May 3, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4525

would grandfather existing institutions. In my view, if we are not to address the banking and commerce issue

fully, the proper approach is for the

bill to remain silent on this issue. Existing unitaries have served as instructive examples of how financial and

commercial activities can in some

cases be appropriately mixed. They

have posed no risk to safety and soundness, are subject to appropriate regulatory and oversight authority, and

serve customers well.

There is no compelling reason to circumscribe their operations at this

point. Grandfathering is an unworkable

alternative in my view. To artificially

circumscribe the ability of functioning

businesses to expand and compete on

equal terms is to effectively sound

their death kneel. I believe that any

changes in the unitary structure

should await a subsequent day when we

are willing and able to address banking

and commerce issues in some comprehensive fashion.

In the same fashion, I believe it is

time to eliminate the restrictions imposed on limited purpose banks. I always believed these restrictions were

anticompetitive and should never have

been imposed. But in any case they

were intended as a temporary measure

awaiting comprehensive financial services reform. We are still awaiting such

reform, and I believe even this Congress’ effort will fall short of what is

desirable.

In the meantime, changes in the restrictions imposed on these financial

institutions can no longer wait. This is

virtually the only financial services

arena in which time is standing still.

There have otherwise been substantial

changes in the laws and regulations

that have enhanced opportunities for

other financial services providers and

made full-service banks more efficient,

strong, and competitive. In this context, the arbitrary restrictions imposed

on limited-purpose banks are untenable

and unreasonable.

E. Safeguarding consumers:

Safeguarding the consumer’s interests must be a central element of this

reform effort. If banking institutions

are to be permitted to offer an array of

products, some of which are insured,

and others not, it is imperative that

the consumer be clearly informed of

any risk he is assuming and that safeguards be put in place to eliminate any

potential confusion. Clear disclosure

requirements which will ensure that

the consumer understands what protections are afforded with any particular

products must be a part of this bill.

But disclosure alone is not enough.

Institutional structures can inadvertently or purposefully suggest protections that do not apply. For example,

the marketing of mutual funds under a

name or logo that may suggest that

the product is somehow insured or

guaranteed by a banking institution

could place the consumer at undue

risk, and prohibitions or restrictions

on the use of a common name and logo

may be appropriate.

We must also find a proper balance

between the consumer’s right to privacy and the synergies available from

cross-marketing. Both financial services providers and consumers can benefit from marketing efforts that bring

the full array of products available

from a particular financial services

provider to the consumer’s attention.

Yet consumers also have a right to

have confidential information maintained as such, and to be protected

from being inundated with sales

pitches and marketing information

they neither seek nor wish to have. We

must strive for a proper balance between these competing interests.

F. Providing for proper regulatory

oversight:

The regulatory controls put in place

in FDICIA—most notably, tougher capital requirements and provision for

prompt corrective action—have contributed substantially to the safety

and soundness of our banking system.

These and other prudential controls

are essential to the proper implementation of financial services reform.

I believe any effort at complete regulatory reorganization should follow

rather than precede or accompany

modernization legislation—it is difficult to determine what authority appropriately lies with what regulator

when the distinctions between types of

financial services providers and their

products remain unclear. Nevertheless,

clarification and, where appropriate,

enhancement of regulatory authority

should be central elements of the

Banking Committee’s product.

In my own view, the proper regulatory oversight structure would rely

heavily on a scheme of functional regulation, while providing some limited

oversight authority to the Federal Reserve at the holding company level to

protect against systemic risk. I have

great confidence in the Federal Reserve as an institution and in its skill

as a regulator. However, I believe there

are inherent risks in placing plenary

authority in any independent regulatory institution, and I believe the authority granted the Federal Reserve in

the Leach bill is too encompassing. The

scheme we ultimately construct should

ensure the necessary degree of political

accountability and take advantage of

the creative tension between regulatory authorities that has proved a

useful source of adaptation and innovation in the past.

G. Equal treatment of foreign banks:

The presence of foreign financial institutions in our market has served our

economy and our communities well. In

addition, U.S. financial institutions

benefit when they are able to enter foreign markets under regulatory regimes

that permit them to compete fairly

with domestic service providers.

Any financial services reform should

provide for the equal treatment of foreign banks so long a hallmark of U.S.

law. Most international banks in the

United States operate uninsured,

wholesale branches and agency offices

rather than bank subsidiaries. The reform legislation should ensure that foreign banks that seek U.S. securities affiliates can continue to be able to operate branches and agency offices in the

United States and not be required to

‘‘roll up’’ their U.S. banking operations

into subsidiary banks.

Most countries permit nondomestic

banks to compete through branches,

because the entire world-wide capital

of the bank stands behind the branch’s

operations. Such rules applied in foreign markets substantially benefit U.S.

banking institutions operating abroad.

Any change in that requirement would

disadvantage them severely.

Applying these same rules in our own

market benefits not only foreign banks

but the U.S. customers they serve. The

ability of a branch to draw on the resources of the entire bank directly benefits U.S. corporate customers by enhancing the availability of credit, increasing the availability and size of

loans from international banks, and reducing the cost of financing for customers.

III. CONCLUSION

This Congress provides a singular opportunity to take major steps toward

financial services reform which will

make our financial services system

safer, more efficient, and more competitive and provide consumers better

and more varied services. I look forward to working with Chairman LEACH,

Ranking Minority Member GONZALEZ,

and my colleagues in both sides of the

aisle to achieve this long-sought goal.

SOME COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PERFORM A DISSERVICE

fTO AMERICA’S YOUNG

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

INGLIS of South Carolina). Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. DUNCAN] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, some of

the colleges and universities in this

Nation are performing a real disservice

to our young people.

They are encouraging them to get—

or at least not discouraging them from

getting—degrees in fields in which

there is almost no hope for a good job.

This is particularly true concerning

many graduate programs—especially in

the field of law.

My wife recently had her groceries

carried out by a young man who had

received a law degree but who could

not find a job.

Many law schools are perpetrating a

fraud. They tell their students ‘‘Yes,

there are too many lawyers, but there

will always be room for a few more

good ones.’’

Well, everyone thinks they will be

the good one.

Only after spending a small fortune

and devoting several years of hard

work to the task, do they receive a

very rude awakening.
H 4526 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 3, 1995

Except for a very few of the top graduates from the most prestigious

schools, or the very few who have good

family connections, most find out they

could make more money managing a

McDonald’s or driving a truck.

We possibly should require colleges

and universities to put warning labels

on some of their degree programs such

as ‘‘There are currently almost no jobs

available in this field’’ or ‘‘This degree

will do you absolutely no good whatsoever in obtaining employment.’’

If you think I am exaggerating, listen to these two letters in the April 24

issue of U.S. News & World Report:

Thank you for including ‘‘Gypsy Profs’’

with your rankings of liberal arts programs.

It should give pause to anyone misinformed

enough to think a graduate degree will guarantee a chance to teach. Like those in your

article, I have a Ph.D., which entitles me to

drive 480 miles each week to teach five

courses for two community colleges. Each

semester is an employment uncertainty. But

I love what I do—something not true of most

people—and I don’t see a great deal of employment security anywhere. I knew what I

was getting when I entered graduate school.

Still, I dearly wish that the future looked

more promising. There’s no dignity in being

a mercenary teacher-for-hire; last week my

father-in-law described me as ‘‘unemployed’’

at a family gathering.

MICHAEL J. BOOKER.

KNOXVILLE, TN.

I received my Ph.D. in history from the

University of Chicago in 1993, and after two

years in the job market and well over 100 applications for employment, I have yet to be

called for my first interview despite my

teaching experience and track record of publishing in professional journals. The time I

spent working toward my doctorate would

have been better utilized in almost any other

career, where I would have been earning

money and accruing seniority. The ‘‘gypsy

profs’’ may not realize it, but they are the

lucky ones in the fraud America’s graduate

schools are perpetrating on their students!

JONATHAN R. DEAN.

CRAWFORDSVILLE, IN.

Now, I hope I will not be misunderstood. A college education is a good

thing.

I am not saying people should not go

to college.

I am saying that many college graduates cannot find jobs today, particularly in fields like law and in teaching

school.

There is a huge surplus of lawyers—

and a huge surplus of teachers—and a

huge surplus of people who want jobs in

law enforcement or other Government

jobs.

All I am really saying is that we need

to do everything possible to encourage

young people to go into fields where

they are needed more—where the future is brighter.

We should also do a better job promoting what used to be called vocational education, but which in most

places today is called technology education.

We need more young people today

with technical training.

It is sad to see so many young people

today getting college degrees, and particularly graduate degrees, which really do them no good.

It is just wrong to continue perpetrating fraud on our Nation’s young

people so some universities can make

more money or so that some colleges

can continue to employ professors who

are teaching in fields in which there

are almost no jobs.

Fortunately, our unemployment is

low; but our underemployment is great

and, unfortunately, is growing. Many

colleges and universities are helping to

make this situation worse.

IN HONOR OF FALLEN SECRET

SERVICE AGENTS

fThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HOYER] is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as

the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government. I rise today to pay a solemn

tribute to the six employees of the U.S.

Secret Service, one of whom is missing

and five of whom we know have lost

their lives as a result of the heinous attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City. I rose yesterday in the context of the Oklahoma City resolution

to talk about all the Federal employees.

I want to express my deepest sympathy to all the families, friends, and

neighbors, but particularly, at this

time to the family, friends, neighbors,

and colleagues of the brave six Secret

Service employees who we lost at Oklahoma City. This is a time of deep anguish and pain for the families of those

killed, those injured, and those whose

loved ones are still unaccounted for as

they were doing the business of the

people of the country.

Today we remember Assistant Special Agent in Charge Alan G. Whicher,

who served as part of the detail protecting President Clinton, and then

was transferred to what I am sure he

and his family thought was a more

tranquil environment in Oklahoma

City. He lost his life.

Special Agent Cynthia L. Brown, appointed a special agent only a little

over 1 year ago. She lost her life.

Special Agent Donald R. Leonard.

His career assignments included the

Vice-Presidential Protective Division.

He lost his life.

Special Agent Mickey R. Maroney,

who served with the Secret Service

since 1971. He lost his life.

An investigative assistant, Kathy L.

Seidl, appointed to the Secret Service

in 1985, to the Oklahoma City office;

and the office manager, Linda McKinney, who was recovered from the rubble

only yesterday. She was the one I said

was missing, and I was in error. She

has been located.

I cannot say that I know the pain the

people of Oklahoma City are experiencing. I do know very well the feeling of

loss that communities all across this

country feel for the people of Oklahoma City and for the loved ones of

those who lost their lives.

Mr. Speaker, God blesses America,

and he does so through the services of

so many, and particularly through the

service of those who are fallen but not

forgotten. Let us, Mr. Speaker, resolve

at this moment to embrace the wives

and the children, the mothers and the

fathers, the sisters and the brothers,

the fellow colleagues, all those who

love them dearly, in the fellowship of

love and compassion. While they have

lost an important part of their families, we must assure them they will always be a part of our larger family.

To the family and friends of those

brave U.S. Secret Service agents and

employees, my words today, of course,

cannot express the sorrow for the loss

of this Nation’s best, and the gratitude

for their sacrifice. I recall the words of

President Lincoln, and I quote:

I feel how weak and fruitless must be any

words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming, but I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be

found in the thanks of the Republic they

died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father

may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished

memory of the loved and the lost, and the

solemn pride that must be yours to have laid

so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

President Lincoln, of course, spoke of

those who lost their lives in the preservation of the Union; those who lost

their lives in Oklahoma City did so as

well.

As a father, a husband, and as a child

of God, my heartfelt sympathies go out

to each of the families. May they, too,

find comfort in their sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I know that every colleague joins me in expressing our sympathy and our sorrow, and our wishes

that God will bless Alan, Cynthia, Donald, Mickey, Kathy, and Linda.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE HOUSE

AS IT DEALS WITH THE BUDGET

fISSUE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. SCHROEDER] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to talk a bit about

some of the things that are in some of

the newspapers today about the difficulties this House is facing as it

forces itself to deal with the budget

issue. For the last 4 years, we had the

budget done on time. That was before

April 15. This year, for all the magic

done and all the things that got going,

guess what, we do not have a budget,

and everybody is saying ‘‘Just do it.

Where’s the budget?’’

I think the budget happens to be the

most important thing, and we should

have done that first, before we did all

the giveaways and all the tax cuts and

all the other goodies, but the goodies

have been given out, and now it is time