Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, we have all heard the phrase ``American as apple pie,'' but it is shameful to think that every American pie has baked into it Soviet-style sugar. We have a Byzantine array of government production quotas, import quotas, mandatory target prices. And what does it do? It destroys three jobs for every one it creates and transfers millions of dollars from working Americans to 6,000 sugar growers.

It is time for us to put ``American'' back into ``American as apple pie.'' Let's support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment.

Madam Speaker, as humans and as a people, we have no greater responsibility than to care for the vulnerable--to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves and a defender of those who cannot fight for themselves.

I, like all Americans, was disgusted to learn of the horrific and illegal abortion procedures performed by Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell preyed upon women who trusted him in their most vulnerable moments and systematically murdered children at their most helpless stage. We must protect women from these atrocious and unsafe abortions, and we must save children from these excruciating deaths.

In the grand jury report on the Gosnell trial, a neonatal expert reported that the cutting of a baby's spinal cord during a late-term abortion causes them, `a tremendous amount of pain.' Furthermore, according to a report by fetal pain expert Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, `the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation, if not earlier, and the pain perceived by a fetus is possibly more intense than that perceived by term newborns or older children.'

By banning abortion after 20 weeks, today's bill will save the lives of innocent children from enduring the excruciatingly painful death of a late abortion.

Madam Speaker, regrettably for the American people, they see a nonrecovery recovery. Millions of our fellow citizens remain unemployed and underemployed. That's why House Republicans are working to make the Tax Code fairer, flatter, simpler, more competitive, so America can go back to work, but so far we're hearing silence from the White House. We want red tape reform. That is strangling small business people.

Madam Speaker, I heard one small business person in my district say, ``It's just like the Federal Government doesn't want me to succeed.'' We need to unchain them. We need to cut the red tape and allow them to create jobs.

Finally, the Affordable Care Act is not affordable for our American citizens. It is not affordable to small businesses. It is harming job creation and costing trillions of dollars and potentially millions of jobs. Republicans want to repeal it.

This is an agenda to help create jobs for America when Americans need growth, hope, and opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass

the bill (H.R. 2167) to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish additional requirements to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the home equity conversion mortgage insurance program.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 2167 currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan H.R. 2167, the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013, introduced by our colleagues, Mr. Heck of Washington and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 2167 provides authority to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make administrative and policy changes to the FHA's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program through a mortgagee letter rather than the arduous 18-month regulatory process. The bill sets conditions that FHA can only use this new authority when immediate changes are necessary to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the program. And, Madam Speaker, immediate changes that improve the fiscal safety and soundness of this program are exactly what is needed.

In our efforts in this Congress and on the Financial Services Committee to help create a sustainable and competitive housing finance system for Americans, our committee and its Housing and Insurance Subcommittee have held a series of hearings this year on the financial problems at the FHA.

In its current form, FHA is most definitely an impediment to a sustainable and competitive housing finance system. Because of this, the Financial Services Committee has been working to examine needed reforms to FHA, reforms that go beyond its fiscal solvency and address serious structural flaws at the FHA.

There is one thing that we know for certain about FHA: the FHA is not just broke; regrettably, it is bailout broke. This is not just my conclusion; it is the conclusion of the annual independent actuarial study of the FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund--the government fund that insures the FHA's single-family mortgages. This actuarial study shows us ``the economic value of the fund as of FY 2012 is negative $13.48 billion.''

The same actuarial report states that the economic value of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage portion of the fund--which H.R. 2167 addresses--is ``negative $2.8 billion.'' Again, bailout broke.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 2167, which has strong bipartisan support, is a first and modest step in stemming substantial losses from FHA. It provides the tools needed to allow the agency to immediately address serious and significant flaws with its Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program that threaten hardworking taxpayers with being forced to fund yet another Washington bailout.

That's why, Madam Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 2167 today. The Secretary of HUD has testified that HUD needs this authority from Congress to make immediate changes. As I said, without H.R. 2167, it could take up to 18 months for these vital, needed changes to be made, during which the FHA would continue to lose money.

I thank the bipartisan supporters and authors of this bill for their leadership and for their support in order to help protect taxpayers and improve and reform the FHA program.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the vice chair of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and the lead cosponsor of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I'm ready to close. I just simply want to thank my two colleagues for their bipartisan leadership on this bill, something that is going to be very important to sustainable housing, the fiscal sanity of the FHA, and for a number of our consumers as well. I urge the House to adopt the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 634) to provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 634, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013, is bipartisan legislation. It will help provide America's job creators with greater certainty so that they can invest more in our still-struggling economy and help create desperately needed jobs for the millions who remain either unemployed or underemployed.

Again, when our so-called recovery has produced 4 million fewer jobs than the average recovery of the last 70 years, clearly nothing is more important than finding solutions that will help grow our economy and create more and better jobs for those who need them.

Americans want and deserve a healthier economy and a more secure

future. But, regrettably, all too often Washington, either inadvertently or on purpose, creates piles and piles, mountains upon mountains of unnecessary red tape for our entrepreneurs or small business people and our job creators.

Quite often, Madam Speaker, this institution makes the goal of economic growth and job creation more difficult. But the bipartisan bill before us today is helpful. It is needed to help protect manufacturers, ranchers, thousands of Main Street businesses across the Nation from unnecessary red tape that would divert their resources and time away from the activities to make their businesses successful and thus create more jobs.

One manufacturer told the Financial Services Committee earlier this year, a Mr. Thomas Deas, who works for a chemical manufacturing company in Pennsylvania, he testified before our committee that without H.R. 634, manufacturers and other end-users of derivatives, which this legislation deals with, would be forced to comply with unnecessary regulation that he said ``means less funding is available to grow their businesses and expand employment.''

Now, improving the Dodd-Frank Act, regardless of its relative merit, it did at least make clear that Congress intended that manufacturers, ranchers, and, again, Main Street businesses that this bill is intended to address, that they would not be subject to certain regulations regarding margin requirements for end-users of derivatives.

Still, despite Congress' clear intent on the subject, such requirements have been proposed by Washington regulators. And so this resulting legislation would contain provisions that would modify and provide greater clarity to the Dodd-Frank Act regarding the intentions of Congress in dealing with the end-user exemption.

We have heard from Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, who stated before the Senate Banking Committee earlier this year that because the Dodd-Frank Act is ``a very big, complicated piece of legislation'' that regulators like the Federal Reserve needed ``clarity'' from Congress on what ``to do about end-users.''

So H.R. 634 provides that clarity by stating clearly that end-users of derivatives shall be exempt from the onerous margin requirements imposed by Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.

As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, this is a bill with very strong bipartisan support. The Financial Services Committee reported this bill out of committee on a recorded vote of 59-0. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: the Financial Services Committee reported this bill out of committee on a recorded vote of 59-0.

Likewise, the Agriculture Committee approved this bill on a voice vote, meaning it has received no opposition in either committee.

And, Madam Speaker, I should note that this substantially similar legislation was overwhelmingly passed by the House last year with 370 bipartisan votes.

In closing, I want to thank our colleague, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, for advancing this bipartisan bill on which our committees share jurisdiction. And I also want to thank the bipartisan supporters of this bill, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters), who are outstanding leaders in our committee, as well as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), leaders on the Agriculture Committee.

H.R. 634 is sound policy, and it is necessary to ensure that regulators do not further hurt our economy by forcing manufacturers, ranchers, and Main Street businesses to needlessly divert resources away from creating more and better jobs for an American public that is more than ready for them.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House to approve this needed bipartisan legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), an outstanding member of the Financial Services Committee and the coauthor and lead Republican on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), another leader on

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), who is the lead cosponsor of this bill from the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), also a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to urge all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation to bring some relief to end users, promote economic growth and jobs, and make congressional intent clear.

Again, I urge all of my colleagues to adopt it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 256, I call up the bill (H.R. 1256) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to jointly adopt rules setting forth the application to cross-border swaps transactions of certain provisions relating to swaps that were enacted as

part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material for the Record on H.R. 1256, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House this afternoon, H.R. 1256, the

Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, is a bipartisanship response to what many view to be, frankly, regulatory red tape overreach and the adverse consequences that it can have on the millions of our fellow countrymen who are either unemployed or underemployed--the impact that it could have on the competitiveness of our U.S. employers and job creators.

Mr. Speaker, I need not tell anyone in this body that we regrettably continue to be in the middle of a nonrecovery recovery. If it weren't for the fact that so many people have actually left the job force--the working participation rate--our unemployment rate would be even higher. Many have just given up.

We know that for many, even though America has, in the past, produced 3\1/2\ percent economic growth and is probably capable of 4 or 5 percent economic growth with the right economic policies, regrettably, we find ourselves mired in 1\1/2\ to 2 percent GDP growth, which means, Mr. Speaker, a lot of American dreams go unfulfilled and a lot of our constituents lay awake at night wondering how are they going to pay the bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, jobs continue to be job number one, I believe, of the United States House of Representatives. But, regrettably, those who create jobs, those who employ our constituents, are drowning in a sea of red tape. There's been an over 50 percent increase in regulations under the Obama administration. We know that it is directly correlated to the lackluster economic growth that we see in the Nation today.

I still vividly remember that one small business person in east Texas came up to me--he had a small cabinetry shop. Even though it was still profitable, he shut it down. He shut it down because of the red tape burden that crushed him and the jobs of 17 people who worked in east Texas. And he said, Congressman, it got to the point I just thought my Federal Government didn't want me to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, we always have to be vigilant in ensuring that the red tape burden doesn't strangle the jobs and hopes and aspirations of the American people. So that brings us to H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act.

Now, many of you who may be tuning in to this debate may not be quite familiar with the world of derivatives, but it's a way that many farmers, ranchers, manufacturers hedge risk in order to become successful companies and employ people and sell their goods and services at competitive prices. An outfit like John Deere will use a derivative. They may do an interest rate swap as they finance a tractor for some farmer in rural east Texas that I may represent. That derivative is directly linked to the cost and the availability of that tractor.

What we are trying to do with H.R. 1256 is make sure that those who are trying to access derivatives, to hedge risk, to create and sustain jobs, don't automatically overnight have huge swaps of the global market pulled out from under them because, if they do, all of a sudden it could be that somebody can't finance that tractor anymore.

Companies like Southwest Airlines that operate in my hometown of Dallas, Texas, they hedge their fuel cost; and if they can't access global markets, who knows about the success of their hedges. Then, all of a sudden, the price of a trip for grandparents to fly in from Kansas City to see their grandkids in Dallas, Texas, just became more prohibitive, it just became more expensive.

An outfit like Coors, they'll hedge their aluminum cost through swaps, maybe their wheat costs through swaps. And I don't know about other Members, but I represent a lot of hardworking people in the Fifth District of Texas; and let me tell you, sometimes on a hot August afternoon after working, putting in 40 hours at the Pepsi bottling plant or maybe putting it in at some of the other factories that we may have in Mesquite, somebody might just want to go to the 7-Eleven and buy a six-pack. In America that ought to be their right. And the inability--the inability--to access global markets for swaps ultimately can actually inflate that cost. That's not something I care to deny to hardworking Americans who want that.

This is a very simple and bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, this passed. We had a hearing in the Financial Services Committee and we had a markup in the Financial Services Committee. It passed with 100 percent of the Republican vote. It passed with almost two-thirds of the Democratic vote. You would think that we might be under the suspension calendar for this one, but in order to respect the wishes of the ranking member, we are having a more prolonged debate in addition to the one that we've already had in the committee.

But, Mr. Speaker, ultimately, this bill will do two things. It will tell the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, You need to issue one joint rule when it comes really to American end users being able to access global markets, not one suggestion and one rule, two different rules--one rule. One rule. Let's take down a little complexity here.

Mr. Speaker, after Dodd-Frank, we're about to celebrate its 3rd anniversary next month. After 3 years of deliberating, maybe it's time to actually come out with a rule and create a little certainty for the people at Coors and at Southwest Airlines and at all the other employers and John Deere. Maybe it's time to create a little certainty. So the bill says, Okay, let's get this done in 9 months. You've had almost 3 years. It's time to get it done.

And last but not least, in order not to pull the rug out from under these people on day one, it says, Do you know what? The nine largest markets, we are going to have a presumption that their regimes are broadly equivalent to the U.S. and not immediately deny access.

Now, at any given time, if the CFTC and SEC come to the conclusion that these regimes are not broadly equivalent, that somehow they present risk to our economy, with the stroke of a pen they can change that presumption. But not on day one, not on day one, Mr. Speaker.

So, for the sake of economic growth, for the sake of jobs, to provide some certainty in a struggling economy, I would urge all--all--of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation that was voice voted in the Ag Committee, voice voted, and had unanimous--unanimous--consent of all Republicans and almost two-thirds of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee, urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1256.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to the gentlelady that she had the opportunity to offer her amendment in committee, and her amendment was defeated. Second of all, as she raises the specter of bailout, she has also said before that Dodd-Frank ended bailouts, so I don't know which it is. I would also say nothing in the bill changes the rulemaking authority of the CFTC or the SEC, and it delays nothing, but it was just 6 months ago that the ranking member sent a letter to the chairman of the CFTC:

I request that you provide for phased-in compliance and

appropriate short-term relief from relevant title VII

provisions.

So she, herself, was asking for a delay.

I now yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, the author of this legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I yield the gentleman an additional 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker, to say, one, if this is a disgrace, you need to inform almost two-thirds of your Members who voted for it in committee. Second of all, nothing in this amends Dodd-Frank. Third of all, you all tell us Dodd-Frank ended ``too big to fail,'' so the specter of bailout I simply do not understand. You need to make up your mind.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

If I misquoted the gentlelady, I apologize, but I thought I had seen earlier quotes where the gentlelady posited that Dodd-Frank ended ``too big to fail.'' If I was incorrect, I apologize to the gentlelady, but I thought you had said that on more than one occasion.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have?

Mr. Speaker, in order to close for the bipartisan majority, I will yield the remainder of our time to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Mr. Bob McDonald from Athens, Texas. Mr. McDonald is to be commended for his work to support and maintain the historic Athens Cemetery in Henderson County, Texas.

A retired engineer, Mr. McDonald began his work at the cemetery at a time when it was badly in need of refurbishment. He designed and oversaw the installation of a new sprinkler system, a new brick entry and wrought-iron fencing, a columbarium, and numerous other improvements. For more than fifteen years, he has played a vital role in the cemetery's operation, serving as treasurer, public liaison, and overseer of the grounds.

Mr. McDonald also spearheaded efforts to research and classify the cemetery's interments so that visitors could easily find the graves they sought. He also created a roster of veterans buried at the cemetery that dates back to 1850, which is sorted according to the conflict in which the veterans served.

Mr. McDonald also volunteers his time at the East Texas Arboretum, and is a former member of the Trinity Valley Community College Board of Trustees. He was honored as the Athens Citizen of the Year in 1999.

I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the entire 5th Congressional District of Texas, to thank Mr. Bob McDonald for his dedicated philanthropy to the citizens of Henderson County, Texas.

Mr. Speaker, today I thank Chelsea Brown for her years of service to me, my constituents, the House Republican Conference, the House Committee on Financial Services, and the United States Congress.

Chelsea is one of the most dedicated and loyal people I've had the honor of having on my staff since I was elected to Congress. Few, if any, individuals devoted more hours of their life to my legislative career and to the service of my constituents.

Chelsea joined my staff as a scheduler and office manager in January of 2007. As my colleagues appreciate, the job of a congressional scheduler is one of the most challenging assignments on the Hill. Throughout the years, Chelsea's proactive nature and attention to detail allowed me to maximize both my effectiveness as a legislator and my ability to spend more time with my family.

My children, Claire and Travis, can attest to the asset that Chelsea was to my team. She went out of her way to make my family feel welcome when they visited my office in Washington each summer, and I have no doubt that Claire and Travis will fondly remember how ``Miss Chelsea'' made visiting their dad's office such an enjoyable experience.

Because of her excellent work in my personal office, I asked Chelsea to join my staff at the House Republican Conference when I served as Chairman, and asked her to come along again when I became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Regardless of the task at hand, Chelsea could always be trusted to get the job done, no matter what. Her strong character, discretion, and work ethic have made her an asset to me over the last six years. I can assure you that she will be sorely missed.

Chelsea, thank you for your service and dedication to the cause of individual liberty, and thank you for being such an invaluable member of my team. I wish you the best of luck in your future personal and professional endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, due to a family issue that required my attention, I missed several votes on May 20, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 161, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 162, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 163.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material for the record on H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the adoption of H.R. 1062. This is a bill that technically is about something called cost-benefit analysis. I know to some that sounds a little bit like Ph.D. economics, but, Mr. Chairman, what it's really about is kitchen-table economics.

When I go home to the Fifth District of Texas, what I hear from my constituents is that they're insecure in their jobs--those who are lucky enough to have them.

We know that millions of our fellow citizens are unemployed, are underemployed; and those who are fortunate enough to have jobs wonder will they have them tomorrow.

We know again that we are in the Great Recession, the ``non- recovery'' recovery. So the impact of the regulations that are promulgated in Washington, D.C. has a huge impact on kitchen-table economics, on whether or not our constituents are going to be able to put gas in the car to take their children to school, whether or not they're going to be able to help an elderly parent with their medical bills, how they're going to put groceries on the table.

It is incumbent upon us, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that the rulemaking authority--that this body helps grant the executive branch-- at least has to take into account how their rulemaking impacts hardworking American citizens and those who wish to work hard.

So this is a very, very simple bill, Mr. Chairman. It simply says that the Securities and Exchange Commission has to adopt cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the advertised benefits of one of their rules is actually measured against the actual cost of what they're doing. This is vitally important.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, this body had a vote yesterday to repeal the Affordable Care Act--or dare I say the Not So Affordable Care Act. And I'm curious, what would have happened had Congress had the benefit of the cost of this bill prior to that vote? What would have happened had we known that the Congressional Budget Office said that we will have 800,000--almost 1 million--fewer jobs because of ObamaCare?

You know, when we took that vote, Mr. Chairman, all we had were the advertised benefits. But how come we didn't have the Congressional Budget Office report of the cost? That's just one example. Almost 1 million fewer jobs because nobody bothered to conduct cost-benefit analysis. It wasn't required at the time.

Now the President claims that we ought to have this. He issued an executive order--No. 13563--saying government agencies ought to do it, but then his administration issues a veto threat on this bill. I find that kind of interesting. So the President says he wants to do it; he's just not actually going to do it.

The SEC mission, among other things, is to ensure that we help form capital. You cannot have the benefits of capitalism and the free enterprise system without capital, capital formation. So it's necessary to ensure that we look at the cost of what we're doing.

Apparently, the SEC historically--again, notwithstanding that they claim they're going to do it. Most recently, we've had a unanimous decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals--unanimous decision--in the proxy access case that the SEC failed--and failed miserably--at ensuring cost-benefit analysis, also known as kitchen-table economics. How are the costs of their rulemaking going to impact hardworking Americans?

It's time to remedy this, Mr. Chairman. Our constituents demand it.

Again, I urge the adoption of H.R. 1062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, just to say that, number one, in listening to my colleague, the ranking member, I'm just curious about this concern about litigation burdens. We certainly didn't see it, as she and many of her colleagues back the proxy access rule, and how many have refused to support medical liability reform. So I don't understand why the litigation burden concern is not there.

In addition, I notice that the SEC has sought comment in the past on rulemaking to ensure that there is a retrospective look-back because markets change.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs of the Financial Services Committee, the author of the legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say to my friend from New York that if this regime is so effective, why was there a unanimous decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to say it was ineffective, and if it is already on the books then the worst thing that we have done is that we are being repetitive. I don't think that's such a great sin.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, the vice chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, Mr. Hurt.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Frog Jump, Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to myself.

I would like to do a little factual cleanup here, Mr. Chairman, on some things that my Democratic colleagues have said.

I believe I understood my friend, the gentlelady from Wisconsin, to say nowhere in this bill is the word ``benefits.'' First, I would say, number one, it is a 10-page bill, not a 2,000-page bill. And on the very first page, line 11, you read the word ``benefits.'' If you turn to page 2--not page 2,000--page 2, line 3: ``Utilize the Chief Economist to assess the cost and benefits.'' So let me correct that for the record.

Second of all, we had discussion about the failure of regulation and how this bill might lead to another Great Recession or financial crisis. I would point out to my friends that it was the failure to understand the cost of Fannie and Freddie, the failure to understand the cost of the affordable housing goals that put millions of our fellow citizens into homes that they could not afford to keep.

So maybe, just maybe, had this body and the other body realized the full cost of their folly and how it could not only bring this economy to its knees, that it could cause our fellow citizens to risk their meager lifesavings on homes they couldn't afford to keep, maybe had a cost-benefit analysis been in place at that time, we wouldn't have the suffering that we have today.

I would say to my friend from Connecticut, he is clearly talking to different economists and different job creators than I have because what I understand from them is that, frankly, we have trillions of dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines because of Dodd-Frank, because we have rulemaking that falls into two categories: those that create uncertainty and those that create certain harm.

Last, but not least, I actually have the numbers from CBO on the budget of the SEC. And I think if you examine them carefully, Mr. Chairman, you will discover that in a little over 10 years, this is an agency whose budget has increased 300 percent.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now proudly yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Georgia when he talks about the incredible burden of a retrospective look back, I would quote:

Because considerations of efficiency and competition in

capital formation evolve over time, a retrospective analysis

of the Commission's rules and regulations is fully within the

Commission's statutory mandate.

That comes from the ABA.

I would also quote this as well:

The safety of workers' retirement savings that are invested

in the capital markets depend in large part on the

Commission's rules and regulations for the protection of the

investors. To be effective, securities regulations must be

continuously updated to address the emergence of new

loopholes, abuses, and market failures.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I'm under the impression I have the right to close, so the gentlelady has reserved. I will reserve until she is ready to close.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, although I will alert my colleagues I do not intend to take it all.

Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat interesting the great amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth that we have heard on this House floor for a very simple bill that weighs in at, frankly, less than 10 pages that simply requires a government agency to decide is there going to be a cost to our economy, is there going to be a loss of jobs as they pass a rule. It doesn't overturn their rules. It just says, before you make a rule, you've really got to think about kitchen-table economics. You've got to take a look at and understand how will this ultimately impact hardworking Americans who are struggling to pay their health care bills, struggling to put gas in the tank and who have economic insecurity due to this economy.

So I've heard a lot of furor here. I must admit I'm particularly entertained by those who care to lecture me on what it means to be a conservative. Maybe I'm not the world's expert, but there was a time in my career my fellow colleagues elected me the chairman of the Conservative Caucus of the House, known as the Republican Study Committee. And, Mr. Chairman, I have a certificate in my office that I proudly display from the Americans for Democratic Action where they say Congressman Hensarling receives a zero percent liberal rating.

So I will certainly agree with my friends that, apparently, I don't know much about liberalism, but I do think I do know a few things about conservatism. So I'll come up with an informal agreement. We'll let you be the experts on what it means to be a liberal--and you're very good at it, to the best of my knowledge--and I will retain the expertise on how one votes conservative.

The next thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is how fascinating it is to have so many of my colleagues say that this bill, on the one hand, is unnecessary, but, on the other hand, it's burdensome; on the one hand, it's redundant, but, on the other hand, it will stop the SEC in its tracks. Mr. Chairman, I just don't think you can quite have it both ways.

I notice when some can't argue the merits of a question, they tend to come up to question one's motivation, and we've got the usual Wall Street bogeymen to come in here. But what I want to know about is why, why would we not want to know, as some have estimated, that the Volcker rule promulgated by the SEC potentially could cost 1.1 million jobs in our Nation? And yet my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say, Shh, no, no, no, no, no. We don't want this information. We don't want it out. Just like we didn't want out the information that ObamaCare could cost us 1 million jobs.

And we see it every day. We get the headlines: people can't afford their health care, their premiums have gone up; people are getting laid off; people who had full-time jobs are going to part-time; and people who would have hired more people don't want to cross that 50-person threshold. And that's just ObamaCare. But, no, shh, we don't want--we don't want to know how this is going to impact hardworking Americans who have economic insecurity, millions who do not have jobs.

I am somewhat perplexed, Mr. Chairman, how such a simple bill that says all you've got to do is look at the cost--we're not imposing our numbers on them. We're just saying you've got to look at the cost of what you do. It's what families do; it is what job creators do; and, frankly, it's what the administration claimed they wanted to do, and it's what the SEC claimed they wanted to do.

How many of my Democratic colleagues with their words say ``yes'' but very soon with their voting card are going to say ``no''? No, we shouldn't know the cost of rulemaking. No, we just want to know what bureaucrats say the benefits are. But, you know, if people lose their jobs, well, que sera, sera. We just aren't going to--we don't want to know that ahead of time. Maybe we'll learn about it afterwards. Maybe we'll try to clean up the pieces, the shattered lives of people who lost their jobs.

Mr. Chairman, this is a false dichotomy set up by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The question is not between regulation and deregulation. The question is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. And smart regulation requires the rule makers to understand the cost of their rules to the average, hardworking American family. That's smart regulation. Dumb regulation is burying your head in the sand and saying, no, we don't want to know.

If we're so concerned about the burden on the SEC, if we're so concerned about the litigation burden, and if we're so concerned about the work burden and the rule burden, where's this same concern for the job creators of America? Where is that concern? You cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator, which is what so many of the different titles of Dodd-Frank do.

So at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is as simple and as common sense as it could be. If you're going to pass a rule and you're going to tell us about the benefits, you've got to let us know what the costs are to the economy and to hardworking American families. It's common sense. We should adopt it. We should adopt it today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to recognize Master Chief Petty Officer Garrett O. Smith for his service to our country. Master Chief Petty Officer Smith served in the United States Navy from 1942 to 1969.

Master Chief Smith was assigned to the U.S.S. Sperry (AS-12), a submarine tender, in September of 1942. Later, in March of 1947, Officer Smith graduated from the Electrician ``B'' School in Washington, DC, and transferred to Goat Island, California. In May of 1954, Master Chief Smith was reassigned to the Naval Inspectors Office at Quincy, Massachusetts. Officer Smith's last assignment began in January of 1968 aboard the U.S.S. Observation Island (E-AG-154) Polaris/Poseidon test and development ship. On December 1, 1969, Master Chief Smith retired from the United States Navy.

Humbly, I echo the words of President Ronald Reagan, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free.'' And humbly, I offer my sincere gratitude to Officer Smith for his service and acts of bravery that allow us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to recognize Corporal Terry Edward Massey. Corporal Massey served in the United States Marine Corps from 1943 to 1946.

A few months after his 18th birthday, he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on November 4, 1943. Corporal Massey served in the 26th Marine Regiment, 5th Marine Division during the Battle of Iwo Jima. After landing at Iwo Jima, Corporal Massey helped a wounded fellow Marine take cover in a shell hole. Near the end of the battle, Corporal Massey said, ``Surviving Iwo Jima without getting injured was like walking through rain without getting wet.''

During his years of service, Corporal Massey received a Presidential Unit Citation, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with Star, World War II Victory Medal, Navy Occupation Service Medal (Japan), China Liberation Ribbon, and Marine Corps Sharpshooter Badge. He was discharged on May 10, 1946. Now at age 87, Fmr. Corporal Massey still remembers

his M1 Rifle number: 1434919 and serial number: 919497. He remains a true patriot whose fervent prayer is that his grandchildren and great- grandchildren will be able to grow up and live in the America he has always known and fought to protect.

Humbly, I echo the words of President Ronald Reagan, ``We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we will always be free.'' And humbly, I offer my sincere gratitude to Corporal Massey for his service and acts of bravery that allow us the freedoms we enjoy today.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Van Zandt County, Texas on their 165th anniversary.

Van Zandt County was first established by the Texas legislature on March 20, 1848, when it was taken from part of Henderson County. Sabine Lake (Jordan's Saline) was the first county seat. There court was first held in a log-built courthouse during December of 1848. The county seat was later moved to Canton after Wood County was carved out of Van Zandt County in 1850. The county's namesake is Republic of Texas leader Isaac Van Zandt.

The area provides numerous opportunities for enjoying the outdoors and great East Texas food. Local attractions include Lake Tawakoni, the famous First Monday Trade Days in Canton, Salt Festival and Rodeo held in Grand Saline, Van Oil Festival, Edom Festival of the Arts, Ben Wheeler Fall Feral Hog Festival, Wills Point Bluebird Festival, Edgewood Heritage Festival, and countless other events and activities throughout the year that attract visitors from across the state and country.

It is my privilege and honor to represent the citizens of Van Zandt County in the United States House of Representatives.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding, Mr. Speaker.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who has been, perhaps, the most cogent defender of the Constitution on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and who has provided his leadership today to ensure that we do not have default on sovereign debt but that we put this Nation on a path to fiscal sanity, and I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the folks in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, whom I'm proud to represent, have a lot of insecurity about their personal economy, and they have great fear that their children will not enjoy a brighter future.

I heard my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, say that everyone gets paid. Well, maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe that is one of the reasons under President Obama's leadership there has been more debt created in the last 4 years than in our Nation's first 200. We are awash in debt. We know that we have a debt, not because we have insufficient taxes, but because we spend too much. Math is a pesky thing.

In the last 10 years, the Department of Ag: up 114 percent; HUD: up 61 percent; HHS: up 79 percent. Our total government spending has increased 70 percent; and measured by median family income, the family budget, which has to pay for the Federal budget, it is down 6 percent.

Now, some have said, You know, revenues are a problem. Well, revenues are up 52 percent, but you can't raise taxes enough to chase the spending that the Democrats and the President want to foist upon the American people. They have put us on a path to national bankruptcy. At some point, we've got to quit spending money we don't have. Again, we are on the precipice of a debt crisis, and we have it because of too much spending.

To some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, their answer to the debt ceiling is to get rid of it. Some have introduced legislation just to get rid of the debt ceiling.

That's kind of like, Mr. Speaker, a fire breaks out in your home and your response is to unplug the smoke detector because of that nuisance noise in the background that maybe your house is on fire. I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle, Greece didn't have a debt ceiling vote, and yet we have Democrats who say, No, let's just get rid of it.

But for those who believe that we're not going to get rid of it, we have other friends from across the aisle who essentially want to use it as a hostage for

something that is not a debt. A debt is when you go out and you borrow money and you must pay it back. Every family understands this. It's one thing for an American family to borrow money to pay their mortgage versus borrowing money so that they can pay for a Las Vegas vacation that they would like to take. They are not equivalent.

Mr. Speaker, paying sovereign debt is not the same thing as borrowing money so that this institution and this town can continue to spend money for pottery classes in Morocco, to pay for the travel expenses of the Alabama Watermelon Queen, to pay for robotic squirrels and all the rest of the lunacy that this Federal Government spends and in the end takes bread off the table of hardworking American families.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the President has this power, but he says, No, I don't have this power. So I find it ironic that we're willing to codify what we already believe to be the law of the land, and the President says, No, I want to veto that. Again, he wants to use this as a hostage.

This is a very simple bill introduced by the gentleman from California to require our Treasury to make good on all of our debt payments. That's it. We must stop borrowing money to squander our children's future. This bill will help us do this.

But the Democrats, they don't want to take this specter of default off the table. It's the only way they can continue spending. They say they do. If they do, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing their name up on the big board soon.

This is the right thing and the smart thing to do, and I urge that the House, adopt this rule and adopt the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the 165th Anniversary of the Four Mile Lutheran Church of Mabank, Texas.

On May 5, 2013, Four Mile Lutheran Church will celebrate 165 years of Lutheranism. Four Mile Lutheran Church is the oldest Norwegian church in Texas, having held continual services from 1848-2013. For 165 years, evangelism, missionary service, youth development, Sunday school, Bible study, fellowship, and worship have been celebrated by the congregation.

As Thomas Jefferson said, ``It is in our lives and not our words that our religion must be read.'' It is an honor to represent the parishioners of Four Mile Lutheran Church whose lives exude service and faith.