Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1714 after completion of our amendment. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for their guidance and long-time leadership on consumers issues. They have helped me craft this amendment in a way that I think will help consumers. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his courtesy in trying to put this together. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues that I believe we have a product, after completion of our amendment, that is pro-consumer. I will tell my colleagues two reasons. Number one, this is a consumer freedom bill. It gives consumers a new freedom and the freedom to be allowed to receive information and complete transactions electronically, a right, a freedom that will remain theirs and theirs alone. Only consumers will have the prerogative to decide whether or not transactions are electronic. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I want to make abundantly clear throughout this debate, nothing in my amendment or the bill, nothing, not one word, will remove one single consumer protection to receive a notice of any law in this country State, Federal, or municipal. Look at page 3 of our amendment. Nothing will remove the right to get this notice. All it does is it changes from papyrus or lambskin to electronic at the consumer's request.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).

Mr. INSLEE. Reclaiming my time, those will be given. Those notices will be given. In every case, the consumers electronically, if they want it electronically, and on paper if they want it on paper, those notices shall be given. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).

Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to specifically note that the underlying bill excludes from its ambit notices of foreclosure, of acceleration of default on the home. Those are specifically excepted and should not be an issue.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the Garden State, New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I would note that that click will waive no rights; it will simply indicate that notifications will be coming electronically rather than writing them in. A click will waive no rights under this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell Members what our goal was in drafting this amendment. Our goal basically is to assure an American's right to make the decision by themselves based on the information they have to receive information electronically and to form contracts electronically. Our goal is based on the proposition something like this: If you read the Declaration of Independence, it reads just as well electronically as it does on a piece of paper. And when you receive information in an on-line transaction, if you want to purchase insurance, a car, a book, the information you are going to receive reads just as well electronically. Therefore, we have crafted an amendment that would assure that every consumer has a new right, and, that is, the right to decide they want to receive information electronically. I want to point out several things about it. Number one, it makes sure that this is a decision made and has to be made affirmatively by an American. They have to affirmatively take an action to disclose they want to do business electronically. Number two, and very importantly, this makes very clear that any requirement of any government in America to give any notice will still exist after the passage of this bill if this amendment prevails. I want to read the applicable section. It reads: Nothing in this Act affects the content or timing of any disclosure required to be provided to any consumer under any statute, regulation, or other rule of law. I read this because I have heard many other Members suggest that somehow consumers will lose the right to receive notifications. This is inaccurate. This amendment will assure that every notification a person is entitled to receive, they will still be entitled to receive. Third, it makes abundantly clear, we added a provision that consumers have to be notified what hardware and software they need to receive this information so that they are not acting blindly. We have heard suggestions that somehow electronic commerce is inefficient, ineffective. I think we have to realize sometimes the mail gets eaten by the dog as well, or misplaced, and, in fact, if consumers want to do business electronically, they should be entitled to do so. We have also, fifth, provided that the credit card rules, the limitations of liability, still apply in this context, if somebody steals your identity essentially. And, sixth, we provide, and I think this is very important because I have heard some misinformation on the floor already in this regard. Where the law requires provision of a notice, where a business has to provide notice to a consumer, they will still be required to provide notice, not simply post it on a website. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I am calling on the United States Justice Department to put away any dream of breaking up Microsoft. Microsoft and its employees should not be punished for being one of the most creative, dynamic teams of people in American economic history. Mr. Speaker, many of the people who work at Microsoft live in my district, and I can say with confidence that they are undaunted by this struggle, they are focused, and I am confident that their team will continue to bring new products to the American people. Mr. Speaker, the American consumer has benefited amazingly by the innovation that is taking place in this industry. Computers are more powerful, software is more powerful, and more people have access to the Internet every day. There is competition in this industry, and if my colleagues do not believe me, look at the stock market where millions are putting their hard-earned dollars investing in Microsoft's competitors, and that is fine. But, Mr. Speaker, consumers are enjoying the benefits of a vigorous electronic industry. The Federal Government should put away any scheme to dismember the most creative, the most dynamic industry in the history of the world.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, if we are indeed steward of our constituents' privacy, why should we give banks the right to strip us of privacy? Why should we give banks the ability to tell everyone in the world who are their affiliates about our banking accounts and our checks? Why should we do this? And who will come to this floor tonight and say to the American people that it is okay for banks to violate our privacy and to give our bank accounts to their affiliates so they can telemarket us? Who will come here tonight and say that? No one. Because every single Member of this chamber, of both parties and both genders, of all beliefs, know that is wrong, and it ought to be outlawed. Why is this so important? Because this is a brave, new and threatening world in the financial services industry. This is not the little bank on the corner any more. The little bank on the corner did not have any incentive to violate our privacy. They wanted to keep our privacy. But when we create this new organism of banking, as sure as God made little green apples, that the affiliated insurance companies and the affiliated stockbrokers are going to want the computer profiling of our accounts so they can sell everything on this green Earth to us over the phone at 7 o'clock at night. Now, many of us are concerned about the financial forces at work trying to pass this bill. I will just leave my colleagues with one thought. When consideration of deregulation of the savings and loan industry came about, only 26 Members of this chamber voted against it, and all 26 Members felt the same fear and concern we do. Vote to send this bill back for more work. Vote for privacy. Defeat this bill tonight.

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I too want to compliment the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for their work on this bill. They both showed courtesy and professionalism. But I must speak against this bill, because the way this bill is written tonight it is a clear and present danger to the existing privacy rights of America. This bill is the single greatest threat to Americans' basic and fundamental privacy interests of any legislation, considered by any legislative body in America, ever. The reason is, and I want my colleagues to imagine this, because this is what is going to happen if this bill becomes law. When these mega- affiliates are allowed to exist, what is going to happen is our bank accounts, the first time we happen to get $5,000 cash in our bank accounts, a computer will spit that information out to the affiliated stock broker who will call us at 7 o'clock at night and try to sell us hotstock.com stock. And the second thing that will happen is every single check we have written is going to go to the affiliated life insurance company so they can profile our life-style to decide whether to sell us life insurance. We are going backwards on privacy. We are creating a new organism. These affiliates will threaten our privacy. We should reject this bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, tonight we are going to have an opportunity to talk about privacy and H.R. 10, the financial institution reform bill. Before we do that, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), who will address social security from perhaps a little different perspective.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to address the House concerning, I think, a very important emerging issue, emerging because of tremendous consolidation in our financial services industry and emerging because of people's rightful concern about their personal privacy. This personal privacy issue is one I think that has exploded on us because we have found, unfortunately, that there are various businesses that are consciously violating Americans rights of personal privacy. Let me give my colleagues just a little small example, because I am going to talk about financial services industries in an abstract, but I just want to tell my colleagues a little story, a little story about personal privacy and what happens when it is not respected. I was talking to this Member who was telling me that he just had heart surgery, and because of that heart surgery, he was on a blood thinner drug called Coumadin, which is fine, and it saved his life, and he is doing quite well. But about 30 days after he started on this regimen of Coumadin, lo and behold, he gets a solicitation in the mail from this company to buy some product about how to monitor his Coumadin. Someone somewhere, some business, for some profit motive had violated his personal rights of privacy by telling some strange company he had never heard of that one of our fellows was a good target to try to sell some product. If companies can violate the privacy rights of Members of Congress, imagine what is going on to our constituents. Unfortunately, a lot of bad things are happening to our constituents when it comes to personal privacy rights. Now, what brought us here tonight is the emerging consideration next week by the Chamber of H.R. 10, the Financial Modernization Act. For those who are not familiar with this, the Financial Modernization Act will, for the first time in the American economy, give free reign to banks to affiliate with hundreds of other types of financial institutions, insurance companies, brokerage houses, securities businesses. As we know, for many, many years, they have been prohibited from doing so. Many Members, myself included, believe that there are a lot of benefits to be had by allowing some consolidation in the industry. But we are very, very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that if that bill passes in the form that has been reported out of the conference committee, that what will be left out almost lock, stock, and barrel is the protection of consumers' privacy when banks essentially merge with insurance companies and merge with security houses and merge with stockbrokers. Let me tell my colleagues why we are concerned. There is a very significant infection going on when it comes to personal privacy in this country. I would like to alert to the House some of the things that have been going on, some we read about in the newspapers, some we learn about just talking to our constituents. I just want to read a story, a first paragraph from the Los Angeles Times this September, ``A San Fernando Valley bank sold a convicted felon 90 percent of the credit card numbers he allegedly used to run up $45.7 million in mostly bogus charges against consumers worldwide, according to interviews and court documents filed Friday. Charter Pacific Bank, which has made millions by processing credit card transactions for adult entertainment firms, provided Kenneth H. Thaves of Malibu more than 3.7 million card numbers complied from its merchants accounts, according to a report filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.'' Here we had, according to the Los Angeles Times, an instance where a bank violated its Members' rights of privacy and sold thousands of their credit card numbers to somebody who then, in a fraudulent scheme, ran up credit card charge numbers. But this was not an isolated act. We go to Minnesota where, just recently, a lawsuit was settled between the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota and U.S. Bankcorp where U.S. Bankcorp agreed, according to news accounts, to give $3 million to the States and charities because they apparently supplied telemarketing firm Member Works, Inc. of Stanford, Connecticut with its customers' names, Social Security numbers, marital status, occupation, account balances, homeownership status, and credit limits against the privacy rights of its own customers. Imagine how one would feel or anyone in this Chamber would feel if we were told that, against our wishes, in fact, a bank had given our credit card numbers or our account information, in fact, to some third party, and they end up telemarketing a product to us. All of us, it seems to me, have some reasonable expectation that the amount of money in our bank accounts is not going to be spread to the world, that who we write checks to is not going to be told to telemarketing agencies. That is a reasonable American expectation of privacy. But, unfortunately, that is not being honored, not by all banks. Many banks, in fact, are honoring people's privacy. There are thousands of banks that are being responsible, corporate citizens that are honoring our privacy rights. But we are having some that are not. Mr. Speaker, it comes down to a very personal basis when I learn about some things that have happened in my own State of Washington. I just want to read a couple personal accounts of complaints registered by the Washington State Attorney General's office about some real life stories that happen in my State. Here is a woman from Royal City, Washington, a nice small town in eastern Washington. She says, after receiving a phone call from a telemarketing agency and telling them that she was not interested in their product, an experience many of us have two or three times a night now, unfortunately, she says, ``In May, I was billed $59.95 on a my U.S. Visa credit card. Because I do not use the card, I was shocked. I phoned the Field & Stream Club, but they refused to cancel the membership. They were unable, however, to find a record of a request for a membership. How could they bill my credit card when I did not give them my number or authorize a purchase? ``I called U.S. Bank to file a complaint and cancel the credit card. The bank representative admitted that the bank had given out my unlisted phone number and banking information. She said it was a credit card `enhancement' program. I am extremely angry that my bank, I have been a customer for 25 years, sold my private information. I have been scammed by both the U.S. Bankcorp and the Field & Stream Club.'' Her anger I think was properly placed, because Americans ought to have the statutory right to block their banks from giving away their account information to telemarketers who can turn around and call us at 7 o'clock at night and try to sell us a product, frankly, that we do not want. This ought to be an American right. We have got a freedom of speech in this country. We have got freedom of religion. We ought to have freedom from interference in our private information in our bank accounts. But she is not alone. A lady from Kent, Washington, saying she got a charge on her Visa bill statement. She says, ``I do not know how they could have gotten my Social Security number or even my address. This telemarketing thing seems to be a big rip-off and probably targeted senior citizens. I am 83 years old but still checking on all my billings. Thank goodness I never signed up or ordered anything from these people. And how did they get my Visa card number?'' A letter from a man in Port Angeles, Washington, ``It all started when we received our normal Visa, but with an entry in the amount of $59.95 from Encore Travel Club. I did not authorize this company for this service, nor could I understand how they received my Visa account number.'' Well, the reason the gentleman could not understand it is he would have the assumption that his bank would not give away his private financial information. But, unfortunately, the law does not protect the man from Port Angeles, the lady from Kent, or the lady from Royal City. It does not protect Americans adequately. Mr. Speaker, the bad news is that, if H.R. 10, the financial modernization bill, passes, we have this chance of going backwards on privacy, not forwards. I would like to share with the House why that is. We have the distinct chance of going backwards on privacy, because this bill, while it has, at least at first blush, some attempt to protect privacy rights of citizens, it has at least some language that would say that banks will not be able to sell or give away private financial information to what are called third parties. That means companies that are not associated in some way with the bank, which is by and large a good thing. There are two huge loopholes one can drive a bank truck through in this particular draft of the conference report. I want to address the House on what those two giant loopholes are. Loophole number one, which is too big to call a loophole, we really ought to call it a canyon or something, is that these privacy protections give consumers exactly zero right to tell their banks not to give away their private information to anything that is considered an ``affiliate'' of the bank. Now, this is an little technical for some folks, but let me try to explain what this means. This means that, while the bill might prevent a bank from giving this information to a telemarketer if the customer said not to, it would simply allow the bank to affiliate with the telemarketing company or with an insurance company or with a stock brokerage company or with a securities firm. This bill, as presently allowed, presently drafted would allow any bank, against the wishes, against the specific statement of a customer who told the bank do not give away my credit card, do not give away my account information, it would allow the bank to give it to its affiliated insurance company. Against the wishes of us, it would allow the insurance company to make a call at 7 o'clock at night to try to sell them a good insurance product. It would allow the computers, which are tremendous, I think computers are one of the best things that ever happened, but, unfortunately, in this case, it would allow banks to do computer profiling of us as Americans. That means that they can set up a computer profile with their associated stock brokering company that says, any time one has got $10,000 in cash, John Q. Citizen, when the computer sees he has got $10,000 in cash, spit that name over to our stock company and allow the stock brokerage company to call John Q. Citizen and try to sell them a stock because they happen to have $10,000 on hand. It allows the computers to profile us on our purchasing habits. If we happen to go to sports stores and buy sporting goods products, it allows our bank against our wishes to violate our privacy, to have that computer profile us and give information to an affiliated company that might have some sporting goods activity associated with it. It basically says that we are going to prevent the sin of violating privacy to a third party, but allow the sin of violating privacy to an affiliate. Why is this important? It may not be so important right now where today the law prevents banks from affiliating with other companies. But next week, if this became law, it will bring down the shields and allow the banks to affiliate with hundreds or thousands of other financial services enterprises. My colleagues and I both know that those market-driven folks will be most eager, anxious, looking forward to the opportunity to get into our bank accounts and use the information in our private bank accounts against us to try to sell us products. So, Mr. Speaker, if this were to pass, I do not think it is a fear, I think it is a fact that we will see an increase in telemarketing activity, using information in our own lives, in essence, against us. It did not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. This bill can be drafted in such a way that could prevent these marketing activities, that could allow these affiliates to offer us the services we want. We can draft the bill very easily to say, as long as the consumer wants these services, it would allow the affiliated companies to provide them. But I stand here to say that Americans ought to have the right to say no to bank telemarketing activity with their affiliates, that Americans ought to have the simple right to write a letter or e-mail or fax or, when one signs up with one's account, check the box that says do not give away my private information. I do not think that's too much to ask. This is a huge bill, Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware. This is one of the more significant bills we will have during this Congress, and I am convinced there is a lot of good that can happen as a result of it. I think that many financial institutions have been very candid and sincere with us; that they can help provide Americans with some good services as a result of these consolidations. But, unfortunately, while we do that, we should not, at the same time, allow the sin of violating our privacy to continue. We have to make sure that we stop that. So what we need to do, if in fact this bill comes to the floor, and I am told there is still some dispute in the conference committee about this language because it is so controversial, and should be, but if it comes to the floor we should send the conferees back to work. We should send the conferees back to work and tell them to come back when they give Americans protection against privacy right violations of bank affiliates. And that is something the House could do and should do. I want to talk about a second giant loophole in the bill. We have not seen the specific language as yet. We are told the conferees are still thrashing this out. And I hope if any of them are possibly listening to this they will continue to thrash to come up with some better language, because there is a loophole in section 2. I am looking for the section now, which is on page 3. Basically, this exception to the prohibition would allow banks to even give information to a third party as long as it was essentially associated with anything called a ``joint agreement.'' A joint agreement. Well, I guess a joint agreement could be the two presidents of the company shaking hands and saying, ``We are going to start to computer profile our customers and we are going to telemarket the heck out of them, and we are both going to do pretty well on this deal.'' That is a ``joint agreement.'' But that joint agreement is closer to kind of a joint conspiracy to violate somebody's privacy. And that is another loophole that has to be closed if we are going to go forward with H.R. 10. It is a simple thing to do, it will allow banks to pursue their duties, and we ought to do it. I want to come back to a point perhaps I made a little earlier, and that is that it is very important not to paint all banks with the same brush with the kind of things I have been talking about tonight. There are many banks, and I have talked to many banks in my community, community banks who are very socially responsible. I have talked to a lot of bankers, particularly small town bankers, who have built banks on the trust of their communities, who have told me they are angry at some of their bigger brethren, frankly, for violating people's privacy, for exposing them to the ridicule of Congress and the American public on this subject. Because those bankers understand very clearly that banks really are built on trust and that they do damage to their relationship with their customers if they violate that sense of trust. I think we are going to see more, in fact I know there is one bank in the next week or two in the State of Washington that is going to announce policies that are essentially what we are proposing. We are proposing that Americans have the right to advise their banks to provide them banking services but not to allow the use of those banking services for marketing purposes against them by some other affiliate or third party. That should not be too much to ask. So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that we are on the cusp of a new dawn when it comes to financial services. We are at the eleventh hour, this is last chance we are going to have to ensure Americans their privacy. And while this bill, H.R. 10, may have sort of corralled one horse, the one horse that is involved in raiding our privacy, it has left 5 to 500 out of the corral. Because while it has helped on third- party privacy protection, it is going to create a whole new host of financial organizations. And they are going to be given the opportunity to violate our rights of privacy, to telemarket us at 7 o'clock at night. Mr. Speaker, I am here to stand for any American in the next decade that gets a call at the dinner hour when they are trying to sell them a product using their checking account, their credit card, their Social Security number or other information. And I hope they do not call me at 6 o'clock to complain, because I am here tonight trying to get the U.S. Congress to prohibit that practice.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must speak against this bill, and that is with due respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) who I think has been very sincere in his efforts to improve this bill. But one of the things the gentleman said struck me in his comments. He mentioned Central Park, a beautiful place loved by maybe all Americans, at least New Yorkers. But the problem with this bill, if we give up, if we put up the white flag to the other chamber, it would allow somebody to go into Central Park if it was owned by the Federal Government and put in a strip mine, a gold mine and put as much as they want over 5, 10, 15 or 20 acres. We should not do that in Central Park and we should not do it in the forestlands of Washington where, in fact, that is going to go on if we accept that. The problem with this bill is simple. While America wants us to go forward on the environment, this takes step by step backwards. We should go forward on mining reform; we go backward. We should go forward on forest reform; we go backward. We should go forward on oil royalties; we go backward. My colleagues are right, we did send this bill over to the other chamber, but it came back infested with these antienvironment riders. When we sent it over to the other chamber, it was a puppy; and it came back full of fleas and now those little fleas have got to be removed from this bill. I want to tell my colleagues why I think Americans are going to be so angry, and I think angry is the right word for it, when they hear about this continued giveaway. It is because if you go on Main Street, nothing will outrage the American people more than the giveaways to special interests, the giveaways that this body has given time after time to special interest legislation and antienvironmental riders. That should stop. If we do not stand for the environment, we ought to stand for this House, for ourselves, for each other. When we voted 273 to say to the other chamber we will not let you shove this down our throats. We will not let you go backwards on mining reform. I do not want to encourage anyone to put up the white flag to the other chamber on this subject. We ought to stand firm. Let me just point out, when I say this is an abject retreat on mining reform, it is. I would encourage my colleagues to look at section 337(b), which has some of the cleverest legal writing I have seen. It is a little trick in here that says basically that Congress agrees with the mining industry on their interpretation of existing law, existing law. There is a little time bomb in here that will entirely ruin our efforts. Now, there is talk about compromise, and I understand compromise in a legislative body. But frankly, compromise in this manner, giving in to these special interests is like the guy who steals $10 from your pocket and wants to compromise by giving you five back. That is the situation with mining reform. I am simply saying this: we are going to stand divided, unfortunately, on this. Some are going to stand for going forward on the environment and vote ``no;'' some are going to stand with going backward on the environment and vote ``yes.'' I am going to stand to go forward. It does not matter how many more stands as far as I am concerned, but the American people desire and are entitled to move forward when it comes to the environment.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Shoreline Bank in Shoreline, Washington. On Friday, October 15th, I was honored to attend a ribbon cutting celebration to commemorate the opening of Shoreline Bank. This bank is truly the symbol of a vibrant, thriving community because when individuals recognized the need for a new bank, they came together to form Shoreline Bank. Shoreline Bank will serve local customers and businesses to help provide economic growth within the neighborhood. Community banks, like Shoreline Bank, are the lifeblood of our communities. Just as local grocers know the buying habits of their regular customers, community banks understand the financial needs of their community. I am proud to have this community-based financial institution in the 1st Congressional District. I am sure that they will be a beneficial addition to the city of Shoreline. I invite my colleagues to join me in saying: Welcome to the neighborhood, Shoreline Bank.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rigged rule for debate on the patients' bill of rights. Ever since this session began, I have been working with my colleagues to bring `bipartisan patients` bill of rights to the floor for a vote. But now that Republicans have been forced to allow a vote on the bipartisan consensus managed care bill, they have written a rule designed to kill the measure. Instead of providing a fair and open rule considering the patients' bill of rights, the Republican Leadership has stacked the deck by writing a rule that blends the managed care bill with a measure riddled with special interest ``poison pills'' designed to kill the measure, and that denies us the opportunity to offset any potential revenue losses from the measure. The Republican Leadership is combining the bipartisan managed care bill with a so-called insurance access bill, which is not paid for. In addition, the Republican leadership is denying a bipartisan group of members the right to offer an amendment to offset the cost of the bill and be fiscally responsible. If we can defeat this flawed rule, bipartisan advocates of managed care reform will return with a fair and open rule that will permit enactment of managed care reform. My constituents deserve patients' bill of rights. I urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and to support real managed care reform and bipartisan patients' bill of rights.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we should reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill. We should do it because America knows one thing in this debate with certainty. The amendment would divide this chamber. The Norwood-Dingell bipartisan would unite it. This is a bipartisan bill, intended to unite us across the aisle. And the one thing we should know for sure, bills that unite us are superior to those that divide us. And if we think about why we are here, it is Congress, and Congress, by its meaning, is coming together. That is an American value. If we look at the five values, and I encourage my colleagues to do this some day, carved on the bar of the House, there are five values: peace, justice, liberty, tolerance, and union. Let us vote for union today, union to do something meaningful for patients. It is what America wants.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to this rule and to this bill. I would like to alert the Members of this chamber of something they may not have heard; and that is, buried in this bill is yet another one of the insidious repeated antienvironmental riders that have so infected our appropriations process. Because hidden in this bill is an amendment that would prevent the United States of America from engaging, engaging in a discussion with the developing world on how to get them to start help dealing with the problem of climate change. There is no reason in this bill or any other bill to shackle our ability to discuss with other Nations of the world how we are going to move forward and how we are going to deal with climate change. This has been infecting other bills. We should stop it right here. In the last few days, we have debated other antienvironmental riders. This is one dealing with perhaps the most insidious environmental problem that we have. Because, while 15 of the hottest years in human history have been in the last 15 years, while the temperature has risen so that we are having droughts in the Midwest and places of Antarctica breaking up and places in the Tundra changing. While we are doing this, the majority puts in another antienvironmental rider that tells us we should do nothing about this problem. Well, the one thing I can be sure of about climate change is that we cannot lead in the position of the ostrich. We cannot lead the world in solving this problem by sticking our heads in the sand and allowing other places of anatomy to be out and exposed to the wind. We have got to start leading to a solution of climate change. If we kill this rule today, and it might be a close vote, so I hope Members may consider this, if my colleagues want to stand up against an antienvironmental rider, cast a no vote on this rule. Let us show some leadership.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in strong opposition to this bill as it stands, and I would like to alert my colleagues to something they may not know in that this bill unfortunately is infected with one of the host of anti-environmental riders that have really infested our appropriations process this year. This bill currently has in it language which would shackle and stop the United States of America from negotiating with other countries, particularly developing nations, to try to get them to join us in efforts to stop greenhouse gas emissions from continuing, to do something about global warming. We must move forward to get other nations to join us. Section 583 specifically says that none of the funds appropriated by this act shall be used for issuing rules, regulations, decrees or orders for the purpose of implementation or in preparation, in preparation for implementation of the Kyoto treaty. This is a major defect in this bill. Why is it there? We have alerted the committee to this problem, but this language is there because unfortunately there are those who want to act like an ostrich and put our Nation's head in the sands and not deal with this problem. Mr. Speaker, we need to defeat this bill, take this out, and reconsider the issue.