Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 106th Congress, First Session, Volume 145, Part 11 Page: 14,970
[1386] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
July 1, 1999
medical records, without any protec-
tion for everyone's financial secrets
that no one else has any business get-
ting into.
Mr. Speaker, they are willing to pro-
tect people's secrets from being robbed
by third parties but not against embez-
zlement inside of a bank. They can
take someone's information and sell it
to anybody they want.
This is a terrible rule. This is a rule
which compromises the individual in-
tegrity of every American in our coun-
try. I strongly urge a no vote on the
rule so that we can have the proper
amendments put in order to give the
American individual the protections
which they are going to need as we
move to this new era of cyber-banking.
Every American has a right to
knowledge about information being
gathered about them, notice that it is
going to be reused for purposes other
than that which they originally in-
tended, and the right to say no to
banks, to hospitals, to insurance com-
panies, to anyone else that seeks to use
a family's private information as a
product.
The Ganske amendment does not pro-
vide that protection. The exceptions in
the Ganske amendment swallow this
rule. There is no protection against
medical records being compromised.
Vote no on this rule. Send it back to
the Committee on Rules. Allow for
these amendments to be brought out
here on the floor for a full debate of the
modern financial era and what it
means to every American in our coun-
try.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. LEACH), the gentleman who is the
chairman of the Committee on Bank-
ing and Financial Services and a gen-
tleman who has been engaged in the
methodical, bipartisan effort to get
this bill where it is.
Q 1230
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman for yielding time to me.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, perspective is
very difficult to bring to situations
like this. Let me say that I believe
both sides have some truth. I am not a
great enthusiast for this rule, but I
would urge serious consideration to its
passage. I will vote for it.
Frankly, the main two amendments
that I asked to be placed in order were
the Largent amendment, which would
have protected community banks
somewhat stronger, and the Lee
amendment. By background, let me
stress, the Lee amendment comes from
the Committee on Banking and Finan-
cial Services. It passed by a one-vote
margin in committee. I voted for the
Lee amendment. I would have sup-
ported it on the House floor.
But I would also say to my col-
leagues that if they look at the big pic-
ture, two aspects have to be under-
stood.One, the principal committee of ju-
risdiction over the act that it modifies
is the Committee on the Judiciary, and
the Committee on the Judiciary ob-
jected to its consideration in this bill
before it had a chance to look at it.
That is something that in my view the
Committee on Rules gave dispropor-
tionate attention to, but it was a valid
consideration.
Second, let me just say on redlining,
it is an important issue. But the most
important aspect on this bill relates to
the Community Reinvestment Act,
which this bill broadens in two pro-
found ways. One, it makes CRA a con-
dition of affiliation for banks if they
want to affiliate with insurance compa-
nies and securities firms, and second, it
applies the CRA to a newly created in-
stitution called wholesale financial in-
stitutions. These are strong steps to-
wards protecting against redlining.
Finally, I would caution people on
the rhetoric of privacy. There has
never been a bill in the modern genera-
tion that in its underlying text has
brought more privacy protection to fi-
nancial services than this one. The
amendment that is being worked on
brings even more. It may not go quite
as far as some might want, but it none-
theless is the strongest privacy protec-
tion bill ever brought before this body
in any modern Congress.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield myself such
time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure if the gentleman's two
amendments had been adopted in the
Committee on Rules, we would not
have had this fight on the floor. It
probably would have been passed al-
ready.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms.
LEE).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against
the rule. First, I cannot believe that
the Committee on Rules blocked sev-
eral of our important consumer protec-
tion amendments. It is shocking that
the Committee on Rules blocked the
anti-redlining amendment adopted by
the Committee on Banking and Finan-
cial Services in markup.
Somehow this amendment was just
deleted with no vote, no debate, by the
stroke of a pen or a computer error.
When I asked my colleagues how this
could happen this morning, I was re-
minded of the many anti-democratic
maneuvers that we face each and every
day in this House. How tragic.
This anti-redlining amendment is to
prevent insurance affiliates from red-
lining. It fits squarely into our coun-
try's history to not tolerate discrimi-
nation in its many forms, but particu-
larly not to allow discrimination in
housing.
It was adopted in open session on a
rollcall bipartisan vote. Whether it was
by one vote or by 20 votes, it was demo-cratically adopted. The amendment is
an important tool in fighting redlining
and racial discrimination. It is incon-
ceivable to me that members of the
Committee on Rules would go on
record as opposing fair housing and in
support of redlining.
I urge rejection of this horrendous,
outrageous rule.
Mr. Speaker, we have not allowed banks to
discriminate-why should we allow insurance
Companies to discriminate?
It is vital to remember, to know that the Su-
preme Court, in recent years, upheld the Fair
Housing Act as covering the sale of home-
owner's insurance. The NAACP, and the Jus-
tice Department sued the American Family
Mutual Insurance company on discrimination
in selling their homeowner insurance. The Su-
preme Court ruled in their favor and the com-
pany settled. Thus, there is no question of fed-
eral interest in the sale of homeowners' insur-
ance.
I have been informed that this amendment
displeases the insurance industry. I hope that
I am wrong. We are almost forty years from
the blood, sweat and deaths of the civil rights
movement. The cause for that struggle re-
mains in 1999. This modest amendment asks
the minimum: that insurance companies, just
like banks, should not discriminate.
H.R. 10 is heavily biased toward the inter-
ests of the financial services industry with little
concern for consumers and communities. De-
letion of the Fair Housing Act protections ex-
acerbates this imbalance-and reinforces the
image of H.R. 10 as an industry legislative
product.
The record of companies on fair lending,
redlining, and discrimination should be a con-
sideration in establishing eligibility for the for-
mation of a financial holding company. Elimi-
nation of this provision rewards the
lawbreakers and allows the guilty companies
to have the same rights, the same privileges,
the same benefits as the majority of compa-
nies which are law abiding.
I am shocked. I do not want to believe that
insurance companies, in the lushness of our
booming economy, would resist the idea be-
hind the legislation. As I said earlier, the goal
of the legislation is modest. It only asks insur-
ance companies to not be in violation of the
Fair Housing Act. That they be fair in selling
their policies. That the sale of an insurance
policy should be a business Transaction, not a
transaction that gives vent to prejudices,
stereotypes as to who is and who is not wor-
thy of being a customer by virtue of their resi-
dence.
The Rules Committee has effectively
blocked a formal, and democratically arrived-at
decision to eliminate redlining. This blatant
violation of our legislation process is out-
rageous and should be illegal.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule
and to support a motion to recommit.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DELAY), the majority whip.
Mr. DELAY. Mr. Speaker, in urging
adoption of this rule, I want to just
touch on two issues that may be trou-
bling some of our colleagues.
First, we are blessed in America with
a greatly diversified financial services14970
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 106th Congress, First Session, Volume 145, Part 11, book, July 1999; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30909/m1/13/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.