Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and missed a rollcall vote. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 388.

Mr. Speaker, on July 19, 2004, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber and missed three rollcall votes. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 391, 392, and 393.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this chamber on July 12, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 359, 361 and 362 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 360.

Madam Speaker, the resolution we are considering today, H.R. 2768, provides for the minting of a commemorative coin to honor the life and legacy of Chief Justice John Marshall, an important figure in United States history. He was a soldier during the Revolutionary War, a member of Congress, and Secretary of State before serving as chief justice for 34 years, the longest period of any justice in our Nation's history. He authored more than 500 opinions, which helped shape the fundamental principles of the Constitution, most notably the principle of judicial review. His leadership helped set the course for our court to become the powerful and prestigious institution that it is today.

Most Chicagoans recognize the name John Marshall as that of the John Marshall Law School, located in the heart of the city's legal and financial district. This institution has a long and continuous tradition of diversity, innovation and opportunity. Students receive an education that combines an understanding of the theory, the philosophy and the practice of law. Alumni from John Marshall Law School are active participants in local and national politics.

I initially became aware of this bill through alumni of John Marshall Law School. I have since become a strong supporter because not only does it honor Marshall's legacy, but it also has the potential to generate millions of dollars for the Supreme Court Historical Society. I believe the Society is an important tool for all Americans. It helps keep us educated and informed of our Nation's highest court and its activities.

As I spoke to other offices about this legislature, I was pleased to be able to secure an additional 40 cosponsors for this bill, helping to move it forward. However, I am disappointed that it took so long to get it past the House Financial Services Committee, which reported it out on April 27, 2004. I would have liked such a worthy, bipartisan issue to have been brought on the floor for voting much sooner. Nonetheless, I am pleased to be standing here in front of you today and I urge you to support this honorable and worthy legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on July 6, 2004. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 326 and 327.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment, which would provide no funds in the bill be used to defend the OCC preemption regulations in a court of law.

Earlier this year, the OCC issued preemption rules that indicated that many State laws did not apply to national banks, did not apply to national banks, and State officials such as the attorneys general elected in each and every one of our States did not have authority over national banks and to help consumers.

I think that is crazy. I think that is insane. And it does not defend the consumers.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and I and our staffs, with their inspiration and innovation, have brought this amendment to the floor because we want to defend consumers.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the OCC, regulates national banks. The name of the agency causes most people to think of it as the Mint or that it would be responsible for printing money. It is certainly not the agency that consumers think to call for help when a bank has violated the law, and perhaps it is because the OCC's Consumer Call Center is open only for business 28 hours a week and closed on Fridays. At least the attorneys general and your bank regulators in your States are open Monday through Friday, 40 hours a week, to defend consumers.

That is what the OCC thinks about consumer protections. They will not even defend you 5 days a week. When my constituents have a problem with the bank, they call the Illinois Attorney General, as I am sure in every other State people call their Attorneys General. But according to the OCC, the Attorney General has virtually no authority over the big powerful national banks. And that is wrong.

I remember when the gentleman from Alabama came here talking about States right and saying they are the incubator of ideas. Everything is done better at the local level. Yet, the gentleman from Alabama comes here, and we should have struck his words, I will not, calling us crazy on five different occasions.

It is not crazy to protect consumers. It is crazy not to protect consumers because that is our main responsibility, to defend the people and not to be quoting from the Bankers Journal. They publish that journal to defend their interests, and it should be our priority to defend the interests of consumers, as crazy as that may seem given all the special interest money that runs around the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on June 21, 2004. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 276, 277, and 278.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor an exemplary public servant from Puerto Rico, the Honorable Luis Melendez Cano, mayor of the City of Vega Baja.

Luisito, as he is popularly known, has been Mayor of the City of Vega Baja since January 1973. Luisito, who also is a pharmacist, earned the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army National Guard and became Mayor at age 33.

Luisito has served the citizens of his fast-growing city with enthusiasm, a strong sense of patriotism and total devotion to the highest ideals of public service. He is known and respected for his honesty and dedication to the best interest of the people he serves.

Mr. Speaker, public service is one of the highest callings an individual can embark on. Please join me in recognizing the stellar record of this dedicated public servant. A man who committed himself to the improvement of the City of Vega Baja and its people.

Luisito, I congratulate you for your many years of selfless public service, and I wish you and the people of your city much success in your future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on June 18, 2004. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, and 275 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 270.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this chamber on June 14, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 234 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes 232, 233 and 235.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this chamber on June 8 and June 9, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 229, 230 and 231.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for votes in this Chamber on April 2, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 115, 116, and 117.

In addition, I was inadvertently delayed and missed votes on June 1, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 210, 211, and 212.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on April 28, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 138.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for a vote in this chamber on May 6, 2004. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 152.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Congressman Paul and a number of our colleagues, I am introducing legislation to overturn the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) ``preemption regulations.'' These misguided, unprecedented, and unchecked pair of regulations expand federal regulatory authority by preempting state consumer protection laws. The OCC regulations exceed the limited preemption authority granted the agency by Congress. Our legislation will stop the OCC from eroding strong safeguards that have been used by the states for more than a century to enforce consumer protection laws.

The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801) provides a mechanism for Congress to review and nullify regulations and prohibit the agency from promulgating substantially similar regulations--without changing the underlying statute. In this case, each Congressional Review Act resolution--one for each rule--will function like a ``referendum'' on an OCC rule. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate before the recess.

Last week, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan expressed concern about the OCC's actions and their potential to undermine the dual banking system. He urged legislators to maintain an ``appropriate balance'' in the nation's dual system of federally and state-chartered banks. I would hope that my colleagues would join our effort to accomplish that balance by overturning these misguided rules.