Disaster Assistance Recoupment Fairness Act of 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Usually, we tell that saying to children to encourage them to achieve greater things, but it seems that when it comes to Congress, it is what Wall Street keeps telling House Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans thought they could sneak this bill by last week through a fast-track process on the House floor, a process with limited debate and no opportunity for amendments. They thought they could ram through this gift to a handful of the biggest Wall Street banks on just the 2nd day of this new Congress right after we had reconvened.

Well, the American people were watching, and the Democrats here in the House told them ``no.'' The Republican bill failed. Now, here they are; they are at it again. Now, H.R. 37 is back on the floor again, without the opportunity to amend it and with limited debate.

The only difference is that Republicans have reduced how many votes are needed to guarantee passage. That's right. Rather than fix the bill to win broad support, Republicans just changed the rule to make sure the tainted bill passes.

And what does this bill do? Well, for one, it takes a part of Wall Street reform's Volcker rule and delays it for yet another 2 years. Remember that the Volcker rule is the part of Dodd-Frank that stops government-supported banks from gambling with bank depositors' money. And this extra 2-year delay comes on top of a 3-year delay that our regulators carefully crafted to ease the megabanks' transition.

This particular part of the law that Republicans want to see delayed applies to what are known as collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs. CLOs are bundles of leveraged loans, loans often issued by private equity firms to facilitate corporate buyouts that can harm American jobs. The loans are sliced and diced into packages and sold off to investors, including banks that hold customers' deposits. The packages often also contain credit default swaps or other derivatives that can make the position even riskier.

Somehow, Wall Street bankers--the supposedly smartest people in the room--can't seem to comply with a law passed in 2010 by--that's right-- 2017. Seven long years isn't enough. The Republicans and the banks want nearly a decade.

In addition to that, the Republican bill wouldn't just let the banks hold on to these CLOs. The bill would let the banks accumulate new CLOs also. That's right. The banks could actively trade in and out of these investments, unlike the rules carefully crafted by the Federal Reserve.

We saw the Republican playbook at the end of last year with the so- called swaps push-out rule. They hope they can jam these bills through Congress by attaching them to must-pass legislation. And most of all, they hope these issues are way too complicated or too technical for the American people to understand or care about. But the American people really do understand. They remember how our economy was nearly brought to its knees in 2008, and they recognize that we can't let Wall Street slowly chip away at reforms designed to prevent that kind of large- scale financial crisis from happening again.

And President Obama gets it, too. That is why the White House said he would veto this legislation if it got to his desk. And so one cannot help but wonder why are we here on the floor after 8 o'clock in the evening with an attempt to push through something that was jammed into a package of bills? Many of those bills had been heard either in committee or on the floor, but one portion of this bill had not. And so is this simply an attempt to ram down one segment that they fear real debate on, ram it down the throats of the Members of this Legislature and the citizens of this country, hiding it in this package, hoping that we won't get it?

What is worse is that this legislation has been brought to the floor without regard for any regular order. The nine new members on the Financial Services Committee will not get a chance to hear testimony on it at all. And in just the 2nd week of their term, 52 new Members of the House are expected to vote on it, having complicated deregulation shoved down their throats. Democrats offered 13 amendments, one of them bipartisan, but none of these amendments will be considered or debated. Why? Because my colleagues on the other side are not interested in legislation but, rather, in political theater.

We cannot let this casual disregard for the legislative process stand. We want to see reforms sensibly implemented. We want to work with regulators to get the rules right, and we want our largest banks to stop gambling and go back to facilitating growth in the real economy. But that is difficult to do when my Republican counterparts continue pushing legislation that masquerades as technical fixes but really makes substantive changes to the Dodd-Frank reform law. And then they package completely reckless legislation with other provisions that are either necessary or sensible.

Democrats know better, President Obama knows better, and the American people know better. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

There are so many inaccuracies in some of the testimony that I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle that I don't know where to start to try to clear up some of the points that they are attempting to make.

First of all, let me start with this business about how community banks are going to be hurt. This is simply an attempt to hide behind community banks and scare the Members of this body into believing that if they don't support this bill, that somehow their community banks are going to suffer.

The FDIC said that 95 percent of CLOs owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, with the preponderance owned by Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.

Specifically, JPMorgan Chase has $33.5 billion worth of CLOs; Wells Fargo has $24.1 billion worth of CLOs; and Citi has $4.7 billion worth of CLOs.

So what are we talking about when we use this kind of messaging to claim that somehow we are going to hurt these small banks? That is absolutely not true. And I want to tell you, the community banks have not been in the background putting out tremendous sums of money on this lobbying effort. According to The New York Times:

The current efforts to undermine Dodd-Frank have been

textbook lobbying. In the first three quarters of last year,

the securities and investment industry spent nearly $74

million on lobbying on 704 registered lobbyists.

So get this picture. We keep seeing attempts by any means necessary from the opposite side of the aisle to push controversial legislation into packaged bills, some of those bills having been supported either in committee or on the floor. It is not enough that they lost when they put this on the suspension calendar. They have come back with a rule that does not allow for any debate, and they are determined to win this by majority vote, even in the face of a veto. Who are they trying to protect?

If it is true that 95 percent of the CLOs owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, and I told you who has a preponderance, then that is who is being protected. It is the biggest banks in America--Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. That is who is being protected. This money I am talking about, $74 million on lobbying 704 lobbyists, these are the big banks spending the money lobbying on this legislation.

And so this business about protecting Main Street, about protecting the small businesses, simply attempts to misguide and mislead, knowing that most folks really don't understand the CLO market, that this legislation, along with many other pieces of legislation, are complicated. Dodd-Frank is an attempt to reform what had gone terribly wrong in this country. We have seen attempt after attempt, probably more than 100 attempts in the Financial Services Committee, to try and undermine Dodd-Frank, to get rid of Dodd-Frank, to break it up piece by piece, and again by any means necessary.

And so if you can answer why all these attempts, why all of this money is being spent, why we're protecting just these three big banks in America, then you can see that this is not about Main Street, this is not about small businesses. This is now about relationships between too many Members of this House and of this Congress with the biggest banks in America, who are determined to destroy Dodd-Frank. And they have tried all of these tactics and they have tried somehow to make people believe that we don't care about this fire sale that we are going to cause the big banks.

Well, let me just say this. No, I don't worry about causing a fire sale of the big banks. I am not here to protect the big banks. I am truly here to protect Main Street and small business entrepreneurs and business people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk further about title VIII and how it does not benefit small businesses. CLOs comprised only of actual loans are exempt from the Volcker rule entirely. We are only talking about CLOs that contain other instruments like credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, commercial paper-backed securities, et cetera.

The Volcker rule will have a minimum impact on the CLO market. Nothing in the rule says that other buyers of CLOs need to stop their purchases. Nonbanks like hedge funds or insurance companies can continue to purchase or trade CLOs. The restriction only affects banks, big banks, which have tremendous access to taxpayer subsidies through the FDIC and the Federal Reserve borrowing window.

Various Wall Street research analysts have said that the market ``shrugged off'' the Volcker rule and that the industry can do just fine moving forward. In fact, 2014 saw record issuances for new, Volcker-compliant CLOs.

Banks will have 5 years, including 3 years worth of extensions, to comply with this provision. The Republicans now want to give them 7 years. Our position is this: enough is enough. Eventually the Volcker rule has to become operational or else Dodd-Frank becomes meaningless.

These CLOs are typically leverage loans. It should buy private equity firms to facilitate corporate buyouts of

large companies. This is more about facilitating private equity than helping Main Street businesses.

For example, leverage buyouts are when a private equity firm pays for a controlling interest in a company by taking out a loan against that company, saddling the company with debt. The aim is to reduce costs, often by firing workers and slashing employee pay and benefits in order to quickly resell the leaner company for a profit. So this isn't about job creation; this is about job destruction.

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

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

Despite what my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have said, this package of bills does not simply constitute a technical set of changes to Dodd-Frank or to our securities laws. In fact, these changes are substantive and the package is widely opposed.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about they are protecting Main Street, but let me recite for you what Main Street is saying about this bill. Let me read for you some highlights of the opposition letters we have received in addition to opposition from President Obama, Secretary Lew, and former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker himself.

Main Street is represented by, number one, Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial Reform says that H.R. 37 ``includes numerous changes that could have significant negative impacts on regulators' ability to police the financial markets, so that they function safely and transparently.''

They go on to oppose title VII of this bill, citing a Wall Street Journal article outlining how regulators are increasingly warning banks about the looser underwriting standard for leverage loans.

Further, representing Main Street, the AFL-CIO says of H.R. 37, that they oppose the bill because it ``would loosen key Dodd-Frank protections wisely put in place after the 2008 financial collapse.''

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights notes about H.R. 37: ``One lesson of the financial crisis is that deregulation in areas that appear technical and arcane can have significant impacts on the financial system and, thus, on the well-being of ordinary families, particularly in the communities we represent.''

Finally, Public Citizen noted about H.R. 37 that we should not provide more CLO relief because ``the largest banks dominate ownership,'' as I demonstrated a moment ago, ``of CLOs.''

Mr. Speaker, I think we should heed the warning of Main Street, the warning of these groups who truly represent Main Street.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There has been a lot of talk about bipartisan support or lack of. There have been a lot of talks about how the Republicans have been able to get Democratic votes and that, somehow, we should be happy, we should be satisfied, and that they really don't understand why it is that we are opposing not only the bill, but the tactics that have been used in several attempts to pass legislation with controversial bills tucked into the big package.

Let me give you a summary of amendments that Republicans refuse to consider as we have attempted to work with them.

Mr. Ellison and Mr. Issa offered a bipartisan amendment to strike title VII of the bill, so that all public companies will have to report their financial statements in a computer-readable format. Mr. Sherman and Ms. Kuster both offered amendments striking the CLO title.

In a similar vein, because Republicans refuse to hold debate on the CLO title, Mr. Kildee and Mr. Capuano offered an amendment to require the regulators to first determine that such a delay was, indeed, in the public interest.

Mr. Lynch also proposed to revise the delay from 2019 to a date we previously considered and approved in the House, 2017. This revised date is one that we had thoroughly considered in the House. We never considered in the House an extension for 2 more years to 2019.

In an effort to prevent the spread of systemic threats, Mr. Lynch proposed that an affiliate of a financial institution, whose failure could pose a systemic risk to our economy, should be required to clear its derivatives.

Mr. Lynch raised a concern that companies, like GE Capital, might be able to take large bets in one part of their company, but receive relief from rules intended to mitigate those risks in another. Mr. Lynch also offered three amendments on title XI, all intended to ensure that employees understand their compensation.

Elsewhere in the bill, Mr. Capuano offered an amendment to title X, requiring companies to disclose political campaign contributions. In the same title, Mr. Ellison required the SEC to finalize its Dodd-Frank rules related to executive compensation data within 60 days.

Mr. Grijalva proposed an amendment to restore the swaps push-out provision that Republicans eliminated by attaching it to the CR/Omnibus last month. Mr. Ellison and Mr. Grijalva also proposed a substitute amendment to focus this Congress on something that would help our economy, ending budget sequestration.

Finally, I propose that we find a way to pay for part of the budget of the cash-strapped SEC by imposing a user fee on investment advisers. This is a commonsense proposal that has been supported by investment advisers, investment advocates, former Republican Chairman Spencer Bachus, SEC Chair White, and the State securities regulators.

Despite the fact that the SEC can only examine an adviser on average once a decade, our committee didn't even consider this issue last Congress.

That is an effort, Mr. Speaker and Members, to show that we have attempted to work with the opposite side of the aisle. We have attempted to offer commonsense amendments that have been absolutely rejected without any consideration being given to them.

We find ourselves here on the floor at 9 this evening, attempting to debate a bill that is going nowhere, that has been issued by the President, a veto message. We are here debating again about whether or not we are putting our taxpayers and Main Street and our small businesses at risk, going back to some of the same tactics, some of the same ways that were used by the banks that brought us to the point of a recession, almost a depression.

Somehow in this short period of time, we have forgotten what happened in 2008, we have forgotten about how many businesses were destroyed, small businesses were destroyed, we have forgotten how many elderly folks lost money in their 401(k)'s, we have forgotten how many homes were foreclosed on, we have forgotten about how we brought this country to the brink of a disaster.

And so let me just say that Dodd-Frank is an attempt for reform. And it is not even a tough reform. As a matter of fact, many of us consider it rather mild. But we have on this side of the aisle been fighting day in and day out in our committee to try and just see the implementation of Dodd-Frank rather than the destruction of an attempt to reform an industry that caused great harm to this society.

And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her great work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 37, the so-called Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act.

I served on the Financial Services Committee during the 2008 financial crisis, and I had an opportunity to witness the harmful impact that lack of regulation had on hardworking families around our Nation at a total cost of more than $22 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. My constituents--and many of yours-- lost their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings during that period. Many pension funds today continue to suffer and are on the brink of collapse because of the reckless policies that were observed during that time by many of our major banks.

While I voted against the bailout of the Wall Street banks who were rewarded with bonuses as a result of the bailout, I did have the honor of helping to assist in reforming our financial system through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I regret the bill under consideration today rolls back many of those reforms that my colleagues and I fought so hard to adopt.

I would note that after being defeated last week under a suspension process that offered no opportunity for amendments, this bill now has inexplicably been brought to the House floor under a closed rule that again does not include any of the 14 amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee. At a minimum, a bill that does so much harm to our financial system necessitates the normal committee process and additional time for debate.

H.R. 37 contains 11 separate bills, a few of them which I support, others I strongly oppose. Portions of H.R. 37 have entirely new provisions that the members of the committee and of this Congress have not had the opportunity to thoroughly analyze.

By the way, if you desire a good review of this legislation, in this past Sunday's New York Times there is an article written by Gretchen Morgenson that I think is extremely well-written and goes into great detail beyond the time that I am allocated here tonight.

Title II of this bill would allow banks with commercial business to trade derivatives privately rather than on clearinghouses. This would increase risk and reduce transparency for these transactions. My amendment, which was not accepted, would have improved the provisions by prohibiting systematically important financial institutions, whose collapse would pose a serious risk to our financial system, from claiming the exemption under this title.

Title VIII of this bill includes new language that has not been considered by the Financial Services Committee under regular order. If passed, title VIII would give banks an additional 2 years to comply with the provisions of the Volcker rule that mandates that banks divest collateralized loan obligations--packages of risky debt.

I thank the gentlewoman.

This 2-year extension is in addition to the extension we already provided by the regulation last year. That further delay adds unnecessary risk to our financial system. And that is why I sponsored another amendment to remove this additional 2-year delay, so banks will be required to comply with this provision of the Volcker rule no later than July 21, 2017.

Again, title XI of this bill modifies the SEC rule 701 by allowing private companies to compensate their employees up to $10 million in company securities without having to provide those employees with certain basic financial disclosures about the company stock.

I strongly support employees receiving equity benefits from their firms in which they work, but those benefits should be tangible and real. We all remember Enron and WorldCom where employees were pressured to buy stock as part of their compensation, and at the end of the day, that stock was completely worthless.

Why can't we enable employees to receive some equity in the company in which they work and ensure that those workers get accurate financial disclosure as part of that deal? This is why I offered three amendments to reform title XI in order to make certain workers get accurate information about the equities shares that they are receiving from the companies they work for. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee chose to deny all the amendments to this bill.

In closing, this harmful bill uses the veneer of job creation to provide special treatment for well-connected corporations and financial institutions while doing very little for the workers that it professes to help.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[From NYTimes.com, Jan. 10, 2015]

Kicking Dodd-Frank in the Teeth

(By Gretchen Morgenson)

The 114th Congress has been at work for less than a week,

but a goal for many of its members is already evident: a

further rollback of regulations put in place to keep markets

and Main Street safe from reckless Wall Street practices.

The attack began with a bill that narrowly failed in a

fast-track vote on Wednesday in the House of Representatives.

It is scheduled to come up again in the House this week.

The bill, introduced by Representative Michael Fitzpatrick,

a Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the House

Financial Services Committee, has three troublesome elements.

First, it would let large banks hold on to certain risky

securities until 2019, two years longer than currently

allowed. It would also prevent the Securities and Exchange

Commission from regulating private equity firms that conduct

some securities transactions. And, finally, the bill would

make derivatives trading less transparent, allowing unseen

risks to build up in the system.

Of course, you wouldn't know any of this from the name of

the bill: the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small

Business Burdens Act. Or from the mild claim that the bill

was intended only ``to make technical corrections'' to the

Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010.

Here's the game plan for lawmakers eager to relax the

nation's already accommodating

financial regulations: First, seize on complex and esoteric

financial activities that few understand. Then, make

supposedly minor tweaks to their governing regulations that

actually wind up gutting them.

``We're going to see repeated attempts to go in with

seemingly technical changes that intimidate regulators and

keep them from putting teeth in regulations,'' predicted

Marcus Stanley, policy director at Americans for Financial

Reform, a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 200

consumer and civic groups across the country. ``If we return

to the precrisis business as usual, where it's routine for

people to accommodate Wall Street on these technical changes,

they're just going to unravel the postcrisis regulation piece

by piece. Then, we'll be right back where we started.''

The bill was put forward on the second day of the new

Congress, in an expedited process, which didn't allow for

debate among members. This process is supposed to be reserved

for noncontroversial bills and requires support from a two-

thirds majority to prevail. It fell just short of achieving

that level, with a vote of 276 to 146, overwhelmingly backed

by Republicans and opposed by most Democrats.

A central element of the bill chipped away at part of the

Volcker Rule, the regulation intended to reduce speculative

trading activities among federally insured banks. The bill

would give the institutions holding collateralized loan

obligations--bundles of debt--two additional years to sell

those stakes.

The sales were required under the Volcker Rule, which bars

banks from ownership in or relationships with hedge funds or

private equity firms, many of which issue and oversee these

instruments. Like the mortgage pools that wreaked such havoc

with United States banks in the most recent crisis, C.L.O.s

can pose high risks for banks.

The creation of such securities has been torrid recently;

$124.1 billion was issued last year, compared with $82.61

billion in 2013, according to S&P Capital IQ. Among the banks

with the largest C.L.O. exposures are JPMorgan Chase and

Wells Fargo; according to SNL Financial, a research firm,

JPMorgan Chase held $30 billion and Wells Fargo $22.5 billion

in the third quarter of 2014, the most recent figures

available. The next-largest stake--$4.7 billion--was held by

the State Street Corporation.

Given the size of these positions, it's not surprising the

institutions want more time to jettison them. But the new

legislation represents Wall Street's second reprieve on these

instruments. After banks objected to the sale of their

holdings last spring, the Federal Reserve gave them two years

beyond the initial 2015 deadline to get rid of them.

Now they want another two years.

Although the top three banks had unrealized gains in their

C.L.O. holdings in the third quarter, SNL said some banks

were facing losses. And that was before the collapse in the

price of oil, which has undoubtedly pummeled some of these

securities.

A second deregulatory aspect in the Fitzpatrick bill

relates to the lucrative private equity industry, which

remains loosely regulated. The bill would exempt some private

equity firms from registering as brokerage firms with the

S.E.C. Under securities law, such registration is required of

firms that receive fees for investment banking activities,

like providing merger advice or selling debt securities.

Private equity firms are typically registered only as

investment advisers, so submitting to broker-dealer

regulation would result in more frequent examinations and

more rules.

These firms don't like that. But their investors could

benefit from closer regulatory scrutiny of costly conflicts

of interest in these operations. For example, a private

equity firm providing merger advice to a company its

investors own in a fund portfolio--not an arm's-length

transaction--could easily charge more for those services than

an unaffiliated firm would.

Finally, the bill's changes in derivatives would reduce

transparency and increase risks in this arena by allowing

Wall Street firms with commercial businesses like oil and gas

or other commodities operations--to trade derivatives

privately and not on clearinghouses.

Trading on clearinghouses generates accurate price data

that help both banks and regulators value these instruments.

Because these clearinghouses perform risk management,

problematic positions are easier to spot.

If this change goes through, it will be the second recent

victory on derivatives for big banks. Last month, Congress

reversed a part of the Dodd-Frank law barring derivatives

from being traded in federally insured units of banks.

Taxpayers may be on the hook for bailouts, therefore, if

losses occur in the banks' derivatives books.

The Dodd-Frank law, as written back in 2010, was by no

means a comprehensive fix for a risky banking system. And it

is more vulnerable to attack, in part, because of its

complexity and design. Dodd-Frank delegated so much rule-

making to regulators that it essentially invited the

institutions they oversee to fight them every inch of the

way.

And when Congress backs the industry in these battles, it's

no contest.

Still, it is remarkable to watch the same financial

institutions that almost wrecked our nation's economy work to

heighten risks in the system.

``The truth about Dodd-Frank is it's pretty moderate and

pretty compromised already,'' Mr. Stanley of Americans for

Financial Reform said. ``Any further compromise and it tends

to collapse into nothingness.''

Which is exactly what Wall Street seems to be hoping for.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 27, I call up the bill (H.R. 37) to make technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to enhance the ability of small and emerging growth companies to access capital through public and private markets, to reduce regulatory burdens, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 37, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of all of those who are underemployed, who are unemployed still today in this economy, let us hope that the third time is the charm.

The bill that is before us today, substantially authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, was on the floor in a substantially identical version in the 113th Congress.

This bill, to ease the burdens on small businesses, on job creators to help foster capital creation, so that people can be put back to work, so that people can have good careers, so that people can pay their mortgages and pay their health care premiums, substantially in the same form passed in the last Congress 320-102; regrettably then, the United States Senate, under Democrat control, took up no portion of the bill.

It was last week that a slightly different version of the bill was brought to this House floor under what we know as our suspension calendar, which is reserved for bills that typically enjoy broad bipartisan support; regrettably, it proved to be about a dozen votes short because a number of my friends from the other side of the aisle apparently decided that they were for the bill before they were against the bill. They changed their minds in approximately 7 days.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. There were 11 different modest provisions, all of which enjoyed broad bipartisan support, again which were modest, modest attempts to ensure that small businesses could still survive in an otherwise onerous Washington regulatory climate.

Mr. Speaker, we had a bill that, even combined--and it is quite common for us to roll up bills for the sake of efficiency, bills that are quite similar in nature--was 30 pages long. Not 300, not 3,000--it wasn't the 2,000 pages of ObamaCare, not the 2,000 pages of Dodd- Frank--it was merely 30 pages.

Now, what is included in this bill? Well, included in this bill is H.R. 634, which passed this body 411-12. It includes H.R. 5471, which passed the House by voice vote, not a dissenting vote that I recall. It includes H.R. 801 that passed the House 417-4. It includes H.R. 2274, the bill that passed the House 422-0.

I could go on and on, but of the bills that are rolled up to ensure greater capital formation and regulatory relief for our smaller business enterprises, all of these passed either the committee or the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, and now--now--the minority is coming to this floor and somehow crying foul. Again, many were for it before they were against it.

I don't know how we can look our constituents in the eyes and know that, even today, they continue to suffer in this economy and not do something to help them.

What this is really all about, Mr. Speaker, is there is a division. There is a division within the Democrat Party. According to press reports, some Democrats have reportedly told their fellow Democrats that if they dare to vote for a bill that makes a clarification or modification to Dodd-Frank, they aren't real Democrats.

It is interesting that yesterday, President Obama signed into law a modification of Dodd-Frank. I know the President is not a Republican, but according to some Democrats, apparently by signing a modification to Dodd-Frank, he is not apparently a Democrat, either, so I am not really sure what he is.

It is fascinating that a former chairman, Barney Frank, of the House Financial Services Committee, one of my predecessors, in previous testimony before our committee, indicated a number of changes to Dodd- Frank that he thought would be proper, so according to some Democrats, apparently Barney Frank is no longer a Democrat, either.

What this is really getting at, Mr. Speaker, is of the 11 bills that are rolled up into this 30-page document, some of them either clarify or modify provisions of Dodd-Frank, and for some Members of the Democratic Party, apparently, Dodd-Frank has now been elevated beyond ideology to religion, and there can be no changes in a 2,000-page bill that we know is fraught with unintended consequences.

Yet there are some on the other side of the aisle that say, ``no changes, no changes,'' yet President Obama signed a change into law. Former Chairman Frank has indicated a number of changes he would consider.

It is time to get beyond the religion. It is time to get beyond the ideology. It is time to get America back to work. It is time to start growing this economy

from Main Street up, not Washington down, because that is not working, Mr. Speaker.

It is time to do what everybody claims they want to do, and that is work on a bipartisan basis. All of these bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, and now, because of this almost religious zeal for the Dodd-Frank brand, again, some of my Democratic colleagues have decided that they were for it before they were against it.

It is time to put America back to work. It is time to enact H.R. 37, Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. Let's make sure the third time is the charm.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that this highly controversial bill that the ranking member alludes to passed on the House floor by voice vote, and this particular financing helps companies like Dunkin' Donuts, American Airlines, Burger King, and Goodyear Tire put people to work in America--hardly Wall Street. The head of the Independent Community Bankers has said it is necessary to protect community banks, and that is why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) on behalf of the Agriculture Committee, which shares jurisdiction on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I continue to be fascinated by my Democratic colleagues whose rhetoric is against Wall Street, yet they vote in Dodd-Frank to codify a taxpayer bailout fund for Wall Street into that legislation. They designate firms too big to fail so their rhetoric is aimed at Wall Street but they hurt Main Street, who we are trying to help now.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the author of the title that helps so many of our small businesses grow.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is the sponsor of this job-creating legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy now to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the chairman of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Monetary Policy Trade Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from the ``Live Free or Die'' State of New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), a member of the committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have really witnessed here is a debate between the left and the far left, and the far left doesn't want the left to work on a bipartisan basis. That is sad. I think that is what the American people want us to do. The American people, by and large, don't want to occupy Wall Street. They just want to quit bailing it out, and bailing it out is exactly what the Dodd-Frank Act does. It is time to grow this economy from Main Street up, not Washington down, and that is what the big debate is.

Almost every bill here, Mr. Speaker, is a modest bill to help small businesses, to help capital formation to put America back to work. They passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.

Let's show the American people that we can do it. Don't let the far left torpedo America's hopes and dreams. I encourage all the House Members to support this legislation.

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

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

What is before us today is a mini omnibus bill that contains, actually, 11 separate pieces of legislation, some of which may not be controversial but some of which are incredibly controversial and do not belong in this legislation. This is not an emergency. We have a new Congress. This bill should go through the regular order. Unlike the TRIA bill we just talked about, this bill is a bill which should and must go through the regular order, and it is absolutely inappropriate for the suspension calendar.

Our Republican friends would have us believe that this is just some benign piece of legislation, yet this bill contains not only procedural problems but substantive problems which have never seen the light of day in any committee. Some of the legislation has only been public for about 24 hours, and what is particularly frightening is that the text of the bill has changed at least three times since Tuesday. We just got started yesterday in talking about the importance of regular order, and we are already violating those claims and promises.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives should return to regular order with this piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Regular order, whereby legislation is debated at a hearing, marked up by a committee, and then finally considered by the whole House, is the process by which we vet legislation. That is not going on right here and right now, and there is no good reason for it. We do this to ensure that we fully understand the changing law. Nevertheless, Republicans have come here to suspend the rules and to consider a package of 11 bills which will ease the oversight of Wall Street firms, large banks, multinational corporations, and certain brokers.

It should be pointed out right now that the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters, who is unable to be in Washington due to personal matters she has to address, has issued a call to reject this piece of legislation for many of the reasons I am articulating now.

I think it is also important to point out that there are 52 Members of Congress who were sworn in yesterday and who represent more than 30 million Americans who will have to vote on bills affecting a collateral firm's pledge, when they borrow money, affecting what information must be disclosed about certain brokers and financial statements of firms, without the opportunity to offer changes. This is the absolute antithesis of regular order, and this bill is not appropriate. We urge a ``no.''

I would like to talk a little bit about the specific reasons this bill is bad. Members should know that this is not the identical bill that came through in the fall. It has very important changes. If you voted for it last fall, that is no reason to vote for this bill now.

First, the Volcker rule. This bill undercuts an important part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Volcker rule was intended to prevent deposit-taking banks--banks that use money insured by the Federal Government, the people's money--from making bets

and using taxpayer-insured funds. The Federal Reserve went out of its way to try to ease the transition to a safer system, but this bill would give megabanks an additional 2 years, totaling 5 years, to sell off certain securities in which they retain ownership rights--5 more years of risk, 5 more years of massive profit-taking. This provision, which almost certainly juices the profits of big, megabanks like Citigroup and JPMorgan, has never been vetted. The public has not even had a day to review the text. It is wrong that bills that help Wall Street and multinational corporations get fast-tracked on day 2 of this Congress while bills that help working families get slowed up for years, literally.

Just last month, Republicans successfully handed Citigroup and other megabanks a multibillion-dollar gift by repealing another reform measure, known as the ``swaps push-out,'' which was intended to prevent another Great Recession. The repeal of that provision allowed the megabanks to continue to borrow money from the Federal Reserve lending window, which is currently at about zero percent interest, to finance their risky derivatives. Experts have weighed in. Let me read for the Record the statement by the CEO of Better Markets:

``It's all about the bonus pool,'' said Dennis Kelleher,

president and CEO of Better Markets, a financial reform

nonprofit. ``The attack on the Volcker rule has been nonstop

because proprietary trading is about big-time bets that

result in big-time bonuses. Wall Street has been fighting it

from day one, and they're not going to stop.''

If you believe that there are things in this mini omnibus, or this megabill, that might be worth your support, understand that this particular provision has not been vetted anywhere. For that reason alone they are literally trying to sneak it in, and you should vote against it.

Also, this particular bill includes three other provisions that weaken the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. These provisions take away the authority of regulators who are charged with ensuring that everybody plays by the same rules so that, if at some point in the future, we find out that our financial system is threatened, our regulators will be unable to take decisive action to fix the problems that they can fix today.

After witnessing the effect that one type of derivative--the credit default swap--had in spreading losses from the subprime mortgage market around the world, I would like to know why our first order of business in this Congress is to roll back the financial reforms that this Congress deliberated on and passed over an 18-month period following the 2008 financial crisis.

This bill undermines investor protections. It includes three provisions that have the potential to leave investors worse off than they are today. As we proclaim small investors and workers and all of these things, why are we undermining investor protections? In one instance, the bill exempts individuals who would broker a merger of a privately owned company to be exempt from SEC regulations. Since this legislation passed in a previous Congress, the SEC has taken action to make this unnecessary. However, if we pass this bill today, we will undermine a few basic investor protections that the SEC has retained.

For example, the SEC determined that bad actors, such as convicted securities fraudsters, should not be able to take advantage of a carve- out. However, by voting ``yes,'' you are saying that it is okay for people convicted of fraud to sell other things, like franchises or the restaurant down the street. Another provision would allow 75 percent of all public companies to no longer report their financial statements in computer readable formats. When everything is online today and when investors rely on computers to crunch the financials of various companies, this bill comes across as a huge step backwards.

My colleagues want to address this bill, and I think it is important that they do. So, at this point, I am going to urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee and an active participant on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is the former subcommittee ranking member on the Oversight Committee and is an active member on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, how much time does the Democratic side have remaining?

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), who was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee for the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, last Congress, H.R. 4167 passed. I voted against it, but it is not the same as the language in title VIII which is in this bill today, which extends by 2 years the delay we requested, totaling 5 years. It is not the same legislation. This bill, title VIII, has not passed before. It is new.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this big bill may have some things that are not bad, but it also contains a bill that delays protection of our economy and families from Wall Street gambling, and it should be voted down.

We urge a very strong ``no'' on this bill. Go back, do it right, follow the process, regular order, and maybe we could make some progress here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 37) to make technical corrections to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to enhance the ability of small and emerging growth companies to access capital through public and private markets, to reduce regulatory burdens, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 37, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the time and for the opportunity to again bring this bill before the House as a piece of a larger strategy that will bring greater jobs and more opportunity to the American people and to American families.

I am proud to once again sponsor the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, a bill which includes the language of pro-growth measures debated and passed last Congress in the Financial Services Committee and in the Agriculture Committee.

While these proposals aren't flashy, they represent bipartisan efforts to remove the burdensome weight of one-size-fits-all regulation that has, sadly, become the norm for Washington. While often well- intentioned, many of

these top-down regulations hurt small businesses and emerging businesses in critical sectors like biotechnology.

As the Representative of one of the Nation's fastest-growing biotech regions just outside Philadelphia, I have experienced firsthand the impact of this vibrant industry in southeastern Pennsylvania. Employing thousands of hardworking men and women, this sector harnesses the best of our STEM community and what it has to offer in our efforts to create treatments and cures for devastating diseases from diabetes and Alzheimer's to cancer and HIV/AIDS.

For these businesses, government overregulation often treats the little guy the same as big multinational corporations, tying them in costly red tape at the expense of their ability to research, to develop, to innovate, and to hire.

This bill takes a meaningful step toward ensuring smarter, tailored regulations which unleash businesses, like biotech companies in my district, to invest in themselves and in their workers. But biotech workers wouldn't be the only ones to benefit. So would employees at retailers like grocery chain Wegmans.

Employing 44,000 people, including 8,200 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Wegmans is constantly ranked among the Nation's best places to work by Fortune magazine, a grade they attribute to their employee ownership opportunities, which allow their workers to have a stake in the business that they work for.

However, a little-known piece of regulatory overreach is hamstringing these opportunities, an overreach recognized and adjusted by this legislation. By creating a more realistic regulatory environment, this bill provides relief to businesses looking to retain their best employees, while allowing workers to invest in the company and in their own futures.

In lieu of the failed Washington efforts of the past which tried to simply legislate more jobs into existence, the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act is very much a jobs bill because it addresses these job-creating needs. By reining in government's heavyhanded approach to regulating the economy, we can provide a bipartisan path toward getting people back to work, helping businesses grow, and ensuring hardworking Americans keep more of their hard-earned money.

Mr. Speaker, the challenges facing our economy are steep. However, they are no more daunting than the challenges we have overcome in the past in the way that Americans have always approached adversity: head on, with American ingenuity, practicality, and a commitment of leaders on both sides of the aisle to act in the best interests of the working men and women we represent.

The ushering in of this new Congress gives us the perfect opportunity for Members of both parties to unite around efforts to put the American worker back in the driver's seat and to establish a bipartisan playbook for advancing common goals. Now is the time, and the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act is an important part of that process. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, January 7, 2015.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling: I am writing concerning H.R. 37.

``Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens

Act.''

As you know, provisions of H.R. 37 are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture. In order to

expedite floor consideration of the bill, the Committee on

Agriculture will forgo action on H.R. 37. Further, the

Committee will not oppose the bill's consideration on the

suspension calendar. This is also being done with the

understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the

Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 37, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely.

K. Michael Conaway,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), who is the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the provision that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) is referring to was heard in committee. The title of the bill passed in the committee with well over 50 votes. It passed unanimously on the floor of the House by voice vote, and not a single Democrat rose to object to the bill, but that was last year.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

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

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

The bill before us today is here on the same procedure the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act reauthorization was here; we just debated that bill on the floor. They are both coming up under a suspension of the rules, and TRIA reauthorization last term, like these bills, were debated either in committee or on the floor in the full House.

The distinguished minority whip, in speaking about the TRIA bill, said that it is always the right time to do the right thing. In addition, he decried the process that delayed the reauthorization of TRIA--I agree with him on that--and he said there were well over 250 votes for the last year and a half for the reauthorization of TRIA.

I would submit and ask the Record to reflect, Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill, and we have heard about the 11 provisions, all of which went through the committee or the full House.

Title I amends Dodd-Frank and passed the House 411-12. It was introduced as a bipartisan bill, went

through the committee, had a committee hearing, both sides had witnesses, and all the questions were asked. There was a markup. At the markup, there were amendments. The bill passed the committee. It came to the floor of the House and passed 411-12.

Title II passed the committee 50-10. Title III passed on the full House after passing the committee 417-4. Title IV passed the House 422- 0. Each one of these provisions were bipartisan, and they passed in a strong fashion on a vote either in the committee or the House.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, we were sent back here. We took the oath of office, sent by our constituents to do the right thing, to work together where we can, to identify problems, to address those problems, and to get stuff done, especially when it regards the American economy, small businesses, and the ability to get people to work to create jobs.

Each one of these titles in this bill identifies a problem in the economy, addresses it in a bipartisan way, and the time is now to pass this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 37, pass the bill and send it to the Senate. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.