Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that this conference report for this crime bill came back to the floor so quickly. Let me say as a cosponsor of this legislation that this bill includes some very important provisions that will help States and will help the Bush administration to continue their efforts to expand and improve the AMBER Alert system.

As we know, last fall the President provided a total of $10 million to develop AMBER training and to develop education programs to upgrade the emergency alert system. As we have witnessed, AMBER Alert has worked to bring children home safely.

I wanted to share one example of where this alert has worked well. That is the case with Nicole Timmons of Riverside, California, in my State. The alert was not only delivered throughout California, but luckily, the neighboring State of Nevada also ran the alert. As a consequence, an alert driver noticed that Nicole matched the description. He thus, within the first few hours, contacted authorities. She was returned safely to her parents.

The point here is that they say three out of every four children who are murdered by their abductors are killed in the first 3 hours. That is why speed is of the essence. That is why a nationwide system is needed to ensure that neighboring States and communities will be able to coordinate when an abductor is traveling with a child to other parts of the country.

We need an organized national effort so abducted children transported across State lines can be returned to their parents, to their families, as 53 have been safely in California and other States that have now adopted the AMBER Alert system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those who have worked to make certain that this legislation becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the vice-chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, for working long and hard on this legislation.

For several years now, the House has been focused on the problem of conflict diamonds around the world. Three years ago, the Subcommittee on Africa that I chair held a hearing on these conflict diamonds; and we have had several hearings on Sierra Leone where, again, these diamonds have fueled a conflict, frankly, a conflict that has brutalized many children in that country, a conflict that has led to the forced amputations of the arms and legs of little girls and little boys in Sierra Leone.

Concerted international action, including a U.N. curb on the diamond trade in Sierra Leone and neighboring Liberia, has helped give Sierra Leone a chance for peace. The legislation that we are considering today builds on that success.

We should note that the problem of natural resources fueling conflicts in Africa is not limited to diamonds. Over the last several years, an estimated 2.5 million people have died in the eastern Congo due to a conflict being fueled by an illegal natural resource rush. The U.N. has documented what it calls ``elite networks,'' government officials from Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and the Congo acting in collaboration with international criminals and war lords. What are they doing? They are gorging on diamonds, but also other minerals and on farm produce and land and tax revenue, and these characters thrive in an environment of conflict. They thrive on death, and we need to combat all of this exploitation.

Today, though, we are focused on a significant part of the problem, and that is diamonds; and this legislation is an important tool to fight this chaos that is going on in eastern Congo and elsewhere. Ending the trade in conflict diamonds is all the more important given reports of terrorists using rough diamonds to hide their funds and to transfer their funds.

Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York and the other Members; and to name a few, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); our former Member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel); and others who have worked on this legislation, which has been several years in the making. It promises to curb the trade in conflict diamonds while not harming the legitimate diamond trade that so many Africans depend on for their livelihood.

This is an important step forward and deserves strong support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which is called the Business Checking Freedom Act; and I think giving banks the ability to pay interest on business checking accounts is a good concept. It has been endorsed by the President of the United States as part of his small business agenda, but it has also been endorsed by Federal regulators.

Federal regulators have long supported the effort to allow banks to offer interest on demand accounts, and this particular measure enjoys a broad base of support in the industry, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, America's Community Bankers, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, the Association of Financial Professionals, and the Financial Services Roundtable.

The inability of depository institutions to pay interest on business accounts, I think, hurts all sectors of the economy; and I think it decreases the overall competitiveness of the American markets. This legislation gives small businesses the jump-start that they need to create new jobs and improve the economy while removing burdensome regulations from small banks and, basically, while allowing the market to work.

In my view, this legislation is solely about business checking. In my view, it is not about the legal status of ILCs. I think contrary to the concerns raised by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC Chairman Don Powell, recently testified before our committee, testified that there are no safety and soundness concerns with this amendment and that the FDIC has no objection to an authorization for ILCs, or industrial loan banks, to pay interest on NOW accounts held by businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I just thought I would quote Chairman Powell. He said, ``The FDIC would not object to paying interest by these financial institutions on NOW accounts held by businesses. We do not really perceive those any different from any other business accounts, and we do not see it as a safety and soundness issue.''

Further, with respect to any concern regarding the relationship between industrial loan banks and the few commercial companies that own them in four States, Chairman Powell stated in a speech to the American Bankers Association on October 8, 2002, that ``Congress has given us good tools to manage the relationship between parents and insured subsidiaries.

``Indeed, the FDIC manages these relationships every day in the industrial loan company model with little or no risk to the deposit insurance funds, and no subsidy transferred to the nonbank parent.''

Again, in my view, this bill is about business checking for depository institutions, not the legal status of ILCs. I want to commend the authors of this legislation, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which, of course, includes the AMBER Alert bill.

Last September, President George Bush took immediate action to help expand and improve the AMBER Alert system; and he provided a total of $10 million from existing funds in order to expand and develop the AMBER training and education programs and in order to upgrade the emergency alert system. I support President Bush's efforts, and I urge Congress to pass this important bill so that we can continue our efforts to ensure that an AMBER Alert system will be there for all of our Nation's children.

As we witnessed, AMBER plans have worked to bring home children safely; and I wanted to share one particular story about a 10-year-old girl from Riverside, California, named Nicole Timmons. We have the system in California, but, luckily, neighboring Nevada also picked up this alert; and on the Nevada radio stations they reported that Nicole had just been kidnapped by an individual and gave a certain amount of information. Luckily, a very alert citizen in Nevada was listening to this broadcast as he was driving next to the vehicle that Nicole was being transported in, being abducted in. He noticed that the driver was behaving rather suspiciously, and he noticed this 10-year-old girl. As a consequence, he immediately notified law enforcement. They moved in, and they rescued Nicole.

What is important here is in 75 percent of the cases where a young child is killed by an abductor, that murder occurs within the first 3 hours. That is why it is necessary that these alerts go up immediately to give other citizens a chance to help apprehend, to help report suspicious behavior, to help look for that abductor.

Of course, we have to ask ourselves, what if Nevada had not picked up the California alert? That is why we want to expand it across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, last year my colleagues and I on the conference committee for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

sent to the President a bill that included tough new criminal penalties for corporate malefactors. I think at that time we took a number of steps that were important. We drastically increased the sentencing guidelines for securities fraud, for document shredding, for mail and wire fraud. I think Congress provided a strong deterrent for many white-collar criminals that would misrepresent the true financial health of their companies.

By passing this legislation, I think we send a serious message to Wall Street and to Main Street that these corporate criminals would be dealt with as harshly as other criminals. I think today Congress has the opportunity to finish the task of preventing corporate malfeasance by agreeing to pass this bill, H.R. 975. This bill may not have everything we want in terms of how it is phrased, but included in this bill I think is a sensible provision that sharply limits to $125,000 the homestead exemption that many CEOs and corporate officers have used to shield their assets from creditors after they plunder their shareholders' wealth. This is in cases where someone has committed securities law violations or other bad acts, and I think by empowering the government to go after the ill gotten gains that corporate officers who break the law and then tie up those assets in offshore mansions at the expense of parishioners who have been swindled, I think this is an important addition to the law.

Also, this bill prohibits people convicted of felonies like securities fraud from claiming an unlimited exemption when filing for bankruptcy, and I think that protects taxpayers from having to bear the cost of corporate collapses like Enron and WorldCom; and I think it also guards against fraud and abuse by requiring that high-income debtors who have the ability to repay a significant portion of their debts do so, preventing them from sticking responsible borrowers with their tab in the long run.

It accomplishes all of this while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debts to do so. For far too long, Americans who have worked hard and paid their bills have been held accountable for their debts but also by debts incurred by those who irresponsibly file for bankruptcy; and I think this long-overdue legislation will reform the critically flawed bankruptcy process and prevent affluent filers from gaming the system and passing on their bad debts to hard-working families, while preserving the ability of people who truly need to discharge their debt through bankruptcy to do so.

Bankruptcy should be preserved as a last resort for those who truly need the protections that the bankruptcy system has to offer, not a tool for those who could pay their debts, but choose to discharge them instead. By agreeing to this legislation, Congress will make the existing bankruptcy system a needs-based one and correct a flaw in the current system that encourages people to file for bankruptcy and walk away from debts regardless of whether they are able to repay any portion of what they owe, and it does this while protecting those who truly need protection.

So I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this report and help honest taxpayers by closing the loopholes in the current bankruptcy system.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 26) condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights, 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 and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 26.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution condemning the punishment of execution by stoning as a gross violation of human rights. I am a proud cosponsor of this resolution, and I commend the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for her work on this issue. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, I am pleased that the House is taking this action.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that stoning is a gross violation of human rights. When someone is put to death by stoning, they are guaranteed a slow, painful, cruel death. Stones are carefully chosen so they are large enough to cause maximum pain, but not so large as to kill the condemned immediately.

Stoning brings out the worst in human nature. It may surprise many that this barbaric practice has entered the 21st century, but it has. Sharia law governs family law in a wide range of countries. It is only applied to criminal offenses in a handful of states.

In Nigeria, 12 of the country's 36 states put Sharia criminal law into effect in recent years, displacing Nigeria's secular laws.

The case of Amina Lawal, a young woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, has brought international attention to Sharia-mandated stoning. Her case is pending. We all hope she is spared this brutal treatment.

This resolution rightfully condemns the practice of stoning and calls upon the President and Secretary of State to work with their counterparts toward the repeal of stoning laws and adherence to international standards of human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Let me just echo the words of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. It is indeed ironic that Sudan, a country that uses stoning, should serve on the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. It is even more ironic that Libya should be the current chairman of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, along with Colin Powell, I had the opportunity and the privilege of coleading an election-monitoring team to Nigeria for its first democratic elections there in over a decade. After years of military rule, we observed a fair and free election; to wit, firsthand those exercising the simple virtues of democracy was truly inspiring. Along with other election monitors, I came away with great hope for Nigeria's future.

Unfortunately, in the last 3 years, Sharia criminal law has swept through the northern half of Nigeria. The chief prosecutor of a Katsina state in northern Nigeria has even called Sharia law a ``dividend of democracy.''

Mr. Speaker, since that election, 10,000 Nigerians have died in religiously inspired rioting across that country. Nigeria seems to be on the verge of being torn apart along Muslim-Christian lines. Besides being barbaric and being a gross abuse of human rights, stoning is fueling this religious divide, undermining Nigeria's democratic prospects. Stoning is not a ``dividend'' of any type of democracy that I know many Nigerians are struggling to establish.

Nigeria is but one country of concern for us. It was only after September 11 that the American public began to learn about the brutal living conditions for women under the Taliban, including being subject to public stonings. Afghanistan remains a fragile state. Many parts of Afghanistan are struggling with the questions of how to govern. This resolution is our message that stoning should have no role in today's Afghanistan, or anywhere else in today's age.

It is important for this body to bring attention to this abysmal practice. This resolution deserves strong support of all Members here.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of this resolution urging the United States to work towards passage of a resolution on North Korean human rights abuses at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

I am a cosponsor of this resolution, and I commend the Committee on International Relations vice-chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for his attention to this issue. I also want to commend the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his attention. Both of these gentlemen have spent much time, have spent much of their careers, trying to focus this body on human rights and to address human rights concerns around this world.

Last year, this House passed legislation, House Concurrent Resolution 213, recognizing the horrific plight of North Korean refugees who risk their lives to escape into China. That legislation at the time included language encouraging the Secretary of State to work to pass a resolution regarding human rights in North Korea at the 59th session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. That session began yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, North Korea is one of the worst systemic abusers of human rights in the world today. North Koreans are held hostage to their so-called Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Il. North Koreans are put to death for a very wide variety of crimes against the revolution, as he calls it, including listening to foreign broadcasts or possessing printed material that is considered reactionary by that regime.

The prison camps in that regime hold an estimated 200,000 prisoners. Last year, the Subcommittee on Asia held a hearing to look at the nightmarish conditions in these North Korean prison camps. We heard testimony from North Koreans who had escaped the camps, and these were North Koreans in disfavor with that Stalinist regime, those who had been convicted of ``anticriminal acts.'' They were basically political prisoners.

As we heard their testimony, they reported to us that the inmates in those camps were being slowly worked to death. These were work camps. We heard from North Koreans who witnessed prisoners being gassed as part of a chemical weapons experiment. We also heard testimony from Dr. Norbert Vollersten, a German physician and one of the few Westerners to spend extended time in North Korea. Dr. Vollersten has launched a worldwide campaign to tell anyone who will listen what he witnessed in North Korea. Dr. Vollersten has asked why the world does not hear more and does not know more about what he describes as Nazi-type atrocities that are occurring to North Korean people.

As we know, the North Korean regime uses food as a weapon against its own people, apportioning and withholding resources based on citizens' perceived loyalty to the regime. In many parts of that country, in many counties, whole counties, whole provinces, are perceived not to be loyal enough to receive food aid.

It is largely an untold story that from 1994 to 1998 at least 2 million North Koreans perished from starvation and related diseases while nearly 50 percent of North Korean children are malnourished to the point that their physical and mental health is compromised. Responsibility for this unparalleled cruelty lies squarely with the regime of Kim Jong Il.

The upcoming session provides an opportunity, the session in the United Nations, for the administration and others throughout the world to focus on these horrific realities in North Korea which have unfortunately been overlooked. And I am convinced that a

concerted international focus on the North Korean regime's human rights abuses would advance stability in Northeast Asia. I am hard pressed to see how turning away from this ugly reality is in the interest of anyone but the North Korean regime.

Mr. Speaker, we face a critical challenge on the Korean peninsula. I urge the passage of this timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 314) to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, 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 H.R. 314.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 314. This is the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act, which I have introduced with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

This carefully written legislation addresses a specific problem for consumers and businesses involved in the mortgage servicing industry by simply clarifying the existing law governing mortgage servicing. This uncontroversial bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and has been approved for consideration under the suspension of the rules by both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill to fix a problem in the mortgage servicing industry which has hampered the abilities of this industry to serve its clients effectively and to conduct its business efficiently for too long.

Currently, when a mortgage servicing company acquires the rights to service a portfolio of home loans, it is exempt from the unnecessary strictures of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under the creditor exemption that was also extended to the originator of the mortgage. The new mortgage servicer is extended this exemption because its relationship to the borrower is more like a relationship between a borrower and a lender than it is like the relationship between a borrower and a true collections agency. The law already recognizes this reality.

However, in the typical loan servicing portfolio transfer, a small percentage of the loans acquired by a new servicer will inevitably be delinquent or technically in default at the time of transfer. These loans are currently treated by the law as being subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and subsequently, the new servicers of these loans are required to provide certain form notices, known as Miranda warnings, to the borrower.

The law also currently requires that in every subsequent contact, both written and oral, whether initiated by the servicer or the borrower, the servicer is required to provide a shorter mini-Miranda notice disclosing that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt, and that any information provided by the borrower will be used toward that end.

The purpose of these cookie-cutter warnings is to prevent unscrupulous debt collectors from using false or misleading tactics, such as a phony winning sweepstakes claim, to trick consumers into divulging private financial information or personal details like their home address or their phone number.

The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act has worked extremely well in preventing bad actors in the debt collections business from using lies and deceit to harm consumers, and this legislation would in no way prevent it from continuing to protect American consumers.

However, as I have already mentioned, mortgage servicers are not like debt collectors. Their role to consumers is much more like that of a mortgage originator, and in the context of a mortgage servicing transfer, these Miranda notices are both detrimental to consumers and unnecessary and inefficient for mortgage servicers' operations.

First, the notice misleads the borrower about the nature of the relationship between him- or herself and the new servicer. Unlike true debt collectors, mortgage servicers have a long-term relationship with their client, and these harshly worded notices often have the effect of discouraging a borrower who was slightly late on a mortgage payment from contacting their new servicer for fear that the servicer is a true third-party debt collector. This ends up frustrating the servicer's efforts to work with delinquent borrowers on developing strategies to bring their loans current and keep their credit ratings intact.

A mortgage servicer's biggest hurdle in helping delinquent borrowers to help themselves is getting them on the phone, and these threatening Miranda notices only contribute to that unnecessary fear without doing anything to help the borrower. Additionally, the information protected by the Miranda notices is information already in the servicer's possession. So nothing new is truly protected by requiring these additional legalistic and threatening notices be provided.

Finally, these warnings simply make consumers feel unnecessarily defensive and antagonistic toward their new servicer during the first step of their new association, which can have a chilling effect on the rest of their relationship.

Mortgage servicers typically send these Miranda notices along with a new customer's welcome letter as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and this letter also includes important consumer information about the new servicer and the borrower's monthly payment arrangements. This preliminary contact is the first opportunity that a servicer has to create a positive relationship with a new client, and the harsh language used in the Miranda warning can create animosity between the servicer where none need exist.

Additionally, because the mini-Miranda is required in all subsequent contacts, they can continue for decades,

even after customers bring their loans current and keep them that way for years.

H.R. 314 resolves this problem by creating a narrow exemption from Miranda notices for the servicers of federally related first lien mortgages whose primary function is servicing current loans, not collecting third-party debts. It exempts these servicers only from the Miranda notices, leaving all other substantive borrower protections required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act in place.

This legislation is consistent with the long-standing recommendation from the Federal Trade Commission to improve the mortgage servicing process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation to improve the mortgage servicing process for both the consumer and for the companies who serve them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for consumers and help to increase the efficiency of the mortgage servicing industry by supporting this common-sense and bipartisan legislation.

I would, again, like to thank the coauthor of this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for their comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am firmly committed to protecting Social Security for current recipients and for those who will be retiring in the near future. So, I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Mr. Shaw for his efforts to strengthen the financial security of our Nation's retirement system. I support the Social Security Protection Act, and I was pleased to support this bill when it passed the House unanimously last year. It is unfortunate that the House and Senate couldn't work out a final version before the end of the 107th Congress.

This bill stops fugitive felons from receiving benefits. The CBO estimates we will pay over $500 million to fugitive felons over the next 10 years from the Social Security trust funds.

The Social Security Administration appoints representatives payees for many beneficiaries to help manage their financial affairs when they are not able. This bill protects these beneficiaries from representative payees who may misuse their benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this bill helps put the Security back in Social Security and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Not too long ago, I returned from Afghanistan, and other Central Asian countries, where I met with our troops on the front lines of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, Americans can be very proud of the men and women serving our country in Central Asia. They are true professionals, doing their jobs in very difficult conditions. Troops we met with were in good spirits and morale is high. Yes, our soldiers want to come home-- several told me how they miss their wife and kids--but above all they want to finish their mission.

In the coming weeks, U.S. forces may be asked to face combat in the Middle East. No one wants war. If military conflict does come, you can be sure that we have the very best serving our country. They are the latest in a long line of men and women who have served our country with distinction, and to whom we owe our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Peace Corps Day, which was last Friday, February 28th.

I recently returned from a trip to Africa, where I had a chance to meet with Peace Corps volunteers in Madagascar. The commitment of these men and women, who returned to this country after being evacuated due to its political instability, is extremely impressive.

President Bush has issued a call to service for all Americans--both at home and abroad. The President has offered a bold vision to significantly expand the Peace Corps. Congress should give the President the tools he needs to make his Peace Corps vision a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen the valuable work the Peace Corps is doing in Africa, and throughout the developing world. It deserves our recognition and support. Under the leadership of Director Gaddi Vasquez, the Peace Corps is well poised to address the rapidly evolving challenges of the developing world.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a well-crafted bill that helps the North American Development Bank to accomplish its stated goal of improving the wastewater treatment, solid waste management and potable water supply in America's Mexico border region more efficiently. In California over the last 2 decades, the population has grown by more than 30 percent while the water supply has increased by only 2 percent. But as California's thirst for water increases, the number of available sources for drinking water is shrinking. This is why I support the North American Development Bank's mission of providing clean and safe water to all of America's southern border areas, particularly to the already overtaxed southern California area.

I was able to contribute to this legislation by adding a provision that directs the North American Development Bank's support for qualified water conservation projects in southern California which will help to reduce the overall burden on a State whose water resources are already stretched dangerously thin. California currently leads the country in desalination, conjunctive use, recycling and water conservation efforts so the money invested in our part of the country gets an excellent return on investment.

I urge support for this broad, nonpartisan initiative to recognize that qualified water conservation and supply projects are important to southern California and deserve the support of the North American Development Bank.