Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has worked so diligently on this bill.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LEACH. The gentlewoman has raised a very important point. I fully concur in her interpretation. That is exactly correct. I think it is an important clarification for the Record.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney). (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that the major intent of the law is to maintain functional regulation, and the major intent of the law is to have State regulation and law apply without discrimination.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), a distinguished member of the Committee on Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I would just like to stress there is no intent in this bill to jeopardize any confidences associated with doctor-patient relationships nor the privacy protections currently afforded any medical records. Indeed, the intent is to strengthen those protections. To the degree that more precision in this area is required, this gentleman is prepared to work in conference to ensure that that occurs.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker).

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, let me just first thank all associated with this process. My colleagues have had varied perspectives, and this is a very controversial bill. The staff has been extraordinarily professional. I personally believe that the committee staff that the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and I have is as good a staff as any in the history of the Congress. We have also enjoyed working with the committee staff of the Committee on Commerce, which does not quite meet that standard, because we have the highest standard, but we appreciate working with the committee staff of the Committee on Commerce. Let me also say that there are some perspectives that have been presented in a contrasting way that on many of the underlying philosophical aspects there is total consensus in this body. The intent of this legislation is dramatic in the area of privacy. It will be inconceivable to bring forth a law that will do anything except bolster privacy. There is no intent in this law of any nature to undercut executive discretion, which may arise later this summer if certain follow-on legislation does not arise in a timely fashion from another committee of jurisdiction. In any regard, I am personally convinced that, in any historical landscape of consideration, this is the right bill at the right time. There will be nuances that we will all disagree about. But the framework is to present a financial community that will be second to none in the world, a financial community that will serve the American consumer and be so competitive and broad that it will help bring American financial practices and models to the rest of the world. So this bill is designed to look to the next century in such a way that finance will serve rather than be the servant of the people of the world. I urge support of this bill. I personally believe that we can go forth. To the degree there are nuances that need to be corrected, I assure my colleagues they will be.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I would like to echo the gentleman from New York's comments about the gentlewoman. She has brought a great contribution to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. We are all very appreciative. This particular amendment is common sense, it is reasonable, and the majority has no objection whatsoever.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. LEACH. We have carefully reviewed this amendment with the Federal Reserve Board of the United States. It is my understanding that they have no objection to the amendment, that it is a very thoughtful and reasonable approach to dealing with a particular problem. Therefore, we have great respect for the gentlewoman's effort and support her amendment.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I would be happy to yield that time to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, first let me just stress section 191 of this bill repeals the Know Your Customer regulation. Secondly, the committee would be happy to deal with further modifications in this area. But thirdly, it has to be understood by everybody here that money laundering is the Achilles heel of drug traffickers, and many are able to separate themselves from their illegal activities, but they cannot from their money, and just like Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, drug traffickers today are convicted more than anything else of money laundering. To throw this out would be an absolute assault on law enforcement. We must not allow it to happen. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, let me say, in hopes that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) can still be persuaded to this amendment, I would inform the gentleman that the Federal Reserve has no objection to it.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I would just like to say that I think the amendment that the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) has brought is a very thoughtful and reasonable amendment and that it deserves to be added to this bill. I recognize that what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) says has a basis in good thought, but I think this is a true improvement.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I would like to address briefly the Watt amendment. This is an extraordinarily thoughtful amendment brought by one of the most thoughtful Members of our body. Indeed, as chairman of the committee, I would like to say as strongly as I can I know of no more constructively involved member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services or of this Congress than the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and I would urge support of this amendment. It makes good common sense.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, as has been the case in past Congresses, this amendment is being brought forward in an attempt to affirm all that is good about our great country. This is an honorable motive and I am reluctant to oppose it. Moreover, as in the past this amendment is championed by organizations--particularly the American Legion, VFW and DAV--which represent those without whose sacrifices this country and its values would not exist. Had it not been for our nation's veterans, the only competition in the world today would be between totalitarianism of the Left and totalitarianism of the Right. These are honorable men and women, and I am reluctant to oppose them. Yet I remain unable to support this amendment because I remain convinced that to do so is to undercut the very essence of the system of governance for which the flag itself stands. At the heart of our democracy is a struggle, an ongoing conflict of ideas for which the Constitution provides the rules. It is in this conflict that the e pluribus unum--the ``one out of many,'' as the motto borne on the ribbon held in the mouth of the American bald eagle on The Great Seal of the United States puts it--arises. And it is precisely this unity in multiplicity for which our flag with its 50 stars and 13 stripes stands. The genius of our Constitution lies in the way in which it structures and ensures the continuity of this conflict of ideas which is our democracy. It does so through the system of checks and balances and separation of powers with which it structures our government on the one hand, and the protection of freedom of expression it provides in the First Amendment on the other. the former ensures that the fight is always a fair one and that no momentary majority uses its temporary advantage to destroy its opponents; the latter ensures that no idea, however obnoxious, is excluded from consideration in the debate. It should be stressed that the protection provided by the First Amendment is a two-edged sword. In fact, the Bill of Rights does not exempt ideas and the actions that embody them from criticism, but ensures they are exposed to it. As Jefferson put it in his ``Act for Establishing Religious Freedom'' in Virginia: Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapon, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. Thus any abridgment of the protections provided by the First Amendment, no matter how nobly motivated, would diminish freedom and in all likelihood precipitate, in this instance, more symbolic incidents tarnishing the flag than would otherwise be the case. Accordingly, great care must be taken not to take actions in the name of protecting the flag that have the effect of misinterpreting the meaning of the flag. In making this assessment, the distinction between liberties to protect and symbols to rally behind remains essential. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion require constitutional protection. The flag, on the other hand, demands respect for what it is--the greatest symbol of the greatest country on the face of the earth. It is appropriate to pass laws expressing reverence for the flag and applying penalties, wherever possible, to those who would desecrate it, but I have grave doubts the Constitution is the right place to address these issues.