Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``International Money Transfer Disclosure Act of 2003,'' a bill to require disclosures involving international money wire transactions.

Immigrants throughout the United States work hard, save money and send billions of dollars to relatives living in foreign countries. The money sent home helps finance basic needs ranging from food and medicine to education and new homes. Unfortunately, customers wiring money abroad are often losing millions of dollars to undisclosed ``currency

conversion fees'' charged by giant firms, such as Western Union and MoneyGram.

Wire transfer companies aggressively target audiences in immigrant communities with ads promising low rates for international transfers. However, such promises are grossly misleading particularly for those with ties to Mexico or other Latin American countries, since companies do not always clearly disclose extra fees charged for converting dollars into Mexican pesos. While large wire service companies typically obtain pesos at bulk bargain rates, they charge a significant currency conversion fee to their U.S. customers. The exchange rate charged to customers sending U.S. dollars to Mexico routinely varies from the benchmark rates by as much as 15 percent. The profits from these hidden currency conversion fees are staggering, allowing companies to reap millions of dollars more than they make from service fees.

To address these problems, the International Money Transfer Disclosure Act of 2003 requires that any financial institution or money transmitting business which initiates an international money transfer on behalf of a consumer, whether or not the consumer maintains an account at such institution or business, shall provide full disclosure of all fees involved in all money-wiring transactions, including the exact amount of foreign currency received by the recipient of the transfer.

Consumers will also be provided a final itemization of all costs dealing with the remittance at the time of the transaction. The disclosures will be provided to the consumer in both English and the language used by the financial institution to advertise, solicit, or negotiate the money transfer.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this sensible pro- consumer legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, introduced by my good friends and colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Hundreds of thousands of our servicemembers are now courageously serving our Nation in Iraq and other dangerous parts of the world. No group of Americans has made or will make as valuable a contribution or as great a sacrifice or will have as much to be proud of as the men and women of our Armed Forces.

The legislation before us today will ensure that these brave men and women serving overseas and defending the ideals of our Nation are not preoccupied with financial security and the well-being of their families at home.

Among the many hazards confronted by men and women in uniform, not all of them are found on the battlefield or on foreign soil or at high seas. Some of their challenges originate here at home, even though they are countless miles away. To make matters worse, these are challenges that not only the men and women who sign up for duty must face, but their family members as well.

Many of these challenges are financial. In various ways, members of the Armed Forces, and in particular members of the National Guard and Reserve who leave jobs, good jobs, homes and families at a moment's notice, face tremendous economic burdens as a result of their willingness to serve. It is at least within our power and the power of this Congress to do something about that, to provide some level of economic security and stability.

I am pleased that measures that I proposed in my bill from the 107th Congress, H.R. 3173, are included in the legislation before us today. One of these provisions is the inclusion of a monthly rental protection increase. Under current law, an activated military member's family with housing payments of $1,200 or less cannot be evicted for failure to pay rent. H.R. 100 raises the protected rental amount to $1,700, a figure that will be indexed.

When the members of our Armed Forces trade in the comforts of their home for barracks in a country thousands of miles away, they should have the peace of mind they are not going to be evicted and their families put on the street. I applaud the inclusion of this specific measure.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act also makes technical updates and clarifies the old law that dates back to 1940. I am pleased that changes in H.R. 100 changes the language of the Soldiers and Sailors Act to better reflect the true composition of our military, and the brave and willing women who sacrifice for our Nation are now included. A family's loss of income does not simply occur when a father or husband leaves his regular job for service, but when a mother or wife does the same.

Outdated language, such as the use of the word ``wife'' to describe dependents eligible for protection while a member is on duty, flies in the face of these brave women honorably serving our Nation. I appreciate that among the technical changes and updates, H.R. 100 replaces such references with gender-neutral language.

I support H.R. 100, and am pleased that so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do as well. I urge a yes vote on this important and timely bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the ``Fairness for America's Heroes Act.''

Currently, there are more than 37,000 non-citizens on active duty in our military and each year approximately 7,000 new non-citizens join the armed forces.

These brave men and women are willing to die defending our nation, and it is imperative that we recognize their selflessness and spirit-- not only when someone is killed in battle, but from the moment they are called up for combat duty.

We need laws that reflect non-citizen soldiers' heroism and their patriotism. That say we are grateful for your sacrifice; we understand the risks and dangers of combat duty; and to honor your dedication and devotion, we are granting you citizenship. This is a right that these men and women have earned and deserve.

Throughout history non-citizen soldiers have stood shoulder-to- shoulder with native-born Americans in defense of our nation. They fight with vigor and valor to protect the American dream, and they risk their lives everyday for the safety and security of our country.

All of those who serve--regardless of race, regardless of gender, regardless of country of origin--are without hesitation recognized as America's heroes. The legislation I am introducing today will allow them, rightfully and justly, to also be recognized as Americans. This is a distinction they have certainly earned and deserve.

The ``Fairness for America's Heroes Act'' grants citizenship automatically to non-citizen soldiers assigned to combat duty.

The legislation says that no soldier will ever again have to come home in a body bag to be recognized as an American. No soldier's family will ever again have to sort through mounds of paperwork so their loved ones can receive citizenship posthumously. It also says that no soldier will ever again have to be preoccupied or worry what will happen to their family's immigration status if they are killed in battle.

It enables immediate family members of servicemen and servicewomen to receive expedited processing of their immigration status, and, perhaps most important, it honors the enormous contributions immigrants make to our military and to our society every day.

To understand these contributions, you have to look no further than the young men who heroically and valiantly served their adopted country in the war against Iraq: Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, Corporal Jose Garibay, Private First Class Francisco Martinez-Flores, Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez del Solar.

These brave young men, barely in their twenties, died fighting for our country, but the ideals and principles they fought for must not.

Those ideals can be summed up most eloquently with the words of Lance Corporal Gutierrez' brother, who said that Jose joined the Marines ``to pay a little back of what he'd gotten from the U.S.''

These young men, many of whom left war-torn, war-ravaged countries, understood that America is the type of place that permits you to dream as big as your heart will allow. They were willing to fight and die for that dream, and our immigration system should reflect and respect that sacrifice.

You see, Mr. Speaker, immigrants' presence in our military is nothing new. Immigrants have fought in every war since the American Revolution. In fact, immigrants account for 20 percent of the recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

In Silvis, Illinois, just west of Chicago, Ill., there is a street called Hero Street U.S.A. This street stands as a tribute to honor eight young Latino men who lost their lives courageously defending our country during World War II and Korea. They went to war without hesitation even though people often ignored them or treated them as second-class individuals. The sacrifice and strength of these young men sparked an unrivaled and unmatched wave of service in their community.

The Department of Defense has documented that no street of comparable size has sent as many men and women to serve in the Armed Forces.

While tributes like these are important, and speeches are moving, we must back up our rhetoric with action. The swift passage of this legislation is an important place to begin.

It will say to these heroic young servicemembers that we recognize and respect your contributions; we honor your spirit and your service; and that you personify the pride and patriotism that makes this Nation so great.

I urge my colleagues to properly recognize these brave men and women by supporting the ``Fairness for America's Heroes Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from this chamber on January 27, 2003 and missed voting on rollcall vote Nos. 13 and 14. I want the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 13 and 14. Also, I was briefly absent from this chamber on January 28, 2003 and I would like the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 15. Also, I was absent from this chamber on February 25, 2003 and I would like the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 33 and 34. I was also absent from this chamber on March 4, 2003 and I would like the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 40, 41 and 42.

On March 18, 2003 I was absent from this chamber and I would like the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 65, 66 and 67. On April 3, 2003 I was briefly absent from this chamber and I would like the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 105. On April 7, 2003 I was absent from this chamber and missed voting on rollcall vote Nos. 109, 110 and 111. I want the Record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 109, 110 and 111.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that yesterday, during consideration of H.R. 975, the House agreed to an amendment I offered to Section 1234. As amended, Section 1234 will assure that all companies forced into involuntary bankruptcy receive the protection of the bona fide dispute standard in the manner that Congress has intended since its adoption in 1984.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain that my amendment changed the effective date in the involuntary bankruptcy provision of H.R. 975 also known as Section 1234. My amendment is identical to language that was included in the corresponding provision, Section 1233 of H.R. 5745, the bankruptcy reform bill passed by the House on November 15, 2002.

My amendment was a purely technical correction. Section 1234 is not new law but a clarifying restatement of Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code, which sets the rules for involuntary cases since 1984. The purpose of the 1984 language was to bar bringing involuntary bankruptcy action in cases which where already subject of a ``bona fide dispute'' on either the existence of liability or the amount of that liability.

The purpose of the bona fide dispute standard is to prevent our overcrowded bankruptcy courts from being burdened with ordinary contract performance disputes filed as involuntary cases by forum- shopping litigants, seeking to gain undue leverage by forcing their counterparty into bankruptcy.

Ordinary contract disputes are contested on a level playing field when they are litigated in the proper forum of a civil court. And if they civil court issues a binding judgment regarding the amount that truly is due, a bona fide dispute no longer exists and an involuntary case may be initiated. But when trade creditors--especially separate affiliates of the same corporation--decline to bring a civil suit, and instead collude to force a debtor company into bankruptcy to gain an unfair advantage regarding bona fide contract disputes over contested amounts claimed to be due, it can be devastating. That devastation is particularly acute for a small business.

As soon as news of the bankruptcy gets out its employees may begin to explore other job opportunities, its suppliers start to demand cash on delivery rather than continue to abide by their standard credit and repayment terms, and its customers start to wonder if they can rely on that business into the future. The company pushed into involuntary bankruptcy is therefore put under tremendous pressure to settle the disputed matter on plantiffs' terms, quickly, regardless of the merits.''

There has been no confusion regarding the interpretation of the bona fide dispute standard at the appellate level, as all five federal appeals courts that have ruled on its scope have agreed that it covers both the questions of whether liability exists and the amount of that liability.

All that Section 1234 does is insert the term ``as to liability or amount'' into the Code so as to prevent any further misunderstanding on this matter by a small minority of bankruptcy judges. My amendment makes sure that Section 1234 apply with respect to all involuntary bankruptcy cases, regardless of whether or not the liability or the amount which is the object of the dispute.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the Committee of the Whole resumes its consideration of H.R. 975, that I be permitted to offer amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 107-42.

Mr. Chairman, I offer Amendment No. 2.

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

Mr. Chairman, this noncontroversial amendment changes the effective date on the involuntary bankruptcy provision of H.R. 975, also known as section 1234. My amendment is identical to language that was included in the corresponding provision, section 1233, of H.R. 5745.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if there is no objection, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Federal Living Wage Responsibility Act of 2003,'' legislation to mandate a livable wage for employees under Federal contracts and subcontracts. Forty-eight representatives currently cosponsor this important legislation.

Nearly a third of the members of the U.S. labor force work full-time, year-round and still do not earn enough to sustain a family above the poverty threshold of $18,400 per year for a family of four. Employees who work hard at full-time jobs should be paid a wage that assures they will not live in poverty.

To address this problem, this Act requires that:

Employees of Federal contracts or subcontracts of more than $10,000 be paid the greater of $8.85 per hour or the hourly wage necessary to reach the poverty level.

Individuals hired by the United States government also receive a living wage, helping thousands of more workers to stay above the poverty level.

Employees of Federal contracts or subcontracts and individuals hired by the United States government receive benefits such as medical or hospital care, vacation and holiday pay, disability and sickness insurance, life insurance and pensions.

Although Congress passed laws such as the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act to help ensure that employees of Federal contractors earn a decent wage, thousands of federal workers and federally-contracted workers still do not earn enough to support themselves or their families.

This legislation will allow hard-working Americans to earn quality wages and to increase their savings for such essential needs as their retirement and their children's education. We believe the Federal government must take responsible, workable steps to reward working Americans and to help keep them out of poverty. This bill represents a practical step toward that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to help the more than 300,000 Americans who suffer from scleroderma. Scleroderma is a chronic, often progressive autoimmune disease in which the body's immune system attacks its own tissues.

The disease manifests itself in two forms: localized scleroderma, effecting the skin and underlying tissue; and systemic scleroderma, also known as systemic sclerosis, a potentially life-threatening disease that attacks internal organs, including the lungs, heart, kidneys, esophagus and gastrointestinal tract.

Scleroderma can vary a great deal in terms of severity. While for a few individuals it is merely a nuisance, for many it is a life- threatening illness. For most, it is a disease that affects how they live their daily lives.

The wide range of symptoms and localized and systemic variations of the disease make it especially hard to diagnose. The average diagnosis is made five years after the onset of symptoms. Once diagnosed, however, people with Scleroderma can only look forward to symptomatic relief, as there is no known cure.

Symptoms may include swelling, hardening and thickening of the skin, blood vessel spasms with severe discomfort in the fingers and toes, weight loss, joint pain, swallowing difficulties, nonhealing ulcerations on the fingertips and extreme fatigue. In its more advanced forms, Scleroderma can prevent patients from performing even the simplest tasks.

Among the goals of my legislation is to help adequately fund research projects regarding Scleroderma; hold a Scleroderma symposium that would bring together distinguished scientists and clinicians from across the United States to determine the most important priorities in Scleroderma research; and to establish a national epidemiological study to better track the incidence of this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in bringing awareness and to help find a cure for this devastating disease.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on January 27, 2003 and I would like the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 13 and ``yea'' on rollcall 14. Also, I was briefly absent from this chamber on January 28, 2003 and missed voting on rollcall vote 15. I want the record to show that had I been present in this chamber, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 15.

Motion to Recommit Offered By Mr. Obey

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the ``U.S. Employee, Family Unity and Legalization Act'' or the ``U.S.E.F.U.L. Act.''

I am very pleased to reintroduce legislation that reflects the global reality of our economy and the migratory nature of the labor market. Today, more than ever, immigrants play a critical role in our country's well-being and competently fill voids in our workforce and add strength and stability to our society.

My bill will help many immigrants realize their potential and our Nation's promise. Tax payers, home and business owners, parents and grandparents, neighbors and friends will no longer be forced to hide in the shadows of a country with a broken immigration system.

The USEFUL Act will enable immigrants now in the country to become eligible for permanent residency if they have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, regardless of their current immigration status. My bill calls for an immediate revision of the ``date of registry'', a provision in current immigration law that allows people to apply for permanent resident status if they had entered the United States by a specific date.

Updating the registry date has been a sensible practice of our nation's immigration policy since 1929, yet Congress has allowed the registry date to remain set at January 1, 1972. As a result, the historic and fair recognition of valuable contributions of long-term, law-abiding, tax-paying residents of the United States has been undermined.

The 1972 registry date has essentially become obsolete. My bill would immediately update the registry date to January 1, 1998, thus granting legal status to any immigrant who can establish that he or she was living in the United States by that time. The registry date would then roll forward by one year at a time every subsequent year until 2009. Thus, my bill would eventually grant permanent residency to every immigrant who entered the United States by January 1, 2003.

Some people might say that this legislation is bold, ambitious, and faces an uphill battle. I agree.

This bill is all of those things, but it is also legislation that is sound, sensible, and will ultimately be successful. My proposal will not only benefit deserving immigrants who have adopted the United States as their home, but all people who rely on safe communities and a sound and sustainable economy.

Immigrants are vital to the health and strength of a number of economic sectors,

such as the agricultural, service and construction industries. Immigrants are also vital to the smooth running of our daily lives-- they educate our children, wash our dishes, mow our lawns, take care of our aging parents and grandparents, serve our food and clean our homes.

If these workers are able enough, are responsible enough to care for our children, parents, and grandparents, should they not at least be afforded the benefits they have rightfully earned?

A study highlighting the economic contributions of immigrants released just last month by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University reported what many of us have understood for some time: Immigrant labor is absolutely essential to the health of the U.S. economy, both in terms of filling gaps in the labor market and expanding the nation's tax base.

Despite the well-documented contributions of immigrants, some people still might say, in light of the attacks of September 11, that this is a bill whose time cannot come.

I would strongly disagree. In fact, I would say that this bill is long overdue.

We must not let our national security concerns cast a dark shadow over the importance and real contributions of immigrants to our country. We should not allow terrorists to destroy the hopes and quest for a better life that is inherent in each and every immigrant seeking a better life while making a considerable contribution to our workforce.

Given the difficult lessons we learned from the tragedies of September 11th and our subsequent efforts to make this country safer for all of us, I would say we need this kind of bold immigration reform, like we have never needed it before. In fact, our national security demands it.

We are all aware than an estimated 8 to 9 million undocumented immigrants live in this country. Imagine this community of people currently living in the shadows brought forward to live openly in our society as legal permanent residents.

Imagine the relief it will provide to parents who, like the immigrants before them, came in search of a better life for their families.

Imagine the relief of employers who depend on the work of these immigrants to keep their hotels, restaurants, factories, and businesses afloat.

As a nation, we have committed immense resources to make our communities safer and to root out terrorists. Imagine our collective relief as Americans when we, alongside our immigrant friends who have come to build this Nation, are better able to focus our efforts on identifying and delivering justice to those that come to tear down this Nation.

The United States has been and always will be a country of immigrants. I believe the USEFUL Act will go far toward easing the plight of long-term U.S. residents who, for all practical purposes are here to stay, but who under current immigration law remain vulnerable. Ultimately, we will all benefit from a stronger, more stable workforce.

I also believe my bill will be extremely useful in our efforts to better secure the homeland and to protect us from future terrorist attacks.

I urge my colleagues to help achieve needed immigration reform by supporting the USEFUL Act.