Retail Investor Protection Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1105, which will create a gaping loophole for private equity fund advisers and deprive investors and regulators of important information about the risk these funds pose.

The Dodd-Frank Act wisely required that advisers to all hedge funds, private equity funds, and other private funds register and file regular reports with the SEC. It did this for two reasons: one, to help regulators better understand the systemic risks that these funds pose to the overall financial system, and to provide investors in these funds with meaningful information about the funds' governance.

This bill would exempt nearly every private equity fund adviser from these important disclosure requirements. Some of my colleagues who support this bill will argue that because private equity funds were not the cause of the last crisis, we should not subject them to these modest transparency and accountability requirements.

But one of the most important lessons we did learn during the financial crisis is that systemic threats seem to always bubble up from the opaque and unregulated sectors of the market. Giving this exemption will allow threats to once again grow in the dark corners of our financial system, only showing themselves when it is too late to prevent serious harm to the American taxpayer.

Supporters of this bill, while well-intended, will point to the provision that ensures advisers to private equity funds with leverage ratios over 2:1 will still have to register. This may sound attractive on its surface until you realize that every private equity fund is basically within that parameter. Private equity funds invest in companies, and it is these portfolio companies that

load up on leverage and that have the potential to take on outside risk, piling on the leverage while the private equity fund itself appears on its surface to be modestly leveraged. A private equity fund could have a leverage ratio well below 2:1, while its portfolio companies are leveraged in excess of 30:1 masking the actual risk that these funds pose. Nearly every private equity fund in existence today would come in below the 2:1 leverage cap. This is a hollow limitation that provides no protection to the funds' investors or to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, we learned the hard way after the recent financial crisis that systemic risks grow in the dark corners of our financial markets and that the more information we can gather about how the markets work, the safer we will be. The registration and reporting requirements for private equity advisers are modest and narrowly tailored, but they provide investors and regulators with important information. Rolling back these reforms now moves us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1105.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do want to respond to the gentleman's invoking of the SEC chair, Mary Jo White. Judging from the gentleman's remarks, you would think she might be in favor of this bill. Well, let me talk about what she says about this bill in particular:

Our markets would not be well served by narrowing the scope

of the commission's jurisdiction in oversight of these

advisers.

That is with respect to this bill. She also said:

Private equity investors are in need of the same

protections as other private fund investors.

Lastly, she has also said that the commission has brought enforcement actions, talking about the advisability of having oversight over advisers and having these disclosures made:

The commission has brought enforcement actions against

private equity funds and their advisory personnel involving

unlawful pay-to-play schemes, insider trading, conflicts of

interest, valuation, and misappropriation of assets.

I yield myself another 30 seconds.

Now, when you think about the protections that are necessary for pension funds, especially where these workers have invested their whole lives in these pension funds, you understand the need for this disclosure.

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to some of these allegations.

In respect to sophisticated investors, the Council of Institutional Investors, which is an association representing corporate, union, and public pensions, foundations and endowments, largely very sophisticated investors with combined assets of $3 trillion, opposes this bill. They oppose this bill because of the record of enforcement actions of the SEC to go after risks that do actually exist.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining for each side.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do want to point out, in response to the gentleman from Tennessee's remarks about this bill going on voice vote in committee, I just want to remind the Members and the public that during that debate there was a need for further work on this bill.

I think, in a moment of bipartisanship, we agreed, both Democrat and Republican, to allow the bill to go by voice vote with the promise to work on some of those issues going forward. So it was an agreement to try to continue to agree and to work on the bill. It was

not a vote in favor of any particular provisions within this bill.

There has been a lot of talk here about the risks that don't exist, and I do want to just point out some of those. As a result of this bill, funds investing more than $300 billion a year, much of which is the retirement savings of workers like teachers, firefighters, police officers, they would no longer be required to provide basic investor protections.

Specifically, H.R. 1105 would deprive investors of basic disclosures about an employee of a fund adviser who, for instance, violated securities law, or the adviser's businesses practices, its fees, any conflict of interest on the part of that adviser.

It would also eliminate a compliance program and code of ethics within the bill, within Dodd-Frank, and would eliminate the need for a chief compliance officer for each fund manager.

H.R. 1105, the bill under consideration here, would also prevent the SEC from conducting compliance exams of private equity fund adviser, even though SEC Chairman Mary Jo White notes that the Commission has already uncovered issues such as unlawful pay-to-play schemes, insider trading that we have all read about recently, conflicts of interest, valuation issues, and misappropriation of assets.

I want to talk about some of these since there has been a complete dismissal of any risk here. I think the record speaks to the risk.

The SEC has brought several enforcement actions against private equity firms. While the defendants do not necessarily represent all private equity firms, they do highlight the need for a strong police officer with the authority to examine all private equity advisers.

Capital formation relies on investor confidence in the underlying assets; and without registration with the SEC, investors will no longer have a cop on the beat that can enforce the rule of law, reducing investor demand.

In Knelman, for example here, there have been broad violations related to fraud, custody, compliance, and reporting. In Knelman Asset Management Group, the SEC found that registered private equity fund-of- funds adviser Knelman Asset Management Group, LLC, and Irving P. Knelman, KAMG's managing director, chief executive officer, and former CCO, violated the Advisers Act's custody, antifraud, compliance, reporting, and books-and-records provisions.

In insider trading enforcement, the Gowrish insider trading case involved an individual who allegedly stole confidential acquisition information, TPG Capital, and sold that information to two friends who made $500,000 in illicit trading profits.

Valuation related enforcement actions, the Oppenheimer/Brian Williamson matters concern an investment adviser and portfolio manager who misrepresented material details about his valuation methodology to his investors.

Recently, the Commission filed a case against Yorkville Advisors, where Yorkville allegedly inflated the values of certain liquid assets. While Yorkville managed hedge funds, the valuation issues are very similar to ones we see in private equity.

Finally, the KCAP valuation case involved alleged overstatements of the value of certain debt securities and CLOs held in the investment portfolio, highlighting the division and AMU's emphasis on pursuing valuation cases.

And in the Ranieri Partners case, the SEC also found that an investment manager knowingly used a sanctioned, unregistered broker- dealer to solicit capital for a pooled investment vehicle.

So all of these illegal activities would be made unavailable to private equity investors under this bill. That is what the risk is. That is not fiction. Those are actual cases that the SEC has introduced enforcement actions on. So there is real risk here for investors and for the markets themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We need not worry about small firms in this. They are already exempt under this bill. They are already exempt. So the concerns about small firms being covered by this, they are already exempt, number one.

Number two, the other scenario that has been posited here is that somehow, by allowing private equity firms the right to keep secret--or to refuse to disclose that their employees have been prosecuted for violating securities laws, by allowing that to remain undisclosed, that somehow that is going to help some single mom go to work, I don't think that is a rational assumption.

Mr. Speaker, I will now enter into the Record letters from the following organizations who are all opposed to this bill: Americans for Financial Reform, the Council of Institutional Investors, the North American Securities Administrators Association, and a Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Americans for

Financial Reform,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial

Reform, we are writing to express our opposition to HR 1105.

Contrary to its title, this bill is not designed to benefit

small business. Instead, it would exempt private equity fund

advisers--who include some of the wealthiest and most

significant entities on Wall Street--from basic reporting

requirements designed to help regulators

monitor systemic risk in the financial system and protect

investors and the public.

Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, hedge and private equity funds

received almost no regulatory monitoring, despite the fact

that combined they manage some $3 trillion in assets and

played a significant intermediary role in the financial

crisis. Section 404 of the Dodd-Frank Act created more

transparency for this previously dark portion of the markets,

by requiring advisers to hedge and private equity funds to

report basic financial information relevant to systemic risk

to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The

experience of the 2008 crisis--where risks emerged from parts

of the markets not being monitored by regulators--clearly

demonstrates the importance of ensuring that regulators can

track financial risks wherever they originate.

The Section 404 reporting requirements as implemented by

the SEC are far from onerous. All advisers with below $150

million in assets under management are completely exempted,

and advisers with up to $1.5 billion in assets under

management must report only limited and basic information

once per year. Advisers to large private equity funds are

required to respond only once per year (advisers to other

large funds report quarterly).

HR 1105 would exempt almost all private equity fund

advisers from reporting requirements to the Securities and

Exchange Commission. The sole requirement for the exemption

is that the fund must not have outstanding borrowings that

exceed twice the fund's invested capital. But this

requirement places little if any real limitation on the

exemption, since the great majority of borrowing connected

with private equity activity is conducted through portfolio

companies, not at the fund level. (That is, companies owned

by private equity funds borrow large amounts as the direction

of the fund, but the fund itself rarely borrows a great

deal).

It is particularly distressing that Congress would consider

granting this exemption at a time when concern is growing

among regulators and market observers about risks created by

a possible bubble in the leveraged loan market, which is

dominated by loans sponsored by private equity firms. Several

warnings have been issued recently by regulators concerning

the risks being created in these markets. As Moody's

investor's service has stated:

``Private equity firms have been exploiting investors''

willingness to lend to speculative-grade companies . . .

Higher yields are drawing investors to riskier structures at

a time when interest rates remain at historical lows.''

Since leveraged loans are also being sold to small retail

investors, a bubble could impact both the stability of the

broader financial system and the retirement savings of retail

investors. The situation in the leveraged loan market clearly

demonstrates the connection between private equity activity

and important risks to financial stability and to investors.

An additional source of concern is the danger that the

exemption granted in HR 1105 could too easily be exploited to

reach beyond private equity firms alone. The distinction

between a hedge fund and a private equity fund is not a

formal legal distinction, it is simply a differentiation

between general investment strategies. While HR 1105 grants

the SEC the ability to define more precisely what a private

equity fund is, if that definition is at all overbroad then

it could be taken advantage of by a wide range of hedge funds

in order to avoid oversight.

Private equity funds already receive significant subsidies

through the tax system, as they are major beneficiaries of

the favorable treatment for `carried interest', as well as

the general tax subsidy to debt costs. It is totally

inappropriate to also grant such funds a blanket exemption

from even the limited and basic Dodd-Frank regulatory

reporting requirements. Such a blanket exemption would make

it more difficult for regulators to monitor systemic risk and

risks to investors, solely in order to exempt wealthy

managers of large private equity funds from a minor

administrative task. HR 1105 should be rejected.

Thank you for your consideration. For more information

please contact AFR's Policy Director, Marcus Stanley.

Sincerely,

Americans for Financial Reform.

Following Are the Partners of Americans for Financial Reform

All the organizations support the overall principles of AFR

and are working for an accountable, fair and secure financial

system. Not all of these organizations work on all of the

issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to every

statement.;

A New Way Forward; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Alliance For Justice;

American Income Life Insurance; American Sustainable Business

Council; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc; Americans

United for Change; Campaign for America's Future; Campaign

Money; Center for Digital Democracy; Center for Economic and

Policy Research; Center for Economic Progress; Center for

Media and Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending; Center

for Justice and Democracy.

Center of Concern; Center for Effective Government; Change

to Win; Clean Yield Asset Management; Coastal Enterprises

Inc.; Color of Change; Common Cause; Communications Workers

of America; Community Development Transportation Lending

Services; Consumer Action; Consumer Association Council;

Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability; Consumer

Federation of America; Consumer Watchdog; Consumers Union.

Corporation for Enterprise Development; CREDO Mobile; CTW

Investment Group; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Essential

Action; Greenlining Institute; Good Business International;

HNMA Funding Company; Home Actions; Housing Counseling

Services; Home Defender's League; Information Press;

Institute for Global Communications; Institute for Policy

Studies: Global Economy Project.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Institute of

Women's Policy Research; Krull & Company; Laborers'

International Union of North America; Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights Under Law; Main Street Alliance; Move On; NAACP;

NASCAT; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National

Association of Neighborhoods; National Community Reinvestment

Coalition; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its

low-income clients); National Consumers League; National

Council of La Raza.

National Council of Women's Organizations; National Fair

Housing Alliance; National Federation of Community

Development Credit Unions; National Housing Resource Center;

National Housing Trust; National Housing Trust Community

Development Fund; National NeighborWorks Association;

National Nurses United; National People's Action; National

Urban League; Next Step; OpenTheGovernment.org; Opportunity

Finance Network; Partners for the Common Good; PICO National

Network.

Progress Now Action; Progressive States Network; Poverty

and Race Research Action Council; Public Citizen; Sargent

Shriver Center on Poverty Law; SEIU; State Voices; Taxpayer's

for Common Sense; The Association for Housing and

Neighborhood Development; The Fuel Savers Club; The

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Seminal;

TICAS; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; UNITE HERE.

United Food and Commercial Workers; United States Student

Association; USAction; Veris Wealth Partners; Western States

Center; We the People Now; Woodstock Institute; World Privacy

Forum; UNET; Union Plus; Unitarian Universalist for a Just

Economic Community.

List of State and Local Affiliates

Alaska PIRG; Arizona PIRG; Arizona Advocacy Network;

Arizonans For Responsible Lending; Association for

Neighborhood and Housing Development NY; Audubon Partnership

for Economic Development LDC, New York NY; BAC Funding

Consortium Inc., Miami FL; Beech Capital Venture Corporation,

Philadelphia PA; California PIRG; California Reinvestment

Coalition; Century Housing Corporation, Culver City CA;

CHANGER NY; Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement

Corporation (NY); Chicago Community Loan Fund, Chicago IL.

Chicago Community Ventures, Chicago IL; Chicago Consumer

Coalition; Citizen Potawatomi CDC, Shawnee OK; Colorado PIRG;

Coalition on Homeless Housing in Ohio; Community Capital

Fund, Bridgeport CT; Community Capital of Maryland, Baltimore

MD; Community Development Financial Institution of the Tohono

O'odham Nation, Sells AZ; Community Redevelopment Loan and

Investment Fund, Atlanta GA; Community Reinvestment

Association of North Carolina; Community Resource Group,

Fayetteville A; Connecticut PIRG; Consumer Assistance

Council; Cooper Square Committee (NYC).

Cooperative Fund of New England, Wilmington NC; Corporacion

de Desarrollo Economico de Ceiba, Ceiba PR; Delta Foundation,

Inc., Greenville MS; Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF),

Philadelphia PA; Empire Justice Center NY; Empowering and

Strengthening Ohio's People (ESOP), Cleveland OH;

Enterprises, Inc., Berea KY; Fair Housing Contact Service OH;

Federation of Appalachian Housing; Fitness and Praise Youth

Development, Inc., Baton Rouge LA; Florida Consumer Action

Network; Florida PIRG; Funding Partners for Housing

Solutions, Ft. Collins CO; Georgia PIRG.

Grow Iowa Foundation, Greenfield IA; Homewise, Inc., Santa

Fe NM; Idaho Nevada CDFI, Pocatello ID; Idaho Chapter,

National Association of Social Workers; Illinois PIRG; Impact

Capital, Seattle WA; Indiana PIRG; Iowa PIRG; Iowa Citizens

for Community Improvement; JobStart Chautauqua, Inc.,

Mayville NY; La Casa Federal Credit Union, Newark NJ; Low

Income Investment Fund, San Francisco CA; Long Island Housing

Services NY; MaineStream Finance, Bangor ME.

Maryland PIRG; Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition;

MASSPIRG; Massachusetts Fair Housing Center; Michigan PIRG;

Midland Community Development Corporation, Midland TX;

Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation, Detroit

Lakes MN; Mile High Community Loan Fund, Denver CO; Missouri

PIRG; Mortgage Recovery Service Center of L.A.; Montana

Community Development Corporation, Missoula MT; Montana PIRG;

Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project; New

Hampshire PIRG.

New Jersey Community Capital, Trenton NJ; New Jersey

Citizen Action; New Jersey PIRG; New Mexico PIRG; New York

PIRG; New York City Aids Housing Network; New Yorkers for

Responsible Lending; NOAH Community Development Fund, Inc.,

Boston MA; Nonprofit Finance Fund, New York NY; Nonprofits

Assistance Fund, Minneapolis M;

North Carolina PIRG; Northside Community Development Fund,

Pittsburgh PA; Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing, Columbus

OH; Ohio PIRG.

OligarchyUSA; Oregon State PIRG; Our Oregon; PennPIRG;

Piedmont Housing Alliance, Charlottesville VA; Michigan PIRG;

Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO; Rhode Island

PIRG; Rural Community Assistance Corporation, West Sacramento

CA; Rural Organizing Project OR; San Francisco Municipal

Transportation Authority; Seattle Economic Development Fund;

Community Capital Development; TexPIRG.

The Fair Housing Council of Central New York; The Loan

Fund, Albuquerque NM; Third Reconstruction Institute NC;

Vermont PIRG; Village Capital Corporation, Cleveland OH;

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Poverty Law

Center; War on Poverty--Florida; WashPIRG; Westchester

Residential Opportunities Inc.; Wigamig Owners Loan Fund,

Inc., Lac du Flambeau WI; WISPIRG.

Small Businesses

Blu; Bowden-Gill Environmental; Community MedPAC;

Diversified Environmental Planning; Hayden & Craig, PLLC; Mid

City Animal Hospital, Pheonix AZ; The Holographic Repatteming

Institute at Austin; UNETO.

Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains on each side.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to enter into the Record statements from the following organizations which all oppose H.R. 1105: the AFL- CIO, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and North American Securities Administrators Association.

And regarding reading the bill, I certainly did read the bill, and my point is that the bill does not require public disclosure of those matters, as the gentleman points out. It just goes to the Commission. So it doesn't go to the public. The public doesn't get the information. It stays within the custody of the Commission.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, that is right. But those are public investors. They are the ones that need the information.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), our ranking member and a real champion of America's working families.

Legislative Proposals to Relieve the Red Tape Burden on Investors and

Job Creators

United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services

Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises

(Statement of Anne Simpson Senior Portfolio Manager, Investments Director of Global Governance California Public Employees' Retirement

System, May 23, 2013)

Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, and Members of

the Committee, on behalf of the California Public Employees'

Retirement System (CalPERS), we thank you for convening this

hearing. CalPERS is pleased to submit testimony for the

record to reassert our strong support for efficient and

effective financial regulation, as enacted by the Dodd-Frank

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-

Frank'').

This statement includes a brief overview of CalPERS,

including how we benefit from effective financial markets

regulation and the role that shareowner rights and corporate

governance play in building investor confidence. It also

includes a discussion of our views on HR 1135, HR 1105, and

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which is a closed rule for H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. It only makes in order one amendment for H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act, and it would allow for this political game that we like to play which is called the ``vote on the disapproval of raising the debt ceiling,'' which I will talk about a little bit more later.

What I truly object to here is the way that this body, this House, is only meeting for one full day this week. We came in yesterday evening around 6:30 p.m. We are meeting today and, it is my understanding, for about half the day tomorrow. Most people in this country, Mr. Speaker, work a solid 40-hour workweek. I don't know why Members of Congress in this House, the expectations would somehow be they work 10, 12, 15 hours a week, call it a week, and go home, when there are many important things that we could be doing.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about today--and I agree with some of the bills under this rule and I disagree with others--is an honest day's work. We are discussing and debating important bills. Would that we were having these kinds of discussions for 5 days a week rather than 1 day a week, Mr. Speaker.

While I disagree with this approach to getting very little work done that is important to the people of this country, this bill does make in order H.R. 992, which I support. I think this bill is common sense. It modifies a revision of the Dodd-Frank bill, which many, including many of the bill's authors, like former Representative Barney Frank and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, regard as problematic. It corrects that.

Many economists and regulators have noted that, without this legislation, it is quite likely that certain swaps activity could be pushed out from the heavily regulated bank institutions, having the opposite effect of what many of us wanted to accomplish with the Dodd- Frank bill and increasing costs to financial institutions. In fact, if we don't pass this bill, it could make our financial system more susceptible to systemic risk and reduce our international competitiveness, according to former Chairman Bernanke.

I am confident that this bill will pass with a strong bipartisan coalition and does represent important work that this body will do.

The underlying bill, H.R. 992, also ensures that federally backed financial institutions can continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts that serve commercial and hedging needs of their customers, while still prohibiting dangerous swaps that contributed to our economic collapse. I am pleased to join my colleagues from across the aisle in making this important fix, rather than repealing the law entirely.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the approach to ObamaCare and the Affordable Care Act was more analogous to this approach that we are having with Dodd-Frank. I think many of us who supported Dodd-Frank agree there are a number of changes that need to be made.

As far as I know, in the history of this institution, there has never been a perfect piece of legislation passed. It is regularly routine to have cleanup bills that improve and build upon what has been done. I wish that we could get there with the Affordable Care Act. I am a cosponsor of a number of bills that I think would improve the Affordable Care Act. I know that my colleagues from across the aisle are as well.

I think it is time to get past this discussion of trying to repeal ObamaCare and instead get to a discussion of: How do we make it work for our country? How do we make health care work for our country? How do we make health care affordable for our country and build upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act and address the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act?

This rule also makes in order H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act, which addresses pending rulemakings at both the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the new fiduciary standards of care. Again, while the merits of this legislation are up for debate, under this rule the House majority only allowed consideration of one amendment for the two underlying bills. Instead, it is sending us home early with half a day of work tomorrow, Wednesday, rather than staying through the week and allowing further discussion of additional amendments and other important topics, like replacing our broken immigration system with one that works for our country.

More disappointingly, the light workload this week of a day and a half is emblematic of how the next 2 months are calendared for this House of Representatives. There are only 19 days left of work for this House before the end of the year. The House is only in session for 2\1/ 2\ days before we recess in a week. Again, I think that the American people expect and demand a minimum 40-hour workweek from the people that they hire to represent them here in Washington, and I think most people in this country have more than 19 days that they have to work in November and December. That is 2 full months, November and December. Yet, we only have 19 days over that 2-month period that this body will be in session.

Yet, there are critical issues that the American people are demanding that we act on. As an example, today is the 302nd day of 2013 that we have failed to bring to the floor a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Time is running short, and the need for a comprehensive immigration overhaul is growing every day. Even the United States Senate, hardly an institution that is prized for the speed with which it moves, has passed comprehensive immigration reform with more than a two-thirds majority.

Now, I am proud to be a part of a coalition of House Members, a bipartisan coalition, that has introduced a bill very similar to the Senate bill that has replaced some of the border security language with House border security language, H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This bill would create jobs, reduce our budget deficit, include a pathway to citizenship, unite families. It would help reflect our values as Americans in our immigration laws, grow the economy, create jobs for Americans here at home, and finally get real about enforcing our immigration laws.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, there are over 10 million people in this country illegally? When are we going to get serious about enforcing our laws and not making a mockery of them? This Nation is a Nation based on the rule of law. H.R. 15 reflects that commitment, as does the Senate immigration bill. It is time that we fix our broken immigration system rather than go home on a Wednesday and meet for 19 days in a 63-day period.

This is a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15. We have been joined by several Republicans--Representative Denham, Representative Ros-Lehtinen. We encourage my colleagues, and I certainly invite my friend and colleague from Texas, to join us as cosponsors of this bill that will allow us to create enforcement, a pathway to citizenship, grow jobs, and finally resolve our broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am being paranoid, but it appears to me that perhaps leadership--Mr. Speaker, leadership, as you know, controls what we vote on here on the floor of the House. Leadership, of course, being my colleague, Mr. Cantor from Virginia, and my colleague, Mr. Boehner from Ohio. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they fear that this bill would pass if it was brought to the floor. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill would pass if it was brought to the floor of the House. Twenty-nine Republicans have already publicly expressed

support for a pathway to citizenship. Many more Republicans, Mr. Speaker, have privately expressed support for a pathway to citizenship. It should hardly take courage to do so. Over 70 percent of the American people have expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.

Regrettably, the only action that this House has taken on immigration has been one vote, which voted to undo the deferred action program for childhood arrivals. It voted to deport DREAMers. Yes, the House of Representatives actually voted to do that. Fortunately, it didn't happen. The Democrats control the Senate and stopped it. The President likely would have vetoed it. It is his program that he started in the absence of this body acting. By the way, in the absence of the House of Representatives taking on immigration reform, I hope the President expands deferred action. What other tools does he have at his disposal to address our immigration system if this body, the law-making body, refuses to actually solve the immigration issue? If this body refuses to solve the immigration issue, the number of people here illegally will only increase, and this body, the House of Representatives, and the majority, the Republican Party, who won't allow us to vote on H.R. 15, will be responsible for more illegal immigration and having more people here illegally if we do not act now.

Mr. Speaker, just this week, nearly 600 conservative supporters of immigration reform will storm Capitol Hill from the faith community, the business community, the law enforcement community. An unprecedented coalition will be meeting with Republican members, and is meeting with Republican members, demanding that they take action. We are talking about Partnership for a New American Economy; the Bibles, Badges, and Business coalition for immigration reform; FWD.us; strong support from the technology and business community; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Speaker.

Regrettably, the only immigration amendment that has passed this House has been to deport DREAMers. Again, thankfully, it didn't happen. The Senate and President were able to stop it. That is the only idea so far that has been proposed and, sadly, tragically, accepted by this body for dealing with DREAMers. We are talking about young people who grew up in this country, have been through American schools, football teams, cheerleaders, prom, got good grades, played by every rule they knew. They were brought here when they were 2 years old, 5 years old. Frequently, they don't even speak another language. They want to get back to our country if only we will let them. Yet, this House voted to eliminate the program that allows them to work in this country. It instead would deport them back to a country they don't know anybody in and don't speak the language of. We would be denying them the ability to be legally in the only country they know, to make our country stronger.

That is action. The majority party took action on an amendment. They passed the amendment to undo the deferred action program, but I refuse to believe that that is the action that Speaker Boehner had in mind when he said he wants to move forward and fix our broken immigration system. Regardless of what we do with the DREAMers, that is only a small part of our broken immigration system.

There are many adults that are working illegally in this country because we refuse to enforce or fix our immigration laws; and that will continue unless this House of Representatives chooses to change that.

The American people, Mr. Speaker, are fed up. That is why enormous majorities of Democrats and Republicans, of Independents, of men, of women, of every single breakdown that you have of the American people want to see the House of Representatives fix our broken immigration system, would like to see us pass the bill, H.R. 15, here in the House of Representatives, a bipartisan bill ready for the floor today and ready to be passed into law.

The House majority needs to move a bill to the floor that includes an earned pathway to citizenship, border security, enforcement of our laws, meets the needs of the businesses, the technology sector, the agriculture sector, other important sectors that rely on an immigrant workforce.

And, yes, we can count the votes, Mr. Speaker. We can help Majority Whip McCarthy with his job. The votes for a pathway to citizenship, I am proud to report back to my colleague from Texas, who I know is a member of Republican leadership, and my good colleague, Mr. Sessions, we can report back, and you can report back to Majority Whip McCarthy that at least 29 House Republicans have publicly endorsed the pathway to citizenship as a component of immigration reform, the principles that are included in H.R. 15 in the Senate bill, and many more Republicans have privately committed their support.

Yet we are hearing more and more about counterproductive measures that might be brought to the House. For instance, I have heard that there might be an effort to introduce the so-called SAFE Act in an immigration package, which would, essentially, turn undocumented immigrants into criminals overnight, creating an enforcement challenge.

If we can't enforce our current laws, can you imagine trying to enforce a set of laws where there are 10 million or 15 million criminals in our country?

Now, it is important also to distinguish, Mr. Speaker, when we look at our immigrant detention centers, and we are talking about people who are here illegally who have committed crimes, not just the civil violation of being here illegally, we join with our Republican colleagues in seeking deportation and punishment.

Whether somebody is here legally or illegally, whether they have paperwork or not, if they ever commit a crime that harms our community, we have no sympathy for them, and we seek their full punishment under the law.

But how can you enforce or punish people when you create a whole new class of criminals?

We can barely punish the criminals we have. We already incarcerate more people, as a percentage of our population, than any other Western industrialized nation. Clearly, incarcerating and deporting more not only is not the answer, but would be a tremendous burden to the American taxpayer.

Each deportation, Mr. Speaker, costs over $10,000 of your money. Over $10,000. Is that the solution?

Or should we make sure that people who are working here pay taxes?

Would you rather pay, Mr. Speaker, $10,000, or would you rather accept their checks to make sure that they are paying their fair share to reduce our budget deficit and reduce the tax burden on everybody else, to the tune of over $200 billion, which is how much, according to the scoring of the Senate bill, comprehensive immigration reform will reduce our deficit?

And we will be happy to work with the Republican majority to use that $200 billion to reduce the individual tax rate. It is an issue that I have talked about with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions). We would love to bring down those marginal rates. Instead of 39.6 percent, let's get them down to 38, 35, I think, you know, however low we can get them and bring down rates for everybody else as well.

I will address the question to my good colleague and friend from Texas. We might be able to use the $200 billion in immigration reform to bring down the individual or corporate tax rate. I will be happy to pose that question to my good friend.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, and in that mix of the pay-fors might be immigration reform. That won't get us fully there. That is $200 billion, and I would have to see the scoring on getting it down to 25; but that is a pay-for that I think would have support from my side of the aisle. There are other pay-fors that would as well.

Now, we are not willing to do this if it is going to increase the deficit, as we have talked about. If we just bring down tax rates for the people and that goes to the deficit, I think there would be problems on both sides of the aisle.

But if we can offset it with spending cuts, if we can offset it with immigration reform, if we can offset it by getting rid of loopholes for the oil and gas industry, I think we have a good, bipartisan way to discuss bringing down tax rates for all Americans going forward.

Immigration needs to reflect our values as Americans. It needs to bring people out of the shadows, enforce our laws, be good for American business, be good for labor, create jobs, and help make America more competitive.

Let me talk briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the overwhelming public support for immigration reform. Take my home State of Colorado as an example. More than three-quarters of Coloradans support comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the people already here.

In California, there have been a number of polls. In the 21st District, represented by my friend and colleague, Representative Valadao, 77 percent of voters support the Senate immigration bill, H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform.

In the 22nd District in California, represented by my friend and colleague, Mr. Nunes, over 74 percent support H.R. 15-style legislation.

Let's move to Nevada. In the Second District of Nevada, represented by my friend, Mr. Amodei, 72 percent, Mr. Speaker, of voters support comprehensive immigration reform.

In the Third District of Nevada, represented by my colleague, Mr. Heck, over 74 percent.

I can go on and on; the point being, Mr. Speaker, that the American people are demanding action of this body.

H.R. 15 is simply common sense. Instead of going home after 1 day of work, let's bring it to the floor on Thursday, then pass it on Friday, Mr. Speaker. Let's get it done. Common sense.

If the House majority is serious about bolstering innovation, growing our economy, reducing our deficit, bringing down taxes, increasing prosperity for all Americans, a pro-growth agenda that they frequently lend lip service to, then put this immigration reform bill on the floor, and let the House work its will. It will pass.

We can attract investment and entrepreneurs and encourage them to create American jobs, reduce our deficit, bring down the tax burden and, guess what, help restore integrity to our entitlement programs, help make sure that people are paying in to Social Security and Medicare, and that they are solvent. We can accomplish that this week. Or, you know, if you really want to go home on Wednesday of this week, let's come back next week, instead of taking next week off, and we will pass immigration reform then.

I will be happy, and many Members from my side of the aisle would be happy, to cancel vacation plans for next week to come back and pass immigration reform; and I would encourage my colleague from Texas to encourage his leadership to do that.

It is time, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, it is past time. H.R. 15 improves border security, interior enforcement, resolves the issue of the 11 million people who are here illegally, improves our legal immigration system.

The bill makes sure that the Department of Homeland Security develops a comprehensive plan to protect our southern border, a plan that has passed unanimously by the House Homeland Security Committee, Democrats and Republicans joining together to actually get serious about our border security.

The American people are calling out for this body to take the moral high road, the economically beneficial path, for Democrats and Republicans to work together to bring a comprehensive immigration reform bill to the House before the end of the year.

So I can't support this rule today, Mr. Speaker. I can't support a rule that sends us home on Wednesday of a workweek. I can't support a rule that only gives us 19 more legislative days before the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to support a rule here on the floor of the House. And if my colleague from Texas and my colleagues on the Rules Committee are willing to bring forward a rule, bring forward H.R. 15 Thursday, bring it forward next week, I will be happy to stand here and proudly support that rule.

But until we reach that time, I will have to voice my opposition to the rule.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate his words, that there is a lot of important work going on. Committees are meeting. You mentioned the Judiciary Committee working on patents. It is a very important issue.

I just wanted to ask the gentleman, with all of the important work that is going on, why the House will be adjourning on Wednesday and not meeting next week as well?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider the Make It In America Manufacturing Act of 2013. To discuss the proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, since this week is spoken for, that leaves us with 19 legislative days before the end of the session. Reportedly, I have read in the press, that House leadership is struggling to find ways to fill that time. Well, I have an idea.

Four weeks is more than enough time to pass immigration reform; and if we can't stay here on Thursday and Friday to do it, let's do it in the 19 days we have left. There is no reason at all for us to leave here in December, disappoint the American people, without taking action on an issue that is on Speaker Boehner's agenda and on Majority Leader Cantor's agenda for over a year. Speaker Boehner and the House leadership can present a plan for votes on immigration reform before the end of the year.

Every week that Congress is in session until we pass immigration reform, I will be on the floor speaking about the cost of inaction. Immigration reform will create 750,000 to 900,000 jobs for Americans that are out of work.

My colleague from Texas mentioned that there are dangerous people that we don't know where they are in this country. That is true. By passing comprehensive immigration reform, we will make sure that we know where people who represent a threat to this Nation are. The people have to register. Enforcement of the law actually means something.

The Senate has acted and passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill last June. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives hasn't dedicated a single minute of legislative floor time to any immigration bill; and so, too, this week, this House is going home Wednesday instead of discussing immigration reform.

The price of inaction is too heavy a price to pay for the American people. The majority of this body--the Republicans who control the floor of the House--have a choice: they can sit back, twiddle their thumbs and watch the costs of our immigration problems go up for the American people, destroying more jobs and decreasing our deficit; or they can come to the table, start a serious discussion about immigration reform, bring a bill to the floor of the House and pass it, reduce our deficit, improve security, and create jobs for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I urge us to bring up immigration reform.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 429, I call up the bill (H.R. 1105) to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to provide a registration exemption for private equity fund advisers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material for the Record on H.R. 1105, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, since Congress was not in session last week, perhaps some of my colleagues missed the front page headline from The Washington Post. I read: ``Among American Workers, Poll

Finds Unprecedented Anxiety About Jobs and Economy.''

According to the report, American workers are living with ``unprecedented economic anxiety.'' More than six in 10 worry that they will lose their jobs. Nearly one in 3 say they worry a lot about losing their jobs.

The article goes on to mention an American named John Stewart who wakes up every morning at 1:30 a.m. for a 2-hour commute to catch two different buses in Philadelphia so he can get to work on time. In the newspaper, he said: ``I can't save money to buy the things I need to live as a human being.''

Mr. Speaker, we don't have to read The Washington Post. All we have to do is listen to our own constituents, since even today millions-- millions--of our fellow countrymen remain unemployed and underemployed.

I hear these stories every week myself. Recently, I heard from Ida in Wills Point, Texas, in the Fifth Congressional District that I represent. She and her 79-year-old husband own a small trucking company. She wrote me that ``because of increasing regulations in taxes in the past 4 years, we have lost all but two of our trucks.'' She goes on to write me: ``My husband is the only driver right now because I can no longer drive. He drives full-time 3,500 miles a week most weeks because we can't live on his Social Security.'' She says: ``We are really stuck in a hole.''

Millions, Mr. Speaker, are ``stuck in a hole.''

Today, we have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to do something to help raise many of our fellow countrymen out of that hole of economic anxiety and economic hardship. Today, we have the opportunity to pass H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Jobs Preservation Act.

I want to commend the bipartisan group of Members--two Republicans and two Democrats--who introduced the bill: Mr. Hurt of Virginia, Mr. Himes of Connecticut, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, and Mr. Cooper of Tennessee.

As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members of the committee who came together across party lines to approve the bill. Mr. Speaker, nearly one-third of the Democrats who sit on our committee joined with 30 Republicans in supporting H.R. 1105. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, a bipartisan jobs bill.

We know that small businesses face an incredible red tape burden. In fact, a recent survey of the National Federation of Independent Business said that ``government regulations and red tape are the single most important challenge that small businesses face in creating and preserving jobs.''

Mr. Speaker, I heard from another small business person in Grand Saline, Texas, in my district. He said because of overregulation ``our business has devolved from one that provides a service for a customer into one that provides that same service as an afterthought while our real efforts go into paperwork.''

Mr. Speaker, we can debate the relative merits or demerits of the Dodd-Frank Act; but even the primary author himself, former Chairman Frank, admitted that perhaps not every aspect of Dodd-Frank achieved perfection. And many of us would argue on a bipartisan basis that the part of the act that requires small business investors who are private equity advisers to register with the SEC is perhaps one of those provisions that is in need of reform.

This is a provision, Mr. Speaker, that many of us believe was aimed at Wall Street, but ends up hurting Main Street. Because of this provision embedded in Dodd-Frank, smaller firms that invest in entrepreneurs and in small businesses face yet one more significant regulatory cost, regulatory burden, more red tape.

As one of the small business investors testified before our committee, it is going to cost his company $200,000 every year to comply with the regulation. He went on to say:

While for some larger firms this is an insignificant cost,

for a medium-sized firm such as ours that offers capital to

small businesses, it is a significant expense.

And pay attention to this, Mr. Speaker. He said:

This money comes directly out of our funds intended for

investment into Main Street.

In today's economy, to help pull these people out of this hole of economic anxiety, we need more private sector, more private equity investment into Main Street. Private equity equals small business jobs.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, between 1995 and 2010, 23,000 different companies across our Nation benefited from private equity investment, employing 3 million different people, and the investments that are made by private equity historically have grown jobs at three times the rate of other companies.

And so what does this look like? I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it look likes an outfit called New Mountain Capital that invested in a company named Inmar, a national coupon and reverse logistics processing company. By helping them update their IT with a $100 million investment, they now support 4,200 different employees.

The face of private equity looks like Capital South Partners that invested in a North Carolina firm, Vita Nonwovens, and now they have 95 employees in High Point, North Carolina, and I should add parenthetically, another 55 employees in my native Texas. This is the face of private equity. These are some of the small business jobs that are being created.

Now, we may hear from some that this is needed to somehow battle Wall Street, but let me tell you what private equity is not. Private equity it is not Wall Street. It is not complex derivatives trading. It is not currency swaps. Mr. Speaker, it is not about systemic risk. That is not what this is about. And so, again, this was a provision aimed at Wall Street that, unfortunately, is hitting Main Street.

It is time to make sure that Americans like John in Philadelphia can live like a human being. It is time to make sure that constituents like mine, Ida and her husband, don't have to drive 3,500 miles a week just so they can put food on the table.

Mr. Speaker, it is time, again, for this institution to put jobs first, not regulators first, but jobs first. I urge all of my colleagues to adopt H.R. 1105.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now privileged to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), the primary author of this legislation, a real leader on our committee and in this Congress in creating jobs.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a coauthor of the legislation and the chairman of the Capital Markets and GSE Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the gentleman from Massachusetts sets up a straw man and then knocks it down. The activities that he describes as illegal continue to be illegal, and I would say that private equity funds provide extensive reporting to investors, including audited annual financial statements.

Private fund equity advisers are subject to the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, whether they are registered or not, and fund offerings are subject to the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933.

The real choice becomes, are we going to get even greater protections for millionaire investors, or are we going to help struggling single moms trying to find a job in this economy?

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Again, I want to address the gentleman from Massachusetts who, again, I believe, sets up a straw man only to knock it down.

I would urge all Members to actually read the bill. I know that many of my Democratic colleagues now have buyer's remorse from not reading the 2,000-page ObamaCare bill, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a two-page bill, 36 lines.

And I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, that on page 2, that the SEC can ``require investment advisers described in paragraph (1) to maintain such records and provide to the Commission such annual or other reports as the Commission taking into account fund size, governance, investment strategy, risk, and other factors, as the Commission determines necessary.''

So to make the assertion that these records of foul play could never exist is simply not true.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

I would say to my friend, the gentlelady from New York who made the assertion that the SEC is opposed to this bill, that the SEC has not opposed this bill. One member, Mary Jo White, has issued an opinion that she does not support the legislation, but the SEC has taken no official position.

With respect to a threatened veto, I don't recall that when my Democratic colleagues had the majority here that they refused to pass bills simply because President Bush threatened to veto. But I must admit, our committee has produced, I believe it is, at least 10 or 11 bipartisan bills which all received veto threats from a President who says he wants to work on a bipartisan basis. This is most regrettable.

Will the gentleman yield?

By definition, it is private equity. It is not a public fund.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), a coauthor of the legislation and the chairman of our Capital Markets and GSE Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, listening to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is hard not to conclude that some of them have never met a regulation that they didn't like, regardless of what it does to the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the unemployed and underemployed in America.

As I look over your chair, Mr. Speaker, and see the words, ``In God We Trust,'' I sometimes question whether some Members would like to take down the word ``God'' and replace it with ``regulators'': In Regulators We Trust.

The question has never been, Mr. Speaker, the question between regulation and deregulation. The question is between smart regulation and dumb regulation; and in order to make that determination, one needs to see what cost is being imposed, again, on the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the unemployed and the underemployed.

Why does this underlying regulation need to be there in the first place? Is it systemic risk? Well, even the chairman of the SEC has admitted that private equity played no role in the financial crisis.

We know in terms of the economy, private equity may represent somewhere on the order of 1.5 to 2 percent of GDP. There is no evidence of interconnectedness, which many maintain is at the root of systemic risk.

So what are they trying to protect? Well, investor protection. This is all about giving additional protection to millionaire investors at the expense of single moms trying to make ends meet. I am not really sure that meets the test of smart regulation.

We know already that private equity fund advisers are subject, as they well should be, to the antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, whether they are registered or not. Fund offerings are subject to the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933. The SEC still has the ability to ensure that proper documentation is maintained.

No, we do not want to see any investor, regardless of sophistication or income, be subject to coercion or fraud. But, at the same time, we don't want to deny small businesses--the job engine in America--the funding they need to put America back to work.

There are many companies today that we recognize--Dunkin' Donuts, Baskin-Robbins, Petco, Skype, J.Crew--that all have benefited from private equity. Where would the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs they represent be today if private equity had to face yet another burden that is going to cost these small investment firms half a million dollars, a million dollars?

Today, we haven't really heard that much about company likes Entrust or Universal Smart Comp, but maybe they are tomorrow's Petco or tomorrow's Toys ``R'' Us.

And so it really comes down to this, Mr. Speaker, again: Are there going to be additional protections for multimillionaire investors, or are there going to be additional protections and opportunities for unemployed single moms trying to make ends meet?

Our side of the aisle said, Let's help the single mom. Let's pass H.R. 1105, and put America back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment, regardless of how well-intentioned it may be, functionally guts the bill and is essentially redundant of current law in Dodd-Frank.

And I grant the gentlelady, who is a very senior and thoughtful member of our committee, that her provision is perhaps more articulate than the underlying law, but section 408(n) of Dodd-Frank already says:

In prescribing regulations to carry out the requirements of

this section with respect to investment advisers acting as

investment advisers to mid-sized private funds, the

Commission shall take into account the size, governance,

investment strategy of such funds.

It goes on to say:

The Commission shall provide for registration and

examination procedures with respect to the investment

advisers of such funds which reflect the level of systemic

risk.

So, again, it is essentially redundant of what is already in current law.

According to the Private Equity Growth Council, on average it is taking $1.8 million for the initial Dodd-Frank compliance cost and an additional $1.3 million each year in Dodd-Frank compliance costs. All for what? We already have underlying investor protections in place.

There is no evidence presented whatsoever that this has anything to do with systemic risk, all at the cost of jobs, at a time when, again, Mr. Speaker, tens of millions of our countrymen are struggling. They are underemployed, unemployed.

Again, who are we going to help? Are we going to help regulators? Are we going to help millionaire investors? Are we going to help struggling Americans trying to pay the bills? We should oppose this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I would be very happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), again, the author of H.R. 1105.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, historically, private equity has invested in tens of thousands of small businesses, and it has helped create millions of jobs in America.

The question today is: Are we going to put a roadblock in place of private equity--the small business investment engines--so that we can somehow help regulators?

With all due respect to our regulators--and there are many good ones and many great ones at the SEC--I have never met a regulator who turned down the opportunity to regulate more. I have never met him.

So the question is: Are we going to grant an even greater ability to take funds away from small businesses to create a work product that doesn't meet the commonsense test, the jobs test, the smell test--or any other test--at a time when people are still suffering and wondering how are they going to put gas in the tank; how are they going to take their kids to school; how are they going to afford their health care bills since, clearly, they cannot keep their health insurance even if they want to.

How are they going to do this?

We need private equity to fund small business to get America back to work. We need to defeat this amendment. We need to pass the underlying bill. It is time to be pro-jobs.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391, I call up the bill (H.R. 2374) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 2374, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, at a time that the American people demand and deserve that Democrats and Republicans work together to fix real problems in our Nation, today this body has the opportunity to do just that.

Today the House will consider H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act. The bill has strong support from both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, it passed the Financial Services Committee earlier this year on a strong bipartisan recorded vote, including half--half--of our committee's Democrats.

H.R. 2374 will ensure that hardworking families and individuals throughout our country who are trying to save for their retirements, save for their children's college education, saving for their first home are not harmed by confusing, costly regulations coming out of Washington.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans know that a flood of Washington red tape has hurt our economy. That is why tens of millions of our fellow countrymen remain either unemployed or underemployed. Unfortunately, even more regulations are on the way.

Specifically, today, Mr. Speaker, we are here speaking about the Securities Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor, which are headed toward proposing two massive and inconsistent rulemakings that are going to hurt the ability of retail investors to get financial advice that they need for their portion of the American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, retail investors are not big-time professionals on Wall Street. Retail investors had no role in causing the financial crisis, and they should not be punished for it which, regrettably, this rulemaking could do.

Rather, retail investors are ordinary, hardworking citizens from all of our congressional districts who buy and sell securities for themselves, their families and their futures, not for a company.

And in this struggling economy, when people who need help most, what are the SEC and the Department of Labor planning to do? They are planning to make it harder and more expensive for these Americans to get the financial advice that they both want and need.

Perhaps even more incredibly, the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is moving forward with this new regulation even though the agency has failed to provide any evidence that it would better protect investors.

So the Securities and Exchange Commission apparently is going to regulate first, ask questions later. This makes no sense for millions of struggling Americans trying to save for the future.

Mr. Speaker, again, we know that millions of middle class families are sitting around their kitchen tables struggling to save and invest in order to make ends meet. Every day, millions of them turn to financial professionals for advice.

Yet here comes from Washington regulations that will make that advice either unavailable or unaffordable, so fewer Americans will get the advice they need. That is unfair.

Let me provide you just a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. Under the current suitability standard, an investor can have an account with a low-cost, online broker with whom he or she can both make trades and get investment advice.

Due to technological advances and the relatively low costs associated with operating an online platform, these brokers can offer trades and investment advice for as little as $7.

But should a fiduciary standard be applied to these online brokers, the impact on investors could be one or all of the following: higher fees per trade, higher fees for investment advice, or brokers may simply stop providing this investment advice to less affluent customers altogether. That is not fair.

Take the example of the single mother who supports her mother and wants to save for her daughter's college education. She has finally saved enough money to open up an IRA with $2,000 in savings.

But we know that should these rules continue to be promulgated, with these new Washington regulations, well, this lady may just be told she now needs $25,000 in order to open up the very same account.

Again, Mr. Speaker, patently unfair.

How about a middle-aged father who works with a financial professional. He wants the professional to get him access to products and ideas, instead of managing his investment portfolio for him. He wants to trade individual bonds, but potential regulations might not allow the financial professional to offer him bonds on a principal basis.

So the result? The father either gets worse execution prices or ends up paying a whole lot more for his investments.

Fortunately, one of our colleagues has stepped up to the table. The gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) has introduced a commonsense bill, the Retail Investor Protection Act, and I and the rest of the committee who have voted for it congratulate her for her great work.

This bill would require the SEC to first consider the potential impacts its proposed regulation will have on investors, especially those with low and moderate incomes who would lose access to personalized investment advice that they need.

Second, the bill would require coordination between the SEC and the Department of Labor. These Washington agencies will have to sequence their rulemakings, with the SEC going first, so there will be no inconsistent rules that end up confusing and costing investors.

The Retail Investor Protection Act that we are debating today will avoid regulatory conflict between the SEC and the Department of Labor. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker, even the SEC itself acknowledges that the cost of its regulation could ultimately be passed on to retail investors in the form of higher fees or lost access to services and products--yet, again, unfair.

It is not what Americans need. It is not what they deserve, especially as our economy remains in the throes of the weakest, slowest nonrecovery of the last 70 years.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill, again, a bipartisan bill that passed with half of the Democrats on the Financial Service Committee choosing to support this commonsense legislation. H.R. 2374 will help struggling American families get the financial assistance they want and deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the sponsor of the legislation and an outstanding freshman member of our committee who has led on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe, a distinguished member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), the vice chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), another distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee.

We have one more speaker, and then we would allow the gentlelady to close.

Then I believe I have the right to close, Mr. Speaker. Is that correct?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit in the time that I have served as a Member of Congress, I have noticed the more shrill the debate the less defensible the position. As I have listened closely to what appears to be a very shrill debate, it certainly buttresses that position.

I hear my friends talk about us on the other side of the aisle. I have heard the phrase ``my friends on the other side of the aisle'' consistently. But I would say perhaps the debate has to be between my friends on that side of the aisle, since the ranking member well knows that half--half--of her caucus on the Financial Services Committee supported this bill by the gentlelady of Missouri. As was pointed out earlier, it is not only bipartisan; it is also bicameral.

I am sitting here, Mr. Speaker, with a letter signed by no fewer than 10--10 Democratic Senators imploring that the very same provisions of the Wagner bill be enforced: Jon Tester, Mark Warner, Claire McCaskill, Kay Hagan, and the list goes on and on. I would say to my friends on that side of the aisle, perhaps they ought to finish the debate amongst themselves before they carry it on over here.

Then, again, we all know that people are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their own facts. There have been a number of misstatements of facts from my friends on that side of the aisle, particularly that broker-dealers have no standard whatsoever in disclosing conflicts of interest; but that is not true. Within the antifraud provisions, sections 9, 10, 15(c)(1) and (2), it prohibits misstatements, misleading omissions of material facts; and, indeed, broker-dealers must fully disclose any conflicts of interest, yet another huge section of debate that was totally misleading and false by friends on that side of the aisle.

And I must admit, it is a very disappointing debate; but, it is in some respects illuminating to see the cynical position of those who simply believe that everyone appears to be a crook unless you are a government worker. The phrase ``cancer of self-interest'' is working mothers have a self-interest to invest in their children's education. If the guy at the Pepsi bottling plant that I represent is trying to invest so he can buy a home and put a roof over his family's head, that is the cancer of self-interest?

All we are trying to do here is preserve investment advice and investment opportunities for working Americans, and I would encourage all Members, all Members of this body, to vote for the Wagner bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I urge opposition to this amendment which would absolutely eviscerate this bill that we are considering now from the gentlelady from Missouri.

Number one, we have speaker after speaker who come up and seem to ignore the fact that broker-dealers already are subject to a suitability standard, including antifraud provisions that prohibit misstatements, misleading omissions of material facts, and fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. They have a duty of fair dealing, which include the duty to execute orders promptly, disclose certain material information that the customer would consider important as an investor, charge prices reasonably related to the prevailing market, and fully disclose any conflict of interest.

I could go on and on.

The proponents of this amendment, as speakers before them, seemed to ignore this set of facts. And so again, it is interesting to me how the American people are demanding that their Congress work on a bipartisan basis; and so out of our committee, the Financial Services Committee, we have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and now we have a bill that has been supported by half of the Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee. And I just read a letter where 10 Democratic U.S. Senators are urging the exact same language as the Wagner bill and, thus, oppose the Miller amendment.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the proponent of the amendment to first have the debate with his own Caucus, and then we can have a fuller, richer debate on the floor.

What is really happening here is that all we are doing is saying to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor that this is an economy that is being crushed--crushed--by a red tape burden, that at least justify it. Make sure that the person you claimed you are going to protect, that you actually protect; and instead, we, quite honestly, fear they will not be protected, that instead they will be harmed, that all of a sudden, people who have access to $7 trades won't have access to them.

Now, again, for the affluent, that is no big deal, but for working mothers struggling to make ends meet, it is a very big deal.

To be denied the opportunity to open up an IRA with $2,000? No, I think now Congress has deigned that the Department of Labor can institute a fiduciary standard, and now you are going to need $25,000. Well, what the heck, let's make it $50,000. And so the very people they claim they want to protect very well could be harmed by this standard.

We understand the talk, but where is the proof? Where is the proof? Because what is going to happen if this fiduciary standard is imposed? All of a sudden investment advice that working Americans count on is either going to disappear or become far more expensive.

So, again, maybe it helps the trial lawyer; maybe it helps the labor union bosses; but it doesn't help the working mothers. It doesn't help the struggling fathers. It doesn't help low- and moderate-income people struggling in this economy where tens of millions remain underemployed and unemployed under this administration's economic policies, and so I urge that we reject this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of the Retail Investor Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think the audio system on the House floor is working quite well, and so I continue to be somewhat amazed by the number of speakers who get up and claim that broker-dealers can engage in conflicts of interest.

Again, I will give the citation for the duty to disclose conflicts of interest, FINRA's Suitability Rule 2111. I would encourage those who haven't read it to actually read it so that we can actually have facts on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, what is truly radical here is the proponents of this amendment trying to upset 80 years of settled law, without any evidence that is compelling, to somehow believe that all of a sudden we are going to help a universe of people, who most of us believe, including half of the Democrats on the

Financial Services Committee, instead will be hurt, including a number of prominent Democratic senators who believe they will be hurt, these working moms and pops trying to provide for their family, trying to manage their nest eggs, having a new standard forced upon people they rely on. So all of a sudden, that investment advice is either going to get more expensive, it is going to disappear. All of a sudden, IRAs for working moms at prices they can afford will disappear all because we hear rhetoric about Wall Street.

Well, I don't think I have had any letters of endorsement from anybody on Wall Street. We can talk about something else that is not applicable. Perhaps we can talk about ObamaCare. I am always happy to have that discussion once again.

Again, this is a bipartisan bill. All we are trying to do is ensure, if 80 years of settled law that has helped working families is about to be upset, then we better have proof it is going to help the people that it claims to help. The amendment from the gentleman from California would totally eviscerate that.

I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 391 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 391 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2374 and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 992. However, I think it is important to note that H.R. 992 is a closed rule by default because the Rules Committee did not receive any amendments despite Members having ample time to submit them. So we made sure that, in the interest of time, we are going to move forward on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today's bills are technical in nature, but each carries very important policy implications designed to strengthen our Nation's financial services industry while simultaneously protecting consumers and providing more certainty for our economy.

First, H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, amends section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to provide banks and their customers the flexibility to effectively manage risk better.

Today, many banks and bank customers, such as utility companies and agricultural co-ops, use swaps as an effective means to manage their businesses and to operate their cash flows in a safe and practical manner. Unfortunately, section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act would require banks and their customers to shift these practices out of the traditional bank model and place them in newly created, capitalized, nonbank entities. Such a change to current business models would create unnecessary instability in domestic markets and potentially restrict access to these important financial instruments. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that such a move would ``weaken both financial stability and strong prudential regulation.''

H.R. 992 would allow banks and their customers to keep the majority of swaps transactions in-house and prevent needless financial instability. Additionally, it is important to note that, despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this legislation only permits traditional swaps to continue under the current operating structure. All structured swaps, such as an asset-backed security and other riskier investment vehicles, will be required to be housed in nonbank entities. I believe this legislation represents commonsense ideas that allow for greater financial flexibility for consumers while ensuring that investors are not subject to unnecessary risk.

The second bill, H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act, aims to prevent potentially conflicting and costly definitions of fiduciary standards from being applied to broker-dealers and other financial service professionals. Currently, the Department of Labor is in the final stages of drafting a new definition of fiduciary standards for broker-dealers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act known as ERISA. This new requirement would dramatically change a longstanding business model and potentially diminish the ability of everyday Americans to access quality investment advice, meaning, the broker that they choose.

At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission, known as the SEC, is considering adopting its own uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers pursuant to the Frank-Dodd Act. H.R. 2374 would prevent the Department of Labor from issuing any new fiduciary standards before the SEC finalizes its new rule. In other words, we would like for them to work together. This delay would prevent the two agencies from promulgating different and conflicting definitions that could prove difficult, if not impossible, for many financial service professionals to adhere to. Such a change in current business practices is a solution in search of a problem. Current suitability standards applied to broker-dealers did not play a role in the financial crisis of 2008, and Congress should not force American families to have to pay more not only for legal definitions they do not need, but against their own common sense.

Today, millions of Americans who save for retirement take advantage of many affordable investment options that broker-dealers provide. Changing fiduciary standards for broker-dealers

would increase costs and decrease access to important investment tools, especially for low- and middle-income families. I believe that H.R. 2374, as brought to the Rules Committee by the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the Honorable Jeb Hensarling from Dallas, Texas, provides the certainty and flexibility that Americans need for retirement and to plan for their future and for their own children's education while promoting a safe and equitable marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will answer the question quickly. We believe there should be no more than a 25 percent tax on any American for paying their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue that the gentleman from Colorado is having. In fact, I have, for a long period of time, not only understood the plight of those who are perhaps in this country as undocumented people, but also I understood the plight of people who are trying to get a job in this country, Americans who are trying to find work.

And there are lots of things that we should have done on this. I would remind the gentleman that for 4 years the Democrat majority had this front and center as a promise that they would accomplish, and the Republican majority now is attempting to work through this issue.

We have had working groups. We have had Members who are very serious about how we work on a bipartisan basis; and I know the gentleman, Mr. Polis, has been not only aware of that, but also understands the intricacies.

We need to be able to understand that there are still very dangerous people in this country, and the Senate bill did not even get close to understanding who is in this country that is dangerous, some 30,000 people who are special interest aliens who this government is watching. They would sneak right underneath the wire toward citizenship; that normally a person who comes into this country would have to go through a background check, and we would know who they are and we would transform them from a great member of another country to a proud American.

What we want to make sure is that we measure twice and saw once, and that is really what the Republican Party is trying to do.

I will not. The gentleman had 18 minutes to get his message out, and I am going to take my few minutes to get this out.

And with great respect to the gentleman from Colorado, I do recognize not only his heart, but his brain is engaged in trying to make sure that we work together; that we do it on a bipartisan basis; that we see the future of hardworking people who are in this country; but that we also recognize that there must be a chance to protect this country and not give constitutional rights and the hard work in this country away, as the Senate bill does, gives it away, rather than having an earned citizenship to where people then have a chance to make our country stronger.

It is a big debate, and the gentleman is most eloquent in his enunciation of support of pushing all of us together. I stand with him. But we will keep working until we get it right.

We will, once again, measure three times and saw once.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Bowling Green, Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Gainesville, Georgia, Congressman Collins, a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Colorado, speaking most eloquently about the effects of 5 years of President Barack Obama.

I will remind this body that President Obama said he would not negotiate with House Republicans. In fact, the majority responsible for the bill that had to prepare our country for what we would do for moving our country forward with not only the CR but also the sequestration, House Republicans for months have spent time to make sure we did appropriations bills. Meanwhile, our friends on the Senate did zero appropriations bills.

House Republicans prepared us not to have the demise that we did, and our friends across the aisle did nothing to help us in this endeavor, not even to begin a negotiation. So, unfortunately, it turns out that it goes on someone's record.

I would like for the Record to reflect that House Republicans came up with ideas to avoid the government shutdown and to fund the government. We have done that for months, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Winfield, Illinois, Congressman Hultgren, a member of the Committee on Financial Services and one of the cosponsors and lead sponsors of the bills that are on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman speaking very clearly about getting manufacturer jobs, and that is why the Republican Party listens to the National Association of Manufacturers. They have a very specific list of things that they, as manufacturers, want as they try and make not only more jobs available in this country, but also as they want to make sure that investment and opportunity and keeping their companies alive is something that goes forward into the future.

That is why they oppose ObamaCare. That is why their number one issue is to say that they see a big government spending program, not just like ObamaCare, but also taxes on energy, which our friends on the other side of the aisle push every day, and higher taxes for investors and more and more and more Big Government.

So I do understand what manufacturers want, and it is directly related to the meetings that I have with people from Dallas, Texas, and all across this country who are in the business. They put their names on their doors. Manufacturers are awesome and important people to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, what we are really here to speak about are these two bills from the Financial Services Committee today.

H.R. 2374 is something that has been talked about. What it really boils down to is there are investment advisers, and investment advisers are those people in the marketplace that an individual customer would go to. That financial adviser has not only a higher standard on them, but they also have legal and regulatory costs to go with it. But they are to know the customers and the customers' needs and how old that customer is and what they are trying to achieve and to know about their family and their processes, and not to take risks where there shouldn't be any but to match the expectation of performance.

And then there is the broker-dealer. That broker-dealer is available in the marketplace. Maybe they are a $5 or $6 or $7 per trade person. It is somebody that you call up and you execute the agreement that you have from your investment adviser.

What we are trying to say here today--Mr. Hultgren and others--we don't think that the regulatory burdens, including costs, including legal fees and other burdens, should be placed on the broker-dealers. They should be someone that has a lesser or different standard. They are simply the person that takes the order to effectively and cheaply get the order done that came from the customer as a result of their advice from the financial adviser.

How important is this? It is important enough because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that stalwart that stands for all business--not just manufacturers, but also customers--has said this about what Chairman Hensarling is attempting to accomplish today. I quote from a letter that came from Bruce Josten, who is executive vice president of the Chamber, dated October 28, to all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, asking them for support:

Due to the increasing overlap between the Department of

Labor and the SEC in the area of retirement plans and the

related nature of each agency's fiduciary initiative, the

Chamber believes that the two agencies should coordinate and

work in a systematic manner, allowing the SEC to complete its

rules first to avoid investor confusion, regulatory conflict,

and one rule being usurped by the other.

Mr. Speaker, this is common sense. That is your U.S. Chamber that is speaking on behalf of all the people across this country saying let's not put ourselves into a circumstance where indecision that has been talked about today becomes a hindrance in the marketplace and where good rules and commonsense are able to flourish.

And that is what the Republican majority is attempting to do today. That is why H.R. 2374 means that what we are trying to do is to provide our ideas to a marketplace rather than having the Department of Labor go first and perhaps have one set of rules and then the Securities and Exchange Commission, who really should be the lead agency, come up with their own rules and regulations. Let's have them work together. And that is what we are

doing here. Common sense means asking government to work with itself between a regulatory body and a Cabinet-level position.

I believe that if we are successful on the floor today, we will see that white flag that comes up that says, well, this bill may not make it through the other body, like so many other bills that we have, but common sense should prevail. That is why Republicans are here today, and that is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stands up and says, This is what we see as the real issue in the marketplace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate the courtesy that the gentleman has afforded me with what I believe is his support of the bill, the underlying legislation, the importance to the marketplace, and perhaps more importantly, what we are trying to do here today, and that is to move forward with ideas that will help the American people.

I also know that the discussions that he wanted to have are really not what we are here to meet for today but are very, very important issues not only to the gentleman from Colorado, but I think every single Member of this body, and that is an intention that we give to understanding the legislation that could be attached to the immigration bill.

But the work that we are doing today is about what we have, which is here for a reason, and that is to make it easier for people back home to be able to make decisions about financial long-term issues and ideas, whether it is their retirement, whether it is about sending their kids to college, or whether it is about trying to take costs out of the marketplace to allow a consumer a better opportunity to come to a broker-dealer of their choice, to go to the financial adviser to work whatever they do and then to go to a marketplace that is cost-effective for them. That is why we are here today.

The bottom line is that the Dodd-Frank Act puts unnecessary rules and regulations on the entire industry. That takes away from the effectiveness and how nimble the marketplace can be. It takes away and adds cost to consumers who would wish to not only make a trade--they have already gotten the advice they need, and now what they are interested in is executing that trade without trying to receive, necessarily, someone who is trying to be careful about what they do.

So, Mr. Speaker, you know why we are here today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.