Ed Royce

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 314. This is the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act, which I have introduced with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). This carefully written legislation addresses a specific problem for consumers and businesses involved in the mortgage servicing industry by simply clarifying the existing law governing mortgage servicing. This uncontroversial bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and has been approved for consideration under the suspension of the rules by both the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this bill to fix a problem in the mortgage servicing industry which has hampered the abilities of this industry to serve its clients effectively and to conduct its business efficiently for too long. Currently, when a mortgage servicing company acquires the rights to service a portfolio of home loans, it is exempt from the unnecessary strictures of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under the creditor exemption that was also extended to the originator of the mortgage. The new mortgage servicer is extended this exemption because its relationship to the borrower is more like a relationship between a borrower and a lender than it is like the relationship between a borrower and a true collections agency. The law already recognizes this reality. However, in the typical loan servicing portfolio transfer, a small percentage of the loans acquired by a new servicer will inevitably be delinquent or technically in default at the time of transfer. These loans are currently treated by the law as being subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and subsequently, the new servicers of these loans are required to provide certain form notices, known as Miranda warnings, to the borrower. The law also currently requires that in every subsequent contact, both written and oral, whether initiated by the servicer or the borrower, the servicer is required to provide a shorter mini-Miranda notice disclosing that the communication is an attempt to collect a debt, and that any information provided by the borrower will be used toward that end. The purpose of these cookie-cutter warnings is to prevent unscrupulous debt collectors from using false or misleading tactics, such as a phony winning sweepstakes claim, to trick consumers into divulging private financial information or personal details like their home address or their phone number. The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act has worked extremely well in preventing bad actors in the debt collections business from using lies and deceit to harm consumers, and this legislation would in no way prevent it from continuing to protect American consumers. However, as I have already mentioned, mortgage servicers are not like debt collectors. Their role to consumers is much more like that of a mortgage originator, and in the context of a mortgage servicing transfer, these Miranda notices are both detrimental to consumers and unnecessary and inefficient for mortgage servicers' operations. First, the notice misleads the borrower about the nature of the relationship between him- or herself and the new servicer. Unlike true debt collectors, mortgage servicers have a long-term relationship with their client, and these harshly worded notices often have the effect of discouraging a borrower who was slightly late on a mortgage payment from contacting their new servicer for fear that the servicer is a true third-party debt collector. This ends up frustrating the servicer's efforts to work with delinquent borrowers on developing strategies to bring their loans current and keep their credit ratings intact. A mortgage servicer's biggest hurdle in helping delinquent borrowers to help themselves is getting them on the phone, and these threatening Miranda notices only contribute to that unnecessary fear without doing anything to help the borrower. Additionally, the information protected by the Miranda notices is information already in the servicer's possession. So nothing new is truly protected by requiring these additional legalistic and threatening notices be provided. Finally, these warnings simply make consumers feel unnecessarily defensive and antagonistic toward their new servicer during the first step of their new association, which can have a chilling effect on the rest of their relationship. Mortgage servicers typically send these Miranda notices along with a new customer's welcome letter as required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and this letter also includes important consumer information about the new servicer and the borrower's monthly payment arrangements. This preliminary contact is the first opportunity that a servicer has to create a positive relationship with a new client, and the harsh language used in the Miranda warning can create animosity between the servicer where none need exist. Additionally, because the mini-Miranda is required in all subsequent contacts, they can continue for decades, even after customers bring their loans current and keep them that way for years. H.R. 314 resolves this problem by creating a narrow exemption from Miranda notices for the servicers of federally related first lien mortgages whose primary function is servicing current loans, not collecting third-party debts. It exempts these servicers only from the Miranda notices, leaving all other substantive borrower protections required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act in place. This legislation is consistent with the long-standing recommendation from the Federal Trade Commission to improve the mortgage servicing process. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation to improve the mortgage servicing process for both the consumer and for the companies who serve them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. In closing, I urge all my colleagues to stand up for consumers and help to increase the efficiency of the mortgage servicing industry by supporting this common-sense and bipartisan legislation. I would, again, like to thank the coauthor of this legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for their comments.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just echo the words of the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations. It is indeed ironic that Sudan, a country that uses stoning, should serve on the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. It is even more ironic that Libya should be the current chairman of that committee. Mr. Speaker, in 1999, along with Colin Powell, I had the opportunity and the privilege of coleading an election-monitoring team to Nigeria for its first democratic elections there in over a decade. After years of military rule, we observed a fair and free election; to wit, firsthand those exercising the simple virtues of democracy was truly inspiring. Along with other election monitors, I came away with great hope for Nigeria's future. Unfortunately, in the last 3 years, Sharia criminal law has swept through the northern half of Nigeria. The chief prosecutor of a Katsina state in northern Nigeria has even called Sharia law a ``dividend of democracy.'' Mr. Speaker, since that election, 10,000 Nigerians have died in religiously inspired rioting across that country. Nigeria seems to be on the verge of being torn apart along Muslim-Christian lines. Besides being barbaric and being a gross abuse of human rights, stoning is fueling this religious divide, undermining Nigeria's democratic prospects. Stoning is not a ``dividend'' of any type of democracy that I know many Nigerians are struggling to establish. Nigeria is but one country of concern for us. It was only after September 11 that the American public began to learn about the brutal living conditions for women under the Taliban, including being subject to public stonings. Afghanistan remains a fragile state. Many parts of Afghanistan are struggling with the questions of how to govern. This resolution is our message that stoning should have no role in today's Afghanistan, or anywhere else in today's age. It is important for this body to bring attention to this abysmal practice. This resolution deserves strong support of all Members here.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am firmly committed to protecting Social Security for current recipients and for those who will be retiring in the near future. So, I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, Mr. Shaw for his efforts to strengthen the financial security of our Nation's retirement system. I support the Social Security Protection Act, and I was pleased to support this bill when it passed the House unanimously last year. It is unfortunate that the House and Senate couldn't work out a final version before the end of the 107th Congress. This bill stops fugitive felons from receiving benefits. The CBO estimates we will pay over $500 million to fugitive felons over the next 10 years from the Social Security trust funds. The Social Security Administration appoints representatives payees for many beneficiaries to help manage their financial affairs when they are not able. This bill protects these beneficiaries from representative payees who may misuse their benefits. Mr. Speaker, this bill helps put the Security back in Social Security and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Not too long ago, I returned from Afghanistan, and other Central Asian countries, where I met with our troops on the front lines of Operation Enduring Freedom. Mr. Speaker, Americans can be very proud of the men and women serving our country in Central Asia. They are true professionals, doing their jobs in very difficult conditions. Troops we met with were in good spirits and morale is high. Yes, our soldiers want to come home-- several told me how they miss their wife and kids--but above all they want to finish their mission. In the coming weeks, U.S. forces may be asked to face combat in the Middle East. No one wants war. If military conflict does come, you can be sure that we have the very best serving our country. They are the latest in a long line of men and women who have served our country with distinction, and to whom we owe our freedom.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Peace Corps Day, which was last Friday, February 28th. I recently returned from a trip to Africa, where I had a chance to meet with Peace Corps volunteers in Madagascar. The commitment of these men and women, who returned to this country after being evacuated due to its political instability, is extremely impressive. President Bush has issued a call to service for all Americans--both at home and abroad. The President has offered a bold vision to significantly expand the Peace Corps. Congress should give the President the tools he needs to make his Peace Corps vision a reality. Mr. Speaker, I have seen the valuable work the Peace Corps is doing in Africa, and throughout the developing world. It deserves our recognition and support. Under the leadership of Director Gaddi Vasquez, the Peace Corps is well poised to address the rapidly evolving challenges of the developing world.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a well-crafted bill that helps the North American Development Bank to accomplish its stated goal of improving the wastewater treatment, solid waste management and potable water supply in America's Mexico border region more efficiently. In California over the last 2 decades, the population has grown by more than 30 percent while the water supply has increased by only 2 percent. But as California's thirst for water increases, the number of available sources for drinking water is shrinking. This is why I support the North American Development Bank's mission of providing clean and safe water to all of America's southern border areas, particularly to the already overtaxed southern California area. I was able to contribute to this legislation by adding a provision that directs the North American Development Bank's support for qualified water conservation projects in southern California which will help to reduce the overall burden on a State whose water resources are already stretched dangerously thin. California currently leads the country in desalination, conjunctive use, recycling and water conservation efforts so the money invested in our part of the country gets an excellent return on investment. I urge support for this broad, nonpartisan initiative to recognize that qualified water conservation and supply projects are important to southern California and deserve the support of the North American Development Bank.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Anaheim Angels on their tremendous achievement. I am pleased to join my fellow colleagues from Orange County as we congratulate the Anaheim Angels on their miraculous World Series win. For those of us who grew-up in Orange County, this is a tremendous moment. Gene Autry formed the team in 1961. Now, after more than 40 years, the Angels have won their first World Series Championship. The Angels' victory was far from predicted. They were the underdog all the way. After all, the previous season, the Angels finished 41 games out of first place. Anaheim was the wild card team--most gave them little chance of knocking off the perennial favorite New York Yankees for the American League Division Series. The Angels then went on to defeat the Minnesota Twins to win the American League pennant. And then finally, defeated the San Francisco Giants in the World Series in seven hard-fought games. The atmosphere in the stadium was electrifying. Fans across Orange County came equipped with their rally monkeys and thunder sticks to cheer our team to victory. The Angels' victory over the Giants was truly amazing. The Angels had never won a playoff series before beating the Yankees. Anaheim is the first team since 1912 to win the World Series without having any player who had ever played for a World Series winner previously. The victory is a testament to the teamwork and abilities of the Anaheim players. They were led by manager Mike Scioscia; Tim ``the Kingfish'' Salmon, who has played his entire career for the Angels; Pitcher John Lackey-- who was the first rookie to win a Game 7 in 93 years; and I think it is fitting that third baseman Troy Glaus--a native of Orange County--was named most valuable player of the World Series. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Angels' players, coaches, staff, and the fans, who were instrumental in bringing the World Series Championship to Anaheim.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the unanimous consent request to pass H.R. 5400, a bill authored by my friend and colleague from Nebraska, the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy, Congressman Doug Bereuter. This legislation is a well-crafted, thoughtful and bi-partisan bill that is certainly worthy of passage by unanimous consent. This legislation will help the North American Development (NAD) Bank to accomplish its stated goal of improving the potable water supply, wastewater treatment and municipal solid waste management services within America's Mexico border region more efficiently. Addressing the problem of an inadequate water supply along our nation's southern border is a laudable goal, and one that is certainly worthy of the support of every member of Congress. I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude to Chairman Bereuter for allowing me to include in this legislation an amendment that recognizes the particular difficulty that southern California has in meeting its potable water needs, and directs the NAD Bank to support: (1) The development of qualified water conservation projects in southern California and other eligible areas in the four United States border States, including the conjunctive use and storage of surface and ground water, delivery system conservation, the re-regulation of reservoirs, improved irrigation practices, wastewater reclamation, regional water management modeling, operational and optimization studies to improve water conservation, and cross-border water exchanges consistent with treaties; and, (2) New water supply research and projects along the Mexico border in southern California and other eligible areas in the four United States border States to desalinate ocean seawater and brackish surface and groundwater, and dispose of or manage the brines resulting from desalination. In California, over the last two decades the population has grown by more than 30 percent while the water supply has increased by only 2 percent. But as California's need for water increases, the number of available sources for drinking water are shrinking. For example, Lake Mead (on the Colorado River), has dropped 28 feet in the last two years and is on track to soon be at a 30 year low, a situation that has been exacerbated by the recent drought. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the North American Development Bank's mission of providing clean and safe water to all of America's southern border areas, especially southern California. By passing this legislation by unanimous consent, Congress has acknowledged southern California's dire need for ensuring an adequate water supply and the important role that the North American Development Bank can play in accomplishing this objective.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is clear to me that most Members hope that the administration wins support at the United Nations for a robust weapons inspection regime. I am one who wishes this. That is the outcome that I think the gentleman's amendment aims for, but it does this, however, in a way that I believe sets the administration up for failure. This amendment expedites congressional consideration of an authorization to act against Saddam Hussein should the administration be unable to secure an acceptable U.N. inspections resolution. That is its second step, but let us think a ways down the road. Does this Congress really want to be in the position of spotlighting our possible failure at the U.N.? The story line for the second congressional deliberation on Iraq this amendment mandates would be ``Failing at the U.N., Administration Forced to Try Congress Again.'' I have a hard time seeing how our Nation could possibly be strengthened by that. In considering this amendment, we cannot afford wishful thinking about the U.N. The fact, often lost in this debate, is that the United Nations is a grouping of Nations with often differing political interests, some that share our values, others that do not. This is one of the reasons that, while working with the Security Council, we must always guard against its compromising our national security policy. This amendment, in practice, gives the edge to the U.N. Security Council over our administration in facing the threat of Saddam. The negotiating hand of other Council members would surely be strengthened against the administration if they knew that our President would be forced to return to Congress if he could not strike a Security Council weapons inspections deal. Neither outcome, a weak weapons inspection resolution nor if the administration must walk away, a perceived and universally noted failure by our country to win at the U.N., is one we should be setting our administration up for. Secretary of State Powell told the Committee on International Relations that his hand at the U.N. would be strengthened by a strong congressional authorization for action against Iraq, one, in his words, that was not watered down. I know that Secretary Powell has been working hard to gain support at the U.N. To kick the congressional authorization he seeks down the road, to grant it or even not grant it, based upon the U.N. Security Council's schedule and political landscape, is a big watering down. It is the judgment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member, and the majority of Committee on International Relations members that the bipartisan resolution we are considering this week is the one Secretary Powell needs. That is why I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. ROYCE

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a member of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) who, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, has done extensive work on the issue of terrorism.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a West Pointer, an infantry officer who was trained as a Ranger and paratrooper, and he still serves as a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), a Member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I understand that Saddam Hussein was very effective in maneuvering our inspectors out of Iraq and has not allowed in our inspectors or any other inspectors for 4 years; and I also understand that during that 4-year time frame he has been developing not only chemical and gas weaponry, biological weaponry, but also nuclear weaponry. That is what I know. And I would commend to the gentlewoman to review our transcript of our hearing on this very subject. Reclaiming my time, I would just say there may be some debate among arms controls experts about exactly when Saddam will have nuclear capability, but there is no disagreement that Iraq, if unchecked, will have them soon and a nuclear-armed Iraq would alter forever the balance of power in the Middle East. I think there is very little doubt that Saddam, if he had an atomic bomb and with these stocks of biological and chemical weapons, might not use that for the purpose of power. Because when Jeffrey Goldberg talked about Saddam's past with the medical geneticist Christine Gosden, who has been there on the ground in Kurdistan working with Kurds, some 4 million of which are estimated to have been affected at one point or another by chemical attack, she said one thing. She said, please understand the Kurds were for practice. They were practicing with different types of chemical and biological weapons on the Kurdish population. I think, under these circumstances, if we do not move forward with a plan to disarm Saddam Hussein, it would be folly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. ROYCE. No, I do not understand that. I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman.