David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, that was a spectacular speech, but I am sure we will hear an even better one now from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. Pending that I would like to make a unanimous consent request. General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on general debate for this rule, H. Res. 405.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Glens Falls, New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Los Alamos, New Mexico (Mr. Redmond) who worked long and hard to make sure that veterans will not be detrimentally impacted by this bill.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend, the gentleman from Knoxville, Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Stamford, Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Middleton, New York (Mr. Gilman), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding me the time. I do rise in support of this rule. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, have worked long and hard to produce what many believe to be a fragile compromise to bring about long overdue reforms to the financial services industry; and, for that reason, they deserve to be heard; and that is why I am going to be voting in support of the rule. At the same time, as has been said during this debate earlier, I have more than a few very serious concerns about H.R. 10 that I do not believe can be fixed by the amendments that have been made in order under this bill. I think they could have if we had been able to make a substitute that I was proposing in order, but I do not believe they can be fixed under the structure that we now have. Among those many concerns is the fact that H.R. 10 imposes massive new regulatory burdens on financial institutions, destroys a very valuable private sector charter, and encourages excessive litigation. We are going to hear a lot today about how functional regulation will create a more level playing field for financial services firms to compete. But, in reality, Mr. Speaker, functional regulation does little more than saddle already highly regulated companies with additional layers of government regulation and bureaucracy in an effort to protect markets of less competitive firms. It responds to the parochial interests of government regulators rather than the preferences of consumers, which really should be our top priority here. In short, this is really the Japanization of our financial services industry. By preventing the chartering of any new unitary thrift holding companies, H.R. 10 also punishes sound, profit-making private- sector companies because another industry wants them obliterated as a competitor. Because H.R. 10 confers a competitive advantage to so-called grandfathered thrifts, Congress will be under constant pressure to take the next step, which is to impose a Soviet-style growth cap on that industry like that which was imposed on the non-bank banks 11 years ago. Imagine if 10 years ago, as computer makers began to embrace the Windows operating system, Congress mandated that all computers be loaded only with a DOS operating system. The cry of outrage would be deafening. I also find it troubling that H.R. 10 attempts to hide behind the mantle of States' rights in an effort to perpetuate an obsolete regulatory system that is destructive to the economy. The U.S. has six major, well-entrenched financial regulators and a duplicative set of regulators in all 50 States. In the name of States' rights, H.R. 10 significantly increases uncertainty over the scope of State regulation of insurance. This, in turn, will lead to costly and unnecessary litigation. It will increase the insurance products to consumers, again the group that should be our top priority. If my colleagues agree that excessive litigation is an ever- tightening noose around the neck of our economy, they should think twice about supporting a bill that promises litigation against any bank that attempts to devise innovative financial products and services for its customers, the consumer. Mr. Speaker, in early 1995, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) began the process that eventually led to H.R. 10 by focusing initially on a narrow Glass-Steagall repeal bill that was devoid of the regulatory shenanigans and government intervention that characterizes this current bill. There was a fear that efforts to pass comprehensive legislation to modernize the financial services industry would get bogged down by legislative industry and regulatory turf battles. Well, Mr. Speaker, those fears have come true once again. Instead of letting the marketplace determine winners and losers, H.R. 10 attempts to legislate who can compete with whom and who can produce and sell what. It is bad for consumers; and, Mr. Speaker, it is therefore bad for our economy. However, as I said, the authors of this measure do deserve to be heard. So I do support the rule, but I will oppose this bill when it comes forward.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend and classmate, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who worked long and hard as chairman of the subcommittee. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). (Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this very fair and balanced rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, to close debate, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Jacobus, Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and fellow Californian, the gentleman from Del Mar (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pleasantville, PA (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Naperville, IL (Mr. Fawell).

Mr. DREIER. Do not say I did not offer.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield time to my friend if he were to have maybe one more speaker and I would yield him one minute if that would be an arrangement.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I do not think so.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we continue to pursue clarification on this issue, I yield 4 minutes, once again, to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), chairman of the subcommittee.