Floor Statements

I thank the ranking member for yielding and for all her hard work, and I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2374. The bill would require the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct yet another cost-benefit analysis of a fiduciary duty rule, apparently in the attempt and hope of derailing a new fiduciary duty rule to protect consumers. The Securities and Exchange Commission has already completed a lengthy study on whether or not to propose a fiduciary duty rule for brokers. That study included an extensive cost-benefit analysis.

So, my colleagues, outside of trying to derail a new consumer safeguard, what could possibly be the purpose of requiring the SEC to do yet another cost-benefit analysis on the exact same issue again? How about we just take the first one and make two copies?

The rule also prohibits the Labor Department from even proposing a rule until 60 days after the SEC finalizes its final rule. And what is the harm, my colleagues, in allowing an agency--in this case, the Labor Department--to release the proposed rule for public discussion, for public input? Since when has Congress been afraid of a debate?

If my colleagues believe that the proposed rule gets it wrong, then they have every opportunity to say so, as does the public, as do businesses, and that is exactly what the public comment period is for. That is what happened the last time the Labor Department proposed a fiduciary rule; there were questions raised. They have recalled it to reconsider it, and they are withdrawing that proposal and working on a new one.

If the SEC has a better idea for a fiduciary duty rule, then let's debate that one and have that released, but preventing an agency from even putting out a regulatory proposal for public debate is flat-out dead wrong.

This bill would delay and possibly derail important rulemaking at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Labor Department to protect retirement security and investor protection rights. This is a transparent attempt to slow down the rulemaking process and possibly derail the whole rulemaking process for protections for consumers.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act. The bill would require the states to obtain information about the true ownership of the corporation, when incorporation papers are filed with the state.

As some have put it, this bill is a ``no-brainer.'' And it is fairly straightforward: it would require that the person creating the corporation state the ``beneficial owner'' of the corporation and provide sonic form of identification.

Although this is as straightforward as it sounds, the implications for law enforcement are broad reaching. Criminal organizations are infamous for using shell corporations, both foreign and domestic to open bank accounts, launder money, perpetrate fraud, and finance terrorism. And it isn't difficult for them to do. Virtually no states require people applying to create corporations to provide the identity of the corporate owner. As a result, just about anyone can easily manipulate the system to fund criminal activity.

Here is an example from an investigation in New York by the Manhattan District Attorney. The office announced investigations involving the movement of funds through banks in New York by entities controlled by the Iranian Military. In at least two cases, domestic shell companies were opened. in two different states to further secret Iranian interests. Through a New York shell company, individuals working on behalf of the government of Iran were able to move funds to secret accounts held in offshore jurisdictions. Shockingly, the offshore government was able to give the Manhattan DA more information about the ownership of the New York entity than the state of New York could.

Although the DA does not contend that requiring a declaration of beneficial ownership would have stopped this activity, it would have at least been a piece of evidence to go on. And if the declaration of beneficial ownership had been required but falsified, it would have been an extra tool for law enforcement to shut down the entity and prosecute the perpetrators.

The bill I am introducing today will provide the kind of transparency that law enforcement needs to investigate financial crimes. However, it is narrowly drafted so that it is not overly burdensome on either states or incorporating entities. In fact, most corporations would be exempt from the bill's requirements including companies that are already regulated by federal banking regulators and companies that are over 20 employees and $10 million in revenue.

This bill is meant to capture beneficial ownership information from companies that are able to escape regulation and oversight through other federal entities.

Senator Levin has already introduced a similar bill in the Senate, and President Obama was the lead sponsor when he was a

U.S. Senator. The G-8 countries recently pledged to implement incorporation transparency as well.

As Global Witness has stated, ``Setting a standard for collecting information about the true owner of a company would level the playing field between the states while preventing terrorists, drug traffickers and kleptocrats from hiding behind corporate secrecy.''

The bill is supported by both Global Witness and Global Financial Integrity, as well as numerous law enforcement associations, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, the National Narcotic Officers' Associations Coalition, the United States Marshals Service Association, and the Association of Former ATF Agents.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the Joint Economic Committee, I would like to call your attention to this recent report. It is subtitled, ``Ten Ways the Shutdown is Hurting the Economy.''

Its findings are rather sobering.

The report makes it clear that the shutdown acts as a serious drag on our economy. Economists have testified before the committee that 3 or 4 weeks of a shutdown would reduce the country's gross domestic product by 1.4 percentage points. We are now entering the third week.

The shutdown harms not only Federal workers, but also the private sector. If it persists, it will reduce tourism revenue, cause contractors to lay off employees; the housing market will suffer, and public health services will feel its effects. The shutdown hurts everyone, from vulnerable mothers and children to ranchers, farmers, and agricultural exporters.

We are close to ending this crisis, and as the JEC points out in this report, it could not end faster. It is hurting our economy.

Mr. Speaker, it is incomprehensible to reasonable men and women everywhere that our colleagues across the aisle are threatening to nuke the American economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless their demands are met. This is irresponsible and reckless behavior. ``Nuke'' is the right word to use here. As Warren Buffett noted recently, even the threat of default should be likened to nuclear weapons too terrible to ever use.

Allowing the U.S. to default on its obligations, whether it be an interest payment on a Treasury bond, a check due to a Social Security recipient, or money due to a Federal contractor so they can pay their workers, would have a cataclysmic effect on our economy and would be felt around the world. It would be a mistake that would impoverish a generation and haunt us for a decade, and there could be no second opportunity to get it right.

Anyone who dismisses how great a disaster a default would be should not be taken seriously. They should not be listened to or given a seat at the table where responsible decisions are made. Let's open up the government now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III, M.B.E., K.S.J., to commemorate the 25th anniversary of his election as the Clerk of Session of the Brick Presbyterian Church in the City of New York, which is located in the district I represent. The Brick Church, established in 1767, is a vibrant, thriving place of worship that currently serves over 1,700 members of its congregation and is known for welcoming parishioners of all backgrounds, who live not only in the neighborhood, but in the outer boroughs and suburbs of New York. Since its founding, the Church has stayed faithful to its vision of maintaining excellent worship, continuing its mission of outreach to the City, educating children, youth, and adults, and, above all, preserving its strong tradition of congregational fellowship.

Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III was born and educated in Evanston, Illinois. He graduated from Roosevelt University in Chicago and continued his graduate work at Northwestern University and at CUNY Baruch College. After completing his studies, he served in the United States Army Corps of Engineers in the Philippines as a Literacy Training Instructor.

Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III joined the Brick Church in 1960 when the Church was led by the Reverend Paul Austin Wolfe. During his early years of membership, Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III served as President of the Church's Young Adults group and as founder, director, and performer of the Brick Church Drama Council when the Church's Watson Hall served as an active theater.

In 1988, during the tenure of the Reverend Herbert Anderson, Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III was elected by the Session to serve as Clerk. As Clerk of Session, he has faithfully kept the Session's records and those of the congregation. He was also named Beadle, a traditional office of Scottish origin charged with assisting ministers with the ceremonial aspects of worship, such as the acolytes, and the procession and recession. Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III is also a faithful member of the Church's Chancel Choir, the Session's Committee on Worship and Music, the Senior Advisor to the Order of St. Paul, and the convener, advisor, and stout supporter of the Session's Archives and History Committee.

In addition to his work for the Brick Church, Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III has a long and distinguished record of service for other charitable causes. He has been a Trustee of the Union Theological Seminary of New York, and President of the Board of the New York Theological Seminary, as well as President of the Board of the Burden Center for the Aging. Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III is currently the Executive Director Emeritus of the James N. Jarvie Commonweal Service, President Emeritus of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Organizations, and Knight of Justice of The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem. Ruling Elder Ellsworth G. Stanton III's efforts have been recognized by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, who appointed him a member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, and by the Federation of Protestant Welfare Organizations, which honored him with their distinguished Keystone and Maggie Kuhn Awards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Ruling Elder Ellsworth George Stanton III, who, as a member of the Brick Presbyterian Church for the past 53 years, and as Clerk of Session for the past 25, has served with extraordinary dedication to his congregation and the New York Community. I am honored to recognize his many years of service that have truly improved the lives of thousands of New Yorkers, and enhanced the spiritual life of his church and its parishioners.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to my good friend, the late Marie Lambert, who was elected as Surrogate Court Judge of New York County in 1977 and served until 1990 when she turned 70 years old. A passionate Surrogate, Lambert was an inspiration to me and to so many women who have chosen to pursue careers in public service. She ran for Surrogate at a time when few women held elected office and her success helped open doors for other women to follow. On Friday, October 4, 2013, a portrait honoring Marie M. Lambert, the first woman Surrogate of New York County, was dedicated in the Surrogate's Court in lower Manhattan where she served.

Surrogate Lambert was an outspoken fighter throughout her life. Her family immigrated to Brooklyn from Italy when she was an infant and she did not speak English until she started school. I am told that when she was about to graduate from elementary school, she wanted to speak at the commencement ceremony, but was told that the rules of selection for graduation speakers were changed and she would not be permitted to speak. Disappointed by this decision, Ms. Lambert appealed personally to Mayor LaGuardia and the decision was overturned. In her speech, she addressed the consequences of unfairness. Spurred on by her early success in advocacy, she became a student leader in Brooklyn College and graduated at the top of her class at New York University Law School.

Surrogate Lambert's distinguished career was marked by her signature audacity and passion for combating injustice. She was involved in a case early in her career in which she fought to permit the offloading and resettlement of Jewish survivors of German concentration camps. Surrogate Lambert spent the next 30 years of her career as a lawyer fighting for tenants and those injured due to the negligence of others. She felt justice was satisfied when the negligent driver, product producer or doctor took financial responsibility for his or her negligence. Recognized by her peers for her effective advocacy, Surrogate Lambert served as an officer and director of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, eventually being elected as the President, making her the first woman to serve in that role and the first woman to head any statewide bar association. A single mother following the untimely death of her husband, Surrogate Lambert raised her son, Greg, to honor public service and to embrace community involvement.

In 1977, Ms. Lambert was elected the Surrogate's Court of New York County, which hears estate matters, becoming one of two Surrogate Judges in the county. During her term as Surrogate, New York County became the epicenter of the AIDS crisis, a disease that for many years was not well understood and led to the deaths of numerous members of the LGBT community. Many cases came before Surrogate Lambert involving disputes between family members and significant others of the deceased, and she handled them with sensitivity and understanding. Surrogate Lambert also presided over many adoption cases. She firmly believed that, unlike marriages which can be dissolved, an adoption is forever. In all of her cases, she took very seriously her role as an arbiter of justice. Throughout her service, Surrogate Lambert met every challenge with a spirit of dauntless optimism and valor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding contributions Marie Lambert made to the court system of New York on behalf of the most vulnerable among us and celebrating the unveiling of her portrait. An ardent voice for social and legal justice, Marie M. Lambert left a legacy of determination, fairness and indomitability.

Mr. Speaker, the economic disruption caused by the Republican-orchestrated shutdown continues to mount. The negative impact on the lives of the American people and the loss of jobs and opportunities continues to rise.

As one example, in my home district of New York, the shutdown is hitting some small business owners really hard because it brought to an absolute halt any work of the Small Business Administration. On average, the Small Business Administration approves over 9 million loans in my district alone for small businesses each month, but because of this shutdown, zero. Zero are being approved--small business loans, real estate or equipment loans, and this has a terrible ripple effect on our economy.

It was bad enough that the majority would not bring a single meaningful jobs bill, infrastructure or transportation bill to the floor for a vote to create jobs; but now, this reckless, long-planned action to bring the work of the government to a halt, it is actively killing jobs, killing opportunity, killing hope.

Let's bring a clean budget up for a vote today and put people over politics.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to look at the impact of the shutdown and a looming government default on our financial markets.

On the shutdown, if the SEC uses all of its rainy-day money, it will be forced to close some key market oversight functions. There would be little to no oversight of exchanges. And if there were more trading glitches like the one that closed NASDAQ last month, the SEC wouldn't be able to respond quickly and problems could quickly spiral out of control. This could irreparably damage confidence in the safety and integrity of U.S. financial markets, and I've always said that markets run more on confidence than on capital.

On the debt ceiling, defaulting on Treasury bonds could be truly catastrophic. The assumption that Treasury bonds are risk free is the most fundamental assumption in the financial markets. It underpins the entire world's bond market. If Congress doesn't lift the debt ceiling and we default, Treasury bonds would, for the first time in our history, no longer be risk free. The value of bonds around the world would instantly fall, and billions of dollars of wealth would be destroyed in the blink of an eye. The dollar could even lose its status as the world's reserve currency.

We need to end the shutdown and lift the debt ceiling today. Jobs, growth, and the financial security of our country depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, the path to ending this shutdown right now is clear: bring up the clean Senate-passed CR for a vote. That would end this manufactured, self-inflicted crisis immediately.

These piecemeal attempts at deflection offered by my friends on the other side of the aisle are wretched governance.

Compromise is built into our Constitution, and the Senate-passed CR is itself a compromise. It accepts the annual spending level of $986 billion, roughly $70 billion less than what the Senate endorsed in its budget plan earlier this year.

Again, this manufactured crisis could end right now by voting on the clean Senate continuing resolution today.

According to Moody's, a shutdown that lasts even 3 or 4 days will cost the economy approximately 0.2 percentage points of the annual GDP growth in the fourth quarter. And the consequences only get worse, as the shutdown continues, on our economy. This completely avoidable contraction is the opposite of policies we need to create jobs and strengthen and grow our economy.

We need to pass a clean CR today.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our Congress. Our colleagues across the aisle have chosen to pursue a pointless path of petty politics that will shut down the government of the most powerful Nation on the Earth and damage the world's largest economy.

It is the height of irony that the extremists who have taken control of the Republican agenda speak of listening to the will of the people. The will of the people? The will of the people was to vote for the Presidential candidate who promised to preserve the Affordable Care Act and to reject the Presidential candidate who promised to repeal it on day one.

The will of the people was to cast a million more votes for Democratic candidates for the House than for the Republican candidates, And the will of the people is to keep this government open and to vote on a clean CR that does not have a lot of stuff added to it unrelated to preserving our government and having our government function.

Shutting down the government will raise borrowing costs, slow the recovery, and cause financial instability. Let's get a clean CR and vote for a clean CR.

Mr. Speaker, compromise is a way of life in public policy. My way or

no way is the mindset of a 5-year-old, not the leading legislative body of the Western World.

This is a direct quote, Mr. Speaker, and I know it's accurate because it's from me over a decade ago. I was in Congress for the shutdowns of the Federal Government in 1995. They were as disastrous as they were unnecessary--a national disgrace. Today's funding debate is equally shameful.

Holding government funding hostage, and potentially following up with an act of blackmail over the debt limit is irresponsible and indifferent to the needs of millions across our country, particularly the military.

This debate is another manufactured crisis--a willful, needless, self-inflicted wound--that will have terrible effects on our economy, our fiscal outlook, and the American pocketbooks.

The Congress of the United States should never, ever bow down before the rigid dictates of a handful of ideological extremists. We should do what is right for the people of our country and pass a clean budget now.

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

I thank my colleague from the Financial Services Committee, Mr. McHenry. This is one of many bills that we have worked together on in a bipartisan way.

The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, known as ILSA, was enacted in 1969 to protect consumers from being cheated in land deals. It was originally intended to protect out-of-State buyers who were sold land that was not what it was advertised to be and to provide a right of action to rescind the contract and walk away from the deal. However, due to ambiguities in the original law, courts have ruled over the years that ILSA applies to condominiums and that developers are required to file redundant paperwork and make disclosures that are completely nonsensical when applied to condo units.

This has led to absurd results. For example, ILSA requires condo developers to file a report that discloses, among other things, information about the condo unit's topography, how much of the condo is covered by water, whether there is any soil erosion, and whether the condominium has any oil and gas rights.

I, for one, don't know of any high-rise condo units that are covered by water. Requiring condo developers to file these types of nonsensical disclosures provides no consumer protection whatsoever and simply generates unnecessary paperwork.

Unfortunately, during the economic downturn in 2008, some buyers used the recording requirements of ILSA to rescind otherwise valid contracts for economic reasons, an unintended consequence of the act and its intent. The law now needs a technical fix to distinguish condominium sales from other types of land sales and to recognize the unique conditions under which these units are sold in today's market.

As the author of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, I am a strong supporter of consumer protections. I fully support the consumer protections that were enacted through ILSA, and this proposed legislation does nothing to affect those consumer protections; but I also believe that we need to make distinctions for condos in order to allow the condominium development industry to rebound from the recession. The bill would only exempt condos from ILSA's registration requirements. It will maintain the consumer protections which ensure that consumers still have the right to rescind contracts in cases of actual fraud. Developers would, of course, still be required to comply with State laws that require specific disclosures.

As we recover in this still very fragile economy, we want to encourage, not discourage, buyers and sellers to enter into real estate deals responsibly. That is why this bill is important--to ensure development and the return of an important industry in our country, that of residential condominium sales.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from the great State of New York, Jerry Nadler.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Support H.R. 2600, the Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act Update of

2013

Dear Colleague: The Interstate Land Sales Disclosure Act

was enacted in 1969 to protect out-of-state buyers who were

sold raw, undeveloped land that was not what was advertised,

and provides a right of action to rescind the contract and

walk away from the deal.

Senator Harrison Williams, who introduced the original

bill, noted that the land sales that ILSA was intended to

address were sales of ``swamps, deserts, high arid plateaus,

mountains, remote valleys, and--in some cases--actual jungles

or lava beds outside the continental United States.''

However, due to ambiguity in the statute, courts have ruled

over the years that ISLA applies to condominiums, and

developers are now required to mate redundant disclosures

that make no sense whatsoever when applied to condo units.

For example, ILSA requires developers to disclose whether

there is any soil erosion in the condo, whether the condo

unit is covered by water, and information about the condo

unit's oil, gas, and mineral rights.

During the economic downturn, some buyers have used ILSA to

rescind otherwise valid contracts for economic reasons--an

entirely unintended consequence of the law and its intent.

The law now needs a technical fix to distinguish condominium

sales from other types of land sales and to recognize the

unique conditions under which these units are sold in today's

market.

H.R. 2600 explicitly exempts condominiums from ILSA's

registration requirements, but maintains ILSA's consumer

protections by ensuring that condominiums are still subject

to the statute's anti-fraud provisions. In addition,

developers would still be required to comply with all of the

normal state- and local-level disclosure requirements that

apply to condo sales.

As we recover in this still fragile economy, we want to

encourage, not discourage, buyers and sellers to enter into

real estate deals responsibly. For these reasons, we hope

that you will join us in voting for H.R. 2600 later today.

Sincerely,

Carolyn B. Maloney,

Member of Congress.

Jerrold Nadler,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the majority's unconscionable cuts to programs that help feed our Nation's hungry. We are the wealthiest country in the world, yet nearly 15 percent of our population lives in poverty. In my home city of New York, over 50,000 people live in homeless shelters--and the number is growing.

Our economy is making progress but there are still millions of people who are struggling. Yet this proposal would kick off at least 4 million Americans from the SNAP program and increase poverty in our country. Women and children in particular bear the brunt of these cuts. Forty- seven percent of SNAP recipients are children and nearly two-thirds of the benefits go to women.

Earlier this week, I saw firsthand how many families in our communities struggle to put food on the table when I visited Hour Children Food Pantry in Long Island City, Queens. The staff and volunteers of this private food bank are heroes and heroines. But we cannot rely on these organizations to pick up the slack. They say participation is up 40 percent.

Defeat this major cut to nutrition that Americans need.

Mr. Speaker, today we mark the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a day that changed America forever.

We remember those who died. We lost close to 3,000 people on 9/11, but many thousands more lost their health and many are suffering from cancer. This body passed the 9/11 health and compensation bill to help them, and I thank my colleagues.

Since that day, much has changed and much has been restored. Ten million people have visited Memorial Plaza that opened in 2011. The 9/ 11 museum opens next spring. The 104-story Freedom Tower opens next year.

But there are still men and women who suffer--or will suffer--from the effects of that massive toxic stew that enveloped Lower Manhattan for months.

So, on this special day, I would like to remind everyone that the final deadline to register for the benefits under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund is October 3. Please let everyone who is eligible know--registering will cost you nothing and may help you and your family tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Obama administration for its willingness to consider a new alternative proposal for dealing with Syria. The proposal is to hand over all--and I stress all--of Syria's chemical weapons under the oversight of the international community and to safely and verifiably destroy them. This could actually remove those weapons from the battlefield and peacefully prevent the further use of them against the people of Syria or her neighbors. This idea has gained support from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, as well as Russia and France.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal needs to be vigorously pursued. The Syrian regime's attack against its own people using poisonous gas is morally reprehensible. If this plan is successful, it could produce an outcome that everyone desires: preventing the Assad regime from using chemical weapons.