Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1375, Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2003
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1375, FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORY RELIEF ACT OF 2003 -- (House of Representatives - March 18, 2004)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary referred an imperfect bill to the full House. However, in a rare bipartisan move, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) joined together to try to fix what is one of the more controversial elements of this bill. And they deserve credit for trying to work in a bipartisan way and to build consensus and to bring something to this floor that a majority of this House will be able to support.
Unfortunately, last night, the Committee on Rules failed to follow the lead set by our three distinguished colleagues. In what has become a very disturbing standard of operating procedure in the people's House, the Committee on Rules once again issued a restrictive rule. Now, this is the 12th rule considered by this body this year so far, and only one of them has been open. Mr. Speaker, a restrictive rule on a noncontroversial bill, and I think it is fair to say if the manager's amendment gets approved, this is a fairly uncontroversial bill, is simply undemocratic.
Every day, the people I talk to grow more and more outraged with the way this Republican leadership shuts down the democratic process in this House. This restrictive rule I think is also an insult to the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who I have great admiration for. The major controversy with the underlying bill is the regulation of industrial loan companies, or ILCs. The manager's amendment includes the compromise that I mentioned, worked out among the chairman, the ranking member (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), as he testified last night in the Committee on Rules, was not satisfied with the compromise language on ILCs. And as is his right, he came to the Committee on Rules last night to offer an amendment regulating these businesses. Now, during their testimony, I asked the chairman and I asked the ranking member if they supported the right of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to offer his amendment on the floor today. And while they said that they had some issues with the substance of his amendment, and they would not be able to support it, they both agreed that the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services deserves the right to offer his amendment before the full House, an amendment that deals with a very important aspect of this bill.
Now, if the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and if the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services do not have a problem with the offering of the gentleman's amendment, why in the world does the Committee on Rules have a problem with the gentleman from Iowa being able to offer his amendment?
The amendment that was brought before the Committee on Rules was completely in accordance with the rules of this House. There were no waivers that were required in order for it to be considered on the floor today. In fact, if this was an open rule, he would be able to offer the amendment. There would be no problem. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is a distinguished Member of this House who drafted this amendment in a thoughtful way, and I believe that the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services deserves more than he is getting here today.
There are other amendments that were brought before the Committee on Rules last night that were not made in order. In addition, the Committee on Rules set a deadline for submitting amendments to the committee of 10 a.m. yesterday morning. By the time the Committee on Rules convened to report the rule last night, the Republican leadership knew full well that only 10 amendments would be offered today. Instead of granting an open rule so that all 10 amendments could be considered under regular order, the Committee on Rules granted this rule which provides for 1 hour of general debate and 70 minutes for consideration of the amendments.
With this restrictive rule, the Republican leadership not only shuts out one of their more distinguished Members but other Members who would like to offer amendments to this bill. Again, during the hearing last night in the Committee on Rules, both the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) made mention of the fact that all these amendments could be dealt with in a relatively short period of time; that there was no reason why some of these amendments needed to be shut out of the process.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership continues to insist on shutting down democracy in this House of Representatives. Sometimes, like today, it seems as though they stifle debate just because they can. It is like a bad habit they cannot break. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is addicted to their own power, and I urge them to take the first step toward recovery by admitting that they have a problem, a big problem. And it is not too late. Democrats stand ready to help you, there are thoughtful Members on the Republican side who stand ready to help you.
There is no reason why this bill needs to come to the floor today under this restrictive process. This should be an open process. This should be a relatively noncontroversial process, but you have made it more controversial than it needs to be. So I hope the Republican leadership at some time comes to their senses and does the right thing, but I am not holding my breath. But we are going to continue to insist that this process be more open and be more democratic.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to go get the text of the hearing last night. I asked specifically whether or not either the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) had a problem with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) offering his amendment, and the answer was no. There was no qualification.
So that is why I asked the question. And I repeated it several times during the hearing to make the point that even though they had some problems with the substance of the gentleman's amendment, they had no problem with him offering his amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for his comments. Again, I wish that he had the opportunity to offer his amendment because I think there were a lot of Members who share his concerns. Maybe before this debate is over with, we can get an explanation from someone on the Committee on Rules as to why his amendment which was perfectly in order, required no budgetary waivers, was not allowed here, which I think is really unfortunate. We certainly have the time to be able to debate it and every Member should have the right to vote up or down on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services who most recently David Broder in a Washington Post article referred to as one bold thinker among Democrats, one of the most effective Members of this House.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), one of the more thoughtful Members of this House and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close for our side.
Let me just again get back to the issue of the rule. I understand that there may be occasions for rules to come before the Members of this House that are not completely open, and the majority does after all have the responsibility of making sure that this House runs, that the legislative agenda moves forward. And I would prefer that any rules that come to the floor that have any kind of restrictions in them be done in consultation with the chairman and ranking members of the appropriate committees and subcommittees.
But here we have a situation where the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services said that they had no problems with the amendments that were being offered last night; and specifically in response to a question by me regarding the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Leach) amendment, they said they had absolutely no problem with his offering that amendment on the floor today. And I do not understand why the majority of the Committee on Rules decided last night to cut the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) out of the process.
There has been a very interesting dialogue between the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). This is obviously a very important issue. Members have strong feelings on both sides. This is the kind of amendment that we should have a debate on on the floor and Members of both sides should be able to vote up or down on. And it is not like we do not have the time. According to the schedule that the majority put out today, we are going to be out of here by three o'clock. I do not think this would take very much time.
They do not want to deal with issues of substance. We cannot deal with the extension of unemployment benefits. We cannot deal with a trade bill to stop sanctions against U.S. products. I do not know where the transportation bill is or health care bills or anything else, but we do have this bill on the floor. We do have the time. And it just seems to me to be somewhat puzzling that they could not find it within their wisdom last night as the majority to allow this amendment to come to the floor and for Members to vote up or down on it. Maybe it is just because they are in the habit of restricting things and closing things down.
But it just seems to me on a bill that is relatively noncontroversial where the chairman and the ranking member have no problem with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) offering his amendment, I do not understand why the Committee on Rules has such a big problem. And I think it is unfortunate, and I think Democrats and Republicans need to continue to point out the unfairness of this process. We can do much better. And on bills like this, there is absolutely no reason why this should not have been a wide-open rule. We could have handled this in a reasonable period of time, and we could have respected all the Members of this House, both Republican and Democrat; and I just think it is unfortunate that this is becoming a trend in the Committee on Rules.
We only had one open rule this year, notwithstanding all the great speeches those guys give about how they are committed to openness. This is not how we should be doing this, and I apologize to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others who did not have their amendments made in order last night, but I hope in the future that we do better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to figure all of this out because, in the past, the Committee on Rules has used the excuse that Members have brought amendments up in their relevant committees of jurisdiction and they have not passed, so therefore we should make them in order. Now you are saying that because he did not, the gentleman from Iowa did not bring his amendment up in his committee of jurisdiction, that it should be made in order. So I do not understand.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as a matter of fact, the gentleman is correct. But there are circumstances many times related to how close a vote is, whether it is controversial; there are a number of things which identify that as what we might call or term a jump ball. It is important at various times for the Committee on Rules to look at and to weigh those things which we believe are important to the efficiency of the use of this time on the floor.
In this case, we made a determination as to what we were going to do. We have made 3 Democrat amendments in order, we have made 2 Republican amendments and a manager's amendment in order. I believe that the time which we took yesterday in the Committee on Rules was appropriately done by the young chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and I am very proud of what we have done.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT