Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Matt Little who passed away on Sunday at the age of 92. Mr. Little was an extraordinary man of leadership, integrity, and determination. His achievements in the civil rights movement will have a lasting impact on the citizens of Minnesota and the United States.

Mr. Little was born in August 1921 in North Carolina to a factory worker and homemaker. Graduating from North Carolina A&T University in 1948, he served 3\1/2\ years in the military during the Second World War in an all-black infantry regiment.

Upon his arrival to the Twin Cities, Mr. Little quickly realized that racism was a prevalent barrier to everything from job opportunities to housing. African-Americans could not stay at major hotels, and could only buy houses in certain neighborhoods.

Mr. Little found work in the post office, and started a landscaping business. After being denied a firefighter position due to race, he was part of a federal lawsuit to integrate the Minneapolis Fire Department. Mr. Little joined the NAACP in 1954 where he ultimately became president of his chapter and president of the Minnesota NAACP.

His civil rights accomplishments are plentiful. Mr. Little was prominent in supporting the integration of Minnesota public schools. He led the Minnesota delegation to participate in the March on Washington. He fought hard for fair housing laws in the state legislature. He helped create the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission. He was a leading influence in the hiring of former Minnesota Vikings Head Coach Dennis Green, one of the pioneering African-American head coaches in franchise history.

Mr. Little also believed strongly in civic participation. He was elected four times as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, five times to Minnesota's State Executive Committee, and four times as an elector to cast one of the state's 10 electoral votes for U.S. President. In 2008, when he watched President Obama being sworn in, he said, ``There are no words to describe this feeling. I waited all of my life, and now I've seen it happen in my lifetime.''

Even in his later years, Mr. Little continued to be involved in the community. He maintained his column ``Little by Little'' featured in the Minnesota-Spokesman-Recorder, and was a fan of seniors tennis.

A man of grace and respect, Mr. Little held a pragmatic perspective in tackling racial inequality believing it was an issue that simply needed solving. Matt Little was a political inspiration for many, and I am proud to have known him in my lifetime. He will always be remembered as a relentless civil rights champion, a fervent public speaker, and a Minnesota icon. A truly exceptional leader, I believe if we live by Matt Little's actions, our country will be better for it for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the Exchange Information Disclosure Act is just a good-faith effort to try to get some transparency. But wait, isn't this bill coming from the same party that shut the government down to try to kill it? Didn't that just happen?

My memory is not faint about it. My memory is very clear that we stood here watching the Republican majority shut down all of government to prevent people from health care access.

And now we are supposed to believe, Oh, we just want to make the bill a little better with transparency. No. What has happened is that millions of people are signing up. People know that if you snatch a benefit from people that they have--and expect to have--that is going to cause issues. And so now the tactics have changed. Instead of an overt 50th repeal bill, now we will just try to undermine it by making a bunch of paper requirements--more distraction, more paperwork, more division, more obstruction.

I think I prefer the days when we just had repeal bills.

Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the polluter pays. The polluter pays, and that is a simple idea with very broad appeal. The company responsible for causing the pollution should have to pay for the cleanup. It makes sense. This bill would relieve many companies of that responsibility when it comes to the most polluted sites in the country. Instead, taxpayers will pick up the tab. It is another bailout.

Currently, if a company is part of an industry with a record of pollution, it needs to post a bond or buy insurance. This requirement helps to prevent a company from polluting until it goes out of business, leaving the taxpayer with the bill for the cleanup.

H.R. 2279 allows the company to skirt its financial responsibility, in essence, to internalize all the money they make while polluting but to externalize all of the costs after they are done and leaving everyone else to shoulder the burden. That is not free market enterprise; that is crony capitalism.

The bill would also reduce funding for highly contaminated sites. It should be increasing funding for the sites so their cleanup does not drag on for decades. Less funding is not the answer. Because funding is already so short for these Superfund sites, we have to prioritize the worst sites for cleanup, and the result is the National Priorities List. This bill would disrupt that priority system.

Mr. Chairman, instead of letting polluters off the hook, we should use the money to put people to work by cleaning up the long list of toxic sites all over the country that are exposing people to toxic waste, pushing down property values, and inhibiting economic growth.

As I close, I just want to say that this bill, like so many bills offered by the majority, rests upon a falsehood, and that is that health and safety regulations hurt the economy. They don't. It is not true. It is a false statement, and there is no evidence for them to prove that it is true. And yet they want us to believe, as these companies deregulate and get tax cuts and all these other benefits, that they are going to use the extra money they get in order to create jobs, which they never do.

Reject this bill. It is a bad idea.

Mr. Speaker, when Lyndon Baines Johnson came before this House and this Nation to say that the United States, the richest country in the history of the world, should not have people living in squalor and in poverty, shouldn't have seniors eating dog food, shouldn't have poor kids living with no chance of a better life, he did what this Nation really is all about. He really lived up to the true meaning of ``liberty and justice for all,'' and he made those words real when, for so many years, they had not been real.

And yet those programs which lifted millions of Americans out of poverty, that war on poverty which lifted so many out and gave so many people a chance, after about 10 years, there became a war on the war on poverty.

Now the latest battle in the war on the war on poverty, what took place on December 28, 2013, this House refused to extend unemployment insurance for 1.3 million Americans. This is no way to uphold the great legacy of the war on poverty. Let's pass unemployment insurance. Let's do it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the contributions of R.T. Rybak to the city of Minneapolis during his 12- year tenure as mayor, and to applaud his leadership in areas from education to government accountability to economic opportunity. Mayor Rybak has been an outstanding leader, a great public servant and a close friend.

R.T. Rybak, a Minneapolis native, began his distinguished career as a journalist for the Minneapolis Tribune. While working for various media outlets--including the Twin Cities Reader, Minnesota Public Radio, and Public Radio International--he was also an organizer who ran political campaigns and engaged in community activism. He campaigned for airport noise mitigation, sponsoring the famous ``Pajama Protest'' of 1999. Mayor Rybak's tactics have been inventive and inclusive, and his openness has made him a strong ally of communities often left out of the political process.

Mayor Rybak confronted a city with serious challenges: an increasing budget deficit, a stark achievement gap, pension issues, and public safety concerns. He went to work immediately, making difficult decisions to adjust taxes and budget priorities. Under his leadership, Minneapolis cut spending by 16 percent and paid down $350 million of the city's debt, in spite of repeated state-level funding cuts. Faced with crises such as the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge, and the 2009 Great Recession, Mayor Rybak helped the city recover with poise and energy. He was a strong advocate for Minneapolis residents, while also using these opportunities to bolster mass transit infrastructure and to further diversify our economy. Minneapolis has recovered all 10,000 jobs lost in the recession, and added an additional 5,000. The city now ranks first in the country for its low unemployment rate, and is less susceptible to future economic fluctuations.

Minneapolis is safer now than it has been in years. Most crimes have fallen to levels not seen in 35 years.

The people of Minneapolis are also more connected and informed. City- wide wireless internet, digital access to government information and services, and a forum for viewing city goals have made Minneapolis more open and accessible.

Mayor Rybak's advocacy for North Minneapolis, in particular, has been long overdue on the city's agenda. He increased city investment in addressing persistent gaps in education, housing, and economic opportunity that have faced North Minneapolis for decades. He championed programs that trained residents and placed them into good jobs, working with businesses to create sustainable, meaningful employment. He reduced foreclosures, and used city-owned land to promote affordable green housing. Mayor Rybak has laid the foundation for revitalizing North Minneapolis, and I am confident that our city's future leaders will follow his lead.

Mayor Rybak has also tackled the significant challenges facing Minneapolis schools. He started Minneapolis Promise, which provides young people with free college and career counseling and high-quality summer jobs. Since 2004, the STEP-UP internship program has given real- world job experience to over 18,000 Minneapolis youth. Rybak has led the effort to close one of the nation's widest achievement gaps by connecting schools, government agencies, non-profit organizations, and businesses to work together for our children's futures. This will be one of the lasting achievements he leaves with Minneapolis, as he continues the fight to close the achievement gap as the next Chief Executive of Generation Next.

Minneapolis will always be indebted to Mayor Rybak. From the balanced books of the city's treasurer, to the youth who can aspire to greater opportunity than their parents, to the residents headed to a secure job after months or years out of work, his achievements have improved Minneapolis and I thank him for his tireless service to our community.

Mr. Speaker, for 34 years, the United States and Iran have had no diplomatic relations. Iran has escalated its nuclear weapons program and hostile rhetoric.

The United States has upped sanctions and threats of military force. There can be little doubt that, when our diplomats and politicians say all options are on the table, we mean military force.

And yet, today, under the leadership of President Obama, we have an opportunity to change all that, to avoid the prospect of war or a nuclear-armed Iran. We have a chance to set a new course, a new path. Instead of the collision course, we have an off-ramp, an off-ramp to peace, diplomacy and international cooperation; and we must take it.

This is our best opportunity in 30 years to advance the interests of the United States vis-a-vis Iran. It is our best chance to make sure that the Middle East is as free and safe as possible of nuclear weapons.

The Iranian people defied the odds and elected a moderate President, Hassan Rouhani. President Rouhani has condemned the inflammatory rhetoric of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has promised to improve Iran's relationship to the West.

Now, instead of moving forward toward the brink of war, the United States and Iran are negotiating, talking; and this is a good thing. This is the way countries should pursue their interests. This is the way to avoid war.

Through diplomacy, the United States and its allies have frozen Iran's nuclear program for the first time in more than a decade. The agreement imposes daily inspections to ensure Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon, and Iran has made agreements to move this process forward.

Ending our decades-long cold war with Iran isn't going to happen overnight; but through robust, sustained diplomacy, we may prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and disastrous war and spare thousands of our children and theirs from a horrible situation.

We cannot achieve these goals if Congress undermines these negotiations, and I have supported sanctions in the past. In fact, I have a very good friend and constituent who is in the Chamber today who has supported sanctions. She was born and raised in Iran, is very concerned about the human rights situation there, and has informed me over the years about the best position that I might take. And she also says now is not the time to hit the accelerator; it is the time to let diplomacy work.

These sanctions would undermine the confidence of our international partners, including the P5+1. China, Russia, the United States, Germany, and France are all part of this negotiation with Iran. And if we up sanctions while we have claimed that we want to work with them to have a reduction in nuclear weaponry in Iran, they may well see this as a break and a breach of faith with them, which could set us all back.

It has not been easy to get Iran, Russia, and China to the table. We have them there. Let's not lose this chance.

New sanctions stand to kill any hope for diplomacy. Iran's Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, has said that if Congress imposes new sanctions, ``the entire deal is dead.''

Is that what we want?

New sanctions will not increase our negotiating power. If they would, the White House certainly would have told us so. In fact, the White House has warned that new sanctions will undermine negotiations.

Negotiations over the next 6 months are the only way to guarantee that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon and will set itself on a path to rejoin the world of nations. And this could well improve the human rights situation in Iran, as it has no justification for the police state which denies human rights.

Congress should give diplomats space to do their jobs. Undercutting diplomacy with new sanctions would put our country on the path to war.

The choice is clear. We can try to negotiate a deal that prevents an Iranian nuclear weapon and avoids a nuclear conflict, or we can dismiss this opportunity, pile on more sanctions, derail diplomacy, and continue toward war.

Americans don't want another war. The best way to honor our men and women in uniform is to avoid unnecessary war. My son is Active Duty military. I am speaking from a personal place as well.

Americans support a negotiated deal with Iran by a 2-1 ratio; 68 percent say Congress should not take action that would block an agreement.

Passing any punitive measures, including a sense of Congress tying the President's hands, is a mistake. It will not help; and if Congress wants to help, we should set up a people-to-people exchange. We should set up a Congress-to-Congress exchange and move forward.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for arriving at a budget deal. When we asked our Democratic conferees to negotiate the best deal they could, we did it knowing that they were negotiating with colleagues whose priority is debt reduction, not jobs, even though the Federal Government deficit is the smallest since 2008. Given Republican priorities, they had a heavy task of partially lifting the sequester, protecting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and averting a shutdown. And so I think that is good.

But there are parts of the deal that leave me very uncomfortable. I can't possibly imagine leaving this place, leaving all those Americans, over a million people, without any means of sustenance other than maybe their local food shelf. I mean, it is not humane. It is not right, and it is bad for the economy because the people who got those unemployment insurance checks would be able to spend them with local vendors which would actually help our local economy. That is not going to happen unless something else happens. I have heard estimates as high as 310,000 jobs could be lost if something is not done.

Also, the $6 billion cut for future Federal employees' retirement, I am very disturbed about that because we need good people working for the Federal Government. How can we attract the best people to work for this country if every time we have to solve a budget problem, we are going into their piggy bank. Jets and yachts, if we accelerated depreciation, we would be three-fourths of the way there on these future Federal employees' retirement benefits.

I am deeply disappointed we did not work to close any loopholes. That is a shame. So I remain disappointed.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Before I launch into the substantive critique of this bill and I urge Members to vote ``no,'' I would like to make a preliminary observation, and that is that when our chairman of our committee begins his presentation, making a broad-based critique and attack on regulation, Members should be very careful about this because good regulation is good for the American people. We need health and safety protections. We need to be protected from unsafe water, unsafe products. And investors need to be protected, as well. Any time a Member of Congress or anyone comes up and says regulations are bad, this is obviously wrong and the American people know it. Therefore, when you are being told to do something just because regulations are always bad, you should be very suspicious of what is going on and dig deeper into the situation.

I urge Members to just consider how important good, solid, well- tailored regulation is to benefit the American people, and I push back on anybody who just makes a frontal assault on all regulation, no matter how good or how bad and just regulation in general. This has been a theme around here, and I urge Members to be suspicious of it.

It should also be considered that when this bill is in front of us, we should know that people have looked carefully at it. Members who are wondering what they want to do on this bill, they should consider that the Obama administration has strongly opposed this bill, with senior advisers recommending a veto. This is a bill that is not going to become law. There is no Senate companion. I just checked and have been advised that there is no Senate companion. So we are really here talking about a bill that is going to be a threatened veto by the President and has no Senate companion, but is also opposed by SEC Chair Mary Jo White and the Council of Institutional Investors, an organization which has investors' interests in mind as this bill is trying to make investor information more opaque, and Americans for Financial Reform, not to mention the Consumer Federation of America, the AFL-CIO, and State securities regulators.

So the people who work with these regulations all the time don't think they are the right thing to do. Even if some Members might consider that maybe this might get capital to somebody who wouldn't otherwise get it, the people who regulate and use these regulations every day have carefully considered H.R. 1105 and have come to the conclusion that it is bad for investors, that it creates less transparency, not more, and, therefore, is, in fact, a risk to our financial well-being.

Americans are obviously looking for jobs. This is the big hook, the way to get anybody to vote for anything around here. It says it is going to create jobs. Of course, there has been no demonstration of how this is going to create jobs.

The point is that it will create a situation where there is less information for investors who need it, and it is important for Members to know that the SEC has taken enforcement actions against private equity firms.

For example, at Knelman Asset Management Group, the SEC found that registered private equity funds-to-funds adviser Knelman Asset Management Group, LLC, Irving Knelman, a managing director, chief executive officer and former CEO, violated the Advisers Act custody, antifraud compliance reporting, and books and records provisions. This is a case where you have the SEC using information to bring accountability in the private equity arena.

Let me wrap up by saying that we urge Members to vote ``no,'' to look out for advisers. Even private equity advisers need transparency, not less information. A ``no'' vote is urged here.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in this huge debate around the Affordable Care Act for quite a while now. One of the things that I cannot ever forget is the health care nightmare stories that I listened to before we passed the Affordable Care Act. As I see so many of my Republican colleagues gleefully celebrate the difficulties with the Web site or cancelations and then think that that is going to somehow help them in an election, I can't think about any election. All I can think about are people like the people whom I want to share with you right now.

Let me tell you about Marty Olson. Marty built a small business creating marble sinks and countertops. He poured everything he had into his business, and it flourished. He became a job creator, in the language of some people. I call him a ``small business person.'' I call his customers ``job creators.''

Just a few years ago, he employed more than half a dozen employees. Recently, things changed drastically for him. Over the course of the last year, his 9-year-old daughter, Abby, was diagnosed with leukemia. She beat the odds and was in remission for 6 months until her cancer symptoms returned. She is now awaiting a bone marrow transplant. Mr. Olson spent time with his ailing daughter, and his business began to decrease.

He is now the sole employee of the marble business. Three months ago, he suffered a detached artery and had heart surgery. He is still recuperating from his surgery and losing his insurance on January 1 due to a divorce. He began to search for affordable health insurance, but most premium quotes were too much for him to afford. The implementation of the Affordable Care Act means he will not be denied insurance due to his preexisting heart condition. The health care exchange in Minnesota, mnsure.org, is allowing him to purchase a policy he can afford. Without the plans available on the Minnesota health care exchange, he likely would have to choose between health insurance or paying his other monthly bills.

When his business was growing, he often trained employees who increased his production, but sometimes lost that employee because he was unable to provide them with an adequate health care insurance plan. The small business exchange is there for him to use when his business grows again in the future.

Of course Marty is not by himself in this. Tracy Brock is another small business owner. She has presided over a small business for 21 years. She is able to earn enough to support herself and hire several part-time employees. However, her health insurance premiums have forced her to work six to seven days a week. Those high premiums, around $650 a month, prevent her from taking time to enjoy life and get some well- deserved rest. Her insurance premiums were taking most of her marginal profits. The assets from her business disqualified her from receiving any assistance with her premiums.

Tracy had the misfortune of being a cancer patient. She also needs knee replacement surgery, and Ms. Brock's business has not been as profitable recently so she continues to work every day despite her health condition. She began researching mnsure.org, the health care exchange available in Minnesota, and she found health plans with better coverage at prices that she can afford. Some plans she found were only 50 percent of the cost of her current premium. The additional coverage will give her more options to treat her conditions, and the savings will allow her to work less and enjoy life more.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't look at difficulties in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act as a political opportunity. We should never take our eye off the fact that we have citizens who desperately need something way better than we had before we had the Affordable Care Act. I wish Republicans would say, You know what, it is there. It is passed. The Supreme Court has said it is constitutional, and we are going to do everything we can to make it work even if we would do it different, and we will offer constructive improvements, but we are not going to sit back and just try to wreck it with poison pill bills like the Upton bill last week, or with the 47 attempts to repeal it, or with the myriad of other tricks, sabotage, and devices that they have employed.

It is time to help Americans like Marty Olson, like Tracy Brock, and like millions of other people, including

one of my own interns, Abby Schanfield. Abby is an awesome young woman. She has had numerous surgeries since she was 10 months old. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Abby is able to stay on her parents' insurance until she is 26, and her parents were able to pay premiums and copays that have given her access to the health care that she needs.

So for that and for many other reasons, I urge support of the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, today world leaders are meeting in Geneva to negotiate an agreement that could lead to the elimination or reduction in the threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This is a good thing. The goal of the negotiations is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly those in the possession of or that could potentially be developed by Iran. We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. We ourselves are trying to reduce stockpiles, so negotiations to prevent that are squarely within the United States national security interests.

The American people support these negotiations. A new Washington Post poll shows that Americans want a negotiated deal with Iran by a 2-1 margin. The alternative to negotiation is not good. In fact, it could lead to war. Americans do not want another war. Therefore, negotiations are the right way to handle this particular problem with regard to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Support negotiations. We support them, and hope they succeed.

Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 2013, I missed rollcall votes No. 571 and 572 for district business. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on both.

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been a long and mutually beneficial relationship, in general. But I rise today, based on the representations of many of my constituents, to raise concerns about the status of religious minorities.

I support a strong U.S.-Pakistan relationship, and I have experienced kindness and generosity from the Pakistani people myself and their beautiful diversity.

In addition to Pakistan's Sunni Muslim majority, there are Shia Muslims, Ahmadi Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and others. Pakistan is a country with rich religious diversity.

However, the situation for many religious minorities is of grave concern, and this is particularly true for Shia Muslims, although all have expressed concern. Shias face daily discrimination at work, school, and in the political process.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, more than 500 people were killed last year in sectarian attacks against Muslim sects, mainly Shias. This year, nearly three Shias have been killed every single day; three people have been killed simply because of how they practice their faith.

Mr. Speaker, this is a crisis, and something must be done. I urge the people of Pakistan and their leadership to do something about it now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the Minnesota Lynx basketball team. We are so proud that they, for the second time in 3 years, won the 2013 Women's National Basketball Association championship.

They swept the playoffs, winning every game decisively. And I was glad that ESPN broadcast the finals so everyone could see Olympian Maya Moore sink some beautiful three-point shots. She was joined in outstanding play by two other gold medal-winning Olympians, Seimone Augustus and Lindsay Whalen.

Former Gopher Janel McCarville's no-look behind-the-back pass and between the legs backwards-bounce-pass assist were two of the most exciting plays of the season.

I am proud of the Minnesota Lynx, but I am even more proud of Title IX. In 1973, this country made sure of equality for women in education, and that includes sports. The result is women in athletics that are amazing and entertaining.

I congratulate the Minnesota Lynx.

Mr. Speaker, we are a day in front of Halloween, and here we are handing out treats to the likes of JPMorgan Chase, Citi, and Bank of America.

You know, it is fitting on this day that we should be doing the people's business. Yet here we are handing out treats and goodies to huge banks so that they can be allowed--large financial institutions that never were held accountable--so that these institutions can be allowed to use cheap, federally supported, guaranteed, bank-backed deposits to invest in derivatives, very similar to what got our economy in this mess in the first place.

Wasn't the Great Recession scary enough? Weren't we in enough trouble? Didn't we learn anything from the ``London Whale'' fiasco?

This bill, the swaps push-out bill, undermines key sections of the Wall Street Reform bill, the so-called Dodd-Frank bill, under section 716.

Now, this bill, which is supposed to protect investors and consumers--in fact, right now, it seems like the ink is barely dry on it, and here they are trying to weaken it already. Congress passed and the President signed this law to ensure that investment banks use their own money, not the people's money, to buy derivatives, invest in hedge funds, or other risky activities.

Why did we make that requirement? Well, it wasn't to punish anyone. It was to safeguard the public trust. We made this change because we wanted to protect Americans from what I would call a zombie market, given the Halloween theme here, from destructive economic rampages like the global financial crisis which lost us 12 million jobs and over $16 trillion in wealth. We are still experiencing anemic economic growth following the Great Recession, and we do not need more trouble like this swaps bill.

Vote ``no.''

I want to thank the ranking member, Congresswoman Waters, for the time, and I thank the chairman.

We have a crisis in our country, and the crisis has to do with retirement. This retirement crisis is huge. We literally have about $6.6 trillion between what people have for retirement and what they need for retirement.

And so the Labor Department is doing what makes sense: making sure that when a person representing themselves as a financial adviser is going to a person who wants to retire--rollover a 401(k) or whatever-- they are getting the best advice for them, and if the adviser is making money off the products they are pushing, that that would not be all right.

But you know what? The Labor Department is not even done with the rule. They are still writing it. But before they ever do, this shoddy piece of legislation is going to try to interrupt that process. This bad piece of legislation is going to interrupt the Department of Labor as they are pulling together a rule to protect retirees.

We have a record amount of more than $10 trillion invested in retirement accounts, and yet median retirement account balances are about $45,000. That is a huge gap. Part of the reason this amount is so low is due to the high fees and hidden commissions. An annual fee of 1 percent could lower the amount of an account by 21 percent over more than 30 years.

I am grateful to the Department of Labor for their efforts to come together to do a good plan. Too often, workers leave jobs and are contacted by people who urge them to rollover their 401(k) investment into an IRA. Too often, workers do not know that these callers are salespeople who can put investors into accounts with high fees and hidden commissions, yet this bill would not protect the public from such rip-offs. Investors lose 3, 4, or 5 percent of the value of their savings without even knowing about it.

This bill, H.R. 2374, is harmful. It prevents the Department of Labor from taking steps to ensure advisers do not have conflicts of interest. Why would anybody want to say, yes, have all the conflicts of interest you want as you are messing with our retirees' accounts?

Taking the unprecedented step to stop an agency midprocess in protecting workers is bad. That is why AARP, the National Council of La Raza, the Consumer Federation of America, and many, many people representing Americans oppose it.

This antigovernment rhetoric and all this stuff about government regulation we hear all the time is the same rhetoric that led to the shutdown that undermined the interests of American workers. Let's just shut this bill down. It is not good.

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 2374

because it would derail important rulemakings underway at the

Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of

Labor that are critical to protecting Americans' hard-earned

savings and preserving their retirement security.

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

investors until the SEC engages in and completes further

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

bill ignores the fact that significant work has already been

conducted in both agencies and that the agencies have

included and continue to include the public, industry, and

numerous stakeholders in their rulemaking processes.

Moreover, the two agencies are already working closely to

avoid conflicting requirements for the regulated community,

and this legislation would hamper effective coordination

between the two agencies. The bill would hinder efforts to

protect consumers from conflicts of interest among brokers,

dealers, financial advisors, and others whose incentives may

be misaligned with investors, potentially leading to

deceptive and abusive practices.

The Administration is committed to ensuring that American

workers and retirees are

able to receive advice about how to invest their money in

safe, secure, and transparent financial products that is free

from harmful conflicts of interest. These ongoing rulemakings

are designed to protect trillions of dollars in retirement

savings of millions of workers and retirees by ensuring that

paid advisors and other entities do not place their own

financial interests over those of their customers. This

legislation would place an unnecessary obstacle in the way of

these efforts to prevent such harmful conflicts of interest,

which hurt businesses, consumers, and retirees and their

families.

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

advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.