Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 30, one of our nation's most thoughtful commentators on public policy, E.J. Dionne, Jr., published a very important article about globalization. E.J. Dionne is an enlightened and sophisticated student of world affairs, and he has been a consistent voice against isolationism, xenophobia, or any other prejudice against the rest of the world. So it seems to me particularly worth noting when he questions some of the assumptions that have long governed the opinion of many of the most highly educated people in this country about globalization. E.J. Dionne is not an opponent of increasing global economic integration, but like many of us who understand the inevitability of this, in this column he makes some extremely important points about how it has played out, and, what thoughtful public policy ought to be to deal with the downside of globalization. Indeed, the very fact that he here describes that downside makes this an important article, because too many of those who have embraced international economic integration have done so through an excessively rosy set of glasses.

It is not coincidental, Mr. Speaker, that both Mr. Dionne and I have a very important connection to the city of Fall River, Massachusetts. He was born and grew up there, and his family remained an important part of that city's cultural, religious and educational life for decades after he moved to Washington. I have had the privilege of representing Fall River in this body since 1982, and he and I have thus both had a chance to see first hand what the downside of globalization has been among many of our more vulnerable, hardworking citizens.

The balanced view of globalization which E.J. Dionne takes in this article is one that is sorely lacking in many quarters, and because this is one of the most important public policy issues confronting our country, I ask that E.J. Dionne's article be printed here.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2003]

Gone With Globalization

(By E.J. Dionne Jr.)

Except for the saints in our midst, everyone has prejudices

including the well educated and well-to-do: But when upscale

folks have prejudices, they usually call them ideas,

convictions or principles.

So how can you tell when a principle is merely a prejudice?

When someone keeps making an argument even though the facts

suggest it no longer holds up.

It is time to ask whether the overwhelming support for free

trade and globalization among well-off, highly educated

people is more a prejudice rooted in their own self-interest

than a matter of high principle.

Okay, maybe that's too harsh. So try this: Even if

globalization made a lot of sense during the buoyant 1990s,

shouldn't the troubling economic developments since 2000

force people to modify their views? Is it not now undeniable

that globalization has serious costs that are not merely

``transition problems'' and that these costs are borne

disproportionately by certain parts of the country and the

society?

Now, I don't want to be accused of prejudice myself, so let

me stipulate that most educated folks really believe on

principle in free trade. They can rely on reams of writing by

intelligent economists to support their view.

Moreover, no one likely to hold power in our country would

return us to the days of William McKinley and high tariff

walls. The globalizers are right when they argue that too

many Americans are now reliant on the global economy for such

policies to work.

But it ought to be equally obvious that the globalizers in

both political parties were too carefree when they asserted

in the 1990s that, well, yes, there are ``losers'' from

globalization, but there are so many more ``winners'' that we

really shouldn't worry. Those who lost out in this grand

process would eventually find their footing, the argument

went, and government could help them make the transition. By

the way, where was all that help? In any case the prophets of

our bright future said the United States shouldn't worry

about ``old'' industries such as steel or apparel. It should

worry about leading the way in all that is ``new'' and ``high

tech.''

Having grown up in Fall River, Mass., a place whose job

base was once rooted in the apparel industry, I've always

felt that writing off an industry as, ``old'' is a lot easier

for people who never depended on it. Maybe, that's an ``old

economy'' prejudice on my part, especially since my home town

has been remarkably inventive in giving birth to new

enterprises.

Still, it's not a form of prejudice to cite statistics

showing that the sharp decline in manufacturing jobs over the

past few years has been accompanied by a decline in overall

family incomes.

Consider the Census Bureau's report for 2002 showing that

U.S. household incomes had declined for the third year in a

row and that the number of Americans living in poverty had

increased by 1.7 million in a year. The old manufacturing

states--including Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri--

were among those hit, the hardest. (Politicians take note:

These are swing states.)

The economists reassure us that the poverty rate is a

``lagging'' indicator and that a robust recovery will start

lifting people up again. But will it? Is it not just as

plausible to worry that the flight of jobs to China and

elsewhere, courtesy of globalization, has combined with big

improvements in productivity to create an economy that leaves

many of our fellow citizens behind even in flush times?

The Institute for Supply Management, which keeps some of

the best numbers on manufacturing, pleased the stock market

earlier this month with report showing that economic activity

in manufacturing grew in August, as it had in July. But its

manufacturing emplopment index actually fell and remained

below the 50 percent break-even point for job creation for

the 35th consecutive month

If supporters of globalization really do hold principles

and not prejudices, they should admit that the facts make it

increasingly difficult to say that everything will eventually

get better for everyone and that changes in the system will

only make it worse. Worse for whom exactly?

Our tax and social policies are supposed to respond to

inequities as they arise. But our current approach seems

based mostly on begging China to fix its currency and praying

for 5 percent growth. Michigan, as it sometimes has in the

past, will just have to rely on a pass and a prayer.

The evidence suggests that we're not in the New Economy

anymore but in a New New Economy with problems that weren't

supposed to arise. The real lagging indicator is our economic

thinking.

Mr. Speaker, I have been greatly honored over the past several years to be able to share with my colleagues and the country the great respect I have for the work of the New England Chassidic Center, and of ROFEH International. Under the leadership of Grand Rabbi Levi Horowitz, both of these institutions provide significant service to the people of Greater Boston. ROFEH International, founded under the Rabbi's leadership, plays an extraordinarily important role in helping people take advantage of the extraordinary medical facilities that exist in the Greater Boston area. Annually, the work of these two organizations is celebrated at a dinner. This year that dinner will take place on November 16, in the Grand Ballroom of the Boston Park Plaza Hotel. The dinner features among other things two awards to people who have performed through these organizations great service to others. The recipients of the ROFEH International Distinguished Service Award and the Man of the Year Award are always people of great professional distinction who have shown a deep dedication to the well being of others, and have used their great talents to that end.

This year's Man of the Year is Mr. Edmund I. Shamsi. The ROFEH Distinguished Service Awardee is Dr. Joel Feldman. Mr. Speaker, we talk often of the importance of volunteerism in achieving the quality of life that all of us want in this country, and I think it is important that we share examples of this. I therefore ask that the biographies of Edmund Shamsi and Dr. Joel Feldman be printed here, as an example of volunteerism at its best, and to mark the occasion of the Annual Dinner.

Man of the Year Award--Mr. Edmund I. Shamsi

Edmund I. Shamsi was born in Teheran, Iran, in 1945. When

Ed was four, his father--a successful business merchant--

decided to make aliyah. As was the norm for Mideastern

families immigrating to Israel in the mid-century, the

Shamsis found themselves in a refugee camp. They spent six

months in Pardes Hannah and then another six months in Pardes

Kats, near Tel Aviv.

The Shamsis eventually settled in B'nai Brak, where Ed

attended school. In his sophomore year of high school, Ed

relocated to Ohio, where he concluded his primary school

education. Ed obtained admission to Kent State University and

successfully completed his freshman year. Responding to a

greater call, he returned to Israel amid his studies, and

enlisted in the Israeli army.

Upon discharge, Ed returned to America to complete his

education, this time at Boston University. Ed put himself

through BU by working as a truck driver during the summers,

as a cabdriver on vacations and as a Hebrew teacher at a

local synagogue.

Post-graduation, Ed worked in the merchandizing department

of Zayre Corp. This kindled Ed's interest in real estate; he

bought a single-family house at auction, developed it and

sold it. Thus, the genesis of Ed's real estate career.

In 1972, Edmund married Helene. Together, they are the

proud parents of three children: Joshua Jacob Sasson,

Benjamin Elazar David and Esther Pnina.

In his capacity as president of the Sephardic synagogue in

Boston, Ed provides leadership for the Boston community at

large. To supplement this niche, Ed also serves as president

of Boston Group Development, Inc. and develops and manages

real estate properties in the United States, Israel and the

Ukraine. To date, Ed still holds residences in Brookline, MA

and Jerusalem, Israel.

Mr. Speaker, we face a very difficult situation regarding the

fishing industry in Massachusetts. I believe that current federal law should do a better job then it does of allowing fishing to go forward with appropriate respect for environmental considerations. Flaws in the current law have resulted in judicial orders that restrict fishing unduly, and will cause serious economic harm without appropriate environmental justification. It is my hope that we will proceed quickly to amendment of existing law so as to avoid this problem in the future.

Currently, because we have not yet dealt with the law, the fishing industry in Massachusetts faces the imposition of unduly restrictive rules. Some of my Congressional colleagues and I have spoken out in an effort to hold off drastic action for as long as is legally possible, to give us time to change the law. Last week, Mayor Frederick Kalisz, Jr. of New Bedford addressed an important meeting in New Bedford, attended by a large number of representatives of the fishing industry, as well as federal officials. Mayor Kalisz's comments are extremely thoughtful and because this is an important national subject, and because I hope that the views expressed by Mayor Kalisz will be followed by federal officials, I ask that his comments be printed here.

2003 NOAA--Fisheries Constituent Session--September 16, 2003

Good afternoon Dr. Hogarth, on behalf of the residents of

the City of New Bedford, I'd like to thank you for the

opportunity to present a few brief remarks regarding the

current state of fisheries issues.

Back in 1976 when the Magnusun Act was first enacted there

was great hope throughout the country that the Act's

innovative structure of setting forth objective standards and

requiring that these standards and scientific data form the

basis of decisions rendered through consensus by a regional

fisheries management councils would protect the American

Fishery and also create a sustainable fishery. As you are

aware, the Act set forth ten (10) national standards and

required that all fisheries management plans be consistent

with these standards. Although Congress seemed to give all of

the standards equal weight, the regulations promulgated to

implement the Act and subsequent Court decisions appear to

have created a pecking order among standards. As a result the

scientific data is no longer a tool to assist in crafting

consensus, but rather disagreements over basic scientific

data have become the single biggest impediment to consensus.

This is truly unfortunate.

We rely on current economic conditions to determine

interest rates; we rely on current air quality conditions to

determine smog, yet we are satisfied to rely on last year's

fishing trawls to determine if fish are in the same area

today. My remarks are not intended to attack the science, but

rather to call for a renewed scientific partnership based on

consensus. If we can not agree on the basics of fisheries

science, we will never be able to agree on maximum

sustainable yield.

I understand that in spite of the significant strides that

have been made in marine biology and marine environmental

science, our knowledge pales in comparison to the mysteries

the oceans still hold. We still do not fully understand the

result of a 2% change in the salinity of the water, nor do we

fully understand the impact of a 2 degree change in the water

temperature on year old fish stock. We understand that smoke

stack emissions from the Midwest can affect our air quality

here in New England, but do not understand, or in some cases

recognize, the effects the particulates from those emissions

will have on Georges Bank when they run into an Atlantic

Storm. We intuitively understand that there must be an effect

on the oceans from El Nino, but we still don't know what

causes red tide to occur when it does.

Perhaps it is only the arrogance of man that would lead us

to assume that we can totally understand the intricacies of

the seas. And so rather than expand our knowledge of those

things we still don't understand, we have settled for

intensive study of the things we do understand. We then

purport to be committed to building a sustainable fishery by

controlling only those things we understand. It is analogous

to learning that someone has polluted a stream and then

rather than seek to identify the source of the contamination,

claim that the reduction of fish is solely due to new lures

being used by people who fish in the stream.

We have allowed ourselves to become overwhelmed by the task

of fisheries management and have ceded our responsibilities

to science. Science's role must be to use the best methods

available to collect data, analyze that data and then

identify trends. Science's role is not to set policy. That is

the role that Congress assigned to the members of the

regional council who represent all of the various interests.

As we seek to expand our knowledge, we must also guard to

ensure that we recognize the difference between scientific

data and rhetoric. There is currently a movement afoot to

paint our fishing families as ``capture hunters'' and not the

harvesters of the bounty of the sea as Magnuson rightfully

recognizes. The fisherman are no more the enemy of the oceans

than farmers are enemies of the land.

So where do we go from here. I believe that Vice Admiral

Lautenbacher's message in the NOAA Annual Guidance Memorandum

clearly identifies NOAA's role in the future. The Vice

Admiral writes:

``NOAA's own decision making processes must be transparent,

participatory, and information-based, taking into account

diverse societal values. In short, the Nation needs NOAA as

an honest broker when it comes to oceanic and atmospheric

issues.''

I couldn't agree more. But there must be actions to support

these words. An honest broker facilitates frank and

forthright discussion and is not willing to resort to overly

simplistic solutions such as ``hard TACs'' which do nothing

more than encourage more intensive use of the fishery.

An agency that has led the way in understanding the

dynamics of hurricanes by flying planes into the middle of

the cyclone, cannot rely on old outdated models and data when

it comes to fisheries. The Vice Admiral also rightfully

recognizes the need to develop new models and methods for

data gathering and analysis. Again the Vice Admiral writes:

``We should enhance our current scientific and decision-

making ability, in order to fulfill mandates for trust

resources in a manner that satisfies the public's

expectations of an honest broker. We should conduct research

on ecological, social and economic processes geared toward

advancing integrated analyses of alternatives.''

The Vice Admiral further writes:

``To enhance NOAA's role as honest broker, we should strive

consistently to improve the accuracy and quality of the

scientific research on which important decisions depend. We

should also work to make our decision processes as fair and

transparent as possible and expand our interaction with the

entire spectrum of decisions-makers to ensure increased

responsiveness to NOAA science.''

The Vice Admiral's message is actually a call to develop

models that analyze the entire system rather than just one

piece of a much bigger system. As I mentioned earlier, this

new model will require renewed commitment as we seek to

understand that which is still a mystery.

Finally, the Vice Admiral writes of the need to forge

strategic partnerships stating.

``The challenges facing America require integrated,

cooperative solutions. No agency can go it alone. We need to

work with universities, industry, stakeholder groups and

government agencies at all levels.''

Over the past two years, the City of New Bedford has forged

a strategic partnership with NOAA and other federal agencies

and through this partnership has developed innovative

consensus based strategies for the remediation and

redevelopment of Brownfields. Today, I renew the commitment

of New Bedford to continue our work with SMAST,

MassFisheries, NOAA-Fisheries, and our sister ports in

Massachusetts and throughout New England to develop and

implement the best practices possible so that we can collect

and analyze data in real time to create a truly sustainable

fishery.

Today, the winds have changed. A solidarity is building on

the wharves and in the facilities, on the streets and in the

community. During the past year, I have met regularly with a

Seafood Industry Advisory Task Force composed of

representatives of the various sectors of New Bedford's

Seafood Industry. In these meetings there is a sense of

cooperation and resolve. We understand that it is more than

just charts and graphs, it is about families and community.

We understand that an academic exercise that only results in

a 1% change in the resource in 2023 can decimate an industry,

a community and a family.

We have many difficult decisions to make. Let us agree to

use the best available science to gather and analyze our data

in real time, and then allow the deliberative framework

created by the Magnuson Act to balance the interests and

manage our fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the First Congregational Church of Rochester, Massachusetts, in the district which I am privileged to represent, will mark a very impressive occasion--the church's 300th Anniversary. During these 300 years--which of course predate the establishment of our country, an event in which members of the church had an important role--the First Congregational Church has made innumerable contributions to society while serving its central religious purpose. Recently I received a letter from the Reverend Dr. Leo D. Christian, which gives a brief history of the church--brief because it would take a volume the size of this Record adequately to document what has happened here over 3 centuries. This is an impressive example of the way in which our institutions ought to work, and how institutions can both serve the needs of their members and contribute to the greater society. I ask, because I think this is an example that should be widely shared, that the letter from the Reverend Dr. Leo D. Christian be printed here, and I again express my congratulations to Dr. Christian and the members of the church for their truly impressive record.

First Congregational Church,

Rochester, MA.

Dear Representative Frank: On October the 13th, 2003, we at

the First Congregational Church are celebrating our 300th

Anniversary. As a Church we have had the privilege of not

only watching the development of this nation and this

commonwealth, but we participated in its very formation. The

laws and governing principles were decided by the input and

votes of our people along with the other great peoples of the

day. A list of some notable people is as follows: Joseph

Burge, First Representative to Province Court and John

Hammond, Second Representative to Province Court.

Representatives to the General Court before the Revolution;

Abraham Holmes, John Hammond, Noah Sprague, Thomas Dexter,

John Freeman, and Samuel Sprague.

Rochester Selectmen/Town Clerks: Between the years from

1690 to 1909, more than 30 of our members took on the civic

roles of Town Clerk and Selectman, the first three being

Samuel White, Samuel Hammond and Mark Haskell. From 1909

until present times, our members have continued to play a

major part in local government.

When the settlers came to the shores of New England they

found this a very rustic place in comparison to their mother

country. Our first minister, the Reverend Samuel Arnold,

noted that this was a dark wilderness. Our church has had the

privilege of helping our nation and state be what it is

today. Whether it was the issue of slaves or the

rights for women to vote we, along with other of like mind,

stood for emancipation and for the suffrage movements.

When our nation was involved in its Revolutionary War we

mustered the militia on the church green and sent many of our

own to answer the call to arms in our nation's revolution.

Thirty three (33) of our young men never returned home. In a

time of great national crisis we sent people again to stand

for liberty in the Civil War. It is more than likely that our

people have served in every war and conflict that our nation

has fought, even to the point of our ladies' society making

bandages and giving support to the troops. Such people of

note are Militia: (1690) Lieut. John Hammond and Ensign Isaac

Holmes. Rev. Jonathan Moore went as chaplain with the 1st

company of militia answering the Lexington call. Captain Earl

Clapp was at the Battle of Bunker Hill and rose in rank to

Major. Major Elnathan Haskel was an aid to General George

Washington and as such is shown in a painting hanging in the

Capitol in Washington, D.C. portraying Borgoyne's Surrender.

As our nation was threatened from the north there were

those who fought in the French and Indian Wars: Paul Sears

and Joseph Doty. Those who served in Canada were Joseph

Barlow, Charles Sturtevant and Earl Clapp. Then again in the

War of 1812: Joseph Doty, Jonathan King and Samuel Cowing

represented our church and community.

Missionaries, authors, educators, civil servants,

physicians, lawyers and politicians have come from this

beautiful white meeting house on the village green. Through

these 300 years our mother church has given birth to four

daughter congregations, Marion, Mattapoisett, Warcham and

North Rochester Congregational Churches. Our vestry served

for years as a town school and many people in the community

still remember attending there as children.

We have hosted and still do many civic programs such as

senior citizens, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. The men of our

church formed an organization known as the Brotherhood that

not only provided them fellowship, but served the community

with a host of family entertainment opportunities and

benevolent contributions to those who were in need.

Some of those who served in the following capacities were:

Medicine: Dr. James Foster, (Note) The early pastors, namely

Rev. Samuel Arnold and Timothy Ruggles, also aided their

people by extracting teeth, doling out opium, saffron, older,

yellow dock and snake root when their parishioners' own

remedies failed.

Education: The first pastor, Samuel Arnold, along with his

pastoral duties, taught young boys who wanted to attend

Harvard College. (Rochester has always been known for its

support of academics and in the early days it was generally

the presiding Reverend who led the quest for education.)

Abraham Holmes, a lawyer and representative to the General

Court, used his home office to teach law students, there

being no law school available.

Rev. Jonathan Bigelow, who came in 1827, was responsible

for the building of our present meetinghouse, a parsonage and

the Rochester Academy. The latter a ``noted and highly

accredited institution gave instruction in all English

studies, Latin, Greek and French languages and great

attention was paid to the Moral Conduct, general deportment

and intellectual improvement of its scholars.'' Many

graduates became doctors, lawyers, teachers, ministers and

judges, living beneficial lives in their own communities.

Henry Martyn Dexter, one of the first preceptors of

Rochester Academy afterwards became Nestor of

Congregationalism. Our congregation has always been blessed

with an abundance of teachers.

Although we are separate organizations to our governing and

civil structures we have always been in congruence for the

good of the community, our commonwealth and our nation.

Whatever the need of the community we have tried to rise to

the occasion and offer assistance.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I received a very thoughtful letter from Eugene O'Kelly, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KPMG. I was thoroughly impressed to receive a strong letter in favor of the independence of accounting standards from the Chief Executive of this major accounting firm. I believe Mr. O'Kelly's letter makes a very important contribution to the debate on a significant public policy issue and I ask that it be printed here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here to support this effort to make sure that the Federal Housing Administration is fully able to support hospitals. I wish it were as available to support housing, but we will deal with that in other settings.

As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) has made clear, changes in Certificate of Need and other changes at the State level dealing with health care have put obstacles in the way of hospitals using FHA mortgage insurance. This is not a cost to the Federal Government; it is an example of trying to make medical care less expensive in ways that do not drain the Federal Treasury. It is a matter really that leverages the Federal system in ways that will help slow the increase in hospital costs and makes a great deal of sense. It is the kind of technical fix that is not terribly controversial, but is very important and will have enormous benefit.

I am pleased that we are going to be doing this in this quick fashion. I hope that this goes all of the way through the process; and the sooner the President can sign this bill, the better we will have treated the important cause of medical care.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) will later be managing on the Democratic side a bill from the Subcommittee on Immigration dealing with religious workers which I sponsored, and I would now like to express my appreciation to the gentlewoman and to the majority on the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing it forward. I will be back at a hearing on the Committee on Financial Services on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and so I take this opportunity to thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 1, a good and courageous man gave his life for his country. Joseph M. Camara was tragically killed while serving his nation in Iraq, as a member of the Rhode Island National Guard. In civilian life, as in military life, Sergeant Camara was a man dedicated to protecting his fellow citizens. He was a highly respected and deeply admired police officer in the City of New Bedford. Mr. Camara leaves behind his wife and three children, and they are joined in their grieving at the loss of this patriot by hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Of course nothing we can say will alleviate the pain that Mr. Camara's family feels at this untimely death, but we can at least demonstrate to them how deeply we sympathize with them and it is important for us to recognize here in the United States House of Representatives the terrible sacrifice Mr. Camara made in the service of his country.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of New Bedford, where Mr. Camara lived, raised his family, and served with great distinction as a police officer are especially devastated by his death. The people of the city have with one voice expressed their most profound condolences to the Camara family. And the depth of that feeling has been well conveyed by a series of articles in the New Bedford Standard Times about this terrible incident.

Mr. Speaker, to commemorate Joseph Camara, to recognize appropriately in the United States Congress the enormous debt that we owe his wife and children, and to pay tribute to the people of New Bedford, who have been so steadfast in their support of the Camara family, I ask that the articles from the New Bedford Standard Times about the death of Joseph Camara in the service of his country be printed here.

Mr. Speaker, last night as we were discussing the length of the vote, I made some comments which, as I think about them this morning, were inappropriate. I meant to make a point about institutional integrity; and as I rethink what I said, it was inappropriately personally aimed at the gentleman from Texas who was in the chair.

So without repeating the offense, I just want to apologize to the gentleman from Texas. My comment should have been more institutional and not personal, and I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for his kind words. I do have to correct him. At this point,

the way I feel, it would be incorrect to say that my efforts were tireless, but I am pleased we brought this bill to the floor.

I urge Members to vote for this bill. There will be some amendments and I will be supporting some. I will be opposing others. I do not think they go to the heart of the bill. There is one particularly important amendment that will be offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

We are here today because there were sunsets in the original bill in 1996. The fact that we had to come back to renew this has given us the opportunity to make some significant consumer improvements, and I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). I will vote for this bill because if it becomes law, consumers will have significant new protections in many areas.

They will not be all that I would have liked. For someone who serves in the minority, this bill, I think, shows both the opportunities but also the inherit limitations of being in the minority. That is a bill where we worked together. We worked together where the majority was predominant as democracy requires. I appreciate the chance we had to make some improvements that Members on our side wanted.

In many cases, the request for improvements, for instance, identity theft, where the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) led our task force, they were mutually agreed on.

So I think we have a bill that is better than existing law and that, frankly, contains more new consumer protections than any legislation I have seen in a while. On the other hand, I should be very clear, this is not the bill that I believe we would have written if we were in the majority. There are some areas where we would have written it differently, but that is the nature of the process. And given where we were and the negotiations we were able to do, the votes that we were able to take, we have a product that I think does the best possible in these circumstances to do the two important things we have to do: One, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) has said, help the market to function.

The free market is a wonderful engine for the creation of wealth. And what we have done here today is to reenact some rules that allow it to go forward in the most efficient possible way. We have also shown, I think, that it is entirely consistent with a respect for and understanding of the free market, to protect consumers in various ways.

The market is an excellent instrument, but it is not a perfect one. It will make some mistakes. There will be errors. There will be abuse. I believe our job as legislators is to try to write legislation, create rules that allow the market to function while protecting people in ways that do not unduly interfere with the market. And I think, as I said in this bill, we have moved significantly in that direction. So I would urge Members to be supportive.

I do note that after this bill, let me explain this to people, after this bill passed through committee, the State of California did adopt additional legislation in the area of privacy. Much of that legislation is unaffected by what we do today. One section out of that legislation would be affected by what we do today. Had California acted earlier, we might perhaps have been able to address that in our deliberations. Given the way things work, once a bill is out of committee, that becomes harder.

I know from friends from California are going to continue, on our side, to try to make efforts, whether it is here or later on in the Conference Committee, and these are decisions that we will try to make to try to improve that. I regret this, but given the timing, that was something we could not control.

With all of that, the basic point to me is that we have a bill today that continues the preemptions, which I believe help the market function at its most efficient in granting credit and adds to, in most cases, the consumer protections, including some areas like identity theft and medical privacy which had not, in 1996, been on everybody's agenda. So I hope that we will go through the amendment process. I hope a couple of amendments will win, but in any case, I will urge Members to vote for this bill as the best accommodation that we were able to achieve in this circumstance of the duty to make it possible for the free market to function, while at the same time, providing those protections for consumers which would not automatically come from the market.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who served as the Chair of our task force on identity theft and who is responsible for much of the good material in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the second-ranking member of the committee, the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises, and one of the leaders in shaping this legislation.

(Mr. KANJORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), another diligent member of the committee who made a great contribution to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, as part of this colloquy, I would say to my friends the chairmen of the full committee and subcommittee that many Members are concerned about the scope of the preemption that was just referred to, particularly with regards to identity theft.

So I want to clarify with the author of the bill, the committee chairman, what we are intending and how we have underscored that intention in the manager's amendment which will be coming forward.

Does this bill or this amendment allow the preemption of any State law on identity theft, such as limits on Social Security number use, criminal penalties for identity theft perpetrators, or other identity theft protections that are not specific subject matters addressed by this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). Let me say I appreciate the affirmations from both gentlemen.

Mr. Chairman, let me say now, I want to transition from the colloquy where we were in agreement as to what it says to express my view that I think even with these agreements the bill is, with regard to some existing law in California and elsewhere, more preemptive than it needs to be.

I recognize the value of this colloquy in making clear what those limits are. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who has been very concerned about this and who, indeed, alerted me to it earlier, and I unfortunately did not pay as much attention as I should have at the time, she is concerned and I share her concerns, so she will be pursuing this further.

So I just want to say while I am pleased to have this colloquy and to have these understandings, my own personal view, which I realize is not shared by the gentleman of Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is that even with these understandings, there is more preemptive language here than need be. I intend to work with the gentleman from California and other Californians in various ways to try and further reduce that preemption.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, let me take back my time. There were two different California issues here. Of course, one would not expect California to settle for only one controversy. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is correctly alluding to the future issue of so-called SB1. But what the gentleman from California had identified to me before that had passed was preemption of existing California where it predates the recent enactment. And that is the concern that I was alluding to.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, I will have to take back my time. I have one more speaker. The gentleman is again talking about the language going forward in SB1. The gentlewoman from Los Angeles and I are now addressing a different set of laws, laws that had already been on the books prior to that, laws passed subsequent to 1996, some of which I think are unnecessarily preempted, although this colloquy has helped.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the ranking member of the subcommittee who worked very hard to make the bill better, but still obviously has some concerns with it. But from the consumer standpoint, the gentleman worked as hard as anyone.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), one of those who had a major input into this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for taking over for me temporarily and for his very effective leadership throughout the deliberations on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. It is better than we got. It is not all I want, but it improves the bill, as is appropriate for this particular form of a non-controversial amendment in a technical way. It embodies some improvement in the situation vis-a-vis the retroactive California preemption that was embodied in the colloquy.

The colloquy that the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from Ohio and I had is really an explanation of what is in this particular manager's amendment, I think it will improve the bill, and I urge it be adopted.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, because this came afterwards, what happens to the 5 minutes just used? Is it subsequent to the 5 minutes the gentlewoman just used?

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge that the gentlewoman from California is absolutely correct. She did call to my attention during this discussion on this bill the potential problem that she learned about of a retroactive preemption. I missed it. I made a mistake in this case. She was correct and we should have spotted it. I think it is incorrect.

I want to make clear we are talking about two separate issues here on the preemption. There is the preemption prospectively of what is known as SB1. That is not what is at issue here. There will be a second amendment on that.

This has to do with laws that were passed by California subsequent to 1996 that were not subject to preemption at the time that would now be retroactively preempted. I think that is a mistake.

I should note that the gentlewoman read a list of preemptions. In many of the cases I acknowledge what is preemptive does provide some protection. In other words, it is not a case where there is a preemption, all protections are wiped out. In some cases, the protections are functionally equal. In other cases, they may be somewhat different. But these are laws that had been on the books in California. My view was that this bill ought to go forward with the existing preemptions, with some new consumer protections. It was not my intention to extend the preemptions. Through failure to spot

the meaning of some particular words, I must concede that this happened.

I regret that. We have tried in conversations to undo it. We have in the manager's amendment undone some of it, but not enough of it. But as I said, there are still some of the sections preempted and are replaced by other protections, so it is not a case where there will be no protections at all; but it does seem to me still that there are some rollbacks of California law that were unnecessary.

So as a matter of fairness to California, I do not think we should have been preempting without full knowledge.

Now, I do not mean to say that anybody did anything inappropriate. I should have been clearer about what was happening and we simply failed to spot the meaning of four words; that sometimes happens. I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I think the California laws are substantively wise, but that is not the primary point. My primary point is that we should not be here retroactively preempting what a State has done. That is very different than the future of SB1. We will talk about that later.

So I strongly support the gentlewoman's amendment; and throughout this process, because this bill is a long way from being sent to the President, I will continue to do what I can. She is correct, she and the other gentlewoman from California who serves on the committee called this to our attention, they deserved a better response than they got; and I will do everything I can now to correct the error that we made.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the crux of this is that by this amendment, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) seeks to extend preemption beyond where it is under current law. I believe what we attempted to do, with a great deal of success, we made a mistake with regard to California, was to go forward with existing preemptions, to bring them forward, while we added some consumer protections. It is not contested. This amendment would preempt State activity that is not now preempted.

If we simply extended the Fair Credit Reporting Act without this amendment, there are things that the States could do that this amendment will prevent them from doing. Yes, the bill does make some improvements with regard to credit scores and with regard to credit reports. But as an example, and I recognize that the gentleman's amendment does grandfather current State law that goes beyond what the Federal law does, but I cite these two States not because they are going to be preempted, but because they are an example of the kind of actions that States have taken in the past that would be preempted in the future.

Two of our more radical States have taken actions in the past that would be preempted in the future, Colorado and Georgia. What this amendment says is no other State should be as radical and as anti free market and as populist as those two places, Colorado and Georgia. Colorado and Georgia have both seen fit in their legislative processes to extend to their citizens rights with regard to credit scores and credit reports that no other State will be allowed to do if this amendment is adopted.

Now credit scores, in particular, are very important. Members should check with their own constituents and their own State governments. Credit scoring is spreading. People are now finding that credit scoring is being used not simply to give them a loan, but to give them insurance. It has become a very controversial subject. Indeed, one of the things that is in this bill, and I appreciate the chairman having agreed with us that it should be there, is a study that we have commissioned about the legitimacy of using credit scoring as a standard in areas outside the granting of credit.

Should consumers be denied insurance because there was a past credit problem if those consumers are being given insurance that does not involve credit, insurance which needs to be paid for currently?

The gentleman's amendment would prevent States in the future from going beyond where we are with regard to credit scoring. I agree there is need for uniformity in some things, but insurance has always been a State matter. I do not believe we need a national policy with regard to the regulation of insurance. If we do, then we have to change a lot more than simply preempt this because we have left insurance there.

I want to emphasize at this point, I understand this does not preempt what is currently around in some States, but it says in an area that is of growing concern to the States, credit scoring and that has particular concern for members of ethnic minority communities, you may not do anything in credit scoring that we have not done.

We do good things in this bill, but I do not think that it is perfect. I do not think it explores and occupies the entire universe of consumer protections. I believe there are things that the States could do that would be relative to that State that would not impinge on others.

I do not think the Colorado and Georgia rules interfere elsewhere. For instance, in Colorado it says as I said it, that if you are going to be treated negatively because there have been too many inquiries on your credit report, the credit agency has to tell you that so you can take some action to protect yourself. I think that is a reasonable

thing for a State to be able to do. I am glad Colorado has done it. I do not think Colorado ought to be, as it would be under this amendment, the last State to be able to make that protection. I hope that we will stick with what I thought was the outlines of what we were agreeing to here which was to preserve the existing preemptions, but not to extend them.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just stress again, and I was reminded by one of our able staff members, in the case of credit scoring, we have in our legislation emulated what California did to some extent.

I will be prepared to agree to a unanimous consent request that subsequently no one will be allowed to mention California in this debate. I would be ready to agree to that. But I will take my one last reference to it and say we have benefited from what the States do. Even if you believe in preemption, this is the wrong time in the evolution of national policy to lock in a preemption with regard to credit scoring. I warn Members, credit scoring is an explosive issue in some areas. It is one which is being expanded beyond the granting of credit. Do not vote for an amendment that will limit your State's ability to respond to what consumers will feel is very important in the area of credit scoring, and that is what this amendment would do. Even if you believe in an ultimate preemption, it is at a very premature stage. Credit scoring is a relatively new issue in terms of its being extended to other areas. I do not see any reason why we should go beyond the existing preemptions. Everyone has said they work very well. All the studies have been of the existing preemptions.

I want to be very clear once again, this is a new preemption. This would have the States lose the right that they now have, and have under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, to protect their citizens, particularly with regard to the area of credit scoring. I think it would be very unwise. I urge the Members to stay with the committee position here and defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a difficult issue. Let me say first, I very much agree with the gentleman, and this is something that I want us to return to; and I hope the chairman will do this. The credit repair agencies, I agree, are a problem. Whatever system we have, I think there is an abusive practice there. I think the gentleman is right to point to it. I myself check my voice mail when I am down here. I called my Massachusetts voice mail where my phone is listed, and I have a man telling me that he has got my credit records in front of him and he can help me with my debts. Since I pay up pretty regularly, I thought maybe this was identity theft. I called him up, and it was one of these phoney credit repair agencies. I called just to do that.

Let me say to the gentleman, I would be glad to work with him to do legislation, because whatever we do, whatever remedy we give, we are going to have the problem of credit repair. I think he has pointed to a very good problem. I would just say to the gentleman that I look forward to working with him. I cannot support this particular amendment, but I would be glad to work with our chairman on dealing with the credit repair issue.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would say, particularly with regard to protecting legitimate merchants against abusive credit repair companies, I would be glad to work with the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

The gentlewoman correctly described what happened when the gentlewoman raised this issue in committee and we had a discussion of it and I agreed to the substance in the first year. And yes, in the manager's amendment we have, I think, a very good version of the amendment that she had introduced in committee because when you are doing something like this, there is often a problem in the transition. And the gentlewoman is correct that her initiative, we have managed the problem of the transition, namely, we have given to the regulators, in this case, primarily the Federal Trade Commission, with some participation from the Federal Reserve, the ability to do it within the first year.

But I could not agree to making that a permanent feature in the way in which we now have because, for instance, some of the credit reporting agencies might be responsible and gear up for this. I do not want to reward those that might not do it. I think it is very reasonable to say in the first year, and it is also the case when you go from not having this right to having the right, yes, you can expect there to be a slew of first-time requests. But

after the first year there is no reason to think that there is going to be this kind of backlog and a reasonable company ought to be able to manage that.

If something should turn out later down the road to be an unanticipated problem, we have the capacity to deal with it, but I think it would weaken this if we were now to say to the regulators, in effect, on an ongoing basis, they could suspend this indefinitely, suspend this right for a lot of people. So while I supported and was glad to the 1-year transition issue, it does seem to me to go much further and we had and this was a process of give and take, we had agreed I thought on free credit reports as a basic rule. I must say that on our side and in many other places, giving the regulators an ongoing right to suspend what we have advertised as a new right beyond the transition year is very troubling and I would find it very difficult if this were to be included.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

One point, I recognize there could be a spike problem in the beginning. We should underline with regard to these requests, we are talking here about the problem of sending it out. Nobody has to send out a report that does not exist.

In other words, we are not imposing on the credit reporting agencies the duty of compiling the report anew. And I think that is something we ought to take into account. The question is simply whether after that first year they will be flooded, and the request is to simply send a report that exists. If no report exists, no obligation exists. And I do not think that the problem after the first year at this point is going to be so clearly a problem that we ought to write in this suspension. I am prepared to look at it later, but I think it would be a serious error at this point.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Just myself to close, as we have the right to do.

Reserving the right to object, I would point out to the gentlewoman, the last time she and I had this conversation the result was a pretty good amendment to the manager's. I think we have a pretty good track record of working together.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a good deal of self-congratulation on this bill, but some of it is not yet deserved. I hope after the adoption of this amendment it will be.

We have congratulated ourselves on, among other things, providing under this amendment for free copies once a year of credit reports to consumers. Indeed, we had a colloquy with the gentleman from New York about the flood that was going to happen; and at one point in committee. Language was adopted which did provide all consumers with free copies of all credit reports that might have been done on them.

Then an amendment was adopted in committee, and I wish it had not been adopted, it was not by vote, it just happened, which substantially limited it. So as of now, as the bill stands, if this amendment is not adopted, consumers can get free copies of their credit reports, consumers in general, from only one of the three major national credit agencies. And that is a good thing, but there are an awful lot of specialized credit agencies. There are regional credit agencies. Not as many. Some that remain from previously. There are local credit agencies. My amendment does not cover them; I leave them out. They had been in the original bill, but I had agreed to a cutback. The cutback went much further than I thought we had agreed to.

So what this amendment says is an individual should be able to get a free copy of their credit report from the national specialized credit agencies, and there are large numbers of national agencies. One of the most important is the Medical Information Bureau, and I have spoken to them. They have no objection to being in this requirement. They give medical information, which would be relevant. There is also ChoicePoint, CheckSystems, CLUE, and Landlords United. A lot of these national specialized agencies have to do with landlord-tenant agencies.

So if this amendment does not pass, please do not try to take credit for passing a bill that generally gives consumers a right to a free credit report. It gives consumers a right to a limited pool of free credit reports, those from the major national credit agencies. But a large number of the agencies which compile credit on people will be excluded from the bill, and I think that would be a severe error and a misrepresentation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and would say first that the gentleman has correctly stated it. And, frankly, I relied when that amendment was offered on what he now concedes was a misinterpretation. That is not a good way to legislate. And I am disappointed that the gentleman is going to try to keep the advantage of that misunderstanding.

Secondly, it is inaccurate to say that this amendment that I am now offering would cover everybody. I have agreed to exempt in this amendment the local credit agencies. I am talking about the national specialized ones. They are the primary difference between us.

The gentleman acknowledges and he explained an amendment that I did not think and I guess he did not think covered people like MIB. We did not object to it. It was not carefully read. We accepted the description. He says through inadvertence it went too far. That happens. But I think it is frankly inappropriate in terms of our legislatively working together to insist on that, particularly since I am not trying to restore the original language. I am excluding the small ones.

Mr. Chairman, what this does is this covers the few regional ones, but mostly it covers national specialized agencies which do not merit the description of those who are too poor.

So I think, once again, if we reject this amendment, we have what the gentleman concedes is an inadvertent amendment that was adopted that excludes a number of agencies and we cannot say that it gives everybody free credit reports.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Put aside the regionals. What about the national specialized agencies, like MIB? This amendment could be amended under the rules. An amendment could be offered to amend this, a second degree amendment. Would the gentleman agree to exclude the regionals and cover the specialized national ones?

Where? This is the end of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to express my extreme disappointment.

I relied on an explanation the gentleman now acknowledges was erroneous when this amendment was adopted. The gentleman says it goes too far. I have offered to try to compromise. He now tells me that after the bill has passed, he will work with me. That offer is worth about as much as the explanation I got, apparently. And it may or may not be a conferencable item. I do not know whether the Senate will have any language in this.

So I must express my extreme disappointment. This is not conducive to a cooperative working relationship, I must say to the gentleman from Louisiana. We tried to do this through negotiations in the manager's amendment; we have tried to repair this. And the gentleman has at every point said, no, I won because there was a misunderstanding, and that is it.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot consider that to be a reasonable offer to work together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I must look pretty stupid to be told that people are going to work with me at the end of the bill.

This process has been going on since we finished the markup. My staff was negotiating with the staff of the majority. We offered all kinds of things. We had the manager's amendment opportunity. This amendment was filed last night. It was subject to secondary degree amendment. It could have been changed.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) said there is no real difference between my position and the position of the gentleman from Louisiana. Let me correct the gentleman, there is no difference between my position and the position the gentleman from Louisiana explained when the amendment was offered; but there is a big difference between my position and what the law says if we pass this bill this way.

We talk about the protected classes, people who have been the victims of fraud, people who are unemployed, if you pass this bill and defeat this amendment, they will have less rights thanks to your work than they have today. The amendment of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), he said through inadvertence, took away their rights. Whatever they use to take away their rights, whether it was inadvertence, advertence, or anything else, they have lost their rights.

Now after saying no to a negotiation before, no to the manager's amendment, and no to an amendment here, now the other side says we will see you in conference. Let me make a commitment to the gentleman. If you want to

use your majority to defeat this amendment, I probably cannot stop you; but if this is not substantially repaired in conference, this bipartisan consensus is coming to an end.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her spirit of cooperation. I think she is very much right on the substance. We did have to try to work out a balance out of committee. Some of us, as you recently saw, were more willing to stick to our commitments than others; but I would say to the gentlewoman, I think that in substance she has a very good idea and, yes, I would welcome the chance to try to work with her in conference assuming that there is something conferencable about this, as there may well be.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

The question is not whether the Chair has the discretion but whether or not he has the integrity and courage to do so.

Offered By: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Amendment No. 5: Page 10, line 12, insert ``, other than

subsections (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l)'' before the

closing quotation marks after ``identity theft prevention''.

Page 10, after line 13, insert the following new paragraph:

(4) Section 624(b)(1) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15

1681t(b)(1)) is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph

(A), by inserting ``specific'' before ``subject matter''.

Offered By: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Amendment No. 6: Page 44, strike lines 9 and 10 and insert

``Section 612 of the''.

Page 44, beginning on line 14, strike ``described in

section 603(p)'' and insert ``that compiles and maintains

files on consumers on a nationwide or regional basis''.

Page 44, strike line 18 and all that follows through line

22.

Offered By: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Amendment No. 7: Page 44, beginning on line 14, strike

``described in section 603(p)'' and insert ``that compiles

and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide or regional

basis''.

Mr. Speaker, during the recess, I was pleased to meet with a group of representatives of The United Steel Workers in my district. They presented me with a petition with which I am in strong agreement--calling on those of us who serve in Congress ``to pledge their support for the Healthcare Bill of Rights in its entirety.'' In particular, this petition cited the importance of three key principles, which are: First, everyone has a right to quality healthcare, regardless of financial standing. The government must insure that no American is denied needed healthcare services because of inability to pay; second, healthcare should be affordable for all who need it. The government must see that healthcare costs are brought under control; and third, everyone has a right to affordable prescription drugs. The government must insure that every American has prescription drug coverage. No one should be forced to choose whether or not to buy needed prescribed medicine based on how much money they have.

Mr Speaker, I will not enter here the long list of names of signers of this petition. But I believe that Members should be aware of the strong sentiment that exists on behalf of such an important public policy. And I salute the Steel Workers of America and those who have taken the lead in organizing this petition in my own district and elsewhere, for their commitment to a better America.