John Olver

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform which is the committee of jurisdiction for our Capital City. (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will wait until the point of order has been disposed of and then claim my 5 minutes.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, last week the full Committee on Appropriations voted 33 to 25 to accept this provision that prevents credit card issuers from using totally unrelated consumer information to raise the annual percentage rates on cardholders. The provision could have been protected by the Committee on Rules. It was not. Therefore, the point of order was possible. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has accepted the point of order reluctantly. But this provision in no way prevents companies from raising interest rates, but simply states that banks can only base that decision on the interest rate on information that is relevant to the account that they issue. This provision would make sure that people who pay their credit card account on time and remain within their credit limit do not have their annual percentage rates increased. The practice of using unrelated information to increase those rates is not allowed when lenders issue home mortgages, and it simply should not be allowed when they issue credit cards. It is outrageous that this practice is legal. I hope that the discussion here, since the issue has been ruled out of order, will be the impetus for the Committee on Financial Services, which has raised the point of order, it will be the impetus to get rid of this practice.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, America has enjoyed the oldest and the most successful democracy in the history of the world. I think this amendment puts us on a very slippery slope. This amendment places our greatest document, the Constitution of this country, which gives us three co-equal branches with a separation of powers among those branches and a whole host of checks and balances set up within that Constitution, it puts the whole Constitution under attack. When the Supreme Court of the U.S. gives final adjudication, that is the law of the land, whether it is a 9-0 or a 7-2 or a 5-4 decision. Let me just mention a few of the 5-4 decisions that I believe I am correct on: one of them was Chief Justice Marshall's 5-4 decision against a government policy to remove American Indians west of the Mississippi River. Then President Andrew Jackson was quoted roughly, and I am perhaps not being precise in this quote: Judge Marshall has spoken, or has ruled, I guess was probably the word he used, now let them enforce it. And there resulted the complete removal of American Indians west of the Mississippi River, which was one of the blackest blots on our history. Brown v. Board of Education, if I remember correctly, was a 5-4 vote. With an amendment of this nature, we would still have segregated schools. And then there was a 5-4 vote that assured one person, one vote. It was called ``one man, one vote'' at that time, which has assured each and every citizen that their vote would be of about the same value. That decision was not enjoyed by a sizable number of people. I think this amendment leaves us with serious problems, and I urge the Members to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I have been reminded that the Brown v. Board of Education was actually a unanimous vote, and I just want to say that regardless of whether it was unanimous or a 5-4, it is the Court's decision to make, not ours, and one where the separation of powers and the checks and balances should be upheld. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OLVER

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I hope for the last time I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. OLVER. I did not want to put it in the flight path of La Guardia Airport, so I brought in Kennedy Airport as well. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment. I just want to point out that we had quite a number of different places from which money was taken as a result of the amendments. During the course of the debate yesterday, very sizable money was taken from the GSA accounts, the building account, that is to say, the building fund in the GSA; and also from the Secretary of Transportation's budget; as well from, as the amendment here suggests, the Working Capital Fund within HUD. There is also money taken from the Air Transportation Stabilization Fund. And if I could remember off the top of my head, I would probably be able to come up with about six other places where money was taken from from last year's. But I think what the chairman has proposed is to put this back in the Management and Administration Working Capital Fund of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this one is as difficult a spot. So I have no objection to having that done in that place.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we are coming now close to the very end of this bill and as it would appear there are about three or four other people from, in fact, both sides of the aisle who have indicated that they wish to propose amendments, I want to take a couple of minutes to allow for the possibility that they may, in fact, come in defense of their positions and the amendments that they had, and to again commend the staff for the great work that they have done on this committee. The people on both the minority and majority side, the majority clerk, Dena Baron, and the other members of her staff; and on the minority side, Mike Malone and Michelle Burkett, who are seated next to me and have done a yeoman's service in providing assistance to the minority and the minority members, the minority members of the subcommittee and the general minority members in the preparation of this legislation. The gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) has been an entirely fair chairman for this subcommittee. It is the first time that he is dealing with this newly expanded subcommittee. It is actually, of course, the first time that I have served as ranking member of the expanded Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, now covering a good many more agencies than it did before. And I found that it is very easy to work with the chairman. I appreciate very much the kind of relationship that we have been able to have. He has been very accessible and very kind in his consideration of all of the amendments and positions that I have brought forward to end on my own part and on the part of members of the subcommittee and, at the same time, for members of the minority that are not on the subcommittee that may be on the full committee or not on the Committee on Appropriations at all. And I know that he has listened very carefully to the concerns of people from all of those categories within the House of Representatives, those that I have mentioned. In particular, I want to thank him at this time for having listened, at a late stage in the preparation of the legislation, to the concerns that I had about the funding for the accounts for tax law compliance in the IRS, for the development and the funding for YouthBuild, which we actually chose a very creative way to allow for the funding of YouthBuild by giving some additional money which was needed back to the account for the Community Development Block Grant and then speaking here on the floor about the use of that money for the continuation of YouthBuild. I would hope that, in fact, by the time we get to a conference committee, we may have well have had a reauthorization of YouthBuild in a different place. And if that is the case, then that money will be available for Community Development Block Grant purposes without the consideration of use for YouthBuild, but it then serves as a possibility of dealing in either place of working in either location, and I am very grateful for him to do that. Earlier in the process, the chairman was very responsive to the request to provide funds for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund in the Department of the Treasury and funded that well for the coming year, the 2006 fiscal year. So there were those and a whole number of other occasions when we were able to work together well. Amendment Offered by Mr. Clay

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues for bringing this matter before the House, as I agree that predatory lending is a well- recognized problem in many jurisdictions around the Nation. I will be happy to work with the chairman, as he has already indicated, to work with our colleagues as we go on through this process to conference in bringing this legislation to fruition, which will be some months from now.

Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the amendment that has been offered by the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business; and for the reason, I will just cover it simply, for the reason that in the conference report for the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriation covering GSA, concern was expressed about the mandatory nature of the e-travel service. In fact, the report states, and I am quoting from the report: ``The conferees agree that GSA has been responsive to the House's concerns that e-travel initiatives should not involve mandatory participation by Federal agencies. Furthermore, the conferees agree that in its management of e-travel prime contractors, GSA should seek to preserve that portion of the Federal travel agent business that is currently served by small businesses and local entrepreneurs.'' Now, not to demand that there be a particular portion or whatever that goes to those Federal travel agent businesses that are currently served by small businesses and local entrepreneurs but, rather, to point out that the vast majority, probably over 90 percent of travel agencies have fewer than 30 employees, and are, therefore, categorized as small businesses. While I recognize what the chairman has said, that sometimes by a very large economy-of-scale kind of contract you give everything to one, you can then wipe out the small businesses from being able to compete in that process, I think that, as I have quoted from the conference report for the 2004 appropriations act concerning GSA, there was the sense of the Congress that we did not want that to happen, that we wanted some of this business to remain with the local and small business entrepreneurs. So I support the amendment.