Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, as chair of the Committee on Rules, I want to take a moment to address the procedural status of the resolutions discussed in this measure. It is my understanding that the resolutions contemplated by H.R. 4138 would not be privileged or otherwise subject to expedited procedures in the House. Because there would be no procedural ramifications for a measure failing to adhere to the statutory prescription, there should be no occasion for the Chair to rule on whether or not that measure meets the definition of a ``resolution'' as that term is used in H.R. 4138.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Success North Dallas as they recently celebrated twenty-five years of success.

Founded in 1988, Success North Dallas started with merely fourteen select individuals. Under the leadership of William M. Wallace, Success North Dallas was created as a high-level connecting and mentor group, providing a forum to support business development and leadership. Over the past twenty-five years, they have met monthly, growing and maturing into an integral part of the North Texas business community. Success North Dallas has provided a forum for key business leaders, bringing together high-profile speakers from city, state, and federal government, major domestic and international corporate executives, and distinguished visionaries to discuss and share their respective businesses. I commend Success North Dallas for fostering and nurturing seventy businesses in North Texas, largely contributing to the region's success in economic development. I am grateful for the positive work Success North Dallas has done to expand and develop the business community in North Dallas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Success North Dallas for another twenty-five years of continued success.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), my colleague and my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 475 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3193. This rule makes in order every amendment that complied with House rules, giving House Members of the majority and the minority ample opportunity to participate in today's debate.

The legislation before us today takes important steps to restore transparency, accountability, and effective oversight in our Federal regulatory process. Established in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, known as CFPB, is granted the authority to regulate the financial services industry in an effort to limit bad actors and protect consumers from fraud and abuse.

Unfortunately, by design--no mistake--the CFPB has virtually zero congressional oversight, limited judicial review, and the unilateral ability to promulgate any rule or regulation it deems appropriate. In essence, it is wholly unaccountable to the American people and to the United States Congress, the men and women who, by the Constitution of the United States, have the authority and the responsibility to represent the American people through elected office.

This is not how our government was meant to operate, but this is what former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats desperately wanted, control of the financial services industry by one person, one person who answers solely to the President of the United States.

I have heard from numerous community bankers in Texas. Madam Speaker, I am from Dallas, Texas, and am proud to say that Dallas, Texas, is home to community bankers who understand that they are on the front lines of a new regulatory regime, and that is not just community bankers, but all bankers and those covered under financial services regulations. Their accounts of the impacts stemming from the new CFPB rules are startling. Specifically, they have told me that the CFPB's new regulations regarding ``qualified mortgages'' will significantly increase borrowing costs and considerably reduce the number of available mortgages.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like something that the Democrats concocted to make sure that health care was in trouble so they could show up with the answer of the Affordable Care Act, which is nothing that is implied in its name.

They are doing exactly to financial services what the Democrats did to health care in this country, and bankers and the financial services industry understand this.

In a time when Americans are looking to the Federal Government simply to promote increased private sector investment in our economy and to allow the free enterprise system to flourish, up to and including offering more jobs, stable opportunities for meaningful capital, instead, we see one person at the head of the organization who can make all these decisions handing down new rules and regulations which, I believe, do the exact opposite of making it easier, safer, and better to grow jobs and to have Americans be competitive in the marketplace.

The bill before us today is not about deregulation. It is about appropriate balanced regulation with ideas that come from not just the Committee on Financial Services, led by our great young Chairman Jeb Hensarling, but perhaps, more importantly, ideas that coincide with other government agencies, where it is a bipartisan effort, not by a particular head of one organization.

While the American people do need protection from bad actors in the financial services industry, they also need protection, I believe, from an activist government that unilaterally dispenses burdensome and needless regulations which negatively impact not only our economy but the industry that helps provide needed capital, jobs, and enrichment of the American financial services industry, which is a part of the free enterprise system.

Madam Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with ObamaCare's Independent Payment Advisory Board, known as IPAB. Yes, it is the one body of unelected bureaucrats which rations health care and makes decisions, once again, without judicial or congressional oversight on America's seniors.

Just as IPAB restricts choices in the health care sector, so too do unelected bureaucrats at the CFPB. They restrict choices in the financial sector. They are trying to choke off the free enterprise system as a result of rules and regulations that become burdensome, and so people quit offering their services.

By regulating the types of credit cards, mortgages, or loans that Americans can get, the CFPB makes unilateral decisions regarding what types of financial tools Americans can use. The American people, I believe, deserve something better from Washington, as opposed to this which they are getting, which is a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington, D.C.

That is why I support H.R. 3193. It brings much-needed balance to the CFPB by replacing the lone director with a five-member commission to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, similar to other financial regulators, so that no one person can unilaterally determine regulations which impact millions of Americans and has little oversight by our courts or by Congress.

Additionally, as an independent agency housed in the Federal Reserve today, the CFPB is not subject to appropriation. They are a mandatory spending item as a result of what President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have done.

By restoring this important check and balance, Congress needs to make sure that we appropriate the money that they should use. It will ensure that the CFPB acts as intended and does not continue to impose economically devastating regulations on the American economy.

To have no oversight and no authority for the money that they spend I believe is a misuse of the way we would want a government agency to work. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, we should be for understanding they should serve at the pleasure of the American people, not the reverse therein.

Finally, this legislation takes important steps. It protects Americans' personal nonpublic information. Yesterday, up in the Rules Committee, we heard testimony from Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Dallas, Texas, that the CFPB currently maintains over 900 million credit card records. That is right: the NSA of financial services, that is exactly what the CFPB is, and such an immense amount of private data held by the Federal Government presents ample opportunity for misuse.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe that they should have this information, and I believe they should immediately recuse themselves of gaining this information.

H.R. 3193 will ensure that Americans are protected by requiring express written consent from the CFPB before they can obtain, access, collect, use, or disclose any personal nonpublic information.

I think it is dangerous to have a government agency with this type of power, information, and, as we have seen from the IRS, a misuse of personal information and data that has become an abuse of power. This bill will require that the CFPB assert in writing how that information will be used and to request it.

Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of the Obama administration's blatant disregard for the laws which govern our great Nation. Just yesterday, we witnessed, once again, President Obama's willingness to do whatever he wants when he unilaterally delayed the employer mandate of the health care bill by 1 year. Instead of giving all Americans relief from the Affordable Care Act, known as ObamaCare, the administration is single-handedly picking winners and losers--by the way, on behalf of business as opposed to individuals. Just as the President has done with health care, there is nothing to prevent the CFPB from following suit and unilaterally deciding who will be subject to crushing regulation and who will not. That is why H.R. 3193 is so important.

Madam Speaker, we are on the floor today because we are talking about what literally is a Big Government action that was done several years ago by the President of the United States, by the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Republicans understand that Big Government not only is costly and expensive but that some people want them to control our lives. Freedom, in fact, Madam Speaker, is worth fighting for, and so Republicans are here today on the floor to balance that tilt in favor of freedom, opportunity, and for the right of their own person, an individual in this Nation, to know if your government is collecting your financial records.

And you have a right to know that. That is another reason why Republicans are pleased to say today we are talking about very, very important issues to every single American. It is more than freedom. It is rule of law.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Weston, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), a member of the Financial Services and Budget Committees. He is not just the author of the bill; he is an awesome and outstanding new Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

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

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

I thank the gentlewomen from Florida who bring up this issue again. We spoke about this issue last week, how it is actually a $24 billion problem to the taxpayer. It is also equally a very difficult lift financially on the problems that it is creating to homeowners who live in flood areas.

As was noted last week, FEMA did not complete their job. We have known about this. This is not a new issue. The numerous Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, are trying very diligently to work on this and have been.

I want to acknowledge the work that has been put in by both these Members and others--including the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings--who sit on the Rules Committee, including the gentlemen and gentlewoman that sit on the Rules Committee from Florida. There are a total of 4 people out of 13 on the Rules Committee that live in Florida.

This is a nationwide problem wherever those people live, predominantly along coastal areas. We are working on it. But it is a $24 billion problem that was not addressed by the Senate--not addressed. What we are trying to do is to work with the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Hensarling, as well as the ranking member and the committee on getting an answer.

As I have stated to people numerous times, I do appreciate not only them keeping this issue in the forefront, but it is something that we must address in the Rules Committee. We intend to do that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Maryland coming down. Once again, I would tend to not just acknowledge what the gentleman is asking for, but I will speak to it.

The problem is that we have to worry about the solvency of the program. The program is some $24 billion in the red right now. Not addressing its solvency just to give some new program life rather than fixing it correctly is where we politely disagree.

We believe that the ability we have in this Congress with this issue is to do it right where it is in the best interest of the people back home that I care about, that every Member of this body cares about, but also the financial integrity to the taxpayer. The national debt is a tremendous national embarrassment, and we are not going to just waive a $24 billion that will become a $50 billion problem. That is why we are trying to address it the way we are.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't consider common sense or the right thing to do a $24 billion irresponsibility, which is, once again, what the Democrat Party is pushing today on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from the Democratic Party for coming and for, once again, offering their ideas about flood insurance. That is not part of the bill. I would simply reply to them, as I have previously, that the Senate-offered compromise or the Senate- offered language spends $900 million more but does not take care of the $24 billion problem, which is red ink that the taxpayer would pick up, which harms the solvency of the program.

Why have a government program that runs in the red $24 billion and then goes to $50 billion?

That is not what we are going to do. We are going to come up with an answer in the House of Representatives, and I expect it to be done quickly.

Today, we are talking about the CFPB, and Americans have witnessed firsthand the negative effects of the CFPB. We have looked at how this administration and one agency cannot only gather records but literally control a marketplace. I believe that what you have heard today lends us to understand that a balance of the CFPB is what is important. We have brought five distinctly different bills to bear here, one of them saying that we should not have employees of the CFPB who are paid well outside of normal government standards, where even an intern who serves for this CFPB makes over $51,000.

Mr. Speaker, what Republicans are trying to do is to balance the piece of legislation that passed this House with President Obama, with Speaker Pelosi, with Senator Reid. We are trying to offer a balance to that on behalf of the consumer, on behalf of a legislative process where Members of Congress and the Financial Services Committee have an opportunity to work with any administration, not just with the Democrats, on what the policy of the CFPB would be. Secondly, we think it is wrong that 900 million financial records are taken without notice given to a consumer. We think that is not just an overreach; we think that is an abuse of power. When the government unilaterally has 900 million records, I would have to ask why.

So I support the rule. ``Yes'' on the rule. ``Yes'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 470 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for being 2 minutes late to come here. I apologize to not only you but also the staff and my friends from the Rules Committee for being late.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 470 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3590. This rule makes in order 11 amendments which provide for discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and the majority to participate in this debate.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, we held what I consider to be an open discussion about this bill where amendments were fully discussed and debated, and I am pleased to say that there will be these 11 amendments as a result of the action by the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today represents a yearlong bipartisan, bicameral legislative process to protect our public lands and to preserve traditional hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting for American sportsmen and sportswomen.

Specifically, H.R. 3590 improves access to Federal lands for hunting and fishing. It protects Second Amendment rights enshrined by the Constitution of the United States and promotes sportsmen's views by giving them a seat at the table through an innovative advisory committee to collaborate with the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on ways to better conserve wildlife, habitat, and traditional outdoor activities.

American sportsmen are some of the strongest stewards of our Nation's unparalleled natural resources. We have an abundance of natural resources, but they all must be in a protected and stewardship role, and that is what the American hunter does for this country. They direct conservation projects. They establish nonprofit organizations to protect wildlife and precious habitat. Sportsmen are leading advocates to ensure that we leave a stronger, more vibrant America for future generations, and, I might add, we teach our children and the next generation the same so that the legacy that we leave is prepared for our future.

Additionally, according to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, American sportsmen contribute roughly $90 billion in economic activity every year. These resources sustain thousands of American jobs and protect our Nation's rich outdoor heritage. They also provide many of our rural areas of this country with needed jobs, jobs for people who live in rural areas who care very much about conservation and of their local areas to keep them natural.

Unfortunately, all too often the Federal Government erects unnecessary barriers which prevent Americans from participating in the many activities that also should be available on Federal lands. That is why H.R. 3590 is important. It streamlines government regulations to allow for greater access to our Nation's public lands so that all Americans can enjoy everything that our great outdoors have to offer.

As a sportsman myself, I will tell you I have enjoyed our national parks. I have enjoyed State parks and the outdoors, and in particular, as a young Boy Scout growing up all of the way through being an Eagle Scout and an adult leader, I have utilized these resources, which has allowed me an opportunity to know more about America and to be able to pass it on to my sons and others. It is a great way to spend an afternoon or a weekend or a week with your family, the outdoors and learning more about America.

Today I want to thank the Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, who is from Washington. He understands the West, and he understands the outdoors. His leadership on this issue was essential, as well as that of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairmen Bob Latta from Ohio and Bennie Thompson from Mississippi. Both of these men met with me and the committee early on to make sure that we would be prepared for their bills that would come to the floor as a package, with the understanding that on a bicameral, bipartisan basis, we would move this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts in not only his arguments, many of which were made in the Rules Committee last night as we properly went through, I believe rather meticulously, in answers to what the gentleman brought up. It is important to note that three Democrat amendments were withdrawn. One Democrat amendment was not germane, and several other Democrat amendments I think we effectively said they will be tackled either in another piece of legislation or, because they are a larger bill that needs to be heard by the committee, updated. And, in fact, the land bill is set to be done next year, 2015, with its expiration. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Washington, Doc Hastings, very meticulously covered his thoughts and ideas about that. And he told the Rules Committee that, in fact, he did believe that it would need to be updated on a bipartisan basis.

Doc Hastings, as the chairman, also stated that the majority of his bills that he had brought to the committee, at least under his chairmanship, were done on a bipartisan basis, where there was an agreement within the committee to move the bills, and while there may be disagreements about all the parts of the legislation, that they garnered respect from each other out of their committee. It was not the Republican leadership. In fact, it was the Rules Committee that made the decision based upon testimony that they heard upstairs, listening to the committee chairman, understanding the committee's thoughts and ideas, and then moving appropriately.

The gentleman from Massachusetts does make other points about jobs bills. And I would point to a Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO report that came out today that talks about the effects of a new update about the Affordable Care Act, which is known, as President Obama alluded to here, as ObamaCare. The word ``ObamaCare,'' when used in that context, will push the equivalent of about 2 million American workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or to drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

They said that there is a major jump in the nonpartisan agency's projection. It suggests that the health care law's initiatives and the incentives in it are driving business and people to choose government- sponsored benefits rather then work.

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of

hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the

period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers

will choose to supply less labor--given the new taxes and

other incentives they will face and the financial benefits

some will receive.

CBO analysts wrote this in their new economic outlook.

They further stated that the rollout problems with the Affordable Care Act, known as the ACA, last year will mean that only some estimated 6 million people will sign up through the State-based exchanges, rather than the 7 million that the CBO had originally said would sign up.

What this means is that the laws that were passed as a result of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi being Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid being the Senate Majority Leader, they passed laws which are substantially reducing the number of people who actually work in America. There was a net some 230,000 people that lost their job this last month. The Affordable Care Act continues to be the number one reason why American businesses and small business employers do not hire more workers in this country.

The gentleman is correct that the Democrat leadership as well as ranking members from the Ways and Means Committee and the Budget Committee have approached the Rules Committee and asked for us to extend by 1.3 million people the number of people who would be extended long-term benefits.

I had a discussion with both Sandy Levin of the Ways and Means Committee and Chris Van Hollen, the ranking member at the Budget Committee, and told them that the Republican Party in the House of Representatives has, since the President initiated this action and it was passed in the House, that we saw where there would be millions of people who would lose their jobs, that we would have unemployment at the numbers that we have, and that there is not one unintended consequence in this. These were well known, they were well understood. They were simply ignored by Democrats and the media as a possible probable outcome.

So I told both these gentlemen when they came to the Rules Committee that I would be very pleased to engage with them on a private basis, as a Member of Congress and them as a Member of Congress, on a way that we could add 1.3 million jobs if we were going to extend the unemployment compensation.

I believe it is immoral for this country to have as a policy extending long-term unemployment to people rather than us working on the creation of jobs. A job is the most important attribute, I believe, in a free enterprise system of a person, a family circumstance--for a husband, a wife, children when they are able at the appropriate age--to be able to have a job, to learn to take care of themselves, to be able to meet their needs, to be able to become engaged in their community and have self-respect enough to know that jobs are important.

I think too much time we have been hung up on--instead of the creation of jobs, we talk about the symptoms that are related to-- unemployment and long-term unemployment. In this case, the President of the United States thoughtfully articulates the need for us to make sure we help people, but I believe he errs on the side of not pushing jobs bills, coming to the table as the President--as he said he would when he was a candidate, as he should as President--of working with Republicans and Democrats on well-understood ways that you create more jobs.

The President has chosen not to do this. It continues to be a 5-year pattern. I would note that when we had many of these same issues, or similar, when President Clinton was in office, he worked with Republicans. Granted, they were Republican ideas: balance the budget, welfare reform, cutting taxes, reducing rules and regulations. I do admit that is a complete Republican agenda. But we saw where one Democrat President joined with Republicans to work for a great opportunity for us to grow our economy, to face down other nations who were willing to not only grow their economies at our expense, but to add American workers and a brighter future for all Americans.

The Republican Party House leadership--Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor--have repeatedly stood at this podium for 5 years, and we have a constant theme, and that is: let's work together, not on raising taxes, not on more rules and regulations, not on job- killing health care ideas, but, rather, initiatives that the private sector--CEOs, small business leaders--say will help them to understand better the things that they need to go employ Americans.

Instead, the Democrat majority chose to do a bill, the Affordable Care Act, that at that time more than 55 percent of Americans opposed. We were told wait until you learn about it, you are going to love this; not just read it to learn what is in it, but the longer that you have it out there, it is going to be a real attribute.

Well, let me tell you what. We are going to find out this October when, instead of 8 million Americans are going to lose their health care and have to make decisions, there are going to be 80 million people. It will be at that time, or perhaps slightly before, when the American people will understand it was one party, one group of people-- they are called the Republicans--who tried to warn us, who tried to hold some 47 individual votes on individual pieces of the Affordable Care Act that ruin employment, that make taxes even higher and move jobs overseas.

This is why the Republican Party is here today moving this bill. We will be here with a water bill tomorrow on the floor, and we will continue down the pathway of showing the differences of what we are for. We are for the American worker. We are for growing jobs. We believe the GDP is an embarrassment, and we believe that unemployment is immoral and we should add jobs.

So I am going to join my colleague Sandy Levin and my colleague Chris Van Hollen, and we are going to see if we can craft something that we would have on this floor. But it has got to net add over a million jobs, because that is what America needs, a real answer, not rhetoric.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Florida. I would like to affirm that she has come to the Rules Committee and that it is the Rules Committee that has been pondering these questions and will continue to.

The Rules Committee, as of several weeks ago, attempted to work with--on a bipartisan basis--the Financial Services Committee, and there were not agreements that were done there on a bipartisan basis, so I think the committee of jurisdiction needs an opportunity to be able to faithfully look at it and to come up with an answer. I think a backstop would be as the Senate has done, which is simply to delay things for 4 years because of this government's inability to effectively do what they were tasked with doing.

Notwithstanding, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman and her constant comments, not just to me but also to members of the Rules Committee, in order for us to understand that we do have to come up with an answer on this. I wish today were that answer. We will continue to work at it, and I appreciate the gentlewoman very much for her continued insistence with me. I have also told one of my and her colleagues--the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--as well as members of the Rules Committee that, on the Republican side, we will continue to work on this, and I expect us to be successful.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in fact, once again, the gentlewoman from Los Angeles, I believe, represents a truth. We need to get this done.

I think the committee last year, as I recall, began a process of re- looking at it, of trying to work through this issue. It is my belief and hope--and I have told members of the committee--that I intend to stay after this, but the Financial Services Committee does have the jurisdiction, and we are looking for an answer rather quickly.

I will continue to work with the gentlewoman from Los Angeles. I will continue to work with the gentleman from Florida, Judge Hastings, and I will continue to work with Ms. Castor from Tampa on this issue. I know that my dear friend from New York, Congressman Meeks, has spoken with me a number of times about this.

So it is my hope that the Financial Services Committee will come with a recommendation--with a piece of legislation--on a bipartisan basis so that we can address this, and we will wait until that is accomplished. That is what I have told members of the committee. That is my hope, and I will continue to be engaged in this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey, my dear friend, who joins with others of his colleagues who, in fact, most politely and appropriately have brought this issue to the Rules Committee.

I will tell you that there was an assertion made a minute ago that I was unaware of, and that was a jurisdictional issue that evidently the Rules Committee does have. I have tried to be forthright with this the whole time, and I believe it is the right thing for the men and women of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party who have approached me. I have consistently tried to invoke myself into the process with an answer, through the committee, which I thought was solely the committee of jurisdiction.

I will look at the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Jersey, both very dear friends, who see me every day. I am not trying to evade. I am not trying to obfuscate. I am not trying to pass the buck on this. I have indicated I will be willing to be a part of this compromise. I will look back at the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Pascrell, and tell him I am personally involved in this. I will continue to be involved.

I am delighted that the Senate came up with their answer, which was a short-term answer, not a fix. I believe that there is a fix that is trying to be looked at right now--one which I think is more amenable to the circumstance. If that effort fails, I will continue to stay in touch with not only the ranking member of the committee, Ms. Slaughter, who has pressed me also, but also with my friends who have approached me today.

I will very respectfully acknowledge that what they are doing here today in coming to the floor to do this is appreciated. What I would say to them is I don't know that voting against the rule, believing they are going to take this down, would get this process done. It is not included in the rule. But I will tell each of my friends that are here today that I am going to continue to work on this, and I intend to have an answer quickly.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman from Louisiana is most accurate when he describes the problems which are associated with the way FEMA has initiated this process.

I will not sit here and beat anyone up over what they did or did not do. I recognize that I have disagreements myself. I have disagreements with myself, as a Member of Congress from Dallas, Texas.

What I would say to the gentleman--and he is sitting right next to the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee--these are issues that have to be resolved, and they are larger, I believe.

What you have heard me say today, I think they are trying to look at solving more than just the extension problem. They are trying to solve some problems. I could be wrong about that. I am not in the negotiation; I am around the negotiation.

But the gentleman, most assuredly, has come to the floor today for the right reason, I believe, with a pretty good message. Everybody is impacted that lives in these areas. We don't need to say one group of people or another or people that live in high-rises or low-rises.

What we do need to say is--and acknowledge, and I do--that each of my colleagues--I have been approached by colleagues on the Republican side and the Democrat side. I intend to stay after this issue, and I respect the gentleman for the way he approached it today, and I owe him. I am looking at him right in the eye. I owe him an answer on this too. I am part of the problem, just as he is, and we have got to find a solution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, with great respect to the gentleman, I would, once again, offer an explanation, and that is that what they are talking about with this motion to recommit is not germane to the bill and would not go back to the committee of jurisdiction and so, by voting against what would be the rule or for a motion to recommit, would not accomplish what the gentleman is trying to do.

That is why I have tried to take, Madam Speaker, as I have tried meticulously, with speaker after speaker, my friends, my colleagues that have a strong opinion about this, I have tried to say to them that I do recognize that, while I don't believe I have the jurisdictional elements within the Rules Committee, that I will continue to work on this, and believe that there can be an answer.

So I would respond back to the gentleman from Los Angeles and tell him, thank you for coming to the floor, but an answer for this really needs to come from the committee, that we need to then work through the Rules Committee and get it on the floor. I am committed to that entire process and will continue to do that.

I thank the gentleman from Los Angeles, my friend, for him taking time to come down, but I don't want him to believe that, by winning a vote on the motion to recommit, that it will have any impact on that endeavor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I have no further requests for speakers either.

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

Madam Speaker, I will, once again, do the very best that I can and, with great respect and appreciation to my very dear friend from Massachusetts--who has been a part of, since I recall at least early December, the discussion in the Rules Committee with the gentleman, his colleague, my colleague, from Florida (Mr. Hastings)--Judge Hastings pushed this issue appropriately. The members of the committee from Florida have graciously pushed that issue forward.

The bottom line is that I believe the gentleman and I need to meet to speak about the jurisdiction that he refers to. The jurisdiction that I believe that the Rules Committee has is not related to the policy. The policy, which is what the provisions that are contained within the problems that we are talking about today, the policy issues are within the jurisdiction of the Financial Services Committee.

Today, we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with a rule with the jurisdiction to the Natural Resources Committee. The motion to recommit is not germane to the Natural Resources Committee.

So voting, or believing that you could, through a motion to recommit, winning that, and getting this bill on the floor through the previous question is simply not something that I believe is realistic, or something that we should even suggest to people that would happen.

What we are talking about today is a bill with the jurisdiction through the Natural Resources Committee, and I would like to confine my remarks now on the bill that is before the House.

Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of growing up as a lifelong Texan but had the opportunity to visit and live in other States in our great United States.

I have had an opportunity to visit national parks, national lands, land that is owned by all the American people. As an active Eagle Scout, and the father of two Eagle Scouts--and my father is an Eagle Scout--we have been in national parks all over this country.

That is what this legislation is about today. It is about national parks and the use therein. Some number of bills that have been cobbled together, yes, they were cobbled together so that we could come up with a policy, a policy that is trying to be worked on through a group of men and women here in the United States House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis, as well as a bicameral basis.

We had an understanding that we would try and do this about this week early last year. So I want you to know that what we are doing is bringing forth a bill which is important to people in how they deal with their families' recreation, as well as the importance of vital economic help to various areas of the United States.

I have witnessed the educational and recreational opportunities that we are talking about today, and they possess near limitless opportunities for not only my generation but the next generation of Americans who want to enjoy America.

I think that we, today, by this bill, have given us a refreshed new opportunity, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, to address that issue. That is why I support increasing access to public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, so others may have this same opportunity.

So I am a ``yes'' and would encourage my colleagues to be ``yes'' on what the legislation is about today, not something that is not germane and another issue, which I have tried to appropriately address here today. It is urgent, but that is not what we are doing right here right now.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and to be a part of moving this bill to the Senate, then on to the President's desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 3, 2013, providing for morning-hour debate be extended for the remainder of the 113th Congress, except that House Resolution 452 shall supplant House Resolution 9; and the Speaker may dispense with morning-hour debate upon receipt of a notification described in clause 12(c) of rule I and notify Members accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of America's Armed Forces, and their Families during this Christmas and Holiday Season. The ones who are separated by death, war, and plagued with life altering health conditions throughout America, are paying the price of freedom for us all. The ones who give us the greatest gifts, ``That Last Full Measure''. Say a prayer for them, and keep them in your hearts this Christmas and Holiday Season. Say a prayer for peace, I ask that this poem penned in their honor by Albert Carey Casewell be placed in the Record.

What Gift Can I Bring?

(By Albert Carey Caswell)

``What gift can I bring?'' . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

``That's fit for a King'' . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

What gift can I give?

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

All in this life I live . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

While,

into the valley of death I walked!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Out into that darkness standing tall!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

My arms and legs I gave . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

For you I limp this day!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And in my arms my love ones I shall never hold this way . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

All so we may live in peace this day!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And . . . my eyes I gave . . .

so all in darkness I must stay . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As another beautiful sunset I shall never so see portrayed .

. .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And my ears I gave,

so I can never hear the words ``I love you'' say . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And all those scars upon my face . . .

In the mirror I must look at each day . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

All for the beauty of peace on earth this day . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As all in such nightmares I awake . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

All in the name of Freedom I paid . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

What greater gift can I give?

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

That's fit for a King . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As I did . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As all in such pain and worry my family now lives . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And all of those Doctors and Nurses,

Corpsmen and Medics who witness such death and carnage each

day!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Who so many lives so save!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Creating such demons inside they must now so face!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And my life I gave!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As approached the face of death . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As out to me so called . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As its hand upon me I felt and saw . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As my Brothers In Arms gathered around cried,

praying with tears in eyes . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

I gave my best for them!

I gave my life for them!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And I'd do it all over again my son!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . ..

All so one day more they could live!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As they so lowered me into my quiet grave . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As my family so wept upon that day . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As ever the tears they made!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As they now live with the kind of pain which won't go away!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

All so,

we may have peace on earth this day . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Was but the price of Freedom I paid . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Pum . . .

Pum . . .

What gift can I bring?

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

That's fit for a King!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

And then,

he smiled at me . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

As my Lord said,

``come to heaven son'' . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Smiled at me!

Pa rumpa pum pum . . .

Pum!

Pum!

Pum!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this Christmas Season of giving to recognize The Fisher House, an organization that has built sixty-two homes for our wounded warriors and their families. The Fisher House is a place of recovery where families can be reunited with their loved ones as they fight the battle to overcome the scars of war. As a home away from home, The Fisher House provides safe haven and helps relieve the financial hardships that families relocating to be with their wounded loved ones face. The Fisher House Program was founded in 1990 by Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher in Rockville, Maryland. They are located at major military and VA medical centers nationwide. Kenneth Fisher is currently carrying on his Uncle Zach's legacy as acting Chairman. I submit this poem penned by Albert Carey Caswell in their honor.

Fisher House--Because a Family's Love Is Good Medicine

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Thomas Sharpe Wilmeth who will be awarded the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award on Saturday, December 7, 2013.

Mr. Wilmeth was introduced to math and the concepts of math at a young age in Indianapolis, Indiana. He graduated high school at the age of 15 and went on to graduate magna cum laude with a degree in electrical engineering from Purdue University in 1935. Mr. Wilmeth then worked for various businesses where he focused on increasing efficiency and productivity while reducing costs. In 1949, he and his brother started Scot Industries. Mr. Wilmeth used his engineering background and education to establish a metal honing business that produced better, more efficient and less expensive products, such as hydraulic cylinders, metal tubing, and metallurgy. He now lives in Daingerfield, Texas and after 45 years of success, Scot Industries has 13 different locations and has built an international reputation for quality and technological leadership in the areas of specialty metal bars and high pressure efficient metal tubing.

Since obtaining the rank of Eagle Scout at the age of 15, Mr. Wilmeth has remained true to his scouting promises of kindness, generosity, and sharing. As a lifelong entrepreneur and philanthropist, he continually contributes to his alma mater, Purdue University, and to the Boy Scouts of America, where both BSA councils in Indianapolis, Indiana and NeTse0 Trails have greatly benefited. With his background, it is evident Mr. Wilmeth deserves the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, acknowledging his achievements and success within his field and his outstanding record of voluntary service to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing our heartiest congratulations to Mr. Thomas Sharpe Wilmeth as he receives this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by part of our Rules Committee family, members of the Rules Committee who would like to welcome back to our Nation's Capital a very dear friend, Celeste West. Celeste is part of our Rules Committee family who retired last July after 25 years of service. On Friday, September 6, Celeste tragically and unexpectedly lost her only son, Barker, in a car accident. Today would have been Barker's 19th birthday.

We all in the Rules Committee watched Franklin Barker West as he grew up. Barker brought a smile to everybody he met. He was a gregarious young man who had an unlimited amount of energy and zeal with an unlimited future. He was an outstanding young man who believed in himself and others.

Barker was also a fraternity brother of mine in the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity. Barker's fraternity brothers have called him a ``legend.'' As we know, lives live on despite us being in other places. His spirit is with us today.

In the wake of this tragedy, we are here today with Celeste and her family, Barker's father, Frank, and his stepmother, Suellen. We are here to celebrate Barker's short but remarkable life, a life that was part of our United States Capitol family.

As a father myself, I cannot even fathom the difficulties that the family is going through. But we want you to know, all of us here today, that the life that has been lived of Franklin Barker West was important, and is important to us.

Mr. Speaker, more and more news continues to come to light about the poor workmanship that went into the Obama administration's Web site for ObamaCare. It is a problem and it is a mistake, and Americans are dealing with it all across America. The Associated Press reports that folks in the administration ``saw red flags for months,'' and The Washington Post said that bureaucrats insisted on plowing ahead despite this known failure that would lie ahead.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would ask a question: Why are the American people going to be required to be in a health care system other than the one that they chose? And the answer is because President Obama and Democrats passed a law years ago that is something that the American people do not want and were misled into. Premiums are skyrocketing, and some insurers are kicking people off their plan that they were on entirely.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a plan for the future, and it allows people to have their own doctor, their own insurance company, and to make their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 391 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Boulder, Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 391 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2374 and a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 992. However, I think it is important to note that H.R. 992 is a closed rule by default because the Rules Committee did not receive any amendments despite Members having ample time to submit them. So we made sure that, in the interest of time, we are going to move forward on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today's bills are technical in nature, but each carries very important policy implications designed to strengthen our Nation's financial services industry while simultaneously protecting consumers and providing more certainty for our economy.

First, H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, amends section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act to provide banks and their customers the flexibility to effectively manage risk better.

Today, many banks and bank customers, such as utility companies and agricultural co-ops, use swaps as an effective means to manage their businesses and to operate their cash flows in a safe and practical manner. Unfortunately, section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act would require banks and their customers to shift these practices out of the traditional bank model and place them in newly created, capitalized, nonbank entities. Such a change to current business models would create unnecessary instability in domestic markets and potentially restrict access to these important financial instruments. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that such a move would ``weaken both financial stability and strong prudential regulation.''

H.R. 992 would allow banks and their customers to keep the majority of swaps transactions in-house and prevent needless financial instability. Additionally, it is important to note that, despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may say, this legislation only permits traditional swaps to continue under the current operating structure. All structured swaps, such as an asset-backed security and other riskier investment vehicles, will be required to be housed in nonbank entities. I believe this legislation represents commonsense ideas that allow for greater financial flexibility for consumers while ensuring that investors are not subject to unnecessary risk.

The second bill, H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act, aims to prevent potentially conflicting and costly definitions of fiduciary standards from being applied to broker-dealers and other financial service professionals. Currently, the Department of Labor is in the final stages of drafting a new definition of fiduciary standards for broker-dealers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act known as ERISA. This new requirement would dramatically change a longstanding business model and potentially diminish the ability of everyday Americans to access quality investment advice, meaning, the broker that they choose.

At the same time, the Securities and Exchange Commission, known as the SEC, is considering adopting its own uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers pursuant to the Frank-Dodd Act. H.R. 2374 would prevent the Department of Labor from issuing any new fiduciary standards before the SEC finalizes its new rule. In other words, we would like for them to work together. This delay would prevent the two agencies from promulgating different and conflicting definitions that could prove difficult, if not impossible, for many financial service professionals to adhere to. Such a change in current business practices is a solution in search of a problem. Current suitability standards applied to broker-dealers did not play a role in the financial crisis of 2008, and Congress should not force American families to have to pay more not only for legal definitions they do not need, but against their own common sense.

Today, millions of Americans who save for retirement take advantage of many affordable investment options that broker-dealers provide. Changing fiduciary standards for broker-dealers

would increase costs and decrease access to important investment tools, especially for low- and middle-income families. I believe that H.R. 2374, as brought to the Rules Committee by the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the Honorable Jeb Hensarling from Dallas, Texas, provides the certainty and flexibility that Americans need for retirement and to plan for their future and for their own children's education while promoting a safe and equitable marketplace.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will answer the question quickly. We believe there should be no more than a 25 percent tax on any American for paying their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dialogue that the gentleman from Colorado is having. In fact, I have, for a long period of time, not only understood the plight of those who are perhaps in this country as undocumented people, but also I understood the plight of people who are trying to get a job in this country, Americans who are trying to find work.

And there are lots of things that we should have done on this. I would remind the gentleman that for 4 years the Democrat majority had this front and center as a promise that they would accomplish, and the Republican majority now is attempting to work through this issue.

We have had working groups. We have had Members who are very serious about how we work on a bipartisan basis; and I know the gentleman, Mr. Polis, has been not only aware of that, but also understands the intricacies.

We need to be able to understand that there are still very dangerous people in this country, and the Senate bill did not even get close to understanding who is in this country that is dangerous, some 30,000 people who are special interest aliens who this government is watching. They would sneak right underneath the wire toward citizenship; that normally a person who comes into this country would have to go through a background check, and we would know who they are and we would transform them from a great member of another country to a proud American.

What we want to make sure is that we measure twice and saw once, and that is really what the Republican Party is trying to do.

I will not. The gentleman had 18 minutes to get his message out, and I am going to take my few minutes to get this out.

And with great respect to the gentleman from Colorado, I do recognize not only his heart, but his brain is engaged in trying to make sure that we work together; that we do it on a bipartisan basis; that we see the future of hardworking people who are in this country; but that we also recognize that there must be a chance to protect this country and not give constitutional rights and the hard work in this country away, as the Senate bill does, gives it away, rather than having an earned citizenship to where people then have a chance to make our country stronger.

It is a big debate, and the gentleman is most eloquent in his enunciation of support of pushing all of us together. I stand with him. But we will keep working until we get it right.

We will, once again, measure three times and saw once.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Bowling Green, Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Gainesville, Georgia, Congressman Collins, a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Colorado, speaking most eloquently about the effects of 5 years of President Barack Obama.

I will remind this body that President Obama said he would not negotiate with House Republicans. In fact, the majority responsible for the bill that had to prepare our country for what we would do for moving our country forward with not only the CR but also the sequestration, House Republicans for months have spent time to make sure we did appropriations bills. Meanwhile, our friends on the Senate did zero appropriations bills.

House Republicans prepared us not to have the demise that we did, and our friends across the aisle did nothing to help us in this endeavor, not even to begin a negotiation. So, unfortunately, it turns out that it goes on someone's record.

I would like for the Record to reflect that House Republicans came up with ideas to avoid the government shutdown and to fund the government. We have done that for months, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Winfield, Illinois, Congressman Hultgren, a member of the Committee on Financial Services and one of the cosponsors and lead sponsors of the bills that are on the floor today.

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

I appreciate the gentleman speaking very clearly about getting manufacturer jobs, and that is why the Republican Party listens to the National Association of Manufacturers. They have a very specific list of things that they, as manufacturers, want as they try and make not only more jobs available in this country, but also as they want to make sure that investment and opportunity and keeping their companies alive is something that goes forward into the future.

That is why they oppose ObamaCare. That is why their number one issue is to say that they see a big government spending program, not just like ObamaCare, but also taxes on energy, which our friends on the other side of the aisle push every day, and higher taxes for investors and more and more and more Big Government.

So I do understand what manufacturers want, and it is directly related to the meetings that I have with people from Dallas, Texas, and all across this country who are in the business. They put their names on their doors. Manufacturers are awesome and important people to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, what we are really here to speak about are these two bills from the Financial Services Committee today.

H.R. 2374 is something that has been talked about. What it really boils down to is there are investment advisers, and investment advisers are those people in the marketplace that an individual customer would go to. That financial adviser has not only a higher standard on them, but they also have legal and regulatory costs to go with it. But they are to know the customers and the customers' needs and how old that customer is and what they are trying to achieve and to know about their family and their processes, and not to take risks where there shouldn't be any but to match the expectation of performance.

And then there is the broker-dealer. That broker-dealer is available in the marketplace. Maybe they are a $5 or $6 or $7 per trade person. It is somebody that you call up and you execute the agreement that you have from your investment adviser.

What we are trying to say here today--Mr. Hultgren and others--we don't think that the regulatory burdens, including costs, including legal fees and other burdens, should be placed on the broker-dealers. They should be someone that has a lesser or different standard. They are simply the person that takes the order to effectively and cheaply get the order done that came from the customer as a result of their advice from the financial adviser.

How important is this? It is important enough because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that stalwart that stands for all business--not just manufacturers, but also customers--has said this about what Chairman Hensarling is attempting to accomplish today. I quote from a letter that came from Bruce Josten, who is executive vice president of the Chamber, dated October 28, to all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, asking them for support:

Due to the increasing overlap between the Department of

Labor and the SEC in the area of retirement plans and the

related nature of each agency's fiduciary initiative, the

Chamber believes that the two agencies should coordinate and

work in a systematic manner, allowing the SEC to complete its

rules first to avoid investor confusion, regulatory conflict,

and one rule being usurped by the other.

Mr. Speaker, this is common sense. That is your U.S. Chamber that is speaking on behalf of all the people across this country saying let's not put ourselves into a circumstance where indecision that has been talked about today becomes a hindrance in the marketplace and where good rules and commonsense are able to flourish.

And that is what the Republican majority is attempting to do today. That is why H.R. 2374 means that what we are trying to do is to provide our ideas to a marketplace rather than having the Department of Labor go first and perhaps have one set of rules and then the Securities and Exchange Commission, who really should be the lead agency, come up with their own rules and regulations. Let's have them work together. And that is what we are

doing here. Common sense means asking government to work with itself between a regulatory body and a Cabinet-level position.

I believe that if we are successful on the floor today, we will see that white flag that comes up that says, well, this bill may not make it through the other body, like so many other bills that we have, but common sense should prevail. That is why Republicans are here today, and that is why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stands up and says, This is what we see as the real issue in the marketplace.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate the courtesy that the gentleman has afforded me with what I believe is his support of the bill, the underlying legislation, the importance to the marketplace, and perhaps more importantly, what we are trying to do here today, and that is to move forward with ideas that will help the American people.

I also know that the discussions that he wanted to have are really not what we are here to meet for today but are very, very important issues not only to the gentleman from Colorado, but I think every single Member of this body, and that is an intention that we give to understanding the legislation that could be attached to the immigration bill.

But the work that we are doing today is about what we have, which is here for a reason, and that is to make it easier for people back home to be able to make decisions about financial long-term issues and ideas, whether it is their retirement, whether it is about sending their kids to college, or whether it is about trying to take costs out of the marketplace to allow a consumer a better opportunity to come to a broker-dealer of their choice, to go to the financial adviser to work whatever they do and then to go to a marketplace that is cost-effective for them. That is why we are here today.

The bottom line is that the Dodd-Frank Act puts unnecessary rules and regulations on the entire industry. That takes away from the effectiveness and how nimble the marketplace can be. It takes away and adds cost to consumers who would wish to not only make a trade--they have already gotten the advice they need, and now what they are interested in is executing that trade without trying to receive, necessarily, someone who is trying to be careful about what they do.

So, Mr. Speaker, you know why we are here today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.