Floor Statements

I want to thank the committee chairman as well, Mr. Hensarling, for yielding to me, and I want to thank my colleague Ann Wagner from Missouri for putting together this very wise bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are speaking out with loud voices that the only rip- off here is when retail investors and the American people have two different government agencies writing rules. When they are not coordinating with each other and when they are not talking to one another, they are not writing rules that work together. In fact, you could be a retail investor and be complying with the Department of Labor's rules but could be running counter to the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules if this coordination is not done as required by this legislation.

So the Retail Investor Protection Act is just that. It protects retail investors. It reconciles uncoordinated efforts between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor, and it says that they have to work together and also use a cost-benefit analysis when they are writing these rules.

I think that is a very wise thing. In fact, the court system has agreed that it is a wise thing, and 44 members of the House Financial Services Committee thought it was a wise thing, while only 13 opposed passing this out.

Also, we have 10 Democrat United States Senators who have written to the Office of Management and Budget, making an identical request as this bill to the SEC, stating that the SEC act first in writing these rules before they come together.

So, today, it is not only a bipartisan vote but also a bicameral vote, both the House and the Senate. I would ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill coming out of Financial Services in order to make sure that our government agencies actually coordinate when they write rules. Let's actually protect retail investors and do that first.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I had a wonderful tele-townhall meeting with my constituents from across the 10th District of western North Carolina.

We had a lot of discussions tonight about the government shutdown and about the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. My constituents gave me great feedback. They said, Keep fighting because we want to see a repeal of ObamaCare. But they said, We want the President to come to the table and negotiate; we want Washington to work.

I also asked my constituents if they had seen their health insurance rates go up as a result of ObamaCare. Fifty-eight percent said they had seen rates go up; 9 percent said they had seen them go down; and the balance said they had seen no change.

Clearly, it is harming families with increased health insurance rates. My constituents want a repeal, but they want Washington to work. So I call on the President, and I ask our friends over in the Senate to come to the table with House Republicans and try to come to consensus so we can move our Nation forward and do what's right for the people.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2600) to amend the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to clarify how the Act applies to condominiums.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous material for the Record on H.R. 2600, currently under consideration.

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

I want to begin by commending my colleague Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York for introducing H.R. 2600 in an effort to clarify the intent and purpose of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, or ILSA.

ILSA was signed into law almost a half century ago to regulate fast- buck operators, who were bilking investors, especially the elderly, through blatantly fraudulent sales of raw land often located in swamps and deserts.

It was land sales, not condo units, which were the intended target of the ILSA disclosures, which is quite evident in the fact that the required disclosures relate to land issues, such as access to roads and water supply, and make no sense in the context of more urban vertical developments. Nevertheless, in the 1980s, the Federal courts started to apply ILSA to vertical condominiums based on HUD's broad interpretation and Congress' failure to expressly exempt condominiums.

The fact is that purchasers of vertical condominium units do not need the additional disclosures of that act. To the extent that any of the act's disclosures relate to condo developments, they are generally duplicative of more extensive information already contained in State- mandated disclosures to purchasers.

The private use of ILSA was practically nonexistent for 40 years, until 2008, when the real estate market crashed and purchasers' lawyers started looking for ways to escape pre-crash contracts. As the recession continued, plaintiffs' lawyers began seeking out purchaser clients to file lawsuits under that act, demanding the full rescission of contracts with such Web sites as ``No-Condo.com.''

Courts generally acknowledge that ILSA has become ``an increasingly popular means of channeling buyer's remorse''; but while courts have expressed sympathy for the developers' position, many courts have felt compelled to apply the language of the statute literally, allowing buyers to escape valid contracts.

Therefore, I stand in strong support of H.R. 2600, which puts an end to the exploitation of ILSA and allows residential condominium sales to make a return to the marketplace. I want to urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I want to, once again, commend my colleague on the Financial Services Committee both for her great legislative work and her thoughtfulness in crafting this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in this country there are children diagnosed with rare diseases every day. While it's a tragedy that anyone is diagnosed with a disease or cancer in this country, it is a particular tragedy that the youngest in our society are diagnosed with oftentimes incurable diseases and ailments.

So today, I rise to support the Kids First Research Act, because it's important that we focus our national resources on fixing these problems, these challenges that as a society we can band together and put research dollars where our heart is. We all do this in individual ways, whether it's donating to a local charity or focusing our interest on making sure Congress allocates resources necessary to come up with lifesaving cures through the National Institutes of Health or other areas of government research.

At home, we have something called ``Brett's Ride for Rhabdo.'' It's an incredible story of a young man at age 17 who is diagnosed with Rhabdomyosarcoma. It's a very rare pediatric cancer that roughly 300 children are diagnosed with each year. It's very rare. This incredible young man named Brett Gosnell was diagnosed at age 17 with this cancer.

Brett was an all-American kid from Hickory. Maryann and Mark Gosnell were his parents. He has two younger brothers. Just a great all- American family. I'm pleased to know the family, and I was pleased to know Brett.

Brett was an all-star kid, the kind of young man that I hope to have as my wife and I start a family. But Brett was a very special guy. He was not pleased with his SAT score--his math SAT score. He got a 740 on the math portion of the SAT. So after a round of chemotherapy he retook the SAT and he scored a perfect 800 on the math portion. Incredible young man.

So what his parents did was come together--and his family--at Brett's urging to come up with a charity bike ride that hundreds of people participate in every October in Hickory, North Carolina. Even folks like me that aren't great bike riders or particularly athletic participate in Brett's honor. Each year they are able to raise tens of thousands of dollars for Rhabdo research.

I tell the story because it's very important. Brett's story is a very important one, and inspiring to so many of us. Brett was diagnosed early and still insisted on going off to college at the University of Virginia. He did lose his fight to Rhabdo in 2006.

Brett left a letter for us that we read every October at Brett's Ride for Rhabdo. He left this letter that he dictated to a friend of his. He calls it: ``A Challenge for the Friends of Brett Baxley Gosnell.'' He says:

I am not here physically, but I am looking down from Heaven

on this assembled group. I challenge you to adopt a new goal,

a new way of life for yourself. Put helping, caring about,

and serving others at the center of all that you do--not just

for today or tomorrow but for the remainder of your life. I

ask you to look for ways in which to make a difference in the

lives of others, regardless of who they are or where you find

them. They are God's children and they need us. We must turn

away from thinking only of ourselves and remember that each

one of us has a capacity for doing something. Discover what

you can do--and do it. I ask you to do that. But there is

something else. In the act of helping others, think of this.

It was my desire to make a difference, and I tried to do that

in the opportunities that were given to me. There was so much

more that I wanted to do, but I will keep my eye on you from

Heaven. Now you can pick up where I left off and serve so

many others. Hear this plea and respond to it. This is your

friend who asks you to accept this challenge. Do something

meaningful with your life. After all, that is how you can

most honor me in my life.

Brett.

I bring this to the House floor to urge my colleagues to ensure that we support important pediatric research so that we don't have to lose another Brett Gosnell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This debate is actually really absolutely bizarre. President Obama asked for a cost-benefit analysis for independent regulatory agencies in an executive order. It's absolutely bizarre because the chairman of the SEC, then Mary Schapiro, committed in writing to Congressman Garrett, Congressman Issa, and me, committed in writing to a cost- benefit analysis. Chairman Schapiro even in September of 2011 agreed to a retrospective review of offering and reporting requirements and posting this on a Web page seeking public input.

So the complaints from the other side of the aisle seem absolutely bizarre because we have commitments. What we're trying to do is codify in law what was a process a former chairman of the SEC committed to. We want to make sure that this is not ad hoc, that it goes forward, that it's in the statute, and that it's clear. Why are we doing this? Well, we've heard from the other side of the aisle that we need to focus on investor protection.

There's the other part of the SEC which is supposed to foster capital formation. Now, what is capital formation? Capital formation is the capacity, or the ability, of a business to get the moneys they need to grow and employ more people and to offer more products or more services. It's the money a business needs, the investors of the business need, in order to grow and help get this economy moving. I thought that's what we're all about. We hear speech after speech from the President that's what he's all about. But we hear from the other side of the aisle that they don't like this approach because they're not focused on that, which is unfortunate.

The reason why we're putting this in statute is that the SEC too often just puts rules into place without consideration of the cost. Their process has never been formalized until the last 2 years of actually weighing both the costs and benefits of a rule. They simply say they're benefits. Well, we all know, and I hope the other side of the aisle would admit, that there is a cost to regulation. I would hope that they would admit that.

Now, I will give you an example: regulation A is the ability of small businesses to get capital from the public markets. Regulation A in 1998 gave 57 offerings through regulation A. It meant 58 businesses getting money from outside investors through this regulation. This is for the smaller size businesses. By 2001, you only had one take advantage of this regulation A to get moneys for their small- and medium-sized businesses.

Well, what happened? The market changed, but the SEC, because they were not obligated to, did not review their rules. They did not update their rules. They did not think about the cost of cutting off capital to small businesses that absolutely, desperately need this, mainly because of the changing nature of the economy and the impact of the awful Dodd-Frank act that has imposed enormous cost burdens on banks, and so we have less banks lending so businesses need a different opportunity to get money.

So what we're putting in place is a 5-year review of those rules so the SEC is forced to weigh both the costs and benefits of these regulations, and we can get this economy moving again and capital flowing again. That's what it's really all about. That's not a great deal of fuss; but we have folks on the other side of the aisle that simply want to make a fuss about that, which is unfortunate.

We need to be focused on capital formation. We need to be focused on making sure that we foster regulations and review regulations so that we can get this economy moving again. That's what this is all about.

I would say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle who raised the question of the cost of this, what this cost comes from is what the SEC says, right, that it's going to cost us additional money to review these regulations, implicitly saying that they have regulations on the books that they don't review, that they don't look back on a regular basis and see if they actually fit to the modern marketplace. And we have rules on the books that have been on the books for over 80 years. So I think it's high time we forced the SEC to do something that is responsible, that is right, and that even this President has called for.

I hope the folks on the other side of the aisle would join us in making sure that we have this bill pass on a unanimous basis. With that, I would also encourage us to pass this rule.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former Members program be printed in the Congressional Record and that all Members and former Members who spoke during the proceedings have the privilege of revising and extending their remarks.

Madam Speaker, last week, I held a telephone townhall meeting with my constituents. Towards the end of that call, I heard from a constituent who had already seen her hours cut at the local grocery store from 36 hours down to 28.

As a result of ObamaCare, industries, corporations, and people are posed with this very tough challenge: either they pay for very expensive health care, cut people's hours, or lay people off. Unfortunately, her grocery store decided to limit hours and make more part-time workers.

Sadly, as a result of this, she lost $140 a month. That prevented her from being able to pay for the very affordable health insurance plan she currently is on. Other coworkers could no longer afford car payments, for instance.

These devastating effects are a terrible result of bad public policy, and

that is why we must repeal ObamaCare.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 701) to amend a provision of the Securities Act of 1933 directing the Securities and Exchange Commission to add a particular class of securities to those exempted under such Act to provide a deadline for such action, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous materials for the Record on H.R. 701, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

My colleagues, this is a bipartisan, straightforward bill, and it had unanimous support within the Financial Services Committee.

This bill codifies an intended deadline within the JOBS Act. This legislation simply puts a reasonable date for the deadline for an improved Regulation A, which came out of a bipartisan bill before the House of Representatives just over a year ago and then the JOBS Act the President signed more than a year ago. The deadline is very achievable, setting an October 31 deadline for the SEC to write regulations. It is nearly 19 months after the JOBS Act was signed into law, and it is, in fact, 5 months before the due date of the SEC's recurring review of a renewed Regulation A.

Regulation A is a very interesting provision within securities regulation. It is a sensible and philosophically sound exemption that should help millions of small- and moderate-sized businesses, but it's actually unused by all small businesses. The JOBS Act language includes raising the cap on Regulation A securities offerings from $5 million to $50 million, which is existent in the law; but the act also requires that we have meaningful regulatory improvements to Regulation A so it can, in fact, be utilized by small businesses as it was intended.

Stakeholders and academics have testified that Regulation A should be a covered security or that the SEC should radically simplify Reg A's registration and qualifications if small businesses are to ever use and utilize this well-intentioned exemption again. For proof of whether State exemption matters, merely look at the dominance of rule 506, even for issuances of $1 million, compared to those other exemptions; and let's just face it--the numbers speak for themselves.

Additionally, other areas of critical consideration include quiet periods, testing-the-waters activities, comment period turnaround, and even the number of Securities and Exchange Commission staff dedicated to small business exemptions. We've made that very clear to the Securities and Exchange Commission the concerns we have on those issues. The SEC must conduct a holistic review of Federal and State regulations on these matters to learn which have impeded entrepreneurs from accessing external capital, which is really the intention of Regulation A.

If you look back at a GAO report, it asserted that, from 1997 to 2011, the number of Regulation A filings decreased from 116 annually to 19, and that's only the number of filings. To go to the next step of an offering, it's even further reduced. It reduced from 57 in 1998 to just one offering, under this important regulation, in 2011. Now, that's very disturbing. The same GAO report maintains that the SEC has never evaluated the abandonment of Regulation A, an exemption solely created to capitalize small- and moderate-sized businesses and to empower everyday investors. That's absurd. It's high time the SEC gets around to this and gets it done. That's what this bill is all about.

The Small Business Administration asserts that there are more than 5 million small businesses in the U.S. with fewer than 20 employees, representing 20 percent of our national employment, and that firms with fewer than 100 employees employ more than 36 percent of our national employment. These millions of small businesses do not utilize Reg. A or other exemptions actually intended for them. There are bad consequences for this because they are not able to get the capital they need to grow and prosper and to perhaps go from being small businesses to big businesses or from small businesses to more successful small businesses. They are the ones that are at a loss, and at a time of high unemployment we need to make sure that we are able to get those capital-starved businesses access to the moneys they need to grow and to prosper in these tough economic times.

This is a bipartisan bill that has garnered the support of my colleagues from across the aisle, Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Scott, as well as the support of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, Mr. Schweikert and Mr. Garrett, who have long been proponents of these reforms and necessary changes.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Chamber of Commerce

of the United States of America,

Washington, DC, May 13, 2013.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses and organizations of all sizes, sectors,

and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry

associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting and

defending America's free enterprise system, strongly supports

H.R. 701, which would amend a provision of the Securities Act

of 1933 to help ensure the success of the JOBS Act, which

became law last year.

H.R. 701 is a bi-partisan bill which would place a deadline

of October 31, 2013, for the Securities and Exchange

Commission to complete the changes to Regulation A as

required under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

(``JOBS Act''). The bi-partisan JOBS Act mandates the

modernization of certain regulations critical to the capital

formation of emerging growth companies. The Chamber is

concerned that the pace of regulatory implementation is too

slow, and H.R. 701 would help ensure the timely

implementation of this legislation important to new

businesses.

The Chamber believes H.R. 701 would help speed the

implementation of the JOBS Act, thereby assisting the capital

formation needed for robust economic growth and job creation.

The Chamber strongly supports H.R. 701.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President,

Government Affairs.

A 418 percent increase since the late nineties with the Securities and Exchange Commission in terms of funding, I think, is adequate; but I certainly appreciate my colleague's concerns.

We passed this provision in the fall of 2011 in this House with a floor vote of 421-1. This enhances this provision and provides for a deadline that is 19 months after the original act was signed. I think that's more than generous and sufficient.

With that, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Ross), who is a quite vocal proponent of getting capital to small business.

We're prepared to close.

If the gentleman yields back his time, I will then close. As the majority party, we have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just simply close by saying that we should help small businesses.

When we have congressional Members acknowledging pop culture, as I did in committee, there is always a debate about that. But as Beyonce once said, ``If you like it, you should have put a ring on it.'' Likewise, we should put a deadline on it. That's what this bill is all about.

As I close, I will not quote Jay-Z, but I will say we should help small businesses. And I ask my colleagues for their support as I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 384) to establish the position of Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by transferring the Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs to the Office of the Secretary of HUD, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the record on H.R. 384, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

Today I rise in support of H.R. 384, the Homes for Heroes Act of 2013.

This bill was introduced by my colleague from Texas, Congressman Al Green, who I had the pleasure of having serve alongside of me as the ranking member of the Oversight Investigation Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

This bill would establish the position of Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs within Housing and Urban Development to coordinate services provided to homeless veterans and to serve as HUD's liaison to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, State and local officials, and nonprofit service organizations. The position is currently in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. This transfer highlights the importance of addressing the housing needs of our veterans.

H.R. 384 would also require HUD to submit a comprehensive annual report to Congress on the housing needs of homeless veterans and the steps undertaken by HUD to meet those needs.

H.R. 384 is a version, in part, of the Homes for Heroes Act of 2011, 2009, and 2008, all of which passed this House with well over 400 votes each.

As our service men and women continue to serve our country both here and abroad, the least we can do is ensure they have proper access to the services that are offered to them when they return.

This bill represents a step in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to support this worthy endeavor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Wishing to close, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues to this bill. I would like to

congratulate my colleague, Mr. Green, on putting forward such a worthy proposal that is both sensible and at the same time deeply honors our most-treasured resource in this country, our returning veterans, to ensure they're well cared for. So I ask my colleagues to support this measure.

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

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

I thank my colleague. I appreciate his leadership both with the policy committee and on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor America's most beloved gospel singer. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, he holds the world record for singing in person to more people than anyone in human history, to a cumulative total of a live audience of 220 million people.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to recognize George Beverly Shea, who passed away 2 days ago at the age of 104. ``Bev,'' as he was affectionately known, began singing with Reverend Billy Graham in 1943. In the following years, he would travel to every State in the Union and to nearly every continent on the globe to spread the gospel.

He was inducted to the Religious Broadcasters Hall of Fame in February of 1996, and was also inducted into the inaugural class of the Conference of Southern Baptist Evangelists ``Hall of Faith'' in 2008.

From a recent visit with him, I can tell you that such awards weren't the most important things to him in life. As I visited Bev, it was a beautiful day in the summer in the town of Montreat in western North Carolina. He lived right down the hill from Dr. Graham. He wanted to be close to his friend, and that's where he chose to live.

But as I noticed his pictures of his grandchildren, behind those pictures of his family I noticed a Grammy Award. It was a Lifetime Achievement Grammy Award given to him in 2010. That was behind his family pictures. Very interesting, beautiful statement from a wonderful person. It was in the Wilshire Theatre back in 2010 when he was given that Lifetime Achievement Award, and he was with the likes of Dolly Parton and even the Ramones. So it showed that he thought family was most important.

Despite his worldwide fame though, friends and residents of his town of Montreat knew him as a person who was deeply faithful to his Lord and Savior and showed many good deeds

and great kindnesses throughout the community. He even had a tradition. Though he was known around the globe, he still took the time every year to sing ``Happy Birthday'' to the mayor of his small town of Montreat. What a special gentleman. What a special American. What a special Christian and man of faith.

While friends and fans from around the world and Christians from around the world know him from his renditions of ``How Great Thou Art'' and the ``Wonder of It All,'' he will always be remembered by friends and family in Montreat--and beyond--as one of the most humble and gracious men that has ever been known.

Bev Shea was 104, and leaves behind a wonderful blessing of a family.

So with that, I thank my colleague for yielding and giving me the opportunity to recognize such a significant individual.

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, 2013, I was unavoidably absent from the House and missed rollcall votes 70, 71, and 72. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 70, 71, and 72.

On March 15, 2013, I was unavoidably absent from the House and missed rollcall votes 73, 74, and 75. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 73 and 74, and I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 75.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Oversight & Government Reform and House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6634) to change the effective date for the Internet publication for certain financial disclosure forms, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 25, 2012.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

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

I would say to my colleagues that the Fair Credit Reporting Act should not be singled out for special treatment.

This bill is about creating jobs; and the American people know, as we know, and as rational people looking at the process of regulation know, that higher regulation out of Washington means lower job growth. In particular, what this amendment would do is further constrict access to credit. Furthermore, this bill does not inhibit any individual from getting their free credit report or from having access to their credit report.

What this bill prevents, however, is an agency like the CFPB, which is a very powerful agency with an unconfirmed director. The President went around the process that the Senate has outlined for Senate confirmation. It's a very controversial appointment. They've taken these powers, and they can write very costly and expensive rules. Those costly rules inhibit credit opportunity for Americans, if not done correctly. We've seen some actions already out of this agency that raise great concerns that it's going to be very costly to small banks and to small businesses.

Let's avoid that. Let's reject this amendment. Let's create jobs by passing this bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would say in closing that the Fair Credit Reporting Act should not be singled out for special treatment, nor should the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be singled out for special treatment. We should not treat the CFPB rulemaking powers differently than any other Federal agency dealt with under this legislation before us.

Let me also say to my colleagues that it's very important to note that law enforcement actions will continue. Bad actors can continue to be rooted out, regardless of this legislation. That power is still given to the CFPB and other law enforcing agencies across the government. Furthermore, consumers will continue to have access to their credit reports, and this amendment doesn't address a consumer's ability to get that credit report.

Furthermore, let's create jobs by eliminating regulations that inhibit job growth. Let's roll back this uncertainty and give the American people a level of certainty and some expectation of the regulatory framework they have to work under. That's the way we help small businesses be able to take that risk, be able to get that access to credit so they can create jobs, and maybe even keep the doors open and the lights on.

With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and pass the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.