Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes the safety net away from America's poor families and takes food out of the mouths of children.

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

Just last week, the government made an important step towards repairing our financial system after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve adopted final rules implementing Basel 3, including new capital requirements intended to bolster capital throughout the financial system. As losses mounted during the financial crisis, the woefully inadequate capital cushions at banks and others nearly brought our entire economy to a halt.

I also appreciate that the bank regulators have taken a commonsense approach, for which I had strongly advocated, related to community banks, including the treatment of residential mortgages. I applaud the banking regulators for finalizing these critical rules, which, along with the other Dodd-Frank reforms, will create the conditions for a robust and resilient financial sector.

This legislation before us today, H.R. 1341, requires the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, to conduct a study of the potential effects of any differences between the U.S. and other jurisdictions' implementation of one aspect of the Basel 3 Accords-- the credit valuation adjustment capital requirement related to derivatives transactions. The Basel signatory countries rightly agreed that banks should hold capital against the possibility that their counterparties, be they airlines or other banks, would default.

However, despite agreeing to do so under Basel 3, the European Union has made a preliminary decision to exclude the credit valuation adjustment from the calculation of European banks' capital requirements. As a result of the EU dropping this requirement, some U.S. banks think that they may be disadvantaged relative to their international counterparts.

Under the bill, the FSOC will study these and other differences between the regulators' implementation of this requirement. I agree that it is important for U.S. regulators to ensure that the way by which the CVA is calculated for domestic financial institutions includes an appropriate methodology that will not inadvertently create an unlevel playing field relative to foreign competitors. At the same time, we must be mindful not to engage in a global race to the bottom when it comes to capital requirements for our largest, most globally interconnected financial institutions. After all, the strength of the U.S. financial system is and will be based on its stability and transparency.

Importantly, during consideration of the bill, Mrs. Beatty of Ohio added language balancing the study's scope. As a result, the FSOC study will also consider the effects that failing to implement the CVA would have on the stability of U.S. financial markets in a period of market stress as well as how the regulators are fulfilling their statutory mandate to respond to emerging threats to financial stability.

With the addition of this language, the bill's study now balances not just the implications for derivatives market participants of this specific capital charge but also the effects on our economic stability. Undercapitalized derivatives exposures were one of the major drivers of the 2008 financial crisis. Market participants should hold capital against the risk of a counterparty defaulting or entering bankruptcy.

We can certainly consider how the implementation of the CVA could best be accomplished; but, again, we cannot engage in a global race to the bottom when it comes to capital rules. It is my hope that the FSOC will use the findings from this study to urge the other global regulators to expeditiously adopt standards that are as strong as ours.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 2008 financial crisis cost Americans more than $13 trillion, leaving many families unable to make ends meet as they lost their jobs and saw their nest eggs disappear. Five years later, as we began to pick up the pieces of the mess largely caused by deregulation, the American investing public is now much more cautious when investing its valuable savings. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I see my job to ensure that there are appropriate rules in place that will hopefully prevent such a debacle from ever happening again.

One such initiative to improve the functionality of our markets is to improve the independence of the market's fact checkers--the public company auditors. These companies play a vital role of validating the authenticity of a company's financial statements and keep all public companies honest when reporting to investors how they have performed.

I applaud the government regulator of the auditors, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, for its persistent efforts to identify structural changes in the current system that may improve auditor independence. After all, we know that auditors generally performed poorly leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, failing to warn investors of the outsized risk posed by banks' bets on the housing market.

Having said that, I understand that one such proposal floated by the PCAOB, the mandatory rotation of auditors, has raised serious concerns that will significantly increase costs for companies, as well as diminish the quality of information upon which investors base their investment decisions. For these reasons, I support H.R. 1564, which prohibits this proposal from being implemented.

It is not clear to me that requiring a public company to change auditors every so many years would contribute to auditor independence. What's more, given the time it takes an auditing firm to truly understand the business of a company, there will be at least a few years of less than ideal audits as an auditor has to learn everything they need to know about the new firm.

Additionally, the small number of major auditing firms, coupled with specialization within the auditing industry, means that requiring rotation, in many cases, will not leave companies with much choice at all. In my view, while enhancing auditor independence is a crucial goal, I do feel there may be better ways to accomplish it.

I would also note that this bill does not in any way limit the ability of a company's audit committee to rotate its auditors. Such committees, as some investors have pointed out, are best suited to select their own auditors.

Having said that, I do have concerns about tampering with the authority of a regulator when it raises an issue that we disagree with. The PCAOB asked the public for feedback on a range of proposals all targeting the concern that auditors have become too close and dependent on the companies they are supposed to examine. It's not unreasonable for the PCAOB to include this as one of a large range of issues it's examining.

To address this concern with the bill, I offered an amendment during our markup of H.R. 1564 that requires the GAO to update its previous study regarding auditor rotation. The previous GAO study, completed shortly after the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, found that ``mandatory audit firm rotation may not be the most efficient way to strengthen auditor independence and improve auditor quality.'' However, the GAO also noted that ``several years' experience with implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's reforms is needed before the full effect

of the act's requirements can be assessed.'' The GAO needs to update this outdated study.

This amendment requires the GAO again to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of mandatory audit firm rotation, now that more than 10 years have passed since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley. The amendment requires consideration of various factors, including whether rotation would actually mitigate against conflicts of interest between audit firms and issuers and whether audit quality could suffer due to audit firm rotation. And the study would also include an assessment of the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley on audit firm independence and whether additional reforms are needed.

Importantly, this study will inform a future Congress as to the wisdom of the statutory prohibition on auditor rotation in H.R. 1564.

With the adoption of my amendment, I and every member of the committee voted for this bill.

Let me reiterate, I am supportive of the role and mission of the PCAOB but believe that the regulator would do well to look at the benefits to investors as it examines auditor independence. Doing so will take the PCAOB away from focusing on auditor rotation and towards other areas that provide more meaningful improvements in auditing and financial reporting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), who has put so much time and work into researching this whole issue about auditor rotation. He's worked very closely with Mr. Hurt and helped to educate the members of the committee about the difficulties and the complications of this whole issue of auditor rotation.

Mr. Speaker, as I have no additional speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you so very much. I would like to first take a moment to thank you, Congressman Chaka Fattah, for putting together this moment for us to reflect on the life and legacy of Bill. I want you to know that we are so pleased that you're carrying on in his style and his tradition. Thank you so very much for this evening.

I rise today deeply saddened by the sudden passing of my friend and former colleague, Congressman Bill Gray. He was loved by everyone, and his legacy will continue to inspire all who knew him. I feel fortunate to have had the distinct honor of working with him over the years as both a colleague and a dear friend. I join the people of Philadelphia and Americans across the Nation in mourning the loss of an effective leader and passionate advocate of the public good. Bill Gray will certainly be missed.

First elected in 1978, Congressman Gray's 12 years in Congress were marked by extraordinary achievement. Not only was he was the first African American to serve as chairman of the House Budget Committee, he was also the first African American to serve as majority whip. In addition to his outstanding leadership, Congressman Gray's skill as a politician and orator raised awareness about the talent of the Congressional Black Caucus.

During his tenure, Congressman Gray also authored legislation that implemented economic sanctions against South Africa during apartheid. As our thoughts and prayers are with Nelson Mandela, we must remember and appreciate the fact that it was Congressman Gray who spearheaded Federal efforts to eradicate apartheid.

Bill Gray was a close friend both to my husband and me long before I entered Congress. At Bill's invitation, I was honored to serve as guest speaker at Bright Hope Baptist Church in Philadelphia, where Bill served as pastor until his retirement in 2007. My husband regularly played tennis with Bill in Washington, D.C., and many cities across this Nation.

Bill was a strong and influential advocate for his constituents in Philadelphia and Americans around the country. I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife, Andrea, and their three sons, William, IV, Justin, and Andrew, during this difficult time.

I would just like to share with you--when I first came to the Congress of the United States, Bill embraced me and he took me on my first codel. We went to the Middle East. Here's a picture of us in Israel. It was the first codel that I went on. I watched Bill, how he conducted himself, how he dealt with the dignitaries and the heads of states, and I've tried to model him all of these years. So I have a lot to be thankful for. We are saddened, but I am so pleased that I had the opportunity to learn from him, and I certainly admired him so very much.

Thank you very much for organizing this opportunity for us to share our thoughts about him today. Thank you, Chaka.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Financial Services Committee and a member of the conference committee that passed the Dodd-Frank reform legislation, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1613. I oppose the bill because of the exemption it includes for companies from the transparency requirements under section 1504 of Dodd-Frank Act.

Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to disclose payments they

make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources. It covers companies listed on U.S. exchanges, including the U.S., Chinese, Brazilian, Canadian, European, Australian and other companies.

Section 1504 has a long legislative history. The Financial Services Committee held its first hearing on extracted industry transparency in 2007. In 2008, our committee held a legislative hearing where we debated the specific provisions that eventually became law. The Senate introduced similar legislation, and they held hearings.

The provision was adopted into the Dodd-Frank Act through a bipartisan amendment. Then, before issuing a rule to implement the law, the Securities and Exchange Commission solicited input, held meetings, and considered hundreds of comments from industry, trade groups, Members of Congress, and civil society. Section 1504 was very carefully considered by Congress over the course of several years, with input from all quarters. It is now the law of the land.

Let me tell you why it's important.

Public disclosure of extractive industry payments help diminish the political instability caused by OPEC governance, which is not only a threat to investment, but also to our own national security. Resource revenue transparency also allows shareholders to make better informed assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest.

Countries rich in natural resources are often developing countries that are politically unstable, many rife with corruption, with a history of civil conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.

Opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in these countries. This is crucial in order for citizens in resource-rich countries to be able to demand greater accountability from their governments for spending that serves the public interest. This in turn can help reduce poverty and create more stable, democratic governments. It can also help create more stable business environments.

The provision in H.R. 1613 that exempts companies from the disclosure requirements under section 1504 is entirely unnecessary. The bipartisan Senate version of this bill includes no such exemption.

Also, the U.S.-Mexico agreement explicitly respects the domestic laws of both countries, so it already accommodates the Dodd-Frank disclosure requirement. Moreover, there are no laws in Mexico that would prohibit the disclosure of company payments.

Let's also listen to what the administration has to say about this. After all, this administration negotiated the terms of the agreement with Mexico. The administration very much wants legislation to implement the agreement, and they know what they need to do this. And they don't want this bill.

The White House issued a statement strongly opposing H.R. 1613 precisely because of the provision waiving the requirements for the public disclosure of extractive payments to governments. The exemption in this bill is nothing more than an effort to undermine transparency and to undo good public policy that has become an international standard.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form. Members deserve the opportunity to vote on a clean bill that they can support, and I urge the leadership to give the House that opportunity.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard talk from both sides of the aisle about how important this bill could be without this exemption. Why would you undo the work of both sides of the aisle, the conference committee, the Senate, and all in working out this agreement by putting this exemption in?

I want you to know that those of us who are working very hard to make sure that we implement reform, those of us who are very much involved with Dodd-Frank, we not only understand all of the ways that people are trying to get around Dodd-Frank, to get under Dodd-Frank, to undo the reforms of Dodd-Frank, why does this exemption show up in this bill? It has no place in this bill. This is another attempt to get around Dodd- Frank and not to comply with the law, and you're messing up a good agreement. It does not make good sense.

I oppose this bill in this form. The administration opposes this bill in this form. And if you want the kind of agreement that you say you want with Mexico, if you're interested in sharing those resources, if you're interested in what you claim can be done creating jobs, you would not move forward with this bill. You would not try to force this exemption on this agreement.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I hear my friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about this is as bipartisan as you can get. It was bipartisan before you sneaked in the exemption that would allow companies to bribe governments and pay under the table and create chaos in other countries. It was a bipartisan agreement.

I keep hearing reference to this having the support of the administration. Let me be clear. This bill, in this form, does not have the support of the administration. It did have before you sneaked in the exemption.

Dodd-Frank made it very clear. It is the law. We worked very hard. Both

sides of the aisle, in the conference committee, worked on this part of the bill. And now we have you coming in the dark of the night, one more time trying to undo Dodd-Frank. And this is awful. It is really, really awful because we have the opportunity to have an agreement with Mexico where we could both benefit from the drilling, and we all support that.

But, no, you have decided to undermine the work of both sides of the aisle by putting this exemption in this bill, and so it does not have the support of the administration. It is no longer bipartisan. We no longer support it. And you have the possibility of a veto on your hands.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to, if I can, engage you in a little colloquy here.

What reason would the Members of Congress try and protect the oil companies from simply sharing how much they're paying to governments? What reason would they have for doing that?

Well, I just want to make clear what this exemption is they're trying to do. It's a very simple request that's in law that says just tell us what you're paying. And we have now included in this bill, where there is an agreement, an exemption that will not allow them or keep them from being able to share that information.

As you said, they would now, if this passed, they would be able to make payments in secret. They would be able to make bribes. They would be able to maybe even be disruptive to countries that they are paying bribes to when they get into these conflicts in other countries.

So why would they want to do this? I don't understand it. I thought maybe you may have some additional information that I don't have. But to mess up an agreement simply because you want to protect the oil companies from saying how much they're paying is beyond my comprehension.

Will the gentleman yield?

Just as you have come to some conclusion that maybe we are opposing this bill because we're opposed to offshore drilling, which is not true----

Thank you very much.

When you raised the question about why didn't we offer an amendment and the Senate can offer an amendment, I have drawn a conclusion. Why are you trying to get credit for putting this in the bill with the oil companies?

Thank you very much.

I rise to oppose the closed rule on H.R. 1256.

H.R. 1256 really has no business being hidden in this bill at all. It is another attempt to keep the debate from taking place so that people will know what is happening when we are trying to have a regulatory regime that will protect us from having to bail out big institutions.

We are simply saying that we can't allow our financial institutions to have subsidiaries overseas that are doing business and trading and putting us at risk. Every time they get involved in a trade in which they don't have comparable rules in that country, what we are doing is putting this country at risk that we are going to have to bail out a big financial institution because the harm will come right back to the parent company.

We, in Dodd-Frank, have said that we must have comparable rules, that we must have regulatory regimes that are comparable to ours in order to do business and to do trading in order to protect against big institutions failing. So now we have this H.R. 1256 that would undo all of that and drag it back into the shadows, this derivatives trading, and put us all at risk. We can't even debate it. We can't even have an amendment because, again, they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank.

Thank you so much. I do appreciate this. This is so important.

I am against this closed rule simply because we have mandated the kind of reform in Dodd-Frank that would keep us from ever being in the position in which we have to bail out these big institutions, and now we have so much organized push back and undermining of Dodd-Frank in which they are attempting to undo the reforms that we have done.

Simply put, we cannot allow the branches and subsidiaries of these big broker dealers--these big banks--to go over and do trading with countries that don't have comparable rules. If we allow that to happen, we will be forced to do what we have seen with AIG, which was to bail them out to the tune of billions of dollars, and supposedly, we'd done reforms to keep from having to be in that position again. We will find that we will again be experiencing what happened with Goldman Sachs and others who ended up being the beneficiaries of our failed regulatory regime.

So I am opposed to the closed rule. Vote against the closed rule, and then vote against the bill.

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

I would like to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings of what this bill is about. The more we debate it, the better Members understand the impact of this bill on our economy.

The gentleman from Texas, the chairman, just talked about how generous they are in allowing this debate to take place. Members, let me tell you what really happened. The fact of the matter is there has been an attempt to hide H.R. 1256 in this DOD bill. What business does it have in this bill? Why is it the Rules Committee determined that it would be a closed rule?

The first reason is that they tried to get away without having amendments to the bill. I had an amendment that I offered in committee that was not accepted, an amendment that if there were an open rule, I would have been able to offer this amendment on the floor. But, no, they close-ruled this bill to keep any amendments from being heard, to be debated, to be voted on, because they know that if Members really discover what these derivatives are all about and how they could create such risk that we'll be put in the position of bailing out failed institutions all over again, that Members would not support this kind of bill.

This country has been through a terrible financial crisis. Part of the reason is that we allowed our banks and financial institutions to place unregulated bets on the mortgage markets. Remember AIG? What did AIG do? It made a really big bet that the mortgage market would go up, and it lost, and the taxpayer was put in the position of having to bail it out. The Dodd-Frank Act enabled us to put a stop to that kind of betting going on, hidden from the rest of us, finally dragging that activity out into the sunlight.

The CFTC and the SEC are finally putting in place rules of the road to

prevent any one institution from threatening our livelihood again, but this bill wants to drag some of that activity back into the shadows, allowing banks and others, once again, to enter into transactions without even our regulators being able to see them.

You may say that this bill just concerns the limits on how far U.S. law goes. So why is it so important that the CFTC and SEC have discretion over the rules on cross-border initiatives? Because the exposure that a foreign branch or subsidiary of a U.S. institution takes in foreign markets comes back home to the U.S. Moreover, U.S. banks and corporations may find that those they do business with have much more hidden exposure because of foreign transactions. This bill says that we will have to rely on the foreign regulators to protect us. We shouldn't have to rely on foreign regulators who don't even have regulatory regimes to protect us. We should protect ourselves by making sure that anybody our branches and our subsidiaries are doing business with have comparable rules. Those countries must have comparable rules to the U.S. rules in order to protect us.

To put it simply, this bill would delay the implementation of the Wall Street Reform Act's derivatives provisions by months, if not years, and would preserve the kind of opacity in our markets that led to taxpayers' bailing out AIG just 5 short years ago.

For example, while Europe has made considerable progress on its swaps' clearing and reporting rules, Europe's framework for implementing trading and internal business conduct standards have been caught up in delays. It is unclear at this point how strong those requirements ultimately will be. This bill increases the incentives for other jurisdictions to avoid making the tough decisions to put in a strong financial framework.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, at this time I enter into the Record three letters of opposition to this bill. One is from the Executive Office of the President of the United States Office of Management and Budget; Americans for Financial Reform; and American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial

Organizations,

Washington, DC, June 11, 2013.

Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO opposes the ``Swaps

Jurisdiction Certainty Act'' (H.R. 1256) scheduled for floor

consideration this week. If passed, this bill would undermine

the framework Congress put in place in the Dodd-Frank Wall

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to prevent

risky derivatives trading from contributing to another global

financial crisis. It would impose major new procedural

hurdles that would impede the Commodity Futures Trading

Commission's (CFTC) ability to move forward with effective

rules designed to prevent risks that arise from overseas

derivatives trading from impacting the U.S. economy.

The 2008 financial crisis provided vivid illustrations of

how derivatives transactions conducted by U.S. institutions

in overseas markets can wreak havoc on the U.S. economy--both

the AIG bailout and the Lehman Brothers failure were caused

to a large extent by offshore derivatives trades.

As we saw with AIG and Lehman Brothers, U.S. institutions

can easily conduct derivatives transactions outside U.S.

borders that put U.S. financial institutions at risk. With

this in mind, Congress granted the CFTC, which regulates

around 90 percent of U.S. derivatives markets, authority in

Section 722(d) of Dodd-Frank to oversee derivatives

transactions that ``have a direct and significant connection

with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United

States.''

The CFTC has issued proposed guidance that strikes an

appropriate balance. It protects U.S. taxpayers and the U.S.

economy while allowing overseas subsidiaries of U.S. banks to

be regulated under `substituted compliance' by their local

regulator when the CFTC makes a specific determination that

the relevant foreign rules are as strong as the U.S. rules.

H.R. 1256 would seriously undermine the CFTC's ability to

protect U.S. taxpayers from risks that arise from overseas

derivatives trading by creating a presumption that these

transactions are exempt from U.S. regulation. To overcome

this presumption, the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) would be required to determine that the

foreign country rules are not `broadly comparable' to U.S.

rules, issue joint rules, and make formal reports to

Congress.

The CFTC's ability to effectively oversee offshore

derivatives transactions that create risks to the U.S.

economy is central to whether Title VII is ultimately

successful in mitigating the risks in the derivatives markets

that nearly brought down the economy less than five years

ago.

Don't let another AIG or Lehman Brothers happen under your

watch. Vote against the ``Swaps Jurisdiction Certainty Act''

(H.R. 1256) and prevent a major loophole from undermining the

basic derivatives market protections that Congress so

sensibly put in place when it passed Dodd-Frank in 2010.

Sincerely,

William Samuel,

Director, Government Affairs Department.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record the amendment

that I would have offered had they not come up with a closed rule.

Page 5, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 7,

line 6, and insert the following:

(d) General Application to Foreign Jurisdictions.--

(1) General application.--In issuing rules under subsection

(b), the Commissions shall provide that persons in compliance

with the regulatory requirements of a country or

administrative region that has one of the nine largest

combined swap and security-based swap markets by notional

amount in the calendar year preceding issuance of such rules

or any other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by

the Commissions may satisfy the corresponding categories of

United States swaps requirements through such compliance upon

the making of a joint determination by the Commissions

pursuant to subsection (d)(2).

(2) Determinations.--The Commissions shall jointly

determine whether one or more categories of regulatory

requirements of a foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined

by the Commissions, are broadly equivalent to corresponding

United States swaps requirements, with such determinations

initially to be made as follows:

(A) Initial determinations regarding a country or

administrative region described under paragraph (1), or any

other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the

Commissions, accounting for the five largest combined swap

and security-based swap markets by notional amount in the

calendar year preceding issuance of rules under subsection

(b) shall be made within 180 days after issuance of such

rules.

(B) Initial determinations regarding a country or

administrative region described under paragraph (1), or any

other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the

Commissions, accounting for the next five largest combined

swap and security-based swap markets by notional amount in

the calendar year preceding issuance of rules under

subsection (b) shall be made within 360 days after issuance

of such rules.

(C) Initial determinations regarding a country or

administrative region described under paragraph (1), or any

other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the

Commissions, shall be made within 540 days after issuance of

rules under subsection (b).

(3) Criteria.--In such rules, the Commissions shall jointly

establish criteria for determining that one or more

categories of regulatory requirements of a country or

administrative region described under paragraph (1) or other

foreign jurisdiction are broadly equivalent to corresponding

United States swaps requirements, and shall jointly determine

the appropriate application of certain United States swap

requirements to persons or transactions relating to or

involving such country or administrative region or other

foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commission

to the extent that the Commissions have determined that

certain regulatory requirements of such country or

administrative region or other foreign jurisdiction are

broadly equivalent to corresponding United States swaps

requirements.

(4) Right to petition.--A market participant or group of

market participants may request a determination with respect

to a particular category or categories of foreign regulatory

requirements with regard to a foreign jurisdiction or

jurisdictions. Any determination made regarding such a

request shall be available to all market participants.

Page 7, line 7, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch.)

I yield myself as much time as I may consume to refute.

The gentleman from Texas keeps talking about we make the claim that we ended ``too big to fail.'' That's what we're trying to do. That's what we're standing up against, what you're attempting to do in this piece of legislation.

Derivatives are an important part of the reform of Dodd-Frank. It is important because we're trying to create transparency. The over-the- counter derivatives market that has been working for so long in the shadows we cannot continue to have.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Texas knows how it works. We have Dodd-Frank reform, and it has to be implemented. You know the living wills have to be done. You know that we have to put in place all that it takes to have the orderly liquidation procedure. And it is important that you understand, and that all of our Members understand, that derivatives are an important part of reform.

If we allow this bill that presumes that other countries are comparable to us in their regulatory regimes without even checking, without vetting, without asking any questions, without requiring anything, then we absolutely put our own country at risk, and we put at risk the American taxpayers who will have to bail out the major financial institutions if we allow you to pass a bill like this, presuming that they are okay, that these countries are okay.

The other thing is--I know and understand now. I understand very well that if we allow this presumption to take place, then you'll just go to court and you'll argue that you have the presumption, and you'll try and tie up the CFTC all over again.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I'm very disappointed and worried that this bill has been brought to the floor under a closed rule, as have more than one-third of the bills so far this Congress.

I believe there are important issues concerning the structure of this bill, particularly the bill's presumption that the rules of the nine largest foreign markets will be broadly equivalent to our own. The bill would require the SEC and the CFTC to act in order to allow U.S. rules to apply to transactions, even though the risk of the transactions will ultimately be imported back to the United States.

My amendment would have the reverse of this presumption, directing the SEC and CFTC to jointly consider the regulatory framework of these countries to provide appropriate exemptions when jurisdictions have derivatives rules that are truly broadly equivalent to our own.

A closed rule prevents us from considering these issues. Why do they have a closed rule? Why did they try to hide this bill inside the DOD?

They don't want this debate. They didn't want an opportunity for any amendments. They don't care that foreign countries would be determining our fate when they set up their regulatory regimes, which won't be comparable to ours.

We owe it to the American people to do better than we have done. We have had the subprime meltdown. We've had the economic crisis. Why throw us back into that simply because you're trying to protect Wall Street?

Our citizens don't deserve that. They deserve for us to stand up and protect them from having to bail out these big institutions that will fail.

We have gone through AIG. We have gone through JP Morgan, the London Whale, the $6 billion failure. Why should we do that again?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy). I am pleased to say that my colleagues, Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Richmond, and I have worked to address this important issue in an ongoing, bipartisan way.

The National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 after record flooding led the private sector to abandon the flood insurance market and stop writing flood insurance policies. The program is a key component of the

Federal Government's efforts to minimize the damage and financial impact of floods. It is the only source of insurance against flood damage for most residents and provides much-needed coverage for 5.5 million homeowners and their families.

This is why I worked across the aisle with my colleague, Representative Judy Biggert, to reauthorize this program. Before this reauthorization, the flood insurance program was plagued by repeated lapses in authority, placing many local communities at risk. During those lapses, FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits, causing great uncertainty for millions of homeowners who depend on the program's existence.

The Biggert-Waters bill was instrumental in stabilizing the flood insurance program. It provided a 5-year reauthorization and made critical improvements to the program. The reforms in Biggert-Waters gave communities more input into flood maps and strengthened the financial position of the flood insurance program.

In drafting this bill with then-Chairwoman Judy Biggert, I sought to strike the right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the flood insurance program. This law was intended to reauthorize the flood insurance program in a sustainable way. The intent was not to impose punitive or unaffordable rate hikes that could make it difficult for some to remain in their homes. You heard the testimony from Mr. Richmond about the incredible increases in the premium costs. This is why I am extremely concerned about reports that homeowners in certain areas are facing high and unsustainable flood insurance rates.

I have committed to work with FEMA and with my colleagues here in Congress to address this unintended consequence of this otherwise helpful legislation, so I am supporting the gentleman's amendment today. This would prohibit FEMA from using funds made available in this act to implement one provision from Biggert-Waters that has raised an unintended consequence and requires further study before being implemented.

While the gentleman's amendment is a positive first step in addressing this issue, more needs to be done.

Last month, my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, and I introduced H.R. 2199, the Flood Insurance Implementation Reform Act of 2013, a bill on which Mr. Cassidy is an original cosponsor, that would take additional steps to provide meaningful relief and address the issue of affordability. The bill would delay implementation of changes to grandfathered rates, the subject of Mr. Cassidy's amendment, for 3 years instead of 1 year. It would also delay implementation of the rate changes that FEMA is currently rolling out.

I look forward to continuing to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Biggert-Waters Act is implemented in a balanced way to ensure the flood insurance program's stability and affordability. FEMA's current implementation schedule would upset that delicate balance and unintentionally impact families and local communities.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 2199 and to also vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

Let me just say to those who would represent that we all voted for it: so since we voted for it and we worked together, we worked across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans working together, that somehow we can't make amends or changes that are desperately needed, working together. I think it is extremely important when you have Mr. Cassidy over there and you have Waters over here, one of the original authors of the bill, who are talking about something has happened, unintended consequences that have taken place that will cause homeowners to lose their homes.

Now, it's easy if this does not happen in your communities or in your districts. But, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know that this is an interdependent business that we're in, and to the degree we recognize other people's problems and we're willing to stand up and give support, particularly when it talks about homeownership, when it talks about that which is so important to all of us, that we should work together, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much.

I would like to thank Mr. Grimm for his eloquent description of precisely what can happen and what is happening, and his plea to all of us to ensure that we don't place people in the position of losing their homes because they cannot afford these extraordinary increases in premiums.

I met with residents from Plaquemines Parish who came to the Congress of the United States. All the elected officials and community leaders came together, and they came here to make a plea to us to understand that, with this increase in premiums, they certainly can't afford it, and they can't afford to sell it because nobody is going to buy it.

So Mr. Grimm talked about victimization and the fact that we would be victimizing people who are victims of natural disasters twice, and that's precisely what it's all about. And I think that we are more caring than that.

I think that we understand that there's still a lot of things to be worked out. The flood maps have not been completed. The pricing has not been really dealt with, and so I think we need time. We need time in order to answer these questions, to deal with the complexities of what we're trying to do.

I think we can stabilize flood insurance. I think that is possible. But I, as one of the authors of this bill, I'm also making a plea to say that we did everything that we could to try and have a bill that's sustainable, that's viable, that makes good sense.

But as we review what is going on and the risk and the harm that people are now confronted with, we're saying, let's take a step backwards for a short period of time and let's give these victims, and other victims in other areas of this country, an opportunity to at least hold on to their homes and not have them literally taken away from them because we didn't realize these unintended consequences.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Georgia talked about there are no unintended consequences, and he attempted to speak for me, one of the authors of the bill. I just think that he does not understand that we put in a lot of work on this bill. We worked in a bipartisan way. And if one of the authors of the bill tells you there are unintended consequences, then I think the gentleman from Georgia cannot dispute that.

Let me just say that I talked with FEMA about mapping, and I talked with FEMA about these decertified levees. They admitted that they had decertified some and they're going to recertify them because they didn't quite know what they were doing.

They also told me that the maps certainly need a lot of work, that they are not complete. What I'm saying is this: all of those homeowners who can't sleep at night, who can't plan their futures, don't know whether or not they're going to be able to send their children to college, all of those homeowners who are in limbo, who don't understand whether or not they're going to be able--certainly they're not going to be able to pay increased premiums. They won't be able to sell the house. Why would we be a party to causing that kind of consternation to fellow human beings? I don't think we want to do that.

We have the power here today to support Mr. Cassidy's bill and to buy some time and tell FEMA to get it right, to work on it, because these are unintended consequences.

So I just wanted the gentleman from Georgia to know that I certainly appreciate your concern. But you certainly don't understand the work that was put into it and how I know unintended consequences when I see them because of the way that I worked on the bill, and I know it was not intended to do what it is now doing.

If you had spent some time with the people who traveled to Washington, D.C.--elected officials and community leaders alike--who took up the whole room, making an appeal to us to not put them in a position where they would lose their homes, where communities would be destroyed because FEMA was not ready, not prepared--not equipped maybe--to do what they needed to do to carry out the bill even. And that some of those increases that were being talked about, that were being projected, were increases that were almost made up; they were not actuarially sound.

So I would ask you to please vote for this bill. Change your mind. Give some leadership and ask your colleagues to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1911--the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. Mr. Speaker, this terrible bill should instead be called the Making College More Expensive Act because that is exactly what it would do if passed through Congress.

Instead of making college more affordable for students, H.R. 1911 would burden students with an additional $4 billion in loan interest charges relative to current law. According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve, there is plenty of evidence that student loan debt has negatively affected a student borrower's participation in our economy. With the national student loan debt already topping $1.1 trillion, H.R. 1911 would only deepen the college debt crisis students are now experiencing in America.

Over the past couple of years, legislators have been repeatedly warned about the impacts student loan debt has on economic growth. Even the Federal Reserve has identified that student debt is the likely cause of delays by American college graduates in purchasing homes and cars or starting families.

H.R. 1911 is a bait and switch scheme that does nothing to remedy this issue. This bill only makes it more expensive to attend by forcing students and families to accept loans with skyrocketing interest rates that increase annually.

Just this past weekend, students from all over the country in the class of 2013 graduated with an average debt load of $30,000 (Source: Mark Kantrowitz--publisher of FinAid.org analysis). When adjusted for inflation, that's roughly double the average amount of debt students graduated with 20 years ago.

The passage of this bill would continue this trend by changing student loan interest rates from year-to-year based on the 10-year Treasury note, marked up by 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent. As a result of this variable rate, federal student loans taken out by incoming freshmen class of 2013 would at first be at a lower rate; however, by the time this class of freshman graduates in 2017, the interest rate on their loans is projected to be 7.4 percent, more than double today's current 3.4 percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, released a report this month citing the long-term impacts of high student loan debt. The CFPB found ``As a growing number of young consumers have been unable to participate more fully in the housing marketplace, the segment of young consumers that remains interested in becoming first-time homebuyers may face new barriers to homeownership. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) stated that higher student debt burdens ``impair the ability of recent college graduates to qualify for a loan.'' According to NAHB, high student loan debt has an impact on consumers' debt-to- income (DTI) ratio--an important metric for decisions about creditworthiness in mortgage origination.

I have long championed the importance of developing the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators to lead our country boldly in the 21st Century. Yet, the CFPB report found that student loan debt is poising a barrier to young entrepreneurs.

According to the report by CFPB ``For many young entrepreneurs, it is critical to invest capital to develop ideas, market products, and hire employees. Student debt burdens require these individuals to divert cash away from their businesses so they can make monthly student loan payments.'' Is this the future we want for our nation's student borrowers? Instead of building businesses, buying homes, and having families they are being crushed by the weight of student loan debt. This is not the future I want for current and future student borrowers.

Attaining an education is one of our Nation's founding principles. We should be working on finding solutions to lower the cost of education for our nation's youth rather than debating legislation designed to earn another $3.7 billion in revenue from struggling student borrowers. This bill is egregious.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to my Democratic colleagues and I that college affordability is still a pervasive issue in America. It is also clear, that this issue will require more than just a temporary fix. In order for us to maintain our competitive edge as a nation, we need to support every single American who desires to pursue a higher education. Congress needs to pass meaningful legislation that actually solves this problem and not perpetuate it. Let's start by voting no on H.R. 1911 and support our American students by not saddling them with insurmountable debt.

Mr. McGovern, I thank you so much for aptly describing what is happening on the floor today relative to the SEC.

Since its passage, Republicans have introduced dozens upon dozens of bills to undermine, repeal, or otherwise dismantle Dodd-Frank; and a prime example of that is what they're doing on this whole issue of cost-benefit analysis.

We're going to have on the floor today a bill that is going to pile more requirements on top of the SEC for economic analysis. We're going to have a bill whose real aim is to bog down the SEC so that they won't be able to do their work, so that they won't be able to do their rulemaking, so that they won't be able to protect investors. This is absolutely unconscionable.

I can understand that there's a lot of disagreement with Dodd-Frank. I can understand that there are those on the opposite side of the aisle who are concerned about protecting the markets and not necessarily the investors.

But to come up with the kind of obstruction that we're seeing, not only legislatively, but going so far as to team up with their friends and go into court, as they have done on proxy access, and get a ruling against proxy access so that they can, basically, have this bill come to the floor today, where they put requirement on top of requirement, costing more money, as Mr. McGovern has said, costing more time, and diverting the attention away from the work that the SEC should be doing.

I am particularly concerned about the Jobs Act, the jobs bill. Yes, on the jobs bill, we have a bipartisan effort, and many Democrats joined up with Republicans on this bill, even though there were some concerns about it, so that we could try and see if we could use a new approach to creating jobs. But that's going to get delayed because now they're attacking the SEC.

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

I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 1062. This bill places significant additional requirements for economic analysis by the Securities and Exchange Commission, effectively bringing any efforts at rulemaking to a standstill.

Let's be clear: the purpose of this legislative effort is to stop implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act dead in its tracks. After losing in Congress, the fight against the Dodd-Frank act moved to the courts, beginning with overturning the proxy access rules they adopted under authority provided by that act.

Although I agreed fully with the SEC's position, they went with their friends to court and the court found that the SEC did not meet its already significant requirements to conduct an economic analysis.

After the proxy access case was overturned, the SEC adopted improved standards for conducting cost-benefit analyses. These procedures were cited by the GAO just last December as having all of the elements of good regulatory analysis. Basically, what the GAO is saying is we took a look, we studied it, and they do a good job.

Nonetheless, the bill before us today adds even more requirements, tying up the SEC resources, and putting it at even greater risk for litigation for every rule, despite the assurances of my Republican colleagues that they're only applying the terms of an executive order to the SEC. That executive order explicitly protects agencies from lawsuits based on their economic analysis. H.R. 1062 has no such protection for the SEC.

The Commission is undertaking a valiant effort to finish the Dodd- Frank and Jobs Acts rule, even in the face of attempts by the majority to restrict their funding. As the SEC attempts to balance capital formation with the need to protect investors, this bill weights the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors. In fact, the words ``investor protection'' do not appear anywhere in this bill.

Even without this bill, we can count on industry lobbyists to sue the SEC anytime it sees a weakness in the justification supporting a rule, as they have in several other cases currently before the courts.

And this bill does not apply only to new rules. This is extraordinary--and I want to say this so everybody understands--this bill would require the Commission to review every rulemaking ever issued--even those that have protected our securities markets since the Great Depression--1 year after the adoption of this bill, and then again every 5 years thereafter. As a result, the Commission will be forced to divert resources away from other key areas, such as enforcement.

This comes at a time when House Republicans want to hold SEC funding flat, despite the SEC's new responsibilities--the increase in the number of participants it oversees and the growth of complexity and the size of U.S. securities markets.

It is ironic that as House Republicans push this bill forward, they are also calling for the SEC to speed up its efforts on Jobs Act rules. This bill makes it impossible for the SEC to meet the very deadline we adopted just 2 days ago when we passed H.R. 701.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Representative Gwen Moore.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative Ellison.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, Representative Himes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Foster.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Representative Denny Heck.

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

First, I have a number of communications that I will insert into the Record.

I have a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President; I have American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; I have Americans for Financial Reform; I have AFSCME; and I also have California Public Employees Retirement System, all in opposition to this bill, and asking us to please oppose the bill.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1062--SEC Regulatory Accountability Act

(Rep. Garrett, R-NJ, and 23 cosponsors)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays a

critical role in protecting Americans' investments for

retirement, higher education, and other personal savings

while ensuring strong, efficient, safe financial activity

that contributes to the Nation's economic health and job

creation. While the Administration is firmly committed to

smart and effective regulations that advance statutory goals

in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, the

Administration opposes passage of H.R. 1062. By adding

burdensome and disruptive new procedures, H.R. 1062 would

impede the ability of the SEC to protect investors, maintain

orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital

formation.

The Administration believes in the value of cost-benefit

analysis. However, H.R. 1062 would add onerous procedures

that would threaten the implementation of key reforms related

to financial stability and investor protection. H.R. 1062

would direct the SEC to conduct time- and resource-intensive

assessments after it adopts or amends major regulations

before the impacts of the regulations may have occurred or be

known. The bill would add analytical requirements that could

result in unnecessary delays in the rulemaking process,

thereby undermining the ability of the SEC to effectively

execute its statutory mandates.

The Administration is committed to a regulatory system that

is informed by science, cost-justified, and consistent with

economic growth. Through efforts including Executive Order

13579, ``Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,''

the Administration is taking important steps to encourage

independent agencies to follow cost-saving and burden-

reducing principles in their reviews of new regulations, and

to examine their existing rules to identify those that should

be modified, streamlined, or repealed.

Mr. Chair, how many minutes do I have left?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

In closing, allow me to quote one of the Financial Services Committee members in a hearing yesterday, because I think it is so important for us to understand that the SEC is our cop on the block that has the responsibility for protecting investors.

Let us understand that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are opposed to the SEC having an adequate budget. They do everything that they can to cut the budget, to deny the resources; but they keep adding on additional responsibilities, recognizing that the SEC has a tremendous load. Not only do they have all of the work, the cost-benefit analysis that they do on everything, but they have the responsibility of rulemaking for all of Dodd-Frank, which is the reform legislation that will cause us to eliminate risk and to protect our constituents and the citizens of this country.

But let me just say that yesterday, during a Financial Services Committee hearing, Chairman Emeritus Spencer Bachus said that it would be penny-wise and pound foolish for there not to be a bipartisan agreement for raising the funding or increasing the funding for the

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

This amendment adds a requirement that the SEC analyze the number of jobs created or lost as a result of a new rule or order, while differentiating between public and private sector jobs.

Although this amendment is not by itself problematic, it layers one more requirement onto a bill already bursting with onerous cost-benefit requirements. And while counting the jobs created or lost because of a particular regulation is a noble goal, we have to view this goal in the context of the overall bill, which tips the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors, including the pension plans for millions of Americans.

The criteria by which the SEC would need to engage in cost-benefit analysis under H.R. 1062 would have the Commission make all decisions on the basis of whether the rules impose the least burden on ``market participants.'' In fact, nowhere in the bill are the words ``investor protection'' used, despite the fact that a central mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors.

Let's be clear: H.R. 1062 is essentially a solution in search of a problem. This bill is not about refining the SEC's cost-benefit analysis. The Commission, in fact, has already done that by adopting a new set of guidelines to ensure that its analysis meets the very high bar set in the decision overturning their proxy access rule. Instead, this bill is about making it easier for industry groups to overturn SEC regulations in the courts.

After the 2008 financial crisis, the public spoke; and they demanded that Congress stand up and legislate rules of the road to prevent another crisis. So we took action to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market, improve corporate governance, implement the Volcker rule to stop commercial banks from gambling with depositor money, and to reform the credit ratings agencies that slapped AAA ratings onto toxic securities.

Having lost that battle here in Congress, the industry--with the help of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--is now waging a new, quiet battle to have these regulations thrown out in court. H.R. 1062 abets that goal by making it significantly easier for the industry to win in court. This is a key differentiation from the President's executive order on cost-benefit analysis, whose requirements cannot be used as a basis for litigation.

So, again, this amendment is harmless, but it amends what is a deeply problematic bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on all of the problems raised by H.R. 1062 by imposing the same burdensome cost-benefit analysis requirements on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, or MSRB, and certain self-regulatory organizations as the underlying bill imposes on the SEC.

Beyond the problems caused by H.R. 1062, this amendment would further put individual citizens and taxpayers at risk by tying the hands of the MSRB, which is entrusted with regulating dealers of municipal securities, including city bond issuances.

The Wall Street Reform Act expanded the mission of the board to protect State and local governments and to regulate, for the first time in history, the individuals who provide municipalities with financial advice.

We had good reason to expand the mission and responsibilities of the MSRB under Dodd-Frank. Like many borrowers who were sold exotic mortgages based on the representations made by mortgage brokers in the lead-up to the financial crisis, we saw that many municipalities entered into complex financial instruments that they didn't fully understand. At the same time, we saw that many financial advisers to municipalities were involved in pay-to-play scandals and recommended unsuitable investments, particularly to small communities. The result was the imposition of substantial costs on taxpayers in communities across the country. The most high-profile example is the case of Jefferson County, Alabama, which entered into the largest municipal bankruptcy in history after a simple sewer bond financing deal ended with the county going broke over faulty interest rate derivatives.

This amendment will make it much more difficult for the MSRB to regulate the financial entities selling these derivative products to our small counties, cities, and towns.

But that's just one example. The amendment would impose similar onerous requirements on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority-- that is FINRA--the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers, and the Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board, which regulates the auditing industry.

Again, this amendment doubles down on what is already a harmful bill by extending the same onerous requirements of self-regulatory organizations. I see no reason why the Congress would want to further tip the scales in favor of Wall Street over Main Street.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York for bringing this amendment today. As a matter of fact, the opposite side should thank her, too, because she is giving them an opportunity to back out of this awful bill that will be harmful and that is ill-informed and to get

on with just saying that her resolution would make good sense. So I am eager to support this amendment from the gentlelady from New York.

The amendment strikes all bill text and replaces it with a sense of Congress, reiterating all the economic analysis requirements already imposed on the SEC.

Specifically, current law requires the SEC to conduct economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as well as additional cost-benefit analysis per the National Securities Markets Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

This is the final amendment to the bill, which would not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

This motion ensures the ability of the SEC to continue to protect investors and enforce the securities laws. I want to emphasize that this motion does not stop the bill, but it does flag the very important ways in which we need to let the SEC act. The motion would ensure that the SEC can protect investors and enforce the securities laws in two specific areas:

First, the motion will ensure that this bill does not reduce the ability of the SEC to protect the pension plans of our firefighters and police, the people on whom we rely as our first responders, as well as the pension plans of teachers and other retirees against fraudulent and deceptive practices. Protecting investors is a core element of the SEC's mission and one that we ignore at our peril. This week is Police Officers Week. Do we really want to honor our men and women in service by stripping them of protections for their hard-earned and hard-won earnings? Mr. Speaker, these protections become ever more crucial as we rely increasingly on the securities markets for our retirement savings.

Second, the motion to recommit focuses on protecting investors by ensuring that the SEC can protect against the takeover of American firms by foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies, that are using such mergers to access the investor funds in our capital markets without going through the SEC registration process. The SEC has had numerous enforcement actions against such companies which purchase a small company and merge it with a larger, often fraudulent, foreign company. It has worked hard to protect the savings of hardworking Americans, including union pension holders and other pensioners, from being disadvantaged by these Chinese firms that don't play by the same rules.

Both of these areas highlight the importance of SEC action to protect investors, particularly those preparing for retirement. With Americans increasingly dependent on the securities markets to protect their retirement savings, it is more critical than ever to ensure that we preserve the ability of the SEC to act.

Just yesterday, we heard from the SEC's new chairwoman, Mary Jo White. When we asked her about this bill, she said that she found it ``very troubling.'' I don't imagine that a former prosecutor who took on the Mob and terrorists is easily troubled. Indeed, she said that she had already needed at least 45 new economists to meet the need for an expanded economic analysis under the SEC standards, but she couldn't hire them due to the sequester. This is troubling indeed.

Rather than helping the SEC to do its job better, we are cutting its budget and throwing up new roadblocks, like this bill. It is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

As you know, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or the JOBS Act as it is commonly known, was signed into law about 1 year ago. This bill received the support of both Democrats and Republicans on the Financial Services Committee.

Some of us, including me, have some concerns about this legislation. We are basically taking a chance that investors will not be harmed, but we're taking a chance because we are so anxious to create jobs, and this legislation is possibly yet another approach to creating jobs.

This is not the American Jobs Act, but this is a jobs act. And I believe that my colleague on the opposite side of the aisle, Mr. McHenry, really believes that this is going to create jobs. So we're going to take a chance that this will create jobs.

Regulation A currently allows certain companies to raise up to $5 million a year through a streamlined, less costly registration process, providing smaller companies with much-needed capital without overly burdening them with registration requirements. In the JOBS Act, we raise that level to $50 million, thus providing small companies with a greater ability to develop new products and create much-needed jobs for their local economies.

The JOBS Act did not set a deadline under which the Commission needed to complete this rulemaking. Given the tremendous workload the Commission is managing--including setting up new offices under the Wall Street Reform Act, regulating new markets such as the over-the-counter derivatives market, and completing various other rulemakings under the JOBS Act--it is understandable that the SEC has not yet completed the Regulation A update. H.R. 701 would basically require that the SEC complete the Regulation A rulemaking by October 31 of this year.

While I am reluctant to impose accelerated rulemaking timetables on the Commission, given the resource constraints they face, I will support this bill and my colleagues are supporting this bill, particularly since we understand that the SEC has indicated that they will finish the rulemaking before October 31 anyway, even without this legislation.

Finally, I would ask that my colleagues support adequate funding for the Commission so that they have the staff resources to carry out this and other outstanding rulemakings under both the Wall Street Reform Act and the JOBS Act. This is very important.

The SEC has a great responsibility carrying out the rulemaking for all that we have placed on them. As I know that they like to do this rulemaking in a timely fashion, we must recognize that they don't have all the resources they need. So I hope that as we're taking a chance with our colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, hoping that this bill is going to produce the kinds of jobs that have been indicated, we want our friends on the opposite side of the aisle to reciprocate with support for the SEC and the funding that they need.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) control the time for the remainder of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record opposing the GOP's vile Mother's Day gift-- more work and less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406. This bill should be known as the ``More Work Less Pay Act.''

Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 1938 to encourage a 40-hour workweek. FLSA also ensured that hourly workers would be fairly compensated for working over 40 hours a week. 75 years later, we are now debating a bill that will, in effect, eliminate overtime pay for millions of hourly workers.

Last year, nearly 60 percent of the workforce in this country aged 16 and over, were paid an hourly wage. This amounts to 75.3 million people in the United States according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

Further, the Bureau found that 3.6 million of these workers earn wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. I represent the 43rd congressional district of California. In my home state, the minimum wage is 8.00 an hour. The impact of an $8.00 minimum wage is clear. We have one of the lowest percentages of workers who are earning at or below the federal minimum wage. There are several states that cannot say the same. Yet, like in all states, Californian's who earn overtime still rely upon that extra income.

The legislation before us today needlessly targets millions of workers. These workers have come to rely on their overtime to make ends meet. We are not talking about millionaires but everyday hard working men and women. They utilize their added income to pay their rent and mortgages. They are using their overtime to feed their families and clothe their children. Hourly workers in this country are working overtime to pay for gas for their cars or pay their bus fare to get to work.

H.R. 1406 provides absolutely no legitimate incentive for employers to give their employees time off. Under this bill, an employer could defer paying overtime for up to a year. This would, in effect, provide an employer with an interest free loan.

Under this ``More Work Less Pay'' bill workers are not guaranteed compensatory time, commonly known as ``comp'' time. An employer retains the right to refuse to grant comp time. Under current law, workers are required to receive their overtime pay in their very next check.

If an employer fails to pay overtime to their employee then the employee has a right to sue his or her employer. In 2011, the Labor Department recovered $225 million in back wages for employees. In that same year, there were 7,006 wage and hour suits filed in federal court. The numbers of employees suing their employers for back wages has steadily increased.

Today, thousands of workers are currently fighting to ensure they are receiving their earned income. This is not the time to add into the fray, ``comp'' time flexibility and overtime pay cuts. If this bill did as it claimed and provided hourly workers with flexibility then there would be thousands of workers marching to D.C. championing this bill, instead nearly 200 labor unions and women's organizations oppose this measure.

I believe we can all agree that working families do need flexibility. They need the flexibility that their extra earned income can afford them.

The Jobs Report released last Friday reflected that our economy added 165,000 new jobs in the month of April. Instead of focusing on legislation to create additional jobs, boost our economy, and increase the earning potential of workers in the United States. Republican leadership has chosen instead to focus on legislation that cuts the pay of working families.

A pay cut called flexibility is still a pay cut.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1765, the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013.

I don't want anybody to be mistaken about why I support this bill. I want Mrs. Bachmann to understand that we know that she has led the Tea Party and the right wing on all of these issues and that she led on the discussion on sequestration. It was a bad policy and it should not have been adopted by either side of the aisle; however, that is the order of the day, and we need to bring the budget to the floor and have a conference committee so we can adopt some of what was adopted on the Senate side to get rid of the sequestration.

Meanwhile, the FAA plans to furlough the vast majority of the FAA's nearly 47,000 employees, including nearly 15,000 air traffic controllers, for approximately 1 day during each 2-week period in order to comply with sequestration.

The furloughs have already begun. They started on April 21, 2013. So we're going to be backed up in these airports, and it is time for us to understand that this is an emergency. Let's get it over with by passing this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the impacts that sequestration is having on our country. Although I did not support the decisions that led to sequestration, I remain committed to protecting the American people from the most harmful and potentially dangerous outcomes related to sequestration.

Sequestration simply means budget cuts, extraordinary budget cuts. Every moment we spend here in Washington should be spent working to improve the lives and opportunities for the American people. To that end, we should be focused on legislation to avert sequestration and improve our economy.

As our minority whip said here this morning, we've passed a budget off the floor of the House. It's the Ryan budget, and it protects sequestration. It wants all of the cuts to take place. On the Senate side, they've passed a budget that does away with the onerous sequestration budget cuts. Now we need a conference committee, simply meaning, we need both sides to come together and resolve their differences and move on with having a budget for this country. But the Republicans are saying ``no.''

And as it was mentioned by our minority whip, we're here in Washington, D.C., fiddling while Rome burns. We're not taking care of any real business. They will not bring a conference committee together to resolve these differences.

The simplest way to describe the sequester is to say that this was an avoidable, self-inflicted wound. A vocal Republican opposition over the budget led to an agreement, which ultimately resulted in this sequestration decision.

Republican leadership has failed to bring to the floor this week measures to build our economy. We should be focused on salient measures designed to grow our economy and create jobs.

Republican leadership has also failed to fully address the issues arising from sequestration; although, it is clear that these cuts are arbitrary, indiscriminate, and far too blunt.

The American people may be aware of the obvious impacts of sequestration, such as the closing of national parks and the elimination of tours at the White House; however, Americans might not be aware of how sequestration can impact important parts of their lives and this economy.

Let's take air travel. Some of you have heard about what is going on in our airports. Imagine that you're trying to get to the airport to catch a flight to attend your daughter's wedding or graduation or to see about a sick relative, or you're a business traveler trying to meet a potential client for the first time. Well, sequestration could soon impact all of your travel plans.

Due to sequestration, the Federal Aviation Administration addressed the shortage in their funding by furloughing 47,200 employees and are expected to close certain airports. As a result, we're witnessing airplanes remaining on the tarmac for hours. The traveling public is expecting flight delays and cancellations at airports all across the country. The impact of sequestration is being felt by the thousands of travelers who utilize our airways every day. And, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to get worse.

Along with flight delays, airline travelers can expect increased wait times in airport security lines because the Transportation Security Administration has also had to furlough screening agents in response to sequestration.

I represent Los Angeles International Airport, which is the sixth busiest airport in the world and the third busiest airport in the United States. I understand the impact that flight delays will have, not only on those traveling for leisure, but also on the airline industry and business travelers.

These furloughs are problematic for airports of any size. The importance of the air traffic controllers at LAX and across the country cannot be understated. God forbid that there should be an accident that could have been averted. No explanation could possibly make amends for the resulting loss of life. This is simply unacceptable.

Ladies and gentlemen, I could talk about a lot more, national security, housing, health care, all of that, but the fact of the matter is this is unnecessary. I'm absolutely disappointed. I want this Congress to get on with the business of getting a budget and representing the people that sent them here to represent them.

national security

Last week, we were all horrified to watch the bombings at the 117th Boston Marathon. We all applauded the valiant and successful efforts of law enforcement. Even so, the intelligence community who diligently worked with local law enforcement to ultimately capture a bombing suspect is not immune from the impacts of sequestration.

As a direct result of sequestration the National Intelligence Community could receive 4 billion dollars in cuts. Consider a recent statement from National Intelligence Director James Clapper. He stated ``sequestration forces the intelligence community to decrease all intelligence actions and functions without regard to the impact on our mission. It is my judgment, as our nation's senior intelligence officer, that sequestration jeopardizes our nation's safety and security, and this jeopardy will increase over time.''

We all watched on television as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, Hostage Rescue Team bravely apprehended the surviving Boston bombing suspect. It is at these moments the American public can witness the training and skill of FBI agents. Yet, even the FBI is not protected from sequestration.

Last month, FBI Director Robert Muller estimated that sequestration would decrease the FBI's budget by $550 million for this fiscal year. As 60 percent of the FBI's budget pays for personnel, Director Muller anticipates that he will have to plan for the possibility of furloughs in the FBI.

According to Director Muller ``any furlough would pose a risk to FBI operations particularly in the areas of counter terrorism and cyber.''

I believe the American people understand the importance of protecting our national security, especially at a time when our nation faces threats both foreign and domestic. But again, due to sequestration the FBI and other members of the national intelligence community who play a vital role in protecting our nation may be given shorter hours or furloughed. These are the sort of insidious impacts that unfortunately, may not get anyone's attention until something tragic happens. There are real life consequences if the sequester is not lifted.

Public Health

The effect on public health could be equally devastating. Sequestration could cut $3.7 billion from funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. A myriad of programs will be negatively impacted by these cuts. For example, cuts to Community Health Centers could leave one million low-income and uninsured patients without basic health services.

If we do not act to end the effects of sequestration, there could be 45,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings for low-income women. Further, nearly 485,000 seniors could lose access to disease prevention programs.

Even the gains we have made in HIV/AIDS awareness, screening, and care may also be hampered by sequestration. The anticipated cuts to HIV screening could result in 424,000 fewer HIV tests. Further, cuts to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program could leave 7,400 HIV/AIDS patients in need of treatment without life-saving AIDS medications. Finally, the National Institutes of Health would be cut by $1.6 billion. That's $1.6 billion less money available for cutting-edge research by scientists seeking cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and

Alzheimer's disease. These are only a handful of the unintended consequences of blind sequestration required cuts.

housing

When it comes to housing--according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, these cuts come at a time when the number of low- income families in need of housing assistance has been rising substantially. Currently, there are long waiting lists for vouchers in almost every community, and homelessness remains a persistent problem.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that about 125,000 individuals and families, including elderly and disabled individuals, may lose assistance and be at risk of becoming homeless. These effects, while not immediate, would be devastating to the millions of low- income families who depend on these federal programs for shelter, a basic life necessity.

Sequestration cuts would also result in more than 100,000 formerly homeless people, including veterans, being removed from their current housing or emergency shelter programs, putting them at substantial risk of becoming homeless.

wic and head start

The sequester could also have a negative impact on federally funded programs that provide services to women and children. Essential programs like Head Start and Early Head Start may have to turn away up to 70,000 children and families. These families rely on their services for quality childcare and parenting education initiatives.

Even Women, Infants and Children, WIC, that provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children under age 5 who are at nutritional risk faces cut. Secretary Tom Vilsack at the U.S. Department of Agricultures warned back in February that as a result of the sequester WIC will only be able to provide services for 600,000 of the 9 million low-income families currently served.

conclusion

Mr. Speaker, sequestration has already taken a toll on families, businesses, and communities across the country. At a time when we are working to rebuild our economy, sequestration will cost American workers millions of dollars in lost wages and businesses billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Sequestration will have impacts that we might not consider here today. It will impact our national security efforts. It will impact our air travel and it will even impact the food we eat. We must work to avert these thoughtless cuts.

It is time for Republicans to stop refusing to move forward in our work to pass a budget that reflects our nation's values. It is time to do the right thing for the American people and lift the sequester.