to America, from Medicare and the economy to foreign policy and homeland security, that keeping the public in the dark has become their chief priority.
So today, Republican leaders are yet again waiving the rules of the House. Later today they plan to do it in order to force through their plan to end Medicare as we know it, which is how the chief author of the Republican Medicare bill describes their goal.
But first, Republican leaders want to pass this marshal law rule so that they can rush through a spending bill before Members, the press, and the public have had the chance to find out what is really in it.
Mr. Speaker, they will not even tell us which spending bill they plan to hide from us today. All we know is that it will either spend tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, or that it will spend hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Either way, it will become law before it has even been read by anyone except for a handful of Republicans at the White House and in the Congress. But since these are the same Republicans who have exploded the budget deficit to nearly $500 billion, raising the debt tax on all Americans, no one has much faith in them anymore.
Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of controlling the Congress, the Republican Party's fundamental goal is simply protecting its own power by hiding from the public the damage they are doing to America. Of course, if you look at the Republican record, you can understand why they are so desperate to keep it hidden. In the nearly 3 years since George Bush became President, Republicans have created a whole host of problems for the American people.
On national security, the Bush administration has plunged this Nation into its worst foreign policy crisis since the end of the cold war because they would not trust the American people with the truth about Iraq and because they could not work with our allies around the world. And while U.S. taxpayers are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, our homeland defense needs here in the United States remain dangerously unmet.
On domestic policy, of course, Republicans are going for the right wing gold. Later today they will try to finalize Newt Gingrich's dream of forcing Medicare to wither on the vine, shattering Medicare's nearly 40-year-old promise to American citizens. That debate, Mr. Speaker, will be a case study in the public dishonesty that is fundamental to the Republican government.
Over and over again, Republicans will repeat their poll-tested sound bytes. They will save Medicare reform and hope that millions of seniors do not notice the Republicans are forcing them out of traditional Medicare and into HMOs and insurance companies. They will talk about choice and ignore the fact that millions of seniors will lose the ability to choose their own doctors. And they will decry skyrocketing prescription prices and hope no one notices that they are actually protecting drug company profits by making it illegal for Medicare to negotiate lower prices for senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans will wax poetic about the generosity of their drug benefit, hiding the fact that premiums and benefits will actually be set by HMOs and insurance companies; and that even under the Republicans rosiest scenario, seniors with average drug bills will still have to pay about $2,500 per year out of their own pockets. Of course, Republicans will not say a thing about the $12 billion slush funds they are setting up for HMOs or insurance companies or the $139 billion in windfall profits they are giving to the big drug companies.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder the Republican Medicare bill does not take effect until after the election. Republican political strategists are desperately hoping that seniors do not discover this truth about this assault on Medicare before they go to the polls in 2004. But
make no mistake, when seniors sit down at their kitchen tables to pay their bills, they are going to do the math, and they are going to see that Republicans have sold them a very expensive and very harmful bill of goods.
Mr. Speaker, the false promise of the Republican Medicare plan will remind a lot of Americans of the false promise of the Republican economic plan. In less than 3 years, the Republicans have taken a historic budget surplus and turned it into a monumental deficit. They have done it through reckless fiscal irresponsibility and through an obsession with spending billions of taxpayer dollars for a small elite of the wealthiest few, people like the Bush campaign fund-raising Pioneers.
As a result, instead of using the budget surplus to help address priorities like skyrocketing prescription prices and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have created a fiscal crisis and raised the debt tax on all Americans.
Along the way, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost, giving George W. Bush the worst job performance of any President since The Great Depression. Millions of families no longer share in the prosperity of the nineties. Of course, you would never know the facts if you just listened to Republican rhetoric. But talking points cannot cancel out the truth. And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. More than 2 million workers have been unable to find a job in this economy for more than 6 months, and many of them will lose their unemployment insurance over the holidays if this Republican Congress does not act this year before we adjourn.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. That is the only way to ensure Republicans do not leave town for their own holiday vacations without providing unemployed Americans with the help they so desperately need.
Mr. Speaker, Americans are smarter than Republican leaders give them credit for. They know the difference between rhetoric and reality. So I urge my Republican friends to look past their leader's rhetoric and join me in providing real help to Americans suffering through this economy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).
(Mr. Stark asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes this resolution, it will take up legislation to extend the Federal unemployment insurance that is set to expire for new enrollees just 2 days after Christmas.
This legislation would continue the extended unemployment insurance program through the first 6 months of next year. The bill would also increase to 26 weeks the amount of benefits provided under that program, up from 13 weeks. This would provide new help to the 1.4 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits and have yet to find work.
This measure is identical to the text of H.R. 3244, the Rangel-Cardin unemployment extension; and it also contains the text of H.R. 3554, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), which would fix a flaw in current law that penalizes people in States with exceptionally high long-term unemployment rates by preventing them from receiving the unemployment benefits they need.
Here is why it is needed, Mr. Speaker. Americans continue to be unemployed at alarmingly high rates. The percentage of Americans exhausting their unemployment benefits without finding a job has reached its highest level on record. More than 2 million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. If we do not fix this today, over 400,000 jobless Americans will not be eligible for unemployment compensation after the first of the year.
Mr. Speaker, it appears likely that Congress will adjourn sine die within the next few days. This will very likely be the only opportunity we have to help unemployed Americans this year. Let us not abandon them today.
Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of this resolution for consideration of the appropriations items, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on legislation to help provide some much-needed relief to our Nation's unemployed workers, some relief that might be nice during the upcoming holiday season.
Again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
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 yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, it happens I do not agree with the previous speaker. I rise in strong support of the conference report before us. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the…
Mr. Speaker, it happens I do not agree with the previous speaker. I rise in strong support of the conference report before us. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank) and their counterparts in the Senate for moving this legislation with great thoroughness, deliberation, and really in a strong spirit of bipartisanship.
At the heart of the legislation is the permanent reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It has provided a national uniform credit reporting system that has effectively lowered the cost of credit. And it has increased the choice and convenience for millions of Americans across the country.
The FCRA has helped to address other vital security issues such as combating identity theft and blocking terrorist financing under the U.S.A. Patriot Act, both issues that I have held hearings on in my subcommittee.
Combating identity theft and drying up terrorist financing requires a collaborative effort of law enforcement and regulatory agencies, consumers, and financial institutions, all with access to appropriate information.
We have also made some other important improvements to the FCRA in order to protect the sanctity of privacy for the American people throughout the credit granting process. I believe that one of the most important pieces of that is medical information. The medical information of consumers should be kept private. It does not need to be shared or be distributed by creditors or listed on credit reports.
Individuals should know that their personal medical information belongs to them and it is not released for any other purposes, whether it is for the credit-granting process or employee background checks. And we have done that with our legislation by coding the information.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) for working with me on this amendment that will protect medical information of individuals without disrupting the access to low-cost credit and the security of information.
By allowing consumers to benefit from reporting the financial aspects of their transactions to credit bureaus while maintaining the sanctity of their medical privacy, this legislation is a real win for all Americans.
Finally, I am pleased we were able to include a new title in the legislation, which creates a Commission on Financial Literacy and Education, or the SAFE Act. As a result of that strategy, we will have a clear vision of the future financial literacy that will be the benefit of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference Report before us.
I would like to commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank--and their counterparts in the Senate--for moving this legislation with great thoroughness and deliberation and in the spirit of bipartisanship.
The legislation, ``The FACT Act'', is the result of a dozen hearings, one hundred witnesses, and months of deliberations by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the Capitol.
At the heart of the legislation is the permanent reauthorization of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA. FCRA has provided a national uniform credit reporting system that has effectively lowered the cost of credit, and increased choice and convenience for millions of Americans across the country.
As a conferee on this report, I can tell you that we worked with many diverse interests before we reached a unified, solid product. And in this product, we have built on the framework of FCRA to ensure that the legislation continues to lower the cost of credit and help fuel our economy--while also creating new opportunities for populations who have never had access. That's why this legislation has overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
FCRA has also helped address other vital security issues, such as combating identity theft and blocking of terrorist financing under the USA PATRIOT Act--both issues which I have held numerous hearings on in my Oversight Subcommittee. Combating identity theft and drying up terrorist financing requires the collaborative effort of law enforcement and regulatory agencies, consumers and financial institutions--all with access to appropriate information.
I am extremely pleased that this conference report addresses these important issues, and improves our ability to combat identity theft and help law enforcement officials track down illicit money. The information-sharing under this legislation is essential to protecting the American people by detecting suspicious activity and weeding out wrongdoers.
The national uniform standards under FCRA have also facilitated a financial institution's ability to utilize additional authentications and identity verifications to protect consumer security. And the increased protections incorporated in this legislation are critically important in enabling victims to correct the damage to their credit histories created by identity thieves.
This legislation will further help law enforcement combat financial fraud and track down criminals and terrorists. And it adds new protections that are important to achieving these goals.
We have also made other important improvements to FCRA in order to protect the sanctity of privacy for the American people throughout the credit-granting process.
I believe the medical information of consumers should be kept private, and it does not need to be shared or distributed by creditors or listed on credit reports. Individuals should know that their personal medical information belongs to them and is not released for other purposes, whether it is for the credit granting process or employee background checks. And we have done this in our legislation by coding this information.
I would like to thank Reps. Ross and Watt for working with me on an amendment that will protect the medical information of individuals without disrupting access to low cost credit and the security of information.
By allowing consumers to benefit from reporting the financial aspects of their transactions to credit bureaus while maintaining the sanctity of their medical privacy, this legislation is a real win for all Americans.
Finally, I am pleased that we were able to include a new title in the legislation, which creates a Commission on Financial Literacy and Education to improve the financial literacy of millions of Americans of all ages.
At the crux of this language is the creation of the first ever national strategy for financial literacy--which will facilitate new public, private and nonprofit partnerships to help educate all Americans in financial literacy. The national strategy, and its subsequent report to Congress, will be known as ``The Strategy for Assuring Financial Empowerment'' or ``SAFE strategy'', based on legislation that I introduced--H.R. 3520, ``The SAFE Act''.
As as result, the ``SAFE strategy'' will provide a clear vision for the future of financial literacy. The vision will provide a systematic approach to identify effective ways to increase the general education level of current, and future, consumers of financial services and products. The Commission and the ``SAFE strategy'' will be goal- oriented and subject to reviews by Congress through annual testimony.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation that is crucial to the economy and the security of the American people.
I thank you for addressing these important issues and urge my colleagues to support this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a member of this committee who really did extraordinarily good work here and who early on became our task…
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a member of this committee who really did extraordinarily good work here and who early on became our task force head on identity theft, and this bill is really path-breaking in what it does for identity theft.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the ranking member of the subcommittee from which this bill came.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), who is the second ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises and who has a major input to this bill.
(Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who was very active particularly with regard to the medical privacy provision of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), one of our most active and energetic members of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), another member of our committee who played a very active role in this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who played an important role in this bill.
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), another active member of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have several.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been so active on the privacy issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that if we on the Democratic side were in the majority, this would be a different bill. We are not, so we have the bill that we have here.
Given that, given that there are some differences, I must tell you that this is a better bill than I had hoped we would see. And I am very appreciative of my colleagues on the other side. They did not give in on any issues of principle that are important to them. We have on both sides of the aisle a strong commitment to making sure that the free- market system in this country can work.
These credit allocations have become a very important part of that free-mark system. And this bill, I believe, preserves that system, the credit allocation system for individuals as well as need be.
We also, though, have, as we often do with the free market, a situation where the market does well what it is supposed to do, but it does not do everything. There are areas where we need to step in and help the market. What is important is for us to do that in ways that do not impinge on the market function.
I believe that working together we have come closer in doing that in this bill than I had thought. I would like if there had been fewer preemptions in the field, for instance, of identity theft; but as a result of a meeting which we had this morning, I think we agreed to preserve the integrity of the identity theft provisions that we have in there, to make sure that they can function without interference and without distraction, but did not unduly preempt if the States want to be additive in other areas. So there is, in fact, room for States to do something as long as the scheme that has been set forward in this bill is not interfered with, detracted from, and in particular, companies are not subjected to conflicting or confusing multiple requirements.
We have done other things. People, as a result of this, will be able to get a lot more information. Until recently, credit and credit scoring have been kind of mystical things to a lot of people. Consumers, home buyers, automobile buyers, others have found their lives affected financially by factors of which they were only dimly aware. As a result of several provisions in this bill, the system will be allowed to work, but consumers will have a lot more information about it. And they will get that information in many cases early enough to act on it.
Frankly, one of the things that some of our friends in the business community were skeptical of I think will wind up helping them. A requirement that people be notified if something they have either done or failed to do will cause them to have a negative comment on the credit report, I think that will have an incentivizing effect. I think the first time someone is late unneccessarily with a payment for a mortgage and is notified that this will
be on your credit report, you are likely to see much less lateness. We also took steps to improve the accuracy of the data.
The system on the whole works very well, but no system works perfectly. I think this credit system was a little bit flawed in that it did not adequately give people a chance to correct errors. We do a much better job of this. I would have liked there to have been a sunset on the preemptions.
I think this bill benefits from the fact that it was here today. Congress did this 7 years ago. There was a sunset. And as a result, we are here today doing what everybody agrees is improving the bill. I would have liked, and my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) offered an amendment to give us a chance to do that again. We lost on the floor, and that is the way the votes went. But I do hope and I believe that we may very well from experience learn that more has to be done or things have to be done differently.
When this bill was passed in 1996, identity theft was not a big issue. The fact that it was sunsetted gave us a chance to deal with identity theft I think in a very effective way. This will not be the last time that the crooked people in this world will think of a way to swindle the great majority of the honest ones.
So I just want to make it clear that while we will not have this automatically coming up, I hope we are all committed, and I believe we are, that as new problems come up we will be able to deal with them.
Given the fact that the majority is the majority, I believe that we did a good job, not a perfect one, in adding consumer protections and safety factors to this general system of allowing the credit allocation to individuals to work, and for that reason, I would urge Members to vote for the bill.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I congratulate him for all the good things that are in this bill, all the credit report and the negative statement issues that are dealt with. But there is one…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, and I congratulate him for all the good things that are in this bill, all the credit report and the negative statement issues that are dealt with.
But there is one concern which I have which is consumers are, by this bill, going to see the California privacy law preempted, as they are going to see as well other States who want to make stronger privacy protection for their constituents something that is part of the law.
My concern is that increasingly what we see with companies like TransUnion and Equifax is that they are sending the records off shore. For example, TransUnion, one of the three major credit reporting agencies' spokesman said last month, 100 percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to India at some point. We expect to sign that contract by the end of the year.
My hope is that as the years go by we will be able to return to this issue because the globalization of the information marketplace is going to make clear that Americans are going to want more protection as their information is going to be put in the hands of foreigners with no laws on the books or the ability to police them.
I rise to opposition to this legislation.
I understand that some good things have been done in this bill, such as the provisions granting consumers free access to copies of their credit report, notice of negative statements being added to their credit reports, or adverse credit decisions being made based on their credit report. I support these provisions, and I also support stronger protections against identify theft.
The problem is that consumers are being asked to pay a price for these provisions--their privacy. As I read this bill, we are permanently pre-empting any stronger state privacy laws, such as the California law, in favor of a federal standard that provides consumers with only a very narrow ``opt-out'' right to block affiliate sharing of the consumer's information for marketing purposes. I do not believe that an ``Opt Out'' is appropriate. Companies should have to obtain the affirmative consent of the consumer--an ``Opt In'' before they share information about their transactions or experiences with the consumer with other affiliates or with unaffiliated third parties.
Moreover, I am concerned that by limiting the ability of a consumer to exercise their Opt-Out solely to marketing, this bill allows affiliates to share information about the consumers for other purposes without any consumer right to say ``No.'' I am also concerned that even after a consumer has ``opted out,'' their decision to do so gets sunsetted after 5 years and they have to ``opt out'' again. If the consumer has said no, that should mean no illness and until the consumer says yes.
I also want to raise a concern about some statements I have seen in the press from the credit reporting agencies suggesting that if these companies are forced to provide consumers with free credit reports, they will accelerate their current efforts to transfer their databases and back office operations off-shore.
TransUnion and Equifax, two out of the three major credit reporting agencies already are in the process of offshoring the processing of detailed credit files on 220 million U.S. consumers.
Earlier this month, a TransUnion spokesman said that ``A hundred percent of our mail regarding customer disputes is going to go to India at some point. We expect to sign that contract by the end of the year.''
Equifax has had a vendor in Jamaica for four years, where Jamacian workers handle data entry at the beginning of the reinvestigation process for disputed credit reports.
Experian, the third of the three major credit reporting agencies, is considering whether to offshore some of its operations: ``We definitely are evaluating every option on the table, and offshoring is one of them. I don't want to be quoted as saying we'll never do it.''
Privacy experts are concerned about offshoring of the Social Security numbers, addresses and other personal information contained in credit reports:
``Consumers should be worried. The infrastructure to protect information just isn't there in a lot of these places.'' (Beth Givens, director, Privacy Rights Clearing House)
``The problem is not that they're in India, the problem is that American laws are not going to be enforced in India.'' (Chris Hoofnagle, Electronic Privacy Information Center)
``If you're an international crime ring, and you want Social Security numbers for identity theft, you're going to look at the weakest link, and that's quite possibly these overseas companies.'' (Beth Givens)
In October, a Pakistani woman threatened to post UCSF patient files on the Internet, unless she was paid for the medical transcription services she had performed. In the email she sent to UCSF, the woman wrote: ``Your patient records are out in the open to be exposed, so you better track that person and make him pay my dues or otherwise I will expose all the voice files and patient records on the Internet.''
That is the future that we are looking at with the credit reporting agencies. Consumers may be able to call up to get a free copy of their credit report, but the person on the other end of the line may be in Karachi or New Delhi, where U.S. privacy standards do not apply.
Indeed, this bill may provide Americans with the most expensive ``free'' credit report they'll ever get. They'll pay with their privacy.
That is why I think that we need to put the consumer back in control of their own information. We need an ``opt-in'' not a limited ``opt- out'', and we need to ensure that American's privacy does not get offshored at the same time that their jobs are getting offshored.
I urge the defeat of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, several times this week the House has used emergency procedures to pass partisan legislation. Yesterday, the Congress found time to give tax credits to Wal-Mart, but the Republican…
Mr. Speaker, several times this week the House has used emergency procedures to pass partisan legislation.
Yesterday, the Congress found time to give tax credits to Wal-Mart, but the Republican majority refuses to consider what is truly an emergency to millions of families, the fact that they do not have jobs, and millions of these workers are about to run out of unemployment insurance.
Last year, the same thing happened. The Republican Congress left town about Christmastime without extending the temporary program that provides employment benefits, leaving hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers to worry over the holidays about whether they were going to get the unemployment benefits that they had been expecting.
We have heard it has been reported that the majority leader said, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' Mr. Speaker, the esteemed majority leader does not know what he is talking about.
Washington State's unemployment is still among the highest in the Nation. It has grown for two solid years as we felt the brunt of the Bush recession. If the Congress does not extend the Federal program that provides unemployment compensation and fix a technical flaw in the Federal-State extended benefits program, over 83,000 workers in my State will stop, at Christmastime, receiving unemployment benefits.
I know the economy created 100,000 jobs last month, but 150,000 jobs must be created each month to maintain the employment rate because our population continues to grow.
Two days after Christmas, the temporary Federal unemployment benefits program is scheduled to expire, denying benefits to nearly 90,000 workers every single week. The unemployment picture today simply is not much better than it was last year, Mr. Speaker.
According to the Department of Labor, there is still only one job opening for every three unemployed workers. In other words, of the 9 million unemployed American workers, 6 million of them have no chance of finding a job in the current economic climate.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that Congress can consider an emergency that faces millions of families, the Nation's unemployment problem.
It is Thanksgiving for heaven's sakes, and we are not even going to provide them a turkey at Thanksgiving or at Christmastime. That is really Scrooge, and it is really hard-hearted.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question.
State of Washington,
Employment Security Department,
Olympia, WA, November 13, 2003.
Hon. Jim McDermott,
House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman McDermott: This letter is in response to
your request (dated November 7, 2003) for unemployment
projections and data.
Washington State's Seasonally Adjusted Total Unemployment
Rate (SATUR) remained at 7.5 percent for the month of
September, and this percentage is 116 percent of the same
rate two years ago, keeping the State of Washington in a
period of Extended Benefits (EB). The next issuance of the
SATUR numbers is scheduled for November 21, 2003. Our
forecast for October still shows that the State of Washington
will again be above the required 110 percent of the same
period for either of the past two years, and will remain in
EB status for that period as well. Statistics due out on
December 19, 2003 are indicating that the 110 percent
criteria will not be met, and we would thus be out of EB for
weeks after January 10, 2004.
Tables 1 and 2, enclosed, provide SATUR forecasts through
calendar year 2005. As shown, the State of Washington
Forecast Council estimates that the State of Washington's
SATUR will remain above 6.5 percent through 2005.
Table 3 provides a count of claimants exhausting all
benefits, by entitlement, for the first six months of 2003.
Unemployment statistics are very cyclical and we believe the
exhaustion rates for the first six months of 2004 will be
very similar to those of 2003. Claimants exhausting Regular
UI benefits become eligible for the TEUC program and
claimants exhausting TEUC become eligible for the EB program.
If the TEUC program were not continued, we estimate that
close to 54,000 claimants would be without benefits in the
first six months of 2004. Additionally, if the EB program
were to end in January of 2004 due to the ``look-back''
provision, an additional 28,508 claimants exhausting the TEUC
program would be without benefits.
Table 4 provides a summary of total dollars paid out to
claimants by month ad entitlement, for the first six months
of 2003. Similar to exhaustion rates, we believe that payment
totals will be very similar in 2004. We estimate that we
would pay $282 million out under the TEUC program and close
to $83 million under the EB program.
Also enclosed for your information is an additional fact
sheet on current unemployment insurance data.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions, or
if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Annette M. Copeland,
Assistant Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, if I may, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle to support one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation. I want to…
Mr. Speaker, just as an aside, if I may, I urge all my colleagues on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle to support one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation. I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the ranking member of the subcommittee on our side of the aisle for a job well done.
And the fact that we set a new course of activity here in the House as to how this function of legislation should be done from not only the subcommittee, the full committee, the House and Senate, and the conference committee, but now as they work back today, I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) on the Federal FTC advertising campaign.
Section 213 of the bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to increase public awareness regarding the availability of consumer rights to opt out of receiving prescreened credit offer solicitations. Is that his understanding as well?
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman share with me the understanding that the FTC's public awareness campaign is to be designed to increase public awareness, not only of the right to opt out of receiving prescreened solicitations, but also of the benefits and consequences of opting out?
Mr. Speaker, and if the FTC's public awareness campaign increases their understanding of the opt-out, consumers will make more informed better decisions. Does the gentleman agree?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the conference report for H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
The bill before us is an excellent piece of legislation. It advances consumer protection. It combats identity theft. And it allows businesses to operate efficiently when offering credit.
Moreover, the bill before us is a model of how the legislative process should work on a bipartisan basis. We held numerous hearings on the legislation. We deliberated on these matters thoroughly. We worked with one another on a bipartisan basis. The results of our efforts produced a bill that originally passed the House overwhelmingly.
If we fail to extend the expiring provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act before the end of this year, conflicting state laws could place financial institutions in a difficult compliance position, and the current efficiencies in obtaining credit could significantly decrease. We would, moreover, create more difficulties for our already struggling economy.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act and its 1996 amendments, in my view, have created a nationwide consumer credit system that works increasingly well. This law has expanded access to credit, lowered the price of credit, and accelerated decisions to grant credit. One reason that the law works so well is the establishment of a uniform system of national standards for credit reporting. As my colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, I strongly supported creating these state preemptions in the early 1990s. I also believe that we should extend them now.
In addition to extending the expiring preemptions of state law, H.R. 2622 will make a number of important improvements to current law with respect to consumer protection. These provisions, among other things, will improve the accuracy of and correction process for credit reports, and establish strong privacy protections for consumers' sensitive medical information.
Furthermore, identity theft is a growing problem in our country. A recent report by the Federal Trade Commission found that 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last five years. I am therefore particularly pleased that H.R. 2622 includes several provisions designed to combat these crimes and aid consumers.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to again commend the Ranking Member of the Committee [Mr. Frank] for his work leading to a very strong bill, as well as the gentlelady from Oregon [Ms. Hooley] for her important work on identity theft. As I have already noted, we also worked on a bipartisan basis and in a pragmatic way with the Chairman of the Committee [Mr. Oxley] and the Chairman of the Subcommittee [Mr. Bachus] to produce a very worthwhile legislative product in the House and in the conference with the Senate on which I served.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2622 contains many important consumer protection provisions in a framework of uniform national standards. It is a good bill. I encourage my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for yielding me this time. During floor debate of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act back in September, I told a story…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for yielding me this time.
During floor debate of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act back in September, I told a story of a constituent who had her purse stolen and ended up spending hours trying to clean up her credit files as a result. It got so bad, in fact, that the police officer suggested it would be easier for her to change her name than to deal with the damage caused by the result of a theft. At that time, I continued on to say that something is wrong with the law when a law enforcement official suggests changing your identity in order to protect yourself from identity theft.
Well, I am ecstatic to report to everyone that after 4 years' struggle, the law is changing. Today the House and Senate conferees met and approved the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, a bill that will do many things to protect consumers and safeguard our Nation's credit system. Above all, however, this legislation will put in place landmark protections against identity theft, the fastest-growing crime in the United States.
This legislation has been a long time coming and is the result of a lot of hard work by a number of Members of Congress. I would especially like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for all of their incredible work; Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby for the leadership they have shown through a bipartisan conference process; and a special thanks to
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for the long hours they put in on this piece of legislation. Because of these leaders' work and the incredible staff that worked with us, we have a conference report that takes the best provisions from the Senate and the best provisions from the House to pass this piece of legislation.
I will share a few of the consumer protections it provides, and I will insert the remainder of this list in the Congressional Record.
First of all, it provides consumers with a free credit report, gives consumers the right to see their credit scores, provides consumers with broad new medical privacy rights, gives the consumers the ability to opt out of information-sharing between affiliated companies for marketing purposes, and establishes a financial literacy commission. Those are just a few.
I am proud of how the committee worked together. I think we were the poster child of how this process should be run. I am proud of the substance of this conference report that is good for consumers and good for businesses. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our Nation's consumers by voting ``yes'' for the conference report.
The agreement reached by conferees today will:
General Provisions:
Provide consumers with a free credit report every year from
each of the three national credit bureaus, from a single
centralized source;
Give consumers the right to see their credit scores;
Provide consumers with broad new medical privacy rights;
Give consumers the ability to opt-out of information
sharing between affiliated companies for marketing purposes;
Establish a financial literacy commission and a national
financial literacy campaign;
Ensure that consumers are notified if merchants are going
to report negative information to the credit bureaus about
them; and
Extend the seven expiring provisions of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Identify Theft Provisions:
Allow consumers to place ``fraud alerts'' in their credit
reports to prevent identify thieves from opening accounts in
their names; including special provisions to protect active
duty military personnel;
Require creditors to take certain precautions before
extending credit to consumers who have placed ``fraud
alerts'' in their files;
Allow consumers to block information from being given to a
credit bureau and from being reported by a credit bureau if
such information results from identify theft;
Provide identify theft victims with a summary of their
rights;
Provide consumers with one-call-for-all protection by
requiring credit bureaus to share consumer calls on identify
theft, including requested fraud alert blocking.
Prohibiting merchants from printing more than the last 5
digits of a payment care on an electronic receipt;
Require banks to develop policies and procedures to
identify potential instances of identify theft;
Require financial institutions to reconcile potentially
fraudulent consumer address information; and
Require lenders to disclose their contact information on
consumer reports.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee and a conferee, this member rises today to express his strong support for the conference report of H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit…
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee and a conferee, this member rises today to express his strong support for the conference report of H.R. 2622, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). This important legislation permanently extends those provisions in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which relate to the preemption of State laws--a very necessary step in this instance. The current provisions in the FCRA are set to expire on December 31, 2003. Thus when this conference report is enacted into law, it will continue the nationwide credit system while providing important consumer protections.
This member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus, the chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on which this member serves, for introducing the legislation on which this conference report is largely based. Furthermore, this member would like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the ranking member of this committee, for their outstanding effort in bringing this excellent conference report to the House floor. As was suggested at the conclusion of the conference, this may be an instance where most of the conferees from both the House and Senate believe the conference report is better than either original Chamber's product.
The FCRA is the Federal law which governs the furnishing of reports on the credit worthiness of consumers. This member supports this conference report which would permanently extend the FCRA for many reasons. However, he would like to focus on the following three reasons.
First, this conference report provides for a free credit report annually for consumers. Typically, credit reporting agencies charge consumers up to $9 for the disclosure of the information in their credit files. Under current law, a consumer may receive a free consumer report from a reporting agency only under certain circumstances, such as when a consumer receives a notice of an adverse action by a reporting agency. The FACT Act would provider a free credit report annually for consumers for any reason. This member believes that this provision will promote consumer awareness of a person's credit history as well as provide an opportunity for the consumer to correct any inaccurate information on one's credit report.
Second, this conference report provides important provisions to curb identity theft. To illustrate the need for these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a survey at the beginning of September of this year which showed that a staggering 27.3 million Americans had been victims of identity theft in the last 5 years, including 9.9 million people in the last year alone. This conference report, among other things, allows consumers to place ``fraud alerts'' in their credit reports to prevent identity thieves from opening accounts in their names.
Lastly, this conference report continues the Federal preemption of State laws as it relates to the corporate affiliate sharing of financial information. During the consideration of the 1996 amendments to the FCRA, this member authored a provision, which was signed into law, that required a consumer opt-out when nontransactional information is shared among corporate affiliates. Examples of nontransaction information include data from a consumer credit report and information on an application such as a consumer's income or assets. This provision on consumer notice is very important as it was the first consumer ``opt out'' on the sharing of financial information that this member is aware of that was signed into Federal Law.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, for the reasons stated above and many others, this member encourages his colleagues to support the conference report of H.R. 2622.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act of 2003. And I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany the Fair and Accurate Transactions Act of 2003. And I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and all the committee staff for the wonderful work they did in completing this conference report.
This conference report will strengthen the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I am proud to have been an original co-sponsor of this legislation, to have supported it in committee, and to have voted in favor of it on the House floor.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the conferees for including in the financial literacy provision of the legislation language that will allow the financial literacy commission the bill creates to take any action to develop and promote financial literacy and educational materials in languages other than English. This will apply to the hot line, Web site, and educational materials the commission produces or recommends.
It is imperative that financial literacy materials be created and disseminated in languages other than English to recognize the diversity of our great Nation. I especially want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his assistance with this language and Jaime Lizarraga of his staff.
Rest assured that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Hispanic community appreciate your efforts and the language you inserted into the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany The Fair and Accurate Transactions Act of 2003. I congratulate Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, Subcommittee Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Sanders and all the House and Senate conferees on completing this conference report.
This conference report will strengthen the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of this legislation, to have supported it in Committee and to have voted in favor of it on the House floor.
I want to read at this time a portion of a letter Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan sent to me dated February 28, 2003. Chairman Greenspan was responding to a question I submitted to him in writing asking what would happen to the U.S. economy if the exceptions to the Fair Credit Reporting Act were allowed to expire after January 1, 2004. In his letter, Chairman Greenspan warned that: ``Limits on the flow of information among financial market participants, or increased costs resulting form restrictions that differ based on geography, may lead to an increase in the price or a reduction in the availability of credit, as well as a reduction in the optimal sharing of risk and reward.''
I am very pleased that this conference report heeded Chairman Greenspan's warning, and I believe that its passage will help our struggling economy to improve.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the conferees for including in the financial literacy provision of the legislation language that will allow the Financial Literacy Commission the bill creates to ``take any action to develop and promote financial literacy and education materials in languages other than English.'' This will apply to the hotline, website, and educational materials the Commission produces or recommends. It is imperative that financial literacy materials be created and disseminated in languages other than English to recognize the diversity of our great nation.
I especially want to thank Ranking Member Frank for his assistance with this language and Jaime Lizarraga of his staff. Rest assured that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Hispanic community appreciate your efforts and the language you inserted into the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 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 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, H. Res. 458 is a rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to same-day consideration against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. Specifically, this rule waives the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the House to consider a rule on the same day it has been reported by the Committee on Rules.
This rule's waiver applies to any special rule reported on the legislative day of November 21, 2003, providing for the consideration or disposition of any of the following:
A, a bill or joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2004 or any amendments thereto; or
B, a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, any amendment thereto or any conference reported thereon.
I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in approving H. Res. 458. Its passage will help expedite the consideration of either another continuing resolution, if that becomes needed, or even conference reports on the last few remaining fiscal year 2004 appropriations bills, including the Foreign Operations bill, Transportation-Treasury bill, the Agriculture bill, the VA-HUD bill, the Commerce-Justice bill, the District of Columbia bill, and the Labor-HHS bill.
I believe that we are in the waning days of this year's legislative session with only a relatively small number of must-do legislative items still left to finish. Approving this same-day waiver rule will help provide for prompt consideration of these important funding bills.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules approved this rule last night, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to observe the lesson I just learned from the gentleman from Michigan. When President Clinton ran for President, he said we had the worst economy in 50 years, and just a few months later, he turned everything around. Things were so wonderful that he could stop unemployment compensation. I had not realized he had done it so quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule, so we can hopefully have an appropriation bill later this evening or this weekend we can vote on and finish things up.
The text of the amendment previously referred to by Mr. Frost, is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 458--Rule on waiving 2/3rds for C/R and
Appropriations Measures
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 2. ``Immediately after disposition of this resolution,
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3568) to
provide extended unemployment benefits to displaced workers,
and to make other improvements in the unemployment insurance
system. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bills to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider an additional continuing resolution which will allow us to go home over the…
Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Texas for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow us to consider an additional continuing resolution which will allow us to go home over the holidays, and at this time, there is no indication from the majority that they are prepared to bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of our fellow citizens who will be running out of unemployment insurance benefits during that period of time. So, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would not approve the previous question so that we could bring up this unemployment insurance extension.
Let me just remind my colleagues that 1 year ago we were in a similar position, and the majority did not bring up an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits, and at Christmastime, we had to tell hundreds of thousands of Americans that they ran the risk of losing the Federal benefits that they needed during this recession. We are faced with the situation again.
Two days after Christmas, the current Federal 13-week unextended benefit program is scheduled to expire. If we do not do anything about it, 80- to 90,000 people in this Nation, every week, will exhaust their State extended benefits and will not be entitled to any Federal extended benefits; 1.4 million Americans during that 6-month period, until June of next year, are anticipated would be without benefits.
The exhaustion rate, those who have exhausted their State unemployment benefits without finding employment has reached the highest level on record, the highest level on record, 43 percent. Two million workers have been unemployed for more than 6 months, nearly triple the amount compared to the beginning of 2001. We have 2.4 million fewer jobs today compared to 2\1/2\ years ago.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader recently said, I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better off than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from what the record shows, and I could go through a list of the economic indicators from the last downturn in our economy and this time, but this one I think really puts it all in proper perspective.
The current amount of jobs that were created before we terminated the Federal unemployment benefits in the 1990s was 2.9 million additional jobs. What we are looking at now is 2.4 million less jobs in this recession. The majority leader refers to some slight job growth that we had, and we hope that continues, because, currently, if someone's looking for a job, there are three people looking for every job that is available today. These are people who cannot find employment, but the loss of employment in our economy in the last couple of years is 2.4 million jobs. The jobs are not there. People want work. They cannot find work. That is why we have the Federal unemployment benefit program.
There is $20 billion in the fund today to fund this program. The money is there. The money is there for this purpose. We should extend it before we go home. So I hope we will use this opportunity because, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any other opportunities coming along. This may be our last chance by using this vehicle so that we can consider legislation that would extend the Federal unemployment benefits for some additional weeks, and by the way, we should also take care of those who have already exhausted all their benefits.
The economy just is not there yet. We all hope we will get there. We usually do this on a bipartisan basis. Let us get together and help our uninsured.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, Congress has one last opportunity to provide unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs and been unable to find new jobs. It is quite astounding. We at this point have…
Mr. Speaker, Congress has one last opportunity to provide unemployment benefits for Americans who have lost their jobs and been unable to find new jobs.
It is quite astounding. We at this point have what is called a jobless recovery. In my State, tens of thousands of people are unable to find employment with their benefits exhausted or near exhaustion. Across America it is millions.
I know budgets are tight around here. I know that Congress can afford to borrow money to pay Iraqis for no-show jobs, but the President says we cannot afford to spend down the $20 billion balance in the Unemployment Trust Fund, taxes paid by employers and employees, for just such a situation. So we cannot afford that. We cannot afford to spend that. We can borrow money to send to Iraq, but we cannot spend down the trust fund for unemployed Americans.
Is he saying it is their fault they are unemployed? Is he saying he does not care they are unemployed? Is he saying he does not care they might lose their home; they cannot feed their kids; they cannot afford essentials; they cannot even buy gas for the car to go out and look for work; that they are having their phones shut off?
I am getting those kinds of calls. We have the highest unemployment rate in the United States in Oregon. It is chronic. And there are a lot of people who want to work and cannot find jobs. The least this Nation could do would be to help them with a modest extension of unemployment benefits.
Now, this is not the first time this has happened. Last year, Congress skipped out of town, the President did not raise any concern, and unemployment benefits expired for millions of Americans. This year, we are confronted with the same situation. Two days after Christmas, Merry Christmas, 90,000 workers will lose their extended unemployment benefits and have no income, and yet they cannot find a job. And it will be 90,000 workers a week. In 6 months, 2.2 million Americans will have lost everything, probably their homes, maybe their families, because this kind of breaks up families.
This is, of course, a family-friendly Republican majority and White House, but they just do not seem to care about these people wanting and needing jobs. Their jobs are being exported and have disappeared in the jobless recovery, or whatever. They cannot find work. In my State, it will be 43,000 people by February who will lose benefits.
Now, there is $20 billion, that is 20,000 million dollars, in the Unemployment Trust Fund. We do not even have to borrow the money to give Americans a little bit of help to stay in their homes and keep their families together. We do
not have to borrow it because they pay the taxes, their employers pay the taxes. All the President has to do is say, I think that is a good idea, and the Republican majority will jump to it. We could do it right here, now, on the floor, by voting ``no'' and bringing that bill up today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank our ranking member and chair and my colleagues. I rise in support of this legislation that permanently reauthorizes the Fair Credit…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank our ranking member and chair and my colleagues.
I rise in support of this legislation that permanently reauthorizes the Fair Credit and Reporting Act, which is extremely important to our economy and our national credit system. It also greatly enhances legal protections for identity theft victims, protects medical information, and provides groundbreaking new limits on the sharing of private consumer information among the affiliates of financial services companies.
My constituents need this legislation because New York City claims the sad distinction of having the largest number of identity theft cases of any city in the entire country. The FACT Act helps break the cycle of identity theft with new consumer protections including the right to a free annual credit report, a new consumer-initiated fraud alert system, new protections that will prevent the recycling or repollution of consumer information that is known to be the product of fraud, mandatory truncation of credit and debt card numbers to prevent theft.
In addition to identity theft, this bill contains groundbreaking limits on how financial services companies can share the sensitive consumer financial information among affiliates. These are important consumer protections given that some of today's largest financial companies have more than 1,000 affiliates. While the identity theft and privacy provisions will have the most direct impact on our constituents, the FACT Act also ensures the long-term viability of our national credit market by extending the FCRA beyond the end of the year.
Today I rise in support of legislation that permanently reauthorizes the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which is very important to our economy and our national credit system. It also greatly enhances legal protections for identity theft victims, protects medical information, and provides groundbreaking new limits on the sharing of private consumer information among the affiliates of financial services companies.
My constituents need this legislation because New York City claims the sad distinction of having the largest number of identity theft cases of any city in the country.
In addition, this bill contains groundbreaking limits on how financial services companies can share their sensitive customer financial information among affiliates.
These are important consumer protections given that some of today's largest financial companies have more than 1,000 affiliates.
Finally, while the identity theft and privacy provisions will have the most direct impact on our constituents, the FACT Act also ensures the long-term viability of our national credit market by extending the FCRA beyond the end of this year.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill. While Congress dithers in what is probably the waning days of the first session of the 108th…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this bill.
While Congress dithers in what is probably the waning days of the first session of the 108th Congress, it is inexcusable that we are considering adjournment without first passing an extension of unemployment benefits for the millions of American workers who are currently jobless. In my home State of Oregon, the unemployment rate is still 7.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than the U.S. average. Even that number, though, is misleading, since it only counts the workers who are still looking for work. It does not include those people who have been off work, who no longer receive unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, to me it is inexcusable and unconscionable that the bill offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), is not being brought to the floor right now. Instead, the Republican leadership has chosen to force a vote on a 2-day CR because they are unable to fund the government by passing appropriation bills on time and in regular order.
Let me tell you just a little bit about these people who are looking for work, Mr. Speaker. These are people who are out of work through no fault of their own. They go out every single day and look for a job. One gentleman said to me that it is like playing musical chairs. He says, I go in, I think I have this wonderful resume, I meet all of the criteria, and I go in and there are 200 people that all have the same qualifications to meet that job. So he said it is a little bit like playing musical chairs with 200 people in the room and only one chair.
One woman told me she had to sell her home. She has been looking for work every day. She has sold her home and is living off the profits of her home. She does not know what she is going to do when those run out.
Another gentleman said, I have been trying to reeducate myself, so every day I am out looking for work. He said, I just feel like if I can just hold on for a little longer that job is going to be there.
Let us tide over the 90,000 Americans per week who will lose their unemployment benefits by the end of this year. Congress can and should pass an extension that will allow workers who are seeking employment to provide for their most basic needs as the holidays approach. Let us get on with this. Let us extend those unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always come up in the later part of…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and the dean of our Texas delegation for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, martial law rules, it is interesting to note, always come up in the later part of the session because we always want to get finished. We did a martial law on Medicare so we could pass a 600-page document without having to digest it. Now we have a continuing resolution martial law.
But I really want to talk about the prescription drug provision in Medicare, because that is what will come up later. Our Houston Chronicle wrote an interesting editorial today which talks about the ``scribbled prescription'' in the bill that we are going to consider as an ``intended cure could be worse than Medicare disease.'' It talks about the provisions of this bill we are going to consider tonight is stingy because it does not begin until 2006; and that there is such a donut hole in the middle that people will lose, if they have $300 a month in prescription drugs, because they will fall into that donut hole. So it is stingy.
The critics point out that providing a drug component to Medicare encourages businesses to dump their retirees. I had a constituent call me the other day from a utility company who said he was worried his retiree benefits for prescription drugs would be cut. And I said unless you have a collective bargaining agreement, that could happen.
A concern I have, as they quote in the Chronicle editorial, is that the ``AARP, the most powerful senior citizen organization, has endorsed'' this proposal. Again, I am quoting the Houston Chronicle, ``But, as the plan before Congress offers such limited help for seniors with high prescription costs, it's no wonder so many people believe AARP's decision was motivated more by its own political dealmaking than concern for its 35 million members' best interests.'' And that is a direct quote.
Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress, a prescription drug bill was the goal, to pass something; but this bill actually goes in the wrong direction. It prohibits Medicare from negotiating for lower prices. HMOs do it, the Veterans Administration does it, companies do it; and yet now we are prohibiting Medicare from doing it by law. That ought to outrage our seniors, including those 35 million AARP members.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of important and positive provisions. The idea that consumers will receive free credit reports is…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of important and positive provisions. The idea that consumers will receive free credit reports is important. The provision strengthening identity theft is also very important.
But basically, the positive provisions in this bill do not outweigh the negative. And, in my view, this bill should be defeated. It should be defeated because it preempts States throughout this country from going forward with stronger consumer protections. And to my mind, States, in fact, are the laboratories of democracy; and it is a bad idea, especially from our conservative friends, who year after year have told us how bad it was for the Federal Government to have all this power, to now give power to the Federal Government and tell the State of Vermont, the State of California, that if you have specific needs dealing with consumer issues, you may not go forward. That is wrong. And for that reason alone, this legislation should be defeated, sent back, and strengthened in terms of consumer needs.
I would point out that virtually every consumer organization in America, the Consumer Federation of America, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, et cetera, oppose the preemption aspects of this legislation.
Second of all, Mr. Speaker, one of the great rip-offs that is taking place in America now deals with credit cards which, at a time of very, very low interest rates, are charging people up to 25 or 29 percent interest. And one way they do it, Mr. Speaker, is they send out notices and they say, come in and sign up: zero interest rate. What they forget to tell the consumer is that for any reason whatsoever, through a bait- and-switch scam, they can raise interest rates. So 5 years before, you were late on a student loan, you were late on an automobile payment, suddenly, you are going to be paying 15, 20 percent interest, and you do not know it.
This legislation rejected any effort to protect consumers in that way, not only outlawing this bait-and-switch scam, but even preventing strong disclosure. This legislation should be defeated, sent back, and improved.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hard work that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hard work that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Ranking Member Frank), and the committee staff have done on this extremely important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, to its sponsors and its cosponsors, every bill is an important bill. But there are few bills that we will take up this session or this Congress that are as critically important to our economy as reauthorizing and making permanent the expiring protections contained in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The FCRA may not be a household word, but it nonetheless touches virtually every aspect of our lives and our economy.
Without this reauthorization, there can be no national credit system, without a national credit system there will be less credit, slower credit, inaccurate credit, inefficient credit, and in some cases, no credit at all. Less, slower, inefficient and no credit will lead inevitably to less spending, slower growth, lower incomes, and fewer jobs.
That would be noticed by the American consumer and it would be a disaster for the American economy. That is why FCRA is a must-pass bill for this session.
This conference report addresses the challenges and problems created by new technologies as well. Chief among these are the provisions addressing identity theft. I am particularly pleased that this conference report contains language addressing the challenges of financial literacy.
As a member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have come to recognize the positive impact that a marriage of financial literacy and basic economics can have on millions of future investors.
I especially want to thank Senators Enzi and Sarbanes for working with me to perfect this language included in this conference report. H.R. 2622 is a good bill that provides important new protections for consumers and stops identity theft before it happens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, H.R. 2622. This sound piece of legislation will aid in the prevention of identity theft. Additionally, it will…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, H.R. 2622. This sound piece of legislation will aid in the prevention of identity theft. Additionally, it will guarantee that consumers have access to affordable credit.
I do have one concern, and I would like to clarify congressional intent in regard to this legislation. It is vitally important for consumers that the information reported about them to credit bureaus is accurate. When errors occur, they must be corrected. The overwhelming majority of disputes are properly handled through existing procedures as defined in section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Nevertheless, a very small percentage of unusual disputes are not completely resolved through the reinvestigation process. Section 312 of the conference report for the bill provides a means by which some of these cases could be submitted directly to the furnisher for possible resolution.
I recognize that there are potential risks in the adoption of this section. For example, I am very concerned that any mechanism designed to address these few cases is not burdensome. If it becomes burdensome, furnishers may become discouraged from reporting complete and accurate information in the first instance. Additionally, this could lead to misuse by credit repair clinics to overwhelm furnishers in an attempt to cause them to change accurate information.
The conference report for H.R. 2622 has charged the relevant agencies with issuing rules only after they have determined the benefits of a direct resolution process. Congress has provided the agencies with four criteria to review in connection with any rulemaking pertaining to the direct reinvestigation of consumer disputes with furnishers. This criteria must be satisfied before any rules are to be issued.
I believe it is a positive piece of legislation that will give consumers the tools to fight identity theft and continue to access affordable credit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I want to say to the Republicans, do not think this is a procedural vote on the previous question. This is a vote of substance. This…
Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and I want to say to the Republicans, do not think this is a procedural vote on the previous question. This is a vote of substance. This is a vote questioning whether my colleagues will agree to bring up an unemployment compensation extension program.
As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said, the majority leader stated, ``I see no reason to be extending unemployment compensation since every economic indicator is better than in 1993 when the Democrats ended the Federal unemployment program.'' He could not be further from the truth.
If we do not act, 90,000 a week who are out of work, exhausting their benefits, will be out in the cold; 90,000 a week, 350,000 more or less a month, and they will join the 1.4 million long-term unemployed in this country, and the percentage of unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits, contrary to what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has said, will reach an all-time high, almost 44 percent, and even with this modest increase in jobs the last couple of months, the U.S. economy still has 2.4 million fewer jobs today than 2\1/2\ years ago.
I want to refer to Michigan. The unemployment figures just came out: 7.6 is the unemployment rate, a 3-year high, an 11-year high, actually, and higher than when the temporary unemployment program was set up.
So this is not a test on procedure. This is a test whether my colleagues will stand with those who are unemployed, looking for work or turn a cold shoulder to them. There is nothing compassionate about this kind of action, conservatism or anything else.
So I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on the previous question and stand up for those millions of Americans, millions who are looking for work, who cannot find it, who want not charity but unemployment compensation that they worked for. Vote no on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss some of the exciting opportunities in the FCRA, specifically the aspects that Florida has engaged in. And I would like to enter a colloquy with the gentleman from…
Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss some of the exciting opportunities in the FCRA, specifically the aspects that Florida has engaged in. And I would like to enter a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) to discuss those.
Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that many people were confused by that, so I really appreciate the clarification that this information is not a consumer report under the Fair Credit Act neither before it was passed nor after it has been amended. So I really appreciate that clarification.
In fact, I think one of the biggest problems has been that the fraud and identity theft has created billions of dollars of losses in the U.S. economy and continues to create serious problems for individuals. The technology allows criminals to perpetuate this fraud with increasing rapidity.
Financial institutions and law enforcement need to fight the increases in fraud and identity theft with technology. So the proposed amendment would free the antifraud networks from compliance with certain requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But the amendment preserves the consumer protection features in the Fair Credit Reporting Act because it requires a notice to consumers and an opportunity to respond.
What is exciting about the Florida bankers is they actually created something called Fraud Net in 2000 and it was implemented in 2002. This is really sort of a neighborhood watch for bankers, if you will. Because banks post alerts when they experience a fraudulent or criminal act. It does not deal with individual transactions, opening accounts, credit insurance, or employment. Today 14 States are employing the specific program, and they expect 10 additional users next year.
So I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for clarifying.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call this the comity before the storm. It is interesting that we have such comity here in the House on the floor dealing with the FACT Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act.…
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call this the comity before the storm. It is interesting that we have such comity here in the House on the floor dealing with the FACT Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This has been a bipartisan piece of legislation.
It is interesting that we will take up a bill later on this evening that will not be as bipartisan, and it certainly will be a more partisan bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his extension of his arm. I wish the other committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, would act in kind; and hopefully that will happen at some point.
I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his work on this bill; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the subcommittee chairman; the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Although he has indicated he will not support the bill, he certainly acted in a very bipartisan manner in helping to craft the legislation.
This bill represents the best of the House where Democrats, Republicans, and Independents work together to craft a bill that addresses real problems. But besides good procedure, this bill is also good policy.
It will provide permanency to our Nation's credit grantors to ensure the easy and available flow of capital to our constituents. It toughens up the law with respect to identity theft and ensures that health information is walled off and cannot be used in any credit-making decisions, ensuring the integrity of one's health privacy.
This bill is good for American consumers, and I am pleased to support it. I only wish that later on this evening I could also support a Medicare bill that was bipartisan as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first begin by commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their hard work together with the…
Mr. Speaker, I want to first begin by commending the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for their hard work together with the conferees. I think the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) said earlier that this is the most important piece of legislation to come out of this committee this year, and I agree.
I also want to pay special tribute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). When we began working in the 106th Congress on identity theft, some people had not heard of it. Today, I think every Member has a horror story about identity theft. In my district it was Maureen Mitchell. She and her husband found out that they owned not one, but two, luxury SUVs in the period of a couple of hours in Chicago, Illinois, that they had not participated in or purchased.
I think the conferees have produced a good bill. They have not only produced a good bill; they have produced a bill that does not have a one-size-fits-all remedy, and it still gives the regulators flexibility to deal with the ever-evolving strategies that identify thieves come up with.
Lastly, I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the subcommittee, because he sat through hours and hours of hearings to make sure that we got it right; and, lastly, the ranking member, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), I think he had some excellent ideas on bait and switch. I hope we revisit that in the next Congress.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 458 Engrossed in House (EH)]
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
November 21, 2003.
Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the
legislative day of November 21, 2003, providing for consideration or disposition
of any of the following measures:
(1) A bill or joint resolution making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 2004, or any amendment thereto.
(2) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, any amendment thereto, or any
conference report thereon.
Attest:
Clerk.