Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial rule which merely facilitates the work of the House. The Committee on Rules has also reported a rule which provides for the consideration of the amendments to the Department of Defense authorization for fiscal year 1999. However, as in the years past, the Committee on Rules has recommended this separate rule providing for general debate on the DOD authorization in anticipation of another rule which will set the terms of debate on the many substantive issues relating to the operations of the Department of Defense. Mr. Speaker, there is a matter related to the consideration of this rule by the Committee on Rules I would like to call to the attention of the House. Last Thursday afternoon, just minutes before the Committee on Rules convened to consider this noncontroversial rule, the chairman announced from the floor that the committee would be considering two resolutions which had not been previously noticed to the committee. This chairman said these matters were being brought to the Committee on Rules solely because the Democratic leadership had earlier that day offered a privileged resolution relating to the conduct of the investigation on campaign finance by the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Mr. Speaker, I only raise this issue because these matters were brought to the Committee on Rules with no notice to the Democratic members. The chairman of the committee, my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), did call the ranking member to inform him of his decision to bring these matters before the committee as emergency matters, but he did so only moments before going to the floor to make this general announcement, during which he said the committee was due to meet in 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute the authority of the chairman to bring those matters that he chooses before the committee for its consideration. What I would merely like to point out is that the manner in which these resolution were brought to the committee only perpetuates a problem he is seeking to remedy. That being said, Mr. Speaker, let me add that I have no objection to this rule providing for general debate on the authorization for the programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1999, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bentsen. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the sharp differences on this piece of legislation. We should move to consideration of the bill, and I urge adoption of the rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, 7 weeks ago the House Republican leadership was forced to withdraw from consideration an unfair and ill-considered rule. Today the Republican leadership has recommended a rule which, while not perfect, is much more fair and one which allows the House to debate many of the issues related to modernizing the financial services industry in this country. Most importantly, the ranking members of both the committees of jurisdiction have been given the opportunity to offer important amendments to the bill. Seven weeks ago, the Republican majority denied these Members the opportunity to offer these amendments and that action contributed to the eventual withdrawal of the rule. Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, H.R. 10 is a controversial bill, but I think all Members will agree that financial modernization is essential to ensure that our financial services industry can remain competitive in today's global economy. More than ever, the ability of our financial institutions to compete globally is critical to maintaining our position of economic strength. There is little debate on that point. Moreover, the question of how we construct a financial modernization scheme is a subject of heated debate. This rule, unlike the rule brought up last month, allows for debate on some of the major points of contention in the whole question of financial services modernization. First, Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for the House to choose between two structures for modernizing financial institutions and for eliminating the barriers between banking securities and insurance activities. As currently written, H.R. 10 allows for a direct affiliation of these activities through the creation of a new holding company structure which would be overseen by the Federal Reserve Board. Each affiliate, however, would be subject to regulation by its own functional regulator; in other words, banks by banking regulators, securities by the SEC, and insurance by State insurance regulators. This rule, unlike its predecessor, allows the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services the opportunity to offer an amendment to this key provision. The LaFalce-Vento amendment would allow banks to choose between the holding company concept or an operating subsidiary system, which would be subject to regulation by the office of Comptroller of the Currency. Without going into the details of the differences between those two regulatory schemes, suffice it to say that this is a critical difference which deserves consideration and debate in the House. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule includes as a manager's amendment, proposals first brought up by the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. In the first rule proposed for consideration of H.R. 10, the Republican leadership excluded from debate the consumer protection amendments proposed by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). However, in round two, the Dingell amendment has now become the Bliley- Dingell-Leach manager's amendment and will be the first amendment considered under the rule. Allowing these amendments to be considered is not only fair, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for the House to consider them if we are to truly debate the issue of modernizing banking laws that are from another age. Regardless of each Member's position of how to accomplish this long overdue change in our banking laws, it is important the House be able to examine this issue thoroughly, something that the Republican earlier had not tried to do. This is a much better rule and will allow for comprehensive debate on bringing our financial services industry into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is a terrible rule. This is a terrible bill. This is a closed rule. We have been denied the opportunity for the one representative from the District of Columbia to even be heard on this matter, to offer an amendment. I urge this rule be rejected and this bill be rejected. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The preceding speaker may be speaking for Republican Members of Congress, but my three children graduated from public schools, and I know many Members on my side of the aisle whose children attend public schools. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 3584.