David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, every day Congress is working to find ways to address our nation's high consumer debt, bankruptcy and low savings rate. A key piece in solving this puzzle is the lack of financial literacy--the ability to manage money--among the majority of our nation's citizens. I believe that educating our nation's youth about personal finance should be a top priority. That is why I am pleased to introduce today the Youth Financial Education Act, which would provide grants to states to support financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools across the country. Our schools teach reading, writing, history, languages, mathematics, and science, among other subjects. But do we teach our children how to balance a checkbook? Do we instruct them on compounding interest, which allows one to save vast amounts of money over the long term for an education, or retirement, or to buy a home? Do we instruct them in avoiding the credit card trap of easy financing, only to be hit later with high finance charges? Do we train students to understand how to budget their money, and do they realize the relationship of taxes, spending, and investing? Too often, Mr. Speaker, we do not. Today's dynamic global economy demands more of our nation's young people than ever before. Our young people make financial decisions today that will affect them for years to come. Financial education is critical to their ability to make wise decisions. Our youth must have access to the skills, knowledge and experience needed to manage their personal finances and achieve general financial literacy. Despite the importance of youth financial education, the average American high school senior lacks basic skills in the management of personal financial affairs. A nationwide survey conducted in 1997 by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy examined the knowledge of 1,509 12th graders. On average, survey respondents answered only 57 percent of the questions correctly, and only 5 percent of the respondents received a ``C'' grade or better. It should come as no surprise, then, that personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high in this country, and the personal savings rate at an all-time low. The Youth Financial Education Act would help improve the financial literacy of our youth by authorizing grants to states of at least $500,000 to carry out financial education programs in elementary and secondary schools. This legislation does not mandate that state or local education agencies teach personal finance; it merely encourages them to integrate financial education into existing courses, such as economics and mathematics. Most importantly, the bill provides states with the resources necessary to develop teacher training and professional development activities in personal financial education. Additionally, I would like to thank Dara Duguay, executive director of the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, for her organization's efforts in the introduction of this legislation. I look forward to working with Jump$tart and its partners, as well as other members of the education and banking communities, as this legislation moves forward. Mr. Speaker, we must make available to our nation's youth the tools they need to master the basic financial management skills vital to making informed financial decisions. This legislation provides an opportunity to prepare our young people for their financial future and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield just for a moment, I would just like to thank him for his input and tell him that the recommendation that he has made will certainly be taken into consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding and congratulate her on her superb management of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond to my friend from Dallas by saying that we obviously want to do everything that we can to ensure that people are able to get out of town in time, and I will say that we do not want to have to have a hurricane party here. I do not know that the hurricane is headed right towards Washington, D.C. We certainly hope that we do not see any loss of life and that it is, in fact, lessened. But I am struck with the fact that my colleagues really go for everything they possibly can to attack the Republican leadership. We enjoy the fact that they are scraping for something more to criticize us on. Let me say that I believe that this is a very important conference report. We are trying to get the people's work done here, and I am hoping very much that we will be able to have strong bipartisan support of not only the rule but the conference report itself. It was 10 years ago this coming November 13 that the world celebrated the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, and many people argued at that point that we would be witnessing the end of history; that the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism, which took place in the following 3 years, was something that was going to change the world, and clearly it has. I think that the leadership that Ronald Reagan and President George Bush have shown and, frankly, in a bipartisan way that we have provided for our Nation's defense capability, brought about that change; but as we mark, in the coming weeks, the 10th anniversary of the crumbling of the Berlin Wall, it is very important for us to note that there has been a dramatic change in the national security threat that exists in this country and for the free world. It seems to me that we need to realize that over that period of time we have dealt with a wide range of challenges that exist throughout the world, and I am struck with a figure that I mentioned here several times before, the fact that during this administration we have deployed 265,000 troops to 139 countries around the world and that has taken place at a time when we have actually diminished our level of expenditures. Since 1987, we have seen a reduction of 800,000 of our military personnel. We have consistently pursued this goal of trying to do more with less, and that is wrong. That is why when we, as Republicans at the beginning of the 106th Congress, set forth our four top priorities of making sure that we improve public education, which I am proud to say that we have done; provide tax relief for working families, which in just a couple of hours we are going to be enrolling the bill and sending it to the President, and I hope very much he does not veto that bill as he said he would on Friday; and saving Social Security and Medicare. Those are other priorities. We also included, as a top priority, because of this changing threat, rebuilding our Nation's defense capability. I am happy that we have passed and that the President, reluctantly, but the President finally did sign the national ballistic missile defense bill. I am very happy that we were able to see the President come on board in some of our attempts to deal with these national security issues, and I hope that he will be able to sign this conference report when it gets to him. It is clearly the right thing to do. We are going to be facing more challenges, but we have to make sure that the one issue which only the Federal Government can deal with, virtually every one of the other issues that we deal with can be handled by State and local governments, but our national security is the one issue that we are charged to dealing with. It is in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and it seems to me that we need to step up to the plate. That is why support of this conference report is very important. I urge my colleagues to do it in a bipartisan way.

Mr. DREIER. That would be a first, I have to say.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a Dear Colleague letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of September 20 to grant a rule for consideration of H.R. 1875, the Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Yesterday the Committee on the Judiciary filed its report on this legislation, House Report 106-320. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to consideration of the bill on the floor. Amendments should be drafted to the version of the bill ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Members should use the office of legislative counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted, and should check with the office of the parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dallas, TX (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 is a fair rule which provides for the consideration of H.R. 417, the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule makes in order 13 amendments which were printed in the report accompanying this resolution. Ten of the amendments are perfecting amendments debatable for 10 minutes each. After the disposition of those amendments, the rule makes in order three substitutes by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) which are debatable for 40 minutes each. The Doolittle and Hutchinson substitutes were reported without recommendation by the Committee on House Administration and the Thomas substitute was favorably reported. The rule waives all points of order against these amendments except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment which, and I will underscore this, Mr. Speaker, is the standard amendment process in the House. So this process that we are going to be proceeding under will be regular order. Mr. Speaker, 26 perfecting amendments and three amendments in the nature of a substitute to the Shays-Meehan bill were submitted to the Committee on Rules. All three substitutes were made in order. Of the 26 perfecting amendments, only one was submitted by a Democrat, and that amendment was in fact made in order in this rule. The rule also permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. I would like to commend Speaker Hastert for his very judicious handling of what obviously has been a hotly debated issue over the years. Earlier this year, he gave his word that the House would consider campaign finance reform in September under a fair process. Today, the Speaker has again demonstrated his leadership and good faith by bringing this measure to the floor under this rule. I also want to recognize the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) who held weeks of hearings and reported out four competing proposals. His committee did a tremendous job in framing the debate that we will have here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, free speech, particularly free political speech, is a cherished right enshrined in the first amendment to our Constitution. For democracy to flourish, a free people must be able to express their political views without government restriction. Our Founding Fathers recognized that this is in fact the fundamental precept of democracy. Without free political speech, our great American experiment cannot continue to thrive into the next millennium. I do not believe that the current problems with the campaign system are caused by too much political speech. They are caused by the outmoded rules and regulations which currently restrict speech. Although I commend the authors of the Shays- Meehan bill for their good intentions, I believe they are taking the wrong approach. Adding more layers of rules and regulations, more bureaucracies and barriers, to an already flawed system is not the answer. It is increasingly clear after 25 years of living with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 that the current Federal campaign laws are fundamentally flawed. Just as the current Shays-Meehan proposal is the product of good intentions, the Campaign Act which we now live with was also the product of people driven to do what was right. It was praised for eliminating the possibility of another Watergate, lowering the costs of political campaigns and reducing the advantages of incumbency. It is ironic that 25 years later, many of the law's same supporters are urging Congress to pass another campaign finance reform bill to accomplish what the Federal Election Campaign Act has failed to do. Limiting the amount of money spent and contributed in Federal campaigns will not lead to increased competition. Nor will it cause the influence of large contributors to wane or make politicians more accountable to their constituents. The Federal Election Campaign Act places limits on contributions and expenditures, but since 1974 campaign spending has more than tripled in real dollars. Incumbents have enjoyed huge advantages raising campaign funds, and they have generally had an easier time getting reelected. While history shows that limits do not work as advertised, the focus of reform continues to be on new contribution restrictions and suspending the free speech rights of grassroots organizations and their members. We are even looking at the prospect of regulating the use of the Internet and the World Wide Web for political purposes. Mr. Speaker, this is not the right way for us to go as we try to focus concern for first amendment rights. To reduce the advantages of incumbency, I believe that contribution limits should be raised, at least to account for 25 years of inflation, and tax credits should be reinstated to encourage more individuals to participate in the electoral process. I will be supporting the Doolittle substitute which will encourage individuals to exercise their free speech rights more effectively, free political candidates from their frequent fund-raising activities, and reduce the advantages of incumbency. Rather than trying to regulate the Internet, a hopeless effort in the long run, I believe 21st century technology should be used to increase political openness. I support the establishment of electronic filing procedures and requiring that Federal Election Commission disclosure information be published on the Internet. With information related to political giving freely available in an understandable format on the Internet, Americans will no longer need to rely on special interests and the media to interpret the Federal Election Commission data for them. Mr. Speaker, just as free trade encourages vitality in our economic markets, I believe free speech fosters a stronger democracy based on competition in a free market of ideas. Therefore, I will choose more freedom over more regulation. This is not an unorthodox rule. It does not stack the deck against the Shays-Meehan bill. The rule does not make in order so-called ``poison pill'' amendments as some have suggested. The fact is this rule provides for a debate and amendment process closer to regular order than any campaign finance rule that has been debated in the past decade. If the proponents of Shays-Meehan have the votes, they will prevail. Now is the time to cut through the rhetoric and approve this rule so that the House may work its will on this issue of campaign finance reform. This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, that demands very serious thinking. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), my very good friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the lead author of the campaign finance reform bill which brought us to this point.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), my good friend, and neighbor and classmate. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), my good friend.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the author of one of the key substitutes.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas prepared to yield back the balance of his time?

Mr. DREIER. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, does my friend anticipate that he is going to fill that entire 15-minute period?

Mr. DREIER. So if I were to move the previous question, would the gentleman yield back the balance of his time?

Mr. DREIER. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks). (Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we rapidly use up our time on this side, leaving my friends with 15 minutes on their side, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for helping us out here.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to first thank my friend for his complimentary remarks and then to respond to a couple of points that he raised. First, what he described as somewhat of a gimmick is, in fact, something called regular order. We are proceeding with the regular Rules of the House here. And to describe the Thomas substitute as a measure which should, in fact, be considered as an amendment and not a substitute would be doing a disservice to the chairman of the committee which will be managing this legislation as it moves forward, and in fact, the Thomas substitute was the only substitute that was favorably reported from the Committee on House Administration, so I think it is important for us to just clarify the record. Again, under this regular order procedure, we are allowing the Members the opportunity to consider a wide range of alternatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Long Beach, California, Mr. Horn. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)