Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 992) to amend provisions in section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to Federal assistance for swaps entities, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2374) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes.

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 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.

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

I strongly oppose H.R. 2374, the bill inappropriately entitled the Retail Investor Protection Act. Quite the opposite. H.R. 2374 hinders the Labor Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission from protecting the average retail investor when they save for retirement.

For the last 2 years, the Labor Department has been updating an outdated rule regarding the fiduciary responsibility owed to employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA, and for Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, under the Tax Code.

Today retirees are more likely to rely on 401(k)s than IRAs and are less likely to have defined benefit plans from their employers. At the same time, financial products have become increasingly complex. The cost of rules governing the rights of investors and the responsibilities of advisers are more than 35 years old. DOL is attempting to modernize these rules in order to reflect the changing nature of the retirement marketplace.

Given these realities, it is necessary for the Department to make sure that the professionals offering retirement advice have a duty to put their clients' interests first before their own or, at the very least, tell their customers that they may be conflicted.

At the same time, the SEC is considering moving forward on a rulemaking that would impose a uniform fiduciary standard of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers consistent with the Dodd- Frank Act. This would ensure that whatever the business model, if an individual is providing personalized investment advice about securities to a retail customer, they would have a duty to put that customer's interests before their own. This is particularly important as many retail customers are unaware of the differences in the standards of care that various professionals owe them.

Both agencies have been making progress with their rules, collecting the necessary data and responding to stakeholder concerns about preserving access to investment advice, particularly for individuals with small accounts.

Given these facts, H.R. 2374 is the wrong approach. This legislation makes it significantly more difficult for both the SEC and the Department to move forward.

First, the provision requiring the SEC to do a new study, another study documenting that investors are being systemically harmed or disadvantaged under the existing standard, creates a high hurdle for the Commission to overcome. The purpose of this provision is to impose further roadblocks before the Commission can take any action, providing another avenue for industry to sue the SEC.

Secondly, H.R. 2374 would prohibit the Labor Department from modernizing the fiduciary duty standard under ERISA and the Tax Code until the SEC issued their rule. This provision would represent a historic abrogation of the Department's unique authority, and in spite of whatever pressing need for an updated rule.

Finally, H.R. 2374 seems premised on the faulty notion that the Department and the SEC are not coordinating when, in fact, staff have regular ongoing SEC-DOL staff meetings; in addition, leadership meetings, as well as a memorandum of understanding to share information on retirement and investment matters.

On behalf of millions of consumers, retirees, and investors, several organizations, including the AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, the AFL-CIO, and Americans for Financial Reform all oppose this legislation. A coalition of financial planning professionals wrote that H.R. 2374 is a backdoor attempt to undermine investor protection provisions in Dodd-Frank. In addition, SEC Chair White said in a letter to the committee that H.R. 2374 would make it difficult for the Commission to adopt such a rule.

Simply put, H.R. 2374 just goes too far. The bill holds the Labor Department hostage while throwing out roadblocks for the SEC. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), cochair of the Progressive Caucus, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who serves as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman George Miller, who is the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, who is on the Judiciary Committee and who is the ranking member on its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who is an expert on retirement savings. He is the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. He is also the cochair of the Steering and Policy Committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time we have remaining on this side.

I am prepared to close. However, I will reserve the balance of my time if the chairman has other Members that he would like to put forth at this time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and Members, H.R. 2374 is yet another attempt by Republicans to prevent our regulators from doing their job, this time protecting the average retail investor when they try to save for retirement.

Under this bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission would have to navigate new obstacles to harmonize the standard of care broker-dealers and investment advisers have when providing investment advice. The Department of Labor would have to wait possibly forever to update its rules protecting 401(k) and IRA plan participants.

H.R. 2374's restrictions put additional work in the way, stopping brokers from SEP dealing when selling investment products to Main Street.

Several studies have demonstrated that Americans do not understand that a broker does not necessarily have the investor's best interest when pushing financial products. The line between advisers and brokers has blurred over the last few decades, and this bill makes it harder to bring clarity for investments.

Mr. Speaker and Members, this administration has taken a strong stand against this bill. Let me read to you from the letter that they have sent to us, and I would like to offer this for the Record:

The administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 2374

because it would derail important rulemakings under way at

the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of

Labor that are critical to protecting Americans' hard-earned

savings and preserving their retirement security.

They further say:

H.R. 2374 prohibits Labor from issuing a rule to protect

investors until the SEC engages in and completes further

study of the effect of a rulemaking on retail investors.

Of course, there is a lot said here, but I think this says it all:

The bill would hinder efforts to protect consumers from

conflicts of interest among brokers, dealers, financial

advisers, and others whose incentives may be misaligned with

investors, potentially leading to deceptive and abusive

practices.

The administration is committed to ensuring that American

workers and retirees are able to receive advice about how to

invest their money in safe, secure, and transparent financial

products that is free from harmful conflicts of interest.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I would just bring this to your attention: the Department of Labor is working to protect investors. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are working to protect broker-dealers who may not have the best interest of these small individuals who want to invest, who want to earn money for retirement.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are putting all of this energy out to protect them no matter if they may be in a conflict of interest with those

who are simply trying to save for retirement.

I have watched as we have been through the subprime meltdown in this country. People lose money in their 401(k)s. I have watched people lose money in their IRAs. I have watched single women in their 60s losing their entire investment retirement savings who can't go back to work because they are too old--they can't find a job.

Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of broker-dealers who will have no fiduciary responsibility, who can tell you any old thing, direct you any old place? They get higher commissions and the people lose money. Whose side are we on? Why are we here in the Congress of the United States of America, voted on by our constituents to come here to advocate for their best interest?

The gentlelady from Missouri talked about what a hard time families are having. She is right. Families are having a hard time. I want to tell you, families are having a hard time even when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would deny them food stamps when they lose their jobs, even when they stand here in the Congress of the United States and support sequestration that denied that family the ability to send their child to Head Start. They don't have money for fancy early childhood education. Head Start is all they have, but they are losing the ability to do that because my friends on the opposite side of the aisle support cutting back every agency.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle can't care about families in the way that they say they do because they shut down this government and they caused families to lose money to stay at home, to not know when they were going to get paid, or how to pay their bills. Not only did they harm these families; they harmed many of our agencies that are trying to help the families. I could go on and on and on.

But let me say that consumer protection is advocated by some organizations we are all familiar with: AARP, AAUW, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Financial Reform, the Association of BellTell Retirees, on and on and on. These are the people who protect consumers.

I will submit this for the Record.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, October 28, 2013.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2374--Retail Investor Protection Act

(Rep. Wagner, R-MO, and Rep. Murphy, D-FL)

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 2374

because it would derail important rulemakings underway at the

Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of

Labor that are critical to protecting Americans' hard-earned

savings and preserving their retirement security.

H.R. 2374 prohibits Labor from issuing a rule to protect

investors until the SEC engages in and completes further

study of the effect of a rulemaking on retail investors. The

bill ignores the fact that significant work has already been

conducted in both agencies and that the agencies have

included and continue to include the public, industry, and

numerous stakeholders in their rulemaking processes.

Moreover, the two agencies are already working closely to

avoid conflicting requirements for the regulated community,

and this legislation would hamper effective coordination

between the two agencies. The bill would hinder efforts to

protect consumers from conflicts of interest among brokers,

dealers, financial advisors, and others whose incentives may

be misaligned with investors, potentially leading to

deceptive and abusive practices.

The Administration is committed to ensuring that American

workers and retirees are able to receive advice about how to

invest their money in safe, secure, and transparent financial

products that is free from harmful conflicts of interest.

These ongoing rulemakings are designed to protect trillions

of dollars in retirement savings of millions of workers and

retirees by ensuring that paid advisors and other entities do

not place their own financial interests over those of their

customers. This legislation would place an unnecessary

obstacle in the way of these efforts to prevent such harmful

conflicts of interest, which hurt businesses, consumers, and

retirees and their families.

If the President were presented with H.R. 2374, his senior

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Groups in Opposition to H.R. 2374

1. AARP

2. AAUW

3. AFL-CIO

4. AFSCME

5. Alliance For Retired Americans

6. Americans for Financial Reform (AFR)-w/over 200

signatories

7. The Association of BellTell Retirees, Inc.

8. Certified Financial Planner Board (CFP)

9. Consumer Federation of America

10. Financial Planning Association

11. Fund Democracy

12. Investment Advisor Association (IAA)

13. National Council of La RAZA

14. The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors

(NAPFA)

15. The National Association of Professional Geriatric Care

Managers

16. North American Securities Administrators Association

(NASAA)

17. OWL-The Voice of Midlife and Older Women

18. Pensions Rights Center

19. ProtectSeniors.org

20. Public Citizen

21. Wider Opportunities for Women

I thank the ranking member for all of her work on this legislation and for her yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2374. This bill is very bad news for working families. It protects the loophole in the law that allows conflicted brokers and advisers to rip off ordinary Americans who are trying to save for their retirements.

The 2008 financial crisis wiped out trillions of dollars of Americans' retirement accounts. Working families now need help in rebuilding those nest eggs, and they need better protection for their savings. The SEC and the Labor Department have moved to provide these protections, proposing to close the harmful loophole, but this bill would scuttle those efforts. Here is what is at stake.

Millions of Americans are putting money aside every day in their 401(k)s and in their IRAs to save for retirement. They have to make these investment choices, and Wall Street is more than happy to advise, but some of those advisers and brokers have conflicts of interest, often undisclosed conflicts of interest. The brokers know about their conflicts of interest, and the brokerage houses know about their conflicts of interest, but the person who is handing over his hard- earned retirement funds doesn't know about the conflicts of interest. The workers think they can trust this investment advice.

But what they don't know is that their advisers may get paid more for, in fact, in actual cases, steering them into high-cost funds with the worst performing of the family of funds. It is very good for the family of funds, but it is very bad for that individual worker who is now handing over his retirement nest egg. That product might have higher fees than other products. It might underperform compared to other products. In other words, the product is not in the worker's best interest, but it certainly is in the broker's best interest.

The SEC and the Labor Department are trying to close this loophole that allows this rip-off to continue to happen, and it is, indeed, a rip-off of ordinary Americans. I know my friend from New Jersey doesn't like the term ``rip-off,'' but that is what is happening to these hardworking American families. Multiple studies--not conjecture--have found that these conflicts of interest cost these retirees, these workers, very real money.

In 2009, the GAO found that, when a pension consultant has conflicts of interest, a defined benefit retirement plan underperforms by 130 basis points. If a conflicted broker in the defined contribution world recommends funds at a similar rate of underperformance, a 40-year-old worker who rolls over his $20,000 401(k) balance into an IRA will see his retirement savings cut by a third over 30 years. If he normally earns 6 percent returns, he would now only be making a 4.7 percent return. The bottom line is he is $35,000 poorer by the time he reaches 70. Thank you for that conflicted advice.

This year, researchers found that the funds recommended by conflicted brokers in 401(k) plans underperformed by an average of 3.6 percent. That translates into workers losing $1 billion every month from their retirement funds because of these conflicts of interest. As a result, consumers are getting bad advice and are putting their retirement savings at stake.

Where do those figures come from?

They come from the founders of the Vanguard funds, who worked out the differences between these funds, conflicted funds, and other funds. That is why the Dodd-Frank law directs the SEC to transition brokers to a fiduciary standard, and, separately, the Department of Labor is trying to align the protections as well.

Brokers need to either act solely in the best interests of investors or otherwise disclose who they work for and how they are paid, but some on Wall Street have cried out, claiming that they will not be able to offer investment advice, especially to working people, if they cannot offer conflicted advice. They can't tell you how to invest your money unless they can offer you conflicted advice wherein they are getting paid more to offer you a substandard product. With the knowledge of that and the higher fees, they somehow can't make money. Let's remember that 75 percent of the brokers can't beat the S&P 500 that is on automatic pilot.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, is that what they are really saying? Is that what American workers want to know--if I don't give you money, for which you can keep secret conflicts of interests that you have with the investment of my money, I have to give you my money anyway if I am looking for this investment? That is absolutely wrong.

The American worker deserves better than that. These people work hard to make the decisions to try to save, to add to their 401(k)s, and you want to talk about, oh, we should educate them about the value of a 401(k) and about the value of an IRA. You can educate them until the cows come home, but if they know that somebody is stealing their money because someone can conceal a conflict of interest, all of that education won't make a damned bit of difference because the fact of the matter is they've worked too hard to hand over their money to those conflicted advisers.

That is what this bill is about. This bill would continue those conflicts, make every effort to delay and stop this rulemaking--or we change the law, we go forward, we protect working families, we protect the retirees, and we make sure that the financial marketplace is free of these conflicts of interest.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman for all of her effort on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I am offering along with Mr. Conyers is the way H.R. 2374 should have been drafted. Instead of short- circuiting the regulatory process on behalf of Wall Street profits, this represents the appropriate and balanced way forward to advise the Department of Labor in their current rulemaking on investment advice.

First, Congress should not be in the business of shutting down any and all efforts by the Department of Labor to make rules for fiduciaries. The fiduciary rule is the cornerstone of pension law. It is what makes sure that, when you hand your money over to someone else to invest it for you, they are going to act in your best interest. Stopping any and all regulatory action to ensure that people's retirement nest eggs are protected is irresponsible. My amendment would allow the Department to proceed.

At the same time, it addresses concerns that have been raised with the Department of Labor's proposed rules. Under my amendment, Congress would send a message to the Department of Labor that we want investors protected, not Wall Street brokers or advisers trying to protect their gravy train.

This amendment makes it clear that the Department may proceed with better protections for retirement investors in a way that provides for unbiased investment education, ensures that underserved communities are not unduly harmed by basic financial protections for investors, ensures reasonable competition to advisers, and protects employee stock ownership plan appraisals.

We want investment advice to be provided in consumers' best interests, not in whatever way makes advisers and brokers the most money.

Studies show that most Americans who save think their investment advisers are acting in their best interests. In fact, AARP found that overwhelming majorities of consumers thought all advisers were required to act in their best interests. But, in fact, they are not, under the current law. They are not required to disclose that they have a conflict of interest.

With poll after poll showing that most Americans are worried about their retirement, they should have the confidence that their investment adviser is working in their best interest, and not conflicted in the advice he gives that person because he may receive additional fees or higher commissions because of recommending a product that is not in their best interest.

This amendment is a no-brainer. It supports consumers and their retirement savings. It supports unbiased investment education. It supports reasonable compensation for advisers for

the important duties they perform. This is a proper and balanced way forward. I urge my colleagues to support the Miller-Conyers amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I just want to say that it is an interesting concept that the only way the investment community can continue to survive and offer advice is if they can have the right to have conflicted advice--conflicted advice--be protected by the law, as opposed to representing the person that they are taking the money from to invest.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), coauthor of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

Do I believe that advisers have a fiduciary relationship to the people that they are taking money from to invest? I do. I think the law should reflect that, absolutely.

That is what the amendment addresses.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Texas have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. You can talk about the advisers having a fiduciary responsibility and obligation under the law, but then you can have the broker-dealers come in and close the deal, and they can provide conflicted advice and, in fact, conflicted products--in the best interest of this retired individual who is trying to invest their funds? Very clever.

But this comes from an industry where we saw the banks sell a tranche of mortgages to their best friends and customers and then immediately bid against the success of that tranche of mortgages. So conflicted advice can be very profitable. They worked it to a fare-thee-well among the big players.

Now you come in with your $100,000, your $80,000, your retirement funds, and you want to make an investment and you want some advice and you want to talk to a broker, and the broker says, Oh, yes, we have exactly the product for you. In fact, he or she has been told to sell this product, even though it is not the best-performing product, it may not be a match for this couple, but it has the highest commissions for the firm and for the broker. That is what they do.

What you are suggesting is that should be written into the law, that conflict of interest, and you talk about all the terrible things that happen. But when the adviser fiduciary study was done in 2013, 68 percent said the fiduciary--this is of the investment industry--68 percent said the fiduciary standard will not reduce products or services; 79 percent said it does not cost more to work as a fiduciary; and 65 percent said the fiduciary standard will not price investors out of the market. So the industry says that, but you have a whole theory how this is doomsday for the small investor. It is just not so.

What you are doing is protecting the right of brokers to give you conflicted advice about the investment of your money, and they knowingly do it. You are saying that the industry cannot continue unless they are allowed to continue to give conflicted advice. That is why we have conflict of interest laws, because we don't allow people to do this when they have a responsibility.

We should vote for this amendment and vote against the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.