Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to recognize Ed DeLoach, a veteran of the Korean War, for his exceptional service to our country. Beginning his service with the U.S. Navy on April 3, 1951, Mr. DeLoach trained as an Electronic Technician and served aboard two aircraft carriers, the USS Kearsarge and the USS Hancock.

While aboard the USS Kearsarge, he was deployed on two combat tours in the Korean War zone in support of air operations over the Korean peninsula. As a member of the crew, he received the National Defense Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the China Service Medal, and the Korean Service Medal with two stars. Subsequently, Mr. DeLoach was transferred to the USS Hancock and supported operations testing an advanced system for launching carrier-based aircraft until he was honorably discharged on March 24, 1955.

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 Mr. Ed DeLoach for his service and acts of bravery that allow us the freedoms we enjoy today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I really want to thank the vice chairman of our Budget Committee for his leadership in trying to continually protect the working family budget from the onslaught of the Federal budget.

I am a little bit in disbelief, Mr. Chairman, from what I hear on the floor. Rarely has there been a more commonsense bill that has come to this floor. It simply says two things. As we make important legislative decisions in this body, we should have more information instead of less, and we should think longer term as opposed to shorter term. Yet it is opposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

I am somewhat incredulous. I would say, if my Democratic colleagues don't want the information, maybe they don't have to pay attention to the information. I have heard, Well, not all of the information I want is going to come from this particular piece of legislation. I would encourage the distinguished gentleman from Maryland to encourage his staff to provide him then with the information that he wants.

What is really important here, Mr. Chairman, is that we understand in an economy in which millions of our fellow countrymen are unemployed or are underemployed how major pieces of legislation will impact the economy and their hopes, their dreams, their aspirations as they lay awake at night, wondering how they are going to make ends meet. I just wonder if one of the reasons that our Democratic colleagues are opposing this bill is that they know the Congressional Budget Office has now told us that ObamaCare is going to cost this economy 2.5 million jobs that otherwise we would have had.

What if we had that information before the bill instead of after the bill? Maybe the crown jewel would not have appeared.

So maybe they don't want the American people or Members of Congress to have that information, but the American people deserve this information, and we demand it on their behalf.

We need to support this commonsense bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the outstanding achievement of the Trinity Valley Community College Lady Cardinals as the 2014 National Junior College Athletics Association (NJCAA) Division I Women's Basketball Champions. This marks the 3rd consecutive NJCAA Championship for the Lady Cardinals, a new NJCAA Division 1 record.

In a 65 to 46 victory, the Lady Cardinals closed out their season with a 35-1 record. The success enjoyed by the team is truly remarkable and a testament to the hard work and dedication of its players as well as Head Coach Elena Lovato, Assistant Coaches Gerald Ewing and Spencer Robertson, and Team Manager Scott Pellegrin. Trinity Valley Community College President Dr. Glendon Forgey, faculty, staff, and students are also to be commended for TVCC's success both on the court and in the classroom.

In addition to the record breaking team performance of the Lady Cardinals this season, I also want to recognize Adut Bulgak for being named the tournament's Most Valuable Player, and Coach Lovato being named ``Coach of the Tournament.''

Trinity Valley Community College Lady Cardinals include: Adut Bulgak, Roddricka Patton, Shlonte' Allen, Jazmine Spears, Julianne Anchling, Kuaneshia Baker, Deborah Meeks, Sylvia Smith-Gatson, Leashja Grant, Kyhonta Doughty, Autummn Williams, and Dominique Brooks.

On behalf of the citizens of Athens and the Fifth District of Texas, I am honored to be able to recognize the Lady Cardinals in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is, tragically, going broke. Our national debt, which has skyrocketed under this President, is clearly, by any measure, on a dangerous and unsustainable path, a path that, if unaltered, will leave our children with less freedom, fewer opportunities, and a lower standard of living. That is beyond unfair. That is immoral.

One reason America is going broke is because of poorly designed and costly government-run insurance programs. The National Flood Insurance Program is one such program.

Its chief administrator has already testified that ``the NFIP was, by statute and design, not actuarially sound.'' In fact, the program charges only 70 percent of what its administrators believe they actually need. Perhaps that is why the program is currently $24 billion in the red to taxpayers and has no way to ever repay them.

The NFIP is not financially sound because pretty much every policyholder receives taxpayer subsidies. Some get explicit subsidies because the law prohibits the program from charging a full and fair rate based upon their calculated actuarial risk.

Others receive implicit subsidies because, according to the GAO, the program uses a faulty model that under-measures flood risk.

At the end of the day, the program forces roughly 96 percent of all Americans to subsidize the remaining 4 percent, regardless of income or need. That means a single mom in Dallas, where I live, who is working hard as a cashier at the Albertsons grocery store may be forced to subsidize the flood insurance for some millionaire's beachfront vacation home. If that is not the definition of unfair, I don't know what is.

To its credit, in 2012, Congress recognized that the government-run flood insurance program was fundamentally broken and unfair. We passed, almost unanimously, the Biggert-Waters Act. It phases out most of the explicit subsidies over the next few years and requires rates to be more closely based on a property's actuarial degree of flood risk.

Now, the first premiums under Biggert-Waters are starting to come due. There is sticker shock, some based on fact, some based on fear.

Clearly, there are many, many, across our Nation who have been unaware of their taxpayer-funded subsidies. There are some who simply can't afford the new premiums, and others who are now having trouble attempting to sell their homes.

This should be addressed by Congress, and that is why, over the last 8 weeks, Chairman Neugebauer and myself have put four different plans on the tables for Members who approached us about making modifications to the Biggert-Waters Act.

We agreed to go slower on reforms and to temporarily cap payments as long as the program would eventually require all property owners to pay the fair amount that they owe and, overall, the program would begin to bring in more income so taxpayers could avoid yet another bailout.

Regrettably, that is not the approach we are debating today. The House bill before us, although technically PAYGO compliant, would postpone actuarially sound rates for perhaps a generation. It would kill off a key element of risk-based pricing permanently, which is necessary if we are to ever transition to market competition.

Finally, it creates brand new subsidies for a program that is already bailout broke.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill isn't any better. It essentially represents a 4-year freeze that is not PAYGO compliant. My fear is that either bill represents a big step backwards from reform and leaves us just a few hurricanes or a few short years away from the next taxpayer bailout.

Either bill will make it incredibly difficult to do what Congress must do, and that is phase out this unneeded, government-run insurance program that fundamentally represents both an unfair and unsustainable middle-income entitlement.

I respect my colleagues who have a different view. I respect my leadership for bringing a bill that may not be optimum to the floor.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we don't protect taxpayers today, how will we ever reform the gargantuan middle-income entitlements that put us on the precipice of a debt crisis?

I, for one, will vote ``no'' on this well-intended but misguided bill.

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 on H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are now into the sixth year of the Obama administration, and probably the two most common comments I hear from my constituents are ``I just can't make ends meet in this economy'' and ``Washington has become arrogant, unaccountable, and out of touch.'' At the apex of these sentiments, lies the newly minted Dodd-Frank government agency known as the CFPB. Although many have yet to hear of it, the CFPB is perhaps the single most powerful and least accountable Federal agency in all of Washington.

First, let's speak of its power. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to our credit cards, our auto loans, our mortgages, the CFPB has unbridled discretionary power not only to make them less available and more expensive, but to absolutely take them away.

What does an agency with this kind of power do? It imposes rule like the qualified mortgage rule, or QM for short. Mr. Chairman, what does QM do? According to Federal Reserve data, because of QM, roughly one- third of Black and Hispanic borrowers would not meet the requirements of a QM loan.

CoreLogic, which analyzes mortgage data, has said:

Only half of today's mortgage originations meet QM

requirements.

That is egregiously unfair to hardworking Americans.

One of my small town community bankers in east Texas told me recently:

Because of QM, I can't tell you the number of times we have

had to tell our good low-to-moderate income customers that we

can no longer loan them money to purchase a home to live in.

Mr. Chairman, this is what an agency with too much discretionary power does. It can actually abuse consumers, taking away their homeownership opportunities. That is unfair.

Let's look at what happens to an agency that is not held accountable. Today, the CFPB is spending $145 million to renovate a $150 million headquarters building they don't even own. The renovation rate is three times the average Washington, D.C., luxury class A renovation rate. Well, what does $145 million buy?

Well, it is $461 per square foot in office renovations. Mr. Chairman, that is more per square foot than was spent to build the Trump World Tower. More than the Trump World Tower. At $461 per square foot, that was more money than it cost to build the Bellagio hotel and casino in Las Vegas, which at the time, I am told, was the most expensive hotel ever built. Mr. Chairman, this is more money to renovate a building they don't own than Dubai's Burj Khalifa, the single tallest skyscraper in the world. Ironically enough, the architectural firm which designed the Burj Khalifa in Dubai is the same world renowned architectural firm that the CFPB paid over $7 million to design their headquarter renovations.

Now, according to public documents, Mr. Chairman, some of the Bureau's renovations include ``a reflective carnelian granite water table'' that will ``lure in the curious passerby.'' Also for $145 million of hard-earned taxpayer money, the Bureau is buying ``a shady tree bosque'' to facilitate ``chance interactions in a removed place of rest and contemplation.'' I mean, I can't make this up, Mr. Chairman. This is how hard-earned money is being squandered. Here it is, the architectural drawings which have been filed publicly.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of people in my district in east Texas who live in mobile homes. They can't afford carnelian granite water tables that apparently the CFPB is going to enjoy that my constituents have to pay for, and the only shady tree bosque to be found in east Texas in the Fifth District are those where hardworking ranchers work their cattle.

Instead of rest and contemplation to be enjoyed by CFPB's employees, because of such blatant waste, my constituents, instead of rest and contemplation, lay awake at night wondering how they are going to pay the bills and make ends meet.

Mr. Chairman, this is what an unaccountable Federal Government agency does. It squanders the people's money because it is not their own and they are not accountable to the people's representatives.

So that is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman. We are here to pass H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act, whose primary author, Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin, has done excellent work, along with many other members of our committee. This is a package, Mr. Chairman, of commonsense reforms designed to make the CFPB more accountable and more transparent to the American people.

This bill replaces the Bureau's single, unaccountable director with a bipartisan board. It puts the Bureau's employees--whose compensation and benefits average $178,521, it puts them on the civil service pay scale. It introduces a safety and soundness check on its regulations and gives the American people greater control over the massive, massive quantities of personal financial data that the Bureau is collecting and maintaining on them at this time.

Mr. Chairman, we do need consumer protection, but consumers just don't need to be protected from Wall Street; they need to be protected from Washington as well. H.R. 3193 will protect them from the CFPB, and the House should pass it without delay today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the distinguished chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and a real leader in preserving consumer opportunity and rights.

Mr. Chairman, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished majority leader, who has been a tireless advocate for consumer choice and freedom throughout this debate on this unaccountable Bureau and who has led our Congress' effort to bring bills to the floor to stop government abuse.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), the chairman of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee, who is a key coauthor of this bill, ensuring that the CFPB is accountable through the congressional appropriations process, and who is a real champion of preserving housing opportunities from Washington bureaucrats.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds to encourage the gentleman from Washington to read section 1017 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and he would discover that the CFPB is funded by the Federal Reserve, which happens to be taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), the vice chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of our Capital Markets and GSE Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), the vice chairman of our Capital Markets and GSE Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire whether the gentlelady has any more speakers?

We have plenty of speakers here, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to lend the gentlelady a few if she needs some people to speak.

Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the CFPB is building a database containing full credit report data on 53 million borrowers who took out mortgages since 1998. The project manager said: ``It is easy to reverse-engineer and identify the people in our database.''

CFPB has a credit card database of at least 991 million credit cards and approximately 136 million Americans. The Bureau is collecting a database of credit reports on 8.6 million Americans. They continue to collect personalized data from Americans without their permission. It is unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Mr. Chairman, I am now especially pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is the vice chairman of our Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee and the chief author of the legislation of which we debate today.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

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

To protect consumers, you first need to make sure they have the power to consume; and under the Obama administration economic policies, tens of millions of our fellow citizens are either unemployed or underemployed. They don't have the income to consume. That is not consumer protection.

Part of the problem is the CFPB because true consumer protection, Mr. Chairman, empowers consumers in innovative, transparent, competitive markets; and it respects the intelligence and the dignity of the American citizen; and it preserves their economic liberty to choose the mortgages, the credit cards, and, yes, even the payday loans that they choose to consume.

But instead, Mr. Chairman, many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would love to take away ``In God we trust'' and put up there ``In government we trust.''

The American people are tired of unaccountable, arrogant Washington bureaucrats, the unaccountable, the unelected who are taking away their homeownership opportunities, taking away their credit cards, and insulting them by saying: I am from Washington. I am smarter than you. I am better than you. I know what is best.

It is time for us to pass the Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act; and I particularly thank Messrs. Duffy, Bachus, and Neugebauer for authoring this key piece of legislation. I urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I find this to be a most curious amendment from the gentlelady from Wisconsin, and we do enjoy her participation on the committee, but it is a curious amendment because if it is accepted, and I believe the House is going to pass it, then it says the House is on record as saying we are going to do something but we just didn't feel really good about it. In other words, her amendment does nothing to the underlying bill except a sentiment that says we shouldn't have passed it in the first place. So it is a curious, curious amendment, Mr. Chairman.

I personally, and I don't think the House, want to be on record as saying that the CFPB has given us the fairest, safest, and most robust capital markets in the world. I have no doubt there are many good men and women who work there. They have done some important work. But fair? Fair, Mr. Chairman? An agency in the name of consumer protection that would deny one-third of current Black and Hispanic homeowners the opportunity to own a home? This is fair? It is just incredible.

We have brought this up several times in this debate, Mr. Chairman, and we hear crickets chirping on the other side of the aisle. Now if a private company did that, there would be riots in the street, but it is okay if government has a disparate impact on minorities. I don't know if that is fair. We have had testimony in our committee that literally half--half--of the mortgages today, according to CoreLogic, wouldn't qualify under the QM rule promulgated by the CFPB. I am not going to go on record saying that is fair; that it is somehow fair that half of Americans who otherwise would have qualified for a mortgage can no longer have it?

To say that somehow the current oversight is adequate to this agency, an agency that sets its own budget, an agency that is spending $145 million to renovate a $150 million building they don't even own, to give us a tree bosque, to give us granite water features? This is somehow a good use of the taxpayer money, a reflective carnelian granite water table, triple the renovation rate of class A luxury space in Washington?

If there was ever an agency, Mr. Chairman, that demands accountability to the American people, this is it. You do not protect consumers by taking away their rights, their freedoms, their ability to shop in competitive and transparent markets, and you do not protect them by taking away their income and spending it on a lavish palace for unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle--and the gentlelady from Wisconsin, I would draw her attention to the Federal Reserve bulletin, November 2013, Volume 99, No. 4, page 37, that clearly shows, again, according to the Federal Reserve, that 34 percent of Blacks and 32 percent of Hispanics would not meet the new QM standard based upon the 43 percent debt-to- income requirement.

Now, this is Federal Reserve data. If the gentlelady or any other Member on the other side of the aisle wishes to refute this data from the Federal Reserve, they are certainly free to do so on their time.

But again, I am not going to go on record saying this is fair. I haven't heard anybody rebut what CoreLogic has said, that when fully implemented, half of today's mortgages would not qualify under the QM rule. This is not fair.

Mr. Chairman, somebody has to protect consumers from the CFPB. Consumers, yes, they have to be protected from Wall Street, but they have to be protected from Washington as well.

You do not protect consumers by having unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington whose average salary is over $175,000--salary and benefits--to somehow say: I am from Washington. I am smarter than you. I will decide whether or not you get a mortgage.

It is arrogant; it is unfair; it is abusive. It must stop. We should reject the gentlelady's amendment, and we should adopt the underlying legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I object.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I am just very pleased that our friends on the other side of the aisle actually found somebody to offer the MTR since they apparently, earlier today, were having trouble finding speakers to come to the floor and defend what is probably the most powerful and least accountable government agency in the history of the Republic.

It would be difficult to defend this agency; but let me first dispense with the motion to recommit.

Number one, as we read, this Dodd-Frank did not grant the CFPB power over data breaches, so this part of the MTR is irrelevant. The other portions are redundant.

Mr. Speaker, a more important point is: How can anybody come to the floor to defend an agency that is collecting such massive quantities of data? I find it somewhat ironic that the MTR seemingly is concerned about data breaches to a government agency that is collecting data on 53 million borrowers who took out mortgages since 1998.

The person in charge of the project has testified that it is easy to reverse-engineer the identities of 95 percent of these records. The CFPB, in their credit card database, is collecting at least data on 991 million credit cards held by roughly 60 percent of the adult U.S. population.

Where is the angst and the anxiety and the concern for the possible data breaches of CFPB? How about their consumer credit panel, where they are collecting the database of credit reports on 8.6 million Americans? I mean, it seems to be a contest between CFPB and NSA who can collect the most data on American citizens. Stay tuned on who wins that competition.

And then, Mr. Speaker, we have an agency that, notwithstanding its benign yet Orwellian title, is abusing consumer rights. We have already had the QM rule--Qualified Mortgage rule--promulgated where the Federal Reserve says one-third of Black and Hispanic homeowners can no longer qualify for their mortgages. Where is the outrage there?

CoreLogic, which is a firm that collects data in our mortgage market, has said: When fully implemented, this rule of this agency that is supposed to protect our consumers, half--half--of the mortgages would no longer qualify.

So no wonder Democrats were having trouble finding speakers to defend this.

And then last, but not least, an agency that has no accountability, that sets its own budget, notwithstanding the testimony of the head of the agency who said that he was not building a palace, yet they take $145 million of hard-earned taxpayer money to renovate a $150 million building they don't even own.

On a square-foot basis, Mr. Speaker, this is three times the average class A luxury renovation space in Washington, D.C. On a square-foot basis, it costs more for the CFPB to have their headquarters than it cost to build the Trump World Tower.

On a square-foot basis, it costs more to renovate their headquarters than it does to build the Bellagio Hotel and Casino, at the time the single most expensive hotel in America.

Mr. Speaker, on a square-foot basis, it cost more than the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the single tallest building in the world, and there are similarities because the CFPB spent $7 million on the same world- renowned architectural firm to design their building.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is one of the most powerful and least accountable agencies in the history of the Republic. True consumer protection is about competitive, innovative transparent markets that respect the dignity and the liberty of every American citizen to buy the mortgage and get the credit card that they want that is best for them and their families.

Let's respect them. Let's hold accountable government. Let's dispense with the motion to recommit, and let's vote ``aye'' on the Commercial Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, it is my hope that we will take this opportunity to remember the millions of unique and precious human lives ended by the unspeakable tragedy of abortion and bear in mind the devastating consequences it has had for women, children, and families.

As a matter of morality, history, science, reason, and most of all faith, I can come to no other conclusion but that every human life begins at conception and every life is worthy of protection. As Americans, we share a sacred responsibility to protect the innocent and defend the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves. Often we hear that we ought to do something for the least of these; truly unborn life is the least of these. Let us recognize it. Let us hold it precious. Let us live up to our responsibilities from the Creator and grant those yet to be born that precious right to life.

The struggle to protect life is at its core a struggle to change hearts and minds. It requires faith, reason, debate, compassion, and action. On January 22, thousands of citizens will take action by participating in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. Many more in Texas and across the country will stand with them at local events fighting for the rights of the unborn and celebrating the sanctity of life. I applaud those who take part, both in body and spirit, and I hope for the day when all Americans will come together and decide to protect and defend the unalienable right to life.

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

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

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

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

Finds Unprecedented Anxiety About Jobs and Economy.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While for some larger firms this is an insignificant cost,

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

small businesses, it is a significant expense.

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

This money comes directly out of our funds intended for

investment into Main Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

In prescribing regulations to carry out the requirements of

this section with respect to investment advisers acting as

investment advisers to mid-sized private funds, the

Commission shall take into account the size, governance,

investment strategy of such funds.

It goes on to say:

The Commission shall provide for registration and

examination procedures with respect to the investment

advisers of such funds which reflect the level of systemic

risk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

How are they going to do this?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 391, I call up the bill (H.R 992) to amend provisions in section 716 of the Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to Federal assistance for swaps entities, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 992, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, America's economy remains stuck in the slowest, weakest, nonrecovery recovery of modern times. Millions of our fellow countrymen remain unemployed, underemployed. Many because of ObamaCare just had their hours cut, and millions lie awake at night wondering how they will make ends meet.

Regrettably, those who create jobs in America for our constituents are drowning in a sea of red tape which is preventing them from hiring new workers. I still vividly remember the day when one of my constituents in east Texas came to me as he shut down his small business due to red tape and he said, Congressman, it got to the point where I just thought my government didn't want me to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to ensure that businesses succeed in America, succeed in hiring new workers. Today, just like yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Republicans and Democrats can again pass bipartisan legislation that will help grow our economy. This legislation is H.R. 992, and I commend the bipartisan group of members who introduced the bill: Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hudson, and Mr. Maloney.

As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, I also want to thank the members of the committee who joined together and approved this bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 53-6. Mr. Speaker, the vote was 53-6. This bipartisan bill will relieve manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, and Main Street businesses of unintended consequences of one section of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Many Americans may not realize it, but farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and other employees use a financial product called a derivative to manage risk and protect themselves from extreme fluctuations in the price of things like fuel, fertilizer, and commodities.

For example, a company like John Deere will do an interest rate swap as they finance a tractor for a farmer in east Texas in my district, and that derivative is directly linked to the cost of that tractor for my constituent.

Companies like Southwest Airlines who operate in my hometown of Dallas, Texas, they will use derivatives to lock in cheaper fuel prices when the price of crude oil is on the rise. This keeps the cost of flying more affordable for customers, like the grandmother in Mesquite, Texas, who travels to visit her grandchildren in Kansas City.

Perhaps a farmers co-op in Nebraska will use derivatives to finance fixed-price diesel for truckers who haul cattle. Perhaps a hospital in Los Angeles may use derivatives to hedge against

the rising interest rates when financing a big investment like more beds or new lifesaving technology.

Although not one single patient, not one single farmer, not one single grandmother, not one single trucker caused the financial crisis, they were all swept into section 716 of Dodd-Frank.

Section 716 requires financial institutions to push out almost all of their derivatives business into separate entities. This not only increases transaction costs, which are ultimately paid by the consumers, it also makes our financial system less secure by forcing swap trading out of regulated institutions.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said section 716 ``would make the U.S. financial system less resilient, weaken our financial stability, and make our economy more susceptible to systemic risk.''

To those who are loath to ever amend Dodd-Frank, no less of an authority than Barney Frank himself, former chairman of the committee, said: ``It addresses the valid criticisms of section 716 without weakening the financial reform laws, important derivative safeguards or prohibitions on bank proprietary trading.''

So again, Mr. Speaker, no law is perfect. We would be derelict in our duty if we didn't put the American people back to work and pass this law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the chief Republican sponsor of the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act which, again, passed our committee on a strong bipartisan basis of 53-6.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to help my colleagues, who apparently haven't found time to read the underlying section 716, subsection (i), which reads in part:

No taxpayer funds shall be used to prevent the receivership

of any swap entity resulting from swap or security-based swap

activity of the swaps entity.

I would encourage my colleagues to actually read the bill.

Now I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the volunteer State of Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Speaker, I am now very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).

Mr. Speaker, again, I continue to be amazed at those who wish to decry the possibility of a Federal bailout in debating this bill. I wonder where their voices were yesterday when all of them, seemingly--the voices we hear today--defended the Federal Housing Administration from actually receiving a taxpayer bailout, the first in history.

So when taxpayers actually have to pay, we hear choruses of ``Que Sera, Sera.'' But when a private institution loses their money that the taxpayers didn't have to pay for, all of a sudden the sky is falling.

I understand that the ranking member, obviously, has the opportunity to change her mind; but clearly she was for it before she was against it.

When I hear many of my colleagues decry the lack of bipartisan legislation, I don't understand why Members would try to oppose it now. It passed overwhelmingly, 53-6.

For those who say this is somehow gutting Dodd-Frank, apparently they didn't consult with the former chairman of this committee, Barney Frank, who is on record saying that this addresses the valid criticisms of section 716 without weakening the financial reform law's important derivatives safeguards.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to get America back to work. It is time to make commonsense, bipartisan reforms. I respect every right of every Member to change their mind, but I hope something that passed 53-6 to put America back to work, that soon this full House will pass this legislation; and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I don't really understand the motion to recommit because regulators already have the power that is described here. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I find the matter to be irrelevant and not a particularly good use of the House's time. For those reasons alone, it ought to be opposed.

It is getting in the way of one of the strongest, most bipartisan pieces of legislation that has come to the House. It passed the Financial Services Committee by an overwhelming vote of 53-6. It will help grow the economy. It will put people back to work. It will reduce systemic risk.

I want to thank all of the sponsors, especially the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hultgren, for his leadership on this very valuable piece of legislation.

It is time to oppose the motion to recommit and it is time to pass the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, patently unfair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I could go on and on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise again in opposition. I don't even find how this is relevant to the underlying bill, the Retail Investor Protection Act. It simply says that it shouldn't prohibit something that apparently the Secretary of Labor already has the right to do. And given that the Obama administration has had a Secretary of Labor for 5 years, I suppose, if they already wanted to do what was the subject of the gentleman's MTR, they would have already done it. I suppose the gentleman certainly has a right, if he hasn't already done it, to introduce legislation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is simply irrelevant. There are lots of things that the Retail Investor Protection Act does not prohibit.

It does not prohibit the Secretary of State from holding somebody accountable for the tragedy in Benghazi, when there were 29 systemic failures and four dead.

There is nothing in the underlying bill that prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from holding somebody accountable at the Internal Revenue Service for targeting Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights.

There is nothing in the bill that prohibits the Secretary of HHS from holding somebody accountable for the ObamaCare Web site, which was 3\1/ 2\ years in the making for a half a billion dollars and still crashed.

There is nothing in the bill that prohibits the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from holding somebody responsible at the Federal Housing Administration for receiving its first-ever taxpayer bailout and being in violation of the law for almost 5 straight years for failing to adhere to its statutory minimum capital standards.

No, there are a lot of things that this bill doesn't prohibit, but let me tell you what the bill does, Mr. Speaker.

The Retail Investor Protection Act, sponsored by the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), requires the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission to coordinate a rulemaking. I know that is a radical departure for many, but, yes, they should coordinate a rulemaking.

Then we actually require justification. If you are going to pass a rule that you claim is going to help retail investors, then actually help them.

On a more fundamental level--and it is why we should oppose the motion to recommit--the bill preserves that $7 online trade for the working mom who is trying to send a child to college. It preserves the $2,000 startup IRA for somebody who has worked 20 years at Walmart and is trying to have a retirement savings. It allows low-cost access to ideas and products to people who want to manage their own investments so they can finally buy their own homes.

Mr. Speaker, it does it all on a bipartisan basis because half of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee supported this commonsense legislation. I would urge all of them now and the entirety of the House to vote down the motion to recommit and to vote in favor of retail investors and to vote ``aye'' on the Retail Investor Protection Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I especially thank her for her leadership on this Special Order, and her leadership on behalf of all of our men and women who serve in uniform, many in her district. And she is well respected within this institution for what she has done for our military.

Madam Speaker, I know the American people occasionally get somewhat confused by what is going on in Congress. Here's what's easy to understand: House Republicans have put not one offer on the table, not two, not three, but four; four different offers to negotiate with the President and the Democrats. What do we hear from the President? What do we hear from Harry Reid, no negotiations.

You know, I still recall vividly my mother-in-law who has a saying, the least you can do in life is show up. President Barack Obama and Harry Reid have not shown up. Now I know that the President says at one time in his life he taught congressional law. Some of us find that somewhat ironic because if the President actually knew the Constitution, then he would know that it is the Congress that has the power of the purse. It is Congress that appropriates funds. Nowhere will you find in the Constitution that Congress is relegated to the power of the rubber stamp. So we know that the President and Harry Reid want us to rubber-stamp the health care policies of this administration that we hear about every single day. Every single day I'm hearing from one of my constituents, Congressman Hensarling, they just cut me back to 29 hours because of ObamaCare. Congressman Hensarling, my health care premiums are going up $1,500 because of ObamaCare. And yet we're told by the President, it's the law, don't touch it. Well, it's a law that he has already changed seven times, and it is a law that's hurting our constituents. And, no, Republicans are never, never, never going to give up on our quest to have patient-centered health care that's right for our families and doesn't harm our economy and is not an affront to our freedom. So we'll never give up on that.

Madam Speaker, we know that the President is not going to sign away his signature item, and we know since so much of this spending is what we call mandatory spending, automatic spending, we know that the President is not going to cooperate to repeal it or defund it, and we'll never give up our

quest. But, Madam Speaker, all we're asking for now is if ObamaCare is going to be imposed on the American people, then it ought to be imposed equally--none of these special interest deals, none of these sweetheart deals. You know what, if it's good enough for the American people, it ought to be good enough for the President.

Why wasn't he the first one, the very first one signing up for this? Why wasn't there a line at the White House? Well, I can tell you why, Madam Speaker, because, guess what, they exempted themselves. The American people are tired of Washington elites passing laws that the rest of us are supposed to live under. That's not what the American people expect, and so Republicans are asking one thing: if ObamaCare is going to be imposed on America, no special deals for big business, no special deals for big labor. If they are going to get a 1-year reprieve, then working Americans ought to get a 1-year working reprieve. And if it's good enough for working Americans, it ought to be applied to the President, his Cabinet, and everyone in the White House and the Congress.

Listen, I don't want to put my family in the exchanges. I don't want to lose the employer contribution that the taxpayers have so generously given us, but we're not going to have the President act like he can make the law. No Member of Congress, no one in the White House is above the law. So that's what we're trying to do. We want negotiations. If we're going to get stuck with ObamaCare while the President is the President, then let it be applied equally; but this is bigger than this.

Millions and millions of our fellow countrymen are either unemployed or underemployed. They need our help. This is a spending bill. The President's economic policies have failed. We want fundamental tax reform. We want to get rid of the red tape burden. We want to take our Nation off the road to bankruptcy. I say this not just as a Member of Congress, but as the father of a 10-year-old son and an 11-year-old daughter. So somehow when the President says you can't mess with this spending bill and we want you to rubber-stamp the debt ceiling, the Republicans say, no, no, no, Mr. President. We will negotiate with you in good faith and maybe the electorate gave you the White House and the Senate, but the American people gave the House to the Republican Party, and we will not sit idly by while men and women are unemployed and underemployed, wondering how they're going to feed their families. We're not going to sit idly by while he bankrupts this Nation for future generations.

No, no, no, we will not sit idly by. We are ready to negotiate, but we are through negotiating with ourselves, and the American people will demand ultimately that the President and Harry Reid negotiate and we work together to get this economy back and put us on a road to fiscal solvency so that our best days will once again be ahead of us.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for bringing us to this point with his leadership in trying to get America back to work to take us off the road to bankruptcy and to ensure that there is fairness for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to this debate--I'm sure the Americans perhaps on a little bit more Western time zone hopefully are still following this. If they are, I understand how they could get confused. But, Mr. Speaker, we're down to only debating two different matters here.

Should the bosses in America get a better deal than their employees in ObamaCare? That's what we're debating here. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we are debating should Members of Congress get a better deal than every other American in ObamaCare? House Republicans say, No, that's not fair. That's not equal protection under the law. Yet, our friends on the other side of the aisle are now saying, No, no, no. They're going to protect this sweetheart deal.

It's not in the law, ladies and gentlemen, yet they want to protect this sweetheart deal. And people wonder why there's cynicism about Congress, about why Washington elites get to have a better deal than everybody else because they know more. Now Members of Congress, thanks to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America to get subsidies in the ObamaCare exchanges. Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? I think not.

Clearly, the other side of the aisle wants to preserve this special deal for Members of Congress granted by the President of the United States. Where is the fairness in that, Mr. Speaker? Again, where is the fairness in letting employers--no, no, we're going to give you a year delay, but no fairness for the people who do the work, pay the taxes, and pull the wagon to make America great. That's what this debate is about.

Here we have one party who, because they won't treat employees as well as their employers because they're preserving a congressional sweetheart deal, are prepared to shut down the government. That's what we're debating. We've got two matters.

Mr. Speaker, we've come time after time after time in the spirit of negotiation, but, no, the President will negotiate with Iranians, he'll negotiate with Syrians, he'll negotiate with Russians, but he will not negotiate with Americans if they happen to be Republicans. No negotiation.

Again, is it any surprise that America gets cynical? Why is this, Mr. Speaker? Is it arrogance? Is it hubris? Is it pride? We know that this law apparently is not perfect already. The President has signed several changes into ObamaCare. Now we've had delay after delay after delay. Income verification, delayed; high-risk pools, delayed; out-of-pocket cost limitations, delayed; small business health options--just 3 or 4 days ago, as the President was extolling the virtues of the great rollout of ObamaCare, 20 minutes later his own administration announced yet another delay; small business health option.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the United States has perhaps realized that his signature law is not perfect.

All House Republicans are saying in a spending bill--and ladies and gentlemen, this does spend money. This isn't some little sideshow. This is what we do in the Constitution. The Congress has the power of the purse. It's not the power of the rubber stamp. It is the power of the purse. ObamaCare is about the purse.

We're saying two things, Mr. President. In a law that you have already delayed time after time after time, if you're going to delay it for the employers, delay it for the employees. And, Mr. President, how can you decide that Members of Congress, to placate them, are going to get a sweetheart deal? This has to end, and yet our friends on the other side of the aisle are sitting here defending it, refusing to support a conference.

We need fairness for the American people. We need to go to conference. End the sweetheart deals.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Latham, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you know that our Nation suffers from a spending-driven debt crisis and the only real remedy is to quit spending money that we don't have. But because the President would not

work with us to enact meaningful, targeted spending discipline, his sequester has been enacted.

Mr. Chairman, we are stewards of the taxpayers' dollars; and with the President's sequester in place, I believe that it's more critical than ever that our Nation's transportation funding be spent wisely, including funding for the FAA's Contract Tower Program because, Mr. Chairman, in Washington, it's not always how much money you spend that counts; it's how you spend the money.

I would ask the distinguished chairman to work with me and other Members to ensure that this critical funding is allocated to the facilities that represent the greatest cost benefit to the taxpayer.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I thank the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Lakewood 4th of July Parade. On July 4, 1964, the Lakewood 4th of July Parade consisted of two children riding their bikes down the sidewalk on a block of Lakewood Boulevard. From these humble beginnings, the parade has expanded to become an institution of the Lakewood neighborhood.

For the past 50 years, the Lakewood 4th of July Parade has worked hard to promote a sense of community for its residents. While the parade has grown tremendously over the past five decades, it remains true to its purpose of having a parade for the benefit of kids of all ages. The Lakewood 4th of July Parade is truly helping make our community a better place to live.

My wife, Melissa, and our two young children enjoy participating in the Lakewood 4th of July Parade. The annual event is important, not just to those who live on the neighboring streets, but to all who come to Lakewood to enjoy the patriotic festivities.

On behalf of all Lakewood residents, I would like to congratulate the Lakewood 4th of July Parade organizers and volunteers on their tremendous accomplishments and thank them for their continued valuable service to our community and country.