John H. Adler

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3987) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity theft guidelines to creditors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

I rise today in support of the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010. This legislation, which I introduced in the House, will narrow the scope of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003.

The FACT Act directed the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate rules requiring creditors to implement programs to detect and respond to so-called red flags that could indicate identity theft. Clearly, we all agree that identity theft is a serious problem and we must respond with strong regulations to protect consumers. That was the intent of the Congress in 2003. This Congress shares that intent.

However, we need to be careful that the laws we pass address the problem and do so in a way that doesn't adversely and unfairly impact small businesses. America's small businesses are struggling in today's tough economy. Congress needs to work in a bipartisan manner to find commonsense solutions to help America's small businesses remain as competitive as possible so they can create good-paying jobs.

I am pleased the House is taking up my legislation that will reduce burdensome regulations on small businesses. The purpose of the Red Flag Program Clarification Act is to limit the type of creditor that must be covered by the FTC's Red Flags Rule.

When I think of the word ``creditor,'' dentists, accounting firms, and law firms do not come to mind. However, the FACT Act, as read by the FTC, states that these professions and others will be required to comply with Red Flag's regulations. It is clear when Congress wrote the law, they never contemplated including these types of businesses within the broad scope of that law. The FTC, to its great credit, has already delayed implementation of the Red Flags Rule numerous times because of this issue. And I want to thank FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz for his understanding that Congress in no way intended back in 2003 to include these sorts of businesses in the broad scope of the FACT Act.

We must act by the end of this year to head off the potentially damaging impact of this rule, and I am pleased this bill, this bipartisan bill, will provide a permanent solution to this problem. The Senate passed this bill unanimously. The House passed similar legislation, which I co-wrote with Mr. Broun and Mr. Simpson, last year by a narrow vote of 400-0.

I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Congressman Broun and Congressman Simpson, along with Mr. Maffei and Mr. Lee, for their leadership on this issue. I also wish to thank, once again, Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for allowing this bill to come to the floor. We worked together on a bipartisan basis to solve a problem. Today we achieve a worthy balance the right way, a bipartisan solution to a nonpartisan problem.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation that is so important to our small businesses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and I agree. We agree on lots of things. And we also agree, I think, that this Chamber should see more bills like this, more processes like this.

The House and Senate actually cooperated and got something good done that helps our small businesses, that helps Americans all across this country and that brings a little bit of common sense.

A few years ago, Congress tried to do a good thing and overreached just a little bit with good intent over each little bit. As Mr. Simpson acknowledged, we saw the problem. Chairman Leibowitz of the FTC also saw the problem, and we worked together. The bureaucracy was not inflexible. It showed some restraint and didn't impose an additional burden on small businesses--on the doctors and dentists and lawyers

around the country, who are clearly not creditors. So, for once, the process kind of worked.

This gives hope to the people who will be serving in the next Congress. They can work together on a bipartisan basis. This gives hope to people like me, who are leaving at the end of this term, that Congress will continue to function, in some way, in a bipartisan, commonsense manner.

I am satisfied we've done a good job here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore who are being honored as the 2010 Women Advocate of the Year by the Ocean County Advisory Commission on the Status of Women. More than 15,000 girls between the ages of 5 and 17 belong to the Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore. With the help of 6,000 adult volunteers, they become successful women of courage, confidence and character.

As our nation moves forward into the 21st century, it is clear we will need women leaders and problem solvers to keep our nation prosperous. At an early age, the Girl Scouts program instills in our women a sense of pride, leadership and community. The Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore prepares the young women of Ocean County to be our nation's next business, civic and community leaders. As the Women Advocate of the Year, the Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore are well on their way to ensuring a bright future for our state and nation.

By providing quality programs and important community services, the Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore represent a distinct group of women here in the third district. I am proud to represent them here in Congress and encourage them to continue to give back to those around them whether through charitable acts or civic duty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 5458.

Like all of my colleagues, I receive thousands of pieces of mail a week. When a letter from my constituent Ryan Bryski came across my desk I knew I had to act.

Ryan's brother Christopher, for whom this bill is named, was a young man attending Rutgers University when he suffered a traumatic brain injury after an accidental fall.

Christopher was in a vegetative state for 2 years before his passing in 2006.

For a parent, that situation would have been enough to endure, but for the Bryski family, their suffering was far more than just the loss of their youngest son.

Like most college students, Christopher had to borrow money to finance his education.

He had received loans through both the Federal Government as well as a private lender. Like most college aged kids, Christopher did not have enough credit to receive a private loan on his own, so his father Joseph cosigned his loan.

Federal loans discharge upon the death of a student, however private loans do not. Since Joseph cosigned Christopher's loan he was now responsible to pay it back in full.

This situation puzzled the Bryski family because nowhere in their loan contract was a clause specifying what would happen to the loan upon the borrower or cosigner's death or disability.

Their lender told them that according to the bank Christopher's persistent vegetative state and subsequent death was a simple ``inability to pay,'' so the financial burden was placed on Joseph.

This was not the only problem the Bryskis encountered after their son's fatal accident.

Due to the fact that Christopher was over 18 when he left home to attend school he was, according to the law, an adult who was able to make his own financial, legal, and health care decisions.

With Christopher in a vegetative state, his parent needed to maintain his financial standing with his school, as well as pay his bills and fulfill all of his contracts.

The Bryskis spent countless time and money regaining custody of their own son so that they could prevent him from defaulting on other bills in case he should recover.

They were not only being responsible parents, but responsible Americans.

The Bryskis also endured a personal interview of Christopher, so that the courts could be sure Christopher was indeed unable to make decisions on his behalf. Literally, someone from the court came to Christopher's hospital room and yelled in his face to ensure that he would not respond and he was indeed in a vegetative state.

As a father of 4 boys, 2 of whom are in college, I cannot imagine going through what the Bryskis went through.

This is why I introduced H.R. 5458 the Christopher Bryski Student Loan Protection Act or Christopher's Law.

This bill would help prevent other families from going through what the Bryskis did by ensuring that private educational lenders clearly describe the obligations of borrowers and cosigners upon their death or disability--what the banks call ``an inability to pay.'' The rest of us would call it a family tragedy.

Christopher's Law will also urge the Federal Reserve Board to adopt and interpret the same definitions of death and disability as the Department of Education, mainstreaming and clarifying the law.

This bill does not require that private loans be discharged in case of death or disability. It simply requires private educational lenders to define death and disability so that borrowers and cosigners can refer to these definitions should a catastrophe happen to their family.

It also states that the private education lender as well as the Federal Government must provide information on creating a durable power of attorney to handle the borrower's financial affairs should the borrower be unable to make those decisions on their own.

In other words, borrower and lender must be on the same page.

Since I introduced this legislation I have been approached by other families in my district with the same problems the Bryskis encountered.

Giving students and their families more choices to protect them against disability or death is an important step. Our ultimate goal should be giving all students and families this protection. I would urge lenders to consider looking at student loan debt forgiveness in the case of death or disability as the Federal Government does. This is also an area where the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could play a role, and that agency does not need to wait for an act of Congress.

I believe this is a common-sense bipartisan piece of legislation that deserves the support of this entire body.

I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Chairman Frank for bringing this important legislation to the floor.

I urge its passage.