Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, while this agreement is an improvement over the harmful sequester, it fails to adequately fund Wall Street's cops, shortchanges many housing programs, and ignores the global economy.

While the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission need more resources to oversee Wall Street, this bill only provides flat funding to the already-underfunded SEC and a nominal bump for the CFTC. Yes, no furloughs, but no new examiners either.

Regarding housing, the bill offers minimal increases for section 8 vouchers and the Community Development Block Grant program but not enough for Americans struggling with long-term unemployment and foreclosure.

Finally, Republican isolationists have excluded the International Monetary Fund reform package. Democrats and businesses agree a well- equipped IMF that leverages billions of global dollars is in our national interest.

Despite these concerns, we must pass this bill. Reluctantly, I support this bill. We have to stop the sequester and prevent another government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' shameful refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect 238,855 workers in California, my State.

I would certainly like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Representative Mark Pocan, for yielding to me, and I congratulate him for organizing this Congressional Progressive Caucus Special Order on unemployment insurance.

Fifty years ago this weekend, in his the State of the Union address, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a war on poverty. He introduced Federal legislation, even proposed State initiatives that would over time improve health, education, nutrition, and access to housing, employment, and economic opportunity.

Although America has changed a great deal since that day, poverty and economic inequality are still at the forefront of our Nation's problems. They are only exacerbated by the Great Recession. The gap between the rich and poor in America has become a chasm. Today, 20 percent of the income in our country goes to the top 1 percent of Americans, and the top 1 percent holds about 40 percent of the country's wealth. This inequality is mirrored in our communities, our housing and rental markets, and our financial system, where a lack of access to banking services often causes working families to have debts that spiral out of control.

Mr. Speaker, inequality in this country has reached a point that for many, the American Dream of upward mobility and unlimited economic opportunity has been greatly diminished.

The 2008 financial crisis cost our economy $12 trillion, as millions lost their homes and jobs. This destruction of wealth disproportionately hurt our Nation's most vulnerable and only widened the gap between the rich and the poor. Even the gains from growth during the recent recovery have overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest people in society.

Almost 95 percent of the income gains since the recovery began have been captured by the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, the minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. Mr. Speaker, this is totally unacceptable. Chronic unemployment and poverty still plague many of our communities. American families are still struggling to make ends meet. Four million Americans have been out of work for 27 weeks or

more, and the economy still has 1 million fewer jobs than before the Great Recession began.

Those there are other factors at play. Much of this inequality is a result of some of the government policies that we make, and government policy can help reverse these alarming trends.

But instead, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle are digging us deeper and deeper into this crisis. They passed the farm bill that cuts SNAP nutrition program for low-income families by $40 billion, and then the Republicans let unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployment expire 3 days after Christmas.

Already, 1.3 million unemployed Americans have lost their Federal unemployment insurance. That includes 20,000 military veterans. Each day this program sits expired, thousands of additional struggling Americans are adversely affected.

As State benefits are exhausted in the first 6 months of 2014, an additional 1.9 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance. In fact, every week another 72,000 job-seekers will lose their benefits during the first half of this year.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is critical to struggling families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, unemployment insurance kept 2.5 million people above the poverty line in 2012, including 600,000 children.

Unemployment insurance is good for the economy. According to Moody's Analytics, every dollar of unemployment insurance generates $1.55 in new economic activity in the first year. The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 200,000 jobs could be lost in our economy if unemployment insurance is not extended.

We must act and act immediately to extend unemployment insurance. So I call on my Republican colleagues to bring the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act, that is H.R. 3824, to the House floor and pass it now.

With one in five American children living in poverty, it is clear that the war on poverty has gone on for far too long. Let's take action now to have all Americans share in our Nation's growth and prosperity. Let's bring an unemployment extension bill to the floor, and let's bring it now. Let's bring a substantive jobs bill to the floor now, and let's bring a minimum wage increase to the floor now. American families have suffered enough. It is time to restore the American Dream.

As I wrap up, let me just say this on behalf of the American people. I hear these arguments every day from the opposite side of the aisle saying if you can continue to extend these unemployment benefits, you are simply going to undermine the will for people to go to work. What you are going to do is make them comfortable on these unemployment benefits, and they won't go look for a job.

Well, I want to tell you I have not talked to everyone whose on unemployment or who needs extended benefits; but I can tell you this, American folks want jobs, they want to work, they want to earn a decent living, they want to earn wages to take care of their families and their children. Their aspirations and their goals are the same as yours and mine. They want what America has promised.

I would say to those who would continue this argument, don't disrespect the American people that way. Don't undermine the American people that way. Do what you know is right, what makes good sense, and let us help out those who are the most vulnerable, who need us now at this time so that they can continue to look for jobs, so that they continue to aspire to have the American Dream, and I thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for that warm introduction, and I want to thank the members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

We just returned from South Africa where we participated with thousands of folks from across South Africa memorializing Nelson Mandela. It was a wonderful moment in our lives. But, of course, Nelson Mandela has helped us all to be better persons. He has inspired us all in so many different ways.

When I was a member of the California State Legislature, I authored the legislation that divested all of our pension funds from doing business in South Africa. That legislation caught fire across the country.

And so that legislation caught fire across the country, and we had other divestment movements going on, and others divesting their funds from businesses that were doing business in South Africa.

We went on to have rallies and marches. We came to Washington, D.C. We got arrested at the South African Embassy.

We sat in in the South African consulate in Los Angeles. We worked with students on the college campuses. They got involved in divestment. Some of them took the names of the streets in those campuses down and made them Nelson Mandela Way. And as we worked and worked, we were instrumental in helping to free Nelson Mandela, who had served 27 years in prison.

In addition to that, some of us had the opportunity to go to South Africa when they lifted the ban on the ANC, and we witnessed all of those heroes who came back from out of exile. We continued to work with them until Nelson Mandela walked out free from having served that 27 years.

And then we were able to welcome him to the United States. In Los Angeles we put together a huge celebration, and when he and Winnie Mandela walked on that stage, the crowd just exploded. But it exploded because here was a man who had the courage of his convictions, a man that was so committed to freedom, justice, and equality that he was willing to put his life on the line.

He was a warrior, and he tried to negotiate. He tried to get the South African Government to realize that they should be recognizing that Black South Africans were human beings too. And when they didn't, he organized the struggle. He resisted and, of course, they placed him in prison.

And some people thought that we would never see Black South Africans free. But because of Nelson Mandela, and because the people loved him so, followed him as he led, today we have a free South Africa.

Mandela is gone. He is no longer with us, but he will be remembered forever because what he did was such a feat that we cannot identify anybody else, certainly in the 20th century, that led the way that he led.

So I am pleased to be here with my colleagues tonight paying tribute to him. I thank my colleagues for all the work that they too participated in to honor him.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Rep. Mark Pocan) for organizing last night's Special Order Hour on raising the minimum wage and the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

I very much welcome this opportunity to talk about trade issues, the minimum wage, and the growing wage gap in our country because they are closely related, in different ways, to one of the most urgent social, economic and political challenges of our time. I'm talking about the problem of growing inequality in the United States.

Over the past three decades, income inequality in the United States has been steadily on the rise. In fact, just before the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. reached levels of inequality not seen since the late 1920s.

Today, the United States has the highest level of inequality of any advanced industrial nation. According to an analysis by the AFL-CIO, the average CEO at 327 available companies in the S&P 500 index is paid 354 times the average worker.

Moreover, a recent study showed that in 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the Nation's income growth gained during the economic recovery. So, this means that the most unequal advanced industrial economy in the world is becoming more so.

It is time to have an open debate and discussion on the wage gap in our country. This is important from a moral standpoint, as a matter of equity and fairness. But it is also important from an economic and political standpoint. That is, excessive inequality not only undermines social and political cohesion, it has also been shown to have negative effects on growth.

Recent research at the IMF has shown that excessive inequality slows growth because depressed earnings lead to weaker demand and lower consumption.

Now, I understand that in a capitalist system, some degree of inequality is necessary for the function of a market economy, since it creates incentives to work hard and take risks. Left entirely to its own, however, the market system will produce more inequality than is economically necessary. And here in America, we have much more inequality than is necessary for efficiency.

This is also a political problem. We now have an increasing degree of resistance on the part of a lot of Americans to efforts to enter into new trade agreements because they are viewed as elevating the interests of capital over all other considerations.

Last month, I joined with 150 of my congressional colleagues in a letter to the President to express our serious concerns about the ongoing negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We urged the President to engage in broader and deeper consultations with Members of Congress about what will be included in this broad-ranging international trade agreement. In addition to tariff issues, this agreement could include provisions related to labor, food, natural resources, the environment, patent and copyright law, health care, energy, telecommunications and financial services. As the Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, it is particularly important to me that my committee is consulted about any provisions affecting financial services.

Past trade negotiations have resulted in NAFTA, the creation of the World Trade Organization, and Free Trade Agreements with Central American countries, Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. All of these agreements were promoted by large corporations, which claimed they would create jobs. But these were empty promises, and many of these same large corporations have continued to ship jobs overseas.

What American workers need is good jobs with good pay. That is why we need to make this discussion of the wage gap and the minimum wage a top priority.

The Federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 per hour for the past four years. The value of the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living, and record-breaking corporate profits have not trickled down to working people.

The real value of the minimum wage is at a historic low. Today, 40 percent of American workers actually make less than the minimum wage was worth back in 1968. That is almost one quarter of American workers. Too many American families who depend upon the minimum wage are seeking Food Stamps and Section 8 housing assistance and are constant visitors to our food banks.

The American people understand the importance of fair wages, and many States and local communities have taken matters into their own hands. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 States and the District of Columbia already have a minimum wage that is higher than the Federal minimum wage.

The National Conference of State Legislatures also reports that in 2013, the legislatures in California, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island all passed bills to increase the minimum wage beginning in 2014. The legislature in California increased the minimum wage

to $10 an hour by 2016. In New Jersey, voters approved a constitutional amendment to increase the minimum wage. In Maryland, the county councils in Montgomery and Prince George's counties both voted to increase the minimum wage to $11.50, higher than any rate currently in effect in the United States.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act--H.R. 1010--would increase the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour over three years and then index it to inflation. I am one of 150 cosponsors of this bill.

It is time for Congress to debate the issue of raising the minimum wage, as well as other policies to address the growing wage gap in our country. This debate must take place in full view of the American public.

Increasing the minimum wage will send a clear signal to Americans that we understand that the benefits of growth and free trade need to be more broadly shared in society. It's the right thing to do morally, economically, and politically.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) manage the time at this time.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for managing in my absence.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to come back to the floor to add a few comments.

Prior to leaving, the chairman of this committee talked about this being a job creation bill. He wrapped this bill in jobs creation. And I must say that I don't think that the gentleman has much else he could say about why they are trying to exempt all of these private equity funds from registering with the SEC.

Wrapping it in this notion of they are creating all of these jobs and we should all be very appreciative is one way to deflect attention from the fact that here we have private equity funds. $180

million from the smaller private equity funds have been exempted already. Those firms that have $180 million in those funds or less are already exempted. That was done in the Dodd-Frank legislation. Now they are coming back and they are saying exempt everybody.

What is it you are trying to hide? Why is it you do not want these firms to register?

Well, first of all, they are registered at this point. The SEC is given the oversight and the regulation that they need, and they are finding that it is very important for them to do so because they are finding that there are unlawful pay-to-play schemes, insider trading, conflicts of interest, and misappropriations of assets, et cetera. That is not to say that all private equity funds are doing these things, but weeding out the bad actors is extremely important.

The SEC is our cop on the block. They are there to protect the investors. This is their number one responsibility, and we want them to do this. Just as you have CalPERS from California, which is against this bill, they should be against this bill. They have the retirement funds of policemen and firemen and all of the middle class people that make up the basis of this economy.

Well, let me just add to the ones that were mentioned by my friend from Massachusetts. We also have Americans for Financial Reform. We also have the Consumer Federation and all of the State regulators who are against this bill. And the President's advisers have said they are recommending a veto.

What do you have to hide? Why don't you want registration? That is the question that must be asked. That is the question that has really not been answered.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill because we endanger the investors that they claim they want to protect because they claim they want them to produce all of these jobs, and certainly that will never happen if we allow the kinds of situations to continue to happen that were described in the discussion about Bain Capital in the Presidential election debates.

Further, let me just say that we have worked very, very hard to try to make sure that we have protection. That is the role of the SEC. And again, they already have these registered private equity firms that they are taking a look at, and they are learning things about them. And this information will be used to make sure that we have the kind of private equity funds that can do the kind of jobs that we want them to do.

Yes, we appreciate investment. Yes, we want job creation. But why should we have private equity funds that somehow have no oversight, that don't have anybody scrutinizing what they are doing? Why is it we don't want any regulatory agencies looking at them? That just doesn't make good sense.

And I would say to my friends, you have to oppose this bill. There will be an amendment coming up that was mentioned by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that makes good sense. And if they had gone to that simply as a way of trying to help out in this area, they could have gotten a lot of support, but they have stepped way over the line when they say no oversight, no scrutiny by the SEC or anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment today, which helps ensure that our derivatives regulator can protect our financial markets and economy. This amendment improves the funding situation of the CFTC by giving back $10 million that my Republican colleagues proposed to cut earlier this year.

Many Americans are unaware that the CFTC is charged with enforcing laws designed to thwart Wall Street from manipulating the cost of commodities, which affects the price at the pump and the cost of food on our plates. Just as importantly, the CFTC has been tasked with writing and enforcing rules reforming the financial markets and participants like AIG that contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

For these reforms to have teeth, we need a cop with the resources and staff to hold the financial industry accountable. And yet, despite the overwhelming need, House Republicans want to cut the CFTC's budget, deciding this year to provide the CFTC a funding level that is 40 percent below the President's request. This funding level is in addition to sequester cuts, which have caused temporary staff layoffs as well as the agency-wide closure for 2 weeks during the Republican shutdown.

Mr. Chairman, we are witnessing a multifaceted effort by the Republican majority to undercut laws and regulations with which Republicans and certain special interests disagree, halting Dodd-Frank rulemaking through litigation and legislation, while simultaneously depriving our market cops of resources.

The DeFazio amendment is a first step towards countering this offensive, by funding Wall Street's cop, at a minimum, with the same resources as last year.

I thank my thoughtful friend from Oregon and urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

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

The financial crisis of 2008 wreaked untold havoc on the U.S. economy. This disaster, which was intensified by the use of derivatives, set back hardworking Americans for generations. At the same time, it bailed out many of the Nation's largest banks.

The Dodd-Frank Act sought to put our financial markets back together by, for example, creating comprehensive oversight and reforms for derivatives markets, as well as prohibitions on banks betting with taxpayers' resources.

H.R. 992 would undo some of these reforms before our regulators, Wall Street's cops, have a chance to finish them, especially the Volcker Rule. Congress passed the Volcker Rule to stop banks from using customer deposits, backed by the taxpayer, for trades intended to only benefit the bank and not its customers. The rule, when finalized, will define legitimate bank activities like hedging and market making, but prevent other behavior that would leave the taxpayer and the economy hurting.

In the same vein, Congress passed the Lincoln amendment, the provision that H.R. 992 would gut, to insulate the taxpayer by ``pushing out'' certain derivatives from the insured bank, while also making broad exceptions for swaps that bank customers overwhelmingly use.

The Bipartisan Policy Center also recognized a connection between the Volcker Rule and the Lincoln amendment, noting that a ``well-executed Volcker Rule would simultaneously accomplish the intended goal of the Lincoln amendment.''

In case America forget, JPMorgan reminded all of us of the importance of setting limits on bank activity. In 2012, 4 years after the crisis, JPMorgan Chase's ``London Whale'' caused the bank to lose more than $6 billion in a few months. What were purportedly hedges using complicated derivatives transactions were later transformed by the bank's focus on profit into what would likely be banned under Volcker.

The sense of urgency to separating the taxpayer-supported bank from the investment bank is shared across the aisle. Let me just tell you, in March of this year, Representative Jeb Hensarling said that, ``Certainly, we have to do a better job ring-fencing, fire-walling, whatever metaphor you want to use, between an insured depository institution and a noninsured investment bank.''

Yet, 3 years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, and 5 years after the financial crisis, we still do not have a ban on the very behavior that hurt our economy.

Instead, H.R. 992 eliminates one taxpayer protection, the Lincoln amendment, by now allowing banks to engage in 99 percent of the swaps market without the taxpayer knowing how robust the monitoring and oversight of such activities will be.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 992 is a step backward in repairing our economy. This view is shared by the Commodity Markets Oversight Coalition, a nonpartisan alliance of American industries, businesses, consumers, and derivatives users.

Similarly, the White House, the AFL-CIO, CalPERS, the Teamsters, Public Citizen, and Americans for Financial Reform all strongly oppose

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Representative Lynch, the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker and Members, the gentleman talked about being in step with me and what I supposedly said when we first dealt with this issue in the Financial Services Committee. And he is correct.

But when do you learn? After JPMorgan, am I to understand that nobody has learned a lesson? When do they learn that Volcker is still not in place yet? So all I will say is that I have an opinion that must be recognized.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), who happens to be the cochair of the Progressive Caucus of Congress, is the deputy whip, and also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a statement from Ms. Sheila Bair who formerly chaired the FDIC. She said:

Derivatives have many legitimate functions, but they can be

high risk and poorly understood because of their complexity

by bank managers and even regulators, as we saw with the

``London Whale'' debacle. So keeping them outside of insured

banks and making the market fund them is the way to go. This

will increase market discipline and protect the FDIC.

She said:

I'm concerned that Members of Congress act on these issues

without full understanding of the ramifications. If we are

going to revisit derivatives regulation, I'd go in the

direction of more market discipline and disclosure, rather

than letting big derivatives dealers use insured deposits to

support their high-risk operations.

The Executive Office of the President sent over a statement that includes these words:

Wall Street Reform represents the most comprehensive set of

reforms to the financial system since the Great Depression,

and its derivatives provisions constitute an important part

of the reforms being put in place to strengthen the Nation's

financial system by improving transparency and reducing risks

for market participants.

Again, let me refer you to Representative Hensarling who said:

Certainly, we have to do a better job ring-fencing, fire-

walling--whatever metaphor you want to use--between an

insured depository institution and a noninsured investment

bank.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I strongly oppose H.R. 2374, the bill inappropriately entitled the Retail Investor Protection Act. Quite the opposite. H.R. 2374 hinders the Labor Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission from protecting the average retail investor when they save for retirement.

For the last 2 years, the Labor Department has been updating an outdated rule regarding the fiduciary responsibility owed to employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, ERISA, and for Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, under the Tax Code.

Today retirees are more likely to rely on 401(k)s than IRAs and are less likely to have defined benefit plans from their employers. At the same time, financial products have become increasingly complex. The cost of rules governing the rights of investors and the responsibilities of advisers are more than 35 years old. DOL is attempting to modernize these rules in order to reflect the changing nature of the retirement marketplace.

Given these realities, it is necessary for the Department to make sure that the professionals offering retirement advice have a duty to put their clients' interests first before their own or, at the very least, tell their customers that they may be conflicted.

At the same time, the SEC is considering moving forward on a rulemaking that would impose a uniform fiduciary standard of conduct for broker-dealers and investment advisers consistent with the Dodd- Frank Act. This would ensure that whatever the business model, if an individual is providing personalized investment advice about securities to a retail customer, they would have a duty to put that customer's interests before their own. This is particularly important as many retail customers are unaware of the differences in the standards of care that various professionals owe them.

Both agencies have been making progress with their rules, collecting the necessary data and responding to stakeholder concerns about preserving access to investment advice, particularly for individuals with small accounts.

Given these facts, H.R. 2374 is the wrong approach. This legislation makes it significantly more difficult for both the SEC and the Department to move forward.

First, the provision requiring the SEC to do a new study, another study documenting that investors are being systemically harmed or disadvantaged under the existing standard, creates a high hurdle for the Commission to overcome. The purpose of this provision is to impose further roadblocks before the Commission can take any action, providing another avenue for industry to sue the SEC.

Secondly, H.R. 2374 would prohibit the Labor Department from modernizing the fiduciary duty standard under ERISA and the Tax Code until the SEC issued their rule. This provision would represent a historic abrogation of the Department's unique authority, and in spite of whatever pressing need for an updated rule.

Finally, H.R. 2374 seems premised on the faulty notion that the Department and the SEC are not coordinating when, in fact, staff have regular ongoing SEC-DOL staff meetings; in addition, leadership meetings, as well as a memorandum of understanding to share information on retirement and investment matters.

On behalf of millions of consumers, retirees, and investors, several organizations, including the AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, the AFL-CIO, and Americans for Financial Reform all oppose this legislation. A coalition of financial planning professionals wrote that H.R. 2374 is a backdoor attempt to undermine investor protection provisions in Dodd-Frank. In addition, SEC Chair White said in a letter to the committee that H.R. 2374 would make it difficult for the Commission to adopt such a rule.

Simply put, H.R. 2374 just goes too far. The bill holds the Labor Department hostage while throwing out roadblocks for the SEC. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison), cochair of the Progressive Caucus, a member of the Financial Services Committee, and Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who serves as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California, Congressman George Miller, who is the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, who is on the Judiciary Committee and who is the ranking member on its Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who is an expert on retirement savings. He is the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. He is also the cochair of the Steering and Policy Committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time we have remaining on this side.

I am prepared to close. However, I will reserve the balance of my time if the chairman has other Members that he would like to put forth at this time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker and Members, H.R. 2374 is yet another attempt by Republicans to prevent our regulators from doing their job, this time protecting the average retail investor when they try to save for retirement.

Under this bill, the Securities and Exchange Commission would have to navigate new obstacles to harmonize the standard of care broker-dealers and investment advisers have when providing investment advice. The Department of Labor would have to wait possibly forever to update its rules protecting 401(k) and IRA plan participants.

H.R. 2374's restrictions put additional work in the way, stopping brokers from SEP dealing when selling investment products to Main Street.

Several studies have demonstrated that Americans do not understand that a broker does not necessarily have the investor's best interest when pushing financial products. The line between advisers and brokers has blurred over the last few decades, and this bill makes it harder to bring clarity for investments.

Mr. Speaker and Members, this administration has taken a strong stand against this bill. Let me read to you from the letter that they have sent to us, and I would like to offer this for the Record:

The administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 2374

because it would derail important rulemakings under way at

the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of

Labor that are critical to protecting Americans' hard-earned

savings and preserving their retirement security.

They further say:

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.

Of course, there is a lot said here, but I think this says it all:

The bill would hinder efforts to protect consumers from

conflicts of interest among brokers, dealers, financial

advisers, 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.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I would just bring this to your attention: the Department of Labor is working to protect investors. My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are working to protect broker-dealers who may not have the best interest of these small individuals who want to invest, who want to earn money for retirement.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle are putting all of this energy out to protect them no matter if they may be in a conflict of interest with those

who are simply trying to save for retirement.

I have watched as we have been through the subprime meltdown in this country. People lose money in their 401(k)s. I have watched people lose money in their IRAs. I have watched single women in their 60s losing their entire investment retirement savings who can't go back to work because they are too old--they can't find a job.

Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of broker-dealers who will have no fiduciary responsibility, who can tell you any old thing, direct you any old place? They get higher commissions and the people lose money. Whose side are we on? Why are we here in the Congress of the United States of America, voted on by our constituents to come here to advocate for their best interest?

The gentlelady from Missouri talked about what a hard time families are having. She is right. Families are having a hard time. I want to tell you, families are having a hard time even when my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would deny them food stamps when they lose their jobs, even when they stand here in the Congress of the United States and support sequestration that denied that family the ability to send their child to Head Start. They don't have money for fancy early childhood education. Head Start is all they have, but they are losing the ability to do that because my friends on the opposite side of the aisle support cutting back every agency.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle can't care about families in the way that they say they do because they shut down this government and they caused families to lose money to stay at home, to not know when they were going to get paid, or how to pay their bills. Not only did they harm these families; they harmed many of our agencies that are trying to help the families. I could go on and on and on.

But let me say that consumer protection is advocated by some organizations we are all familiar with: AARP, AAUW, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, Americans for Financial Reform, the Association of BellTell Retirees, on and on and on. These are the people who protect consumers.

I will submit this for the Record.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, October 28, 2013.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2374--Retail Investor Protection Act

(Rep. Wagner, R-MO, and Rep. Murphy, D-FL)

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.

Groups in Opposition to H.R. 2374

1. AARP

2. AAUW

3. AFL-CIO

4. AFSCME

5. Alliance For Retired Americans

6. Americans for Financial Reform (AFR)-w/over 200

signatories

7. The Association of BellTell Retirees, Inc.

8. Certified Financial Planner Board (CFP)

9. Consumer Federation of America

10. Financial Planning Association

11. Fund Democracy

12. Investment Advisor Association (IAA)

13. National Council of La RAZA

14. The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors

(NAPFA)

15. The National Association of Professional Geriatric Care

Managers

16. North American Securities Administrators Association

(NASAA)

17. OWL-The Voice of Midlife and Older Women

18. Pensions Rights Center

19. ProtectSeniors.org

20. Public Citizen

21. Wider Opportunities for Women

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, for more than two decades, Congressman Major Owens served the citizens of Brooklyn, New York in the United States Congress. He was a humble man of great character and dedicated his life to public service. Congressman Owens was an extremely important member of the U.S. House of Representatives, who was an expert in education policy. In Congress, he fought to secure $100 million in federal funds for historically black colleges and spearheaded efforts to increase federal involvement in reducing high school dropout rates.

Congressman Owens used his position within the halls of Congress and in the community to ensure that every American lived a better life. Congressman Owens provided leadership within the Congressional Black Caucus fighting for the rights of minorities in addition to advocating for workers and the poor and middle class families. Congressman Owens was also an advocate for disabled Americans playing an instrumental role in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in Congress.

It was an honor to serve with him as a colleague and a privilege to know him as a dear friend. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Maria and his family during this very difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to open the government and go to conference on a budget so that we can end this ridiculous Republican government shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Takano for organizing this very special Special Order so that we can talk about what is happening with our great State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to once again call for an end to this unnecessary government shutdown and talk about the significant consequences it is having for the people of my district, California's 43rd.

The recession hit the people of my district hard. Delinquencies, foreclosures, and job losses crippled our economy and our neighborhoods. Five years later, we are just beginning to emerge from these hard times.

But the irresponsibility of the Republican Party has threatened our fragile recovery. Their strategy, planned and financed by extremists like the Koch brothers, Heritage Action, and the Club For Growth, is to hold the American people and the economy hostage in order to push an extremist ideology.

Their desire to eliminate the Affordable Care Act is misguided, wrong, and harmful to the American people. The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. It has been validated by the reelection of President Obama and supported by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It is settled law, and we should not be threatening American jobs and the American economy to repeal it.

Mr. Speaker, veterans in my district are being harmed by the shutdown. If this unnecessary stalemate does not end by November 1, the Veterans Affairs Department will not be able to issue checks to more than 5 million beneficiaries. This is unacceptable.

In addition, small businesses in my district are being severely harmed. The Small Business Administration's lending program has been stopped, and the process to obtain government contracts has also been halted. In 2012, the SBA approved over $366,000 in small business, real estate, and equipment loans every day in my district. Each day this senseless shutdown continues, hundreds of thousands of dollars in economic development all across my district is being undermined.

In Torrance, Inglewood, Gardena, Hawthorne, Lawndale, and Los Angeles itself, retail stores, restaurants, and small businesses are hurting because of the shutdown. Prominent business groups in my district, such as the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Torrance Chamber of Commerce, California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and 14 other local chambers of commerce across the State have all said that the impacts of a shutdown could be harmful and disruptive to their businesses.

The Republican Party likes to talk about how much they support small businesses, but when extremist billionaires like the Koch brothers start throwing their money around, Republicans tell small business owners, You are on your own.

The Head Start program, which has put thousands of children on a solid path to a well-rounded education, has effectively closed services in many States and regions across the country. California is no exception. I am outraged that our Nation's children are suffering the consequences of these Republican games. The Republican sequester already cut 57,000 children from Head Start. This program is a crucial lifeline in my district, combating poverty and making our communities safer, better places to live. We need to restore it today.

Finally, I want to discuss the shutdown's serious impact on California's fledgling housing market. My district's housing market is finally finding its footing after years of instability. The Republican shutdown is throwing a massive wrench in that process. A prolonged shutdown will cause tremendous harm to home buyers seeking to close on mortgage loans. These delays are detrimental to all home buyers, but particularly those who are buying for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will mark the first paycheck many affected employees will miss as a result of the shutdown. These are hardships many in my district cannot afford. Each day this senseless shutdown continues risks further irreparable damage to my district's economy, families, and businesses. It must end now.

Just yesterday, we heard more bad news for our State. Governor Jerry Brown announced that he will soon be forced to make the difficult decision of whether the State will pay for the continued operation of Federal programs used by millions of Californians. These include programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, subsidized school meals, and nutrition assistance for pregnant women and infants, all of which could be interrupted in November.

I urge my Republican colleagues to stop using the American people and the American economy as pawns in this debate. It is time for the Republican Party to end this ridiculous game and open the government today.

I thank Congressman Takano for organizing this very important Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the irresponsibility of the Republican Party in holding hostage the full faith and credit of the United States.

As hundreds of thousands of Federal workers go without pay, as home buying slows to an eventual halt, and as Federal agencies remain unable to complete the important work of implementing the Wall Street Reform Act, Republicans are threatening another crisis that could have significant impacts on our financial markets and the economic security of all Americans. They do this in pursuit of an ideological agenda. The result is continued instability and uncertainty for our economy and fragile recovery.

We should not default on our obligations. The ramifications of doing so would be serious. The underpinnings of the entire financial system could be affected, with the possibility of triggering a financial crisis reminiscent of the days following the failure of Lehman Brothers--only this time, it would be far worse.

If the U.S. defaults on its debt, lending--the lifeblood of our economy--would dry up. The dollar's value could drop, and we could see dramatic increases in interest rates on everything from mortgages and auto loans to credit cards. Not only that, but every U.S. corporation and municipality would likely see their borrowing costs climb as well. Unemployment rates would rise precipitously just as we're beginning to recover.

If Congress cannot do its job in a timely manner, in the future, the government's ability to pay its debts will be looked upon with uncertainty by investors and markets, leading to higher borrowing costs in the future and, in turn, an increase in our Nation's deficit. Worst of all, we could see another dramatic loss of wealth for working Americans.

History tells us that even the threat of default can send shock waves through our financial system. In 2011, just the prospect of defaulting on our debt caused a drop in consumer and business confidence, a 17 percent decline in the S&P 500 index of equity prices, and increased volatility in the stock market; and, of course, we received a downgrade in the U.S. Government debt.

The drop in equity caused by the 2011 debt ceiling fight had serious consequences for American families. The months following saw a $2.4 trillion decline in household wealth and an $800 billion drop in retirement assets. The cost of homeownership also increased, as risk- averse lenders increased the cost of borrowing to purchase a home. The 2011 debate showed us the very serious consequences of even debating whether we should pay bills already incurred.

But no one knows with certainty the full extent of the damage to the economy should the U.S. actually default on its debts. We have heard speculation ranging from bad to the catastrophic. I, for one, do not want to find out.

What I do know is that everyone from Wall Street CEOs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to small business owners, and prominent conservative economists are concerned with the significant damage that could result from a debt ceiling standoff. Warren Buffett, Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, and the heads of the Nation's largest financial institutions have been outspoken about the need to end this hostage crisis now.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have been through enough. We remain in the midst of a government shutdown with no end in sight. It is hurting real people and damaging our economic recovery. At this tenuous time, defaulting on our Nation's debt could create the perfect storm that may roil financial markets and undermine the credibility of the United States; but, most importantly, it could be devastating for American families who are already suffering in the aftermath of a major recession, foreclosure crisis, and now a government shutdown.

So I urge my colleagues to stop using the debt ceiling to push extremist ideology and vote now on a clean debt limit increase.

The gentlewoman from Tennessee said she doesn't know what we mean when we talk about a ``clean debt limit increase.'' I think she knows. She knows that they should not try to do away with the ACA--that is, the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare--and hold us hostage because they don't like it.

The ObamaCare legislation was passed. It is in law. President Obama was absolutely supported by the citizens of this country when they voted the President to be reelected once again. The Supreme Court supported it.

If they wish to do away with ObamaCare, they should go through the legislative process and repeal it; but no, they are holding us hostage on the budget.

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

You will find no stronger supporter of the Head Start program than I. For years, I worked first as a teacher in Head Start, and later I was a supervisor for Parent Involvement and Volunteer Services.

I know Head Start. The experience was life changing--inspiring me to join the war on poverty and dedicate myself to improving the lives of low-income children and families. Thanks to Head Start, thousands of children have been put on a solid path to a well-rounded education.

Head Start teaches children to feel good about themselves, to have a positive self-image. Head Start introduced children to books and reading and to how to resolve conflicts. We gave full examination and discovered educational disabilities, and we gave them the path to good health services.

The opposite side of the aisle claims they support Head Start and early childhood education, but they supported sequestration that has robbed 57,000 children of the opportunity to be in the Head Start program.

This Republican destructive strategy--picking winners and losers, who will survive and who will not--is not the right way to go.

Put a clean CR on the floor so that we can vote for all of government to be protected. Don't pit children against veterans, et cetera.

I will not be bullied into supporting this measure. I urge my colleagues to stand with me. Despite my love for this program, I must vote against this measure.

I ask my colleagues to stand up to these Republican tricks and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1508, a bill originally introduced by Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.