Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3606 and to insert extraneous materials therein.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the JOBS Act and urge my House colleagues to approve this bill with an overwhelming bipartisan support.

This is a legislative package that we believe will help jump-start our economy by creating new growth opportunities for America's small businesses, for start-up companies, and for entrepreneurs.

As chairman of the Financial Services Committee, I'm happy to report to the House that the JOBS Act is comprised of six bills that originated in our committee and were approved by the committee. I'm also proud that these six bills received overwhelming, strong bipartisan support in our committee. It shows that Republicans and Democrats can come together, find common ground and work together to help America's small businesses. In fact, after being approved by the Financial Services Committee, several of these bills moved to the House floor and gained almost unanimous approval by the House and are now in the Senate.

Not only do these measures have support from Republicans and Democrats, but we received a letter from the President this morning dated March 6 endorsing this legislation, strongly endorsing it. So it not only has the support of Republicans, Democrats, but also the President and the leadership.

A consistent observation that I've heard and many others have heard from our business community is that the Federal Government is making it hard for them to expand and hire new workers with all of its new regulations, mandates and spending, as well as those not-so-new regulations.

We've not recovered from this recession as quickly as we have from past recessions, and the reason is that we have not gotten the job growth that we had hoped, and the job growth we have gotten has been from large corporations. The difference in this recovery and the last one is not large companies not hiring--they are. It's small companies not hiring.

Now, there are two reasons that small companies are not hiring, and these are small companies that generate traditionally 65 70 percent of the new jobs. The first is regulation and the second is capital. It's harder for these companies to get traditional bank financing. We all know that. We've talked to bankers. We've talked to small businesses. Because they can't always get bank financing, they must turn to investors and to the capital market. These bipartisan measures will make it easier for them to do that. They'll increase capital formation which spurs the growth in start-up companies, creates jobs, and encourages companies, small companies, to add jobs and to invest.

We know that, as I've said, small businesses are the generators of our economy. In fact, large corporations, 70 80 percent of their business is from small businesses.

That's why we, as Congress, hearing from our constituents, must cut the red tape that prevents our small businesses and entrepreneurs, the same people that created Google, that created Apple, that created a lot of our biotech companies, they were small businesses but now they are the growth businesses. They are creating the most jobs. This legislation will give them the freedom to access capital, to hire workers, and to grow jobs.

I want to talk about just one of these bills, and that is the bill that came out

of our committee with strong bipartisan support; and I want to commend three gentlemen, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney) and Mr. Himes, who crafted it. It allows the IPO market, which has been in a funk, to come back and create small companies and allow them to capitalize.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 3606--Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act

(Rep. Fincher, R Tennessee, and 53 cosponsors, March 6, 2012)

The Administration supports House passage of the Rules

Committee Print of H.R. 3606. Helping startups and small

businesses succeed and create jobs is fundamental to having

an economy built to last. The President outlined a number of

ways to help small businesses grow and become more

competitive in his September 8, 2011, address to a Joint

Session of Congress on jobs and the economy, as well as in

the Startup America Legislative Agenda he sent to the

Congress last month. In both the speech and the agenda, the

President called for cutting the red tape that prevents many

rapidly growing startup companies from raising needed

capital. The President is encouraged to see that there is

common ground between his approach and some of the proposals

in H.R. 3606. The Administration looks forward to continuing

to work with the House and the Senate to craft legislation

that facilitates capital formation and job growth for small

businesses and provides appropriate investor protections.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 880 on final passage of H.R. 527, I was on the House floor, but inadvertently missed the voted. Had I been recorded, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, families across America have to live within their means and balance their budgets. Sometimes it means making hard decisions and giving up things that you might like but can't afford. For too long, Washington has avoided making those choices. Its practice has not been to control spending but to keep borrowing more and more. For families, this approach results in bankruptcy. For countries, it leads to the financially and socially perilous situation that we are seeing in Greece and other debt-ridden nations. It is very clear that the only sure way to bring long-term fiscal discipline to Washington is to adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Amendment will provide us with a disciplined framework for the important decisions on entitlement changes and other spending reforms that will be needed to place America on firmer fiscal ground. Amending the Constitution is not something that should ever be done lightly. But I truly believe that what is at stake here is the financial integrity of our country and the future prosperity of our children and grandchildren. Our parents left us with a stronger America. We do not want to leave them with a weaker one.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2940 and to insert extraneous material therein.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just adopted, I call up the bill (H.R. 2940) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement for a certain exemption under Regulation D, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act.

Throughout this week, the House is considering several jobs bills that are sponsored by members of the Financial Services Committee and that have recently been approved by the committee. They have been sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. Yesterday, we passed two of those bills overwhelmingly, and today we will consider the other two.

Presently, we're considering H.R. 2940, which was introduced by Mr. McCarthy, a member of the committee and of leadership. What this bill does is create jobs. It gives entrepreneurs the ability to raise capital, and that capital translates into jobs.

The President, in his State of the Union, called on the Congress to create ways, additional ways, alternative ways for entrepreneurs to raise capital. He also called on Congress to address burdensome regulations and restrictions imposed on American businesses that create American jobs, and that's what brings us on the floor today.

I received a letter last week from Emanuel Cleaver, a member of our committee who voted in favor of all four of these bills in committee. And this is what he said--and this is, I think, what we're doing today: ``As we attempt to breach the divide in Congress, I want to share an insightful civility story.

``Two young boys went to a neighborhood park to have some play time before their respective mothers called them in for dinner. But upon arriving, a controversy ensued. One boy said, `let's play on the seesaw.' `No,' the other replied, `I want to play catch.' One boy got on the seesaw, but because no one sat on the other end, he never got off the ground. The other boy threw the ball, but no one threw it back. That sounds a lot like the two sides in Congress: Both sides have come to Congress for the same purpose but with different priorities.

``As representatives of the people of the greatest Nation on Earth, we must be willing to alter one preference in order to acquire another, often resulting in accommodation of both.'' It was signed by my colleague, Emanuel Cleaver, a Member of Congress from Missouri.

That's why we're here today. We're here today to set aside our differences and do what the American people have asked us to do, and that's create jobs. I can't think of a better way to create jobs, particularly for small and middle-sized businesses, than the legislation of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), and I'm happy to report that the Democratic members of Financial Services overwhelmingly agreed with us.

Yesterday the job numbers came out, and it showed that while large corporations actually lost 1,000 jobs last month, small- and medium- sized businesses created 107,000 or 108,000 jobs. They did that despite what was described as ``restrictions.'' The greatest restriction was the lack of capital.

There are two ways to obtain funds needed to hire new employees. One is to go to the bank and borrow it. Anyone on the Financial Services Committee will tell you that when entrepreneurs go to the bank to get a loan for their business, they're often told, I'm sorry, it's too risky.

There is an alternative to loans. And we all know loans can be hard to come by for new businesses and for small businesses who create almost all the innovation and new jobs in our country. The other way is to attract capital, people willing to invest and have the opportunity to share in the profits and share in the growth of that company but, at the same time, willing to take the risk.

That's what the gentleman from California's bill does, in a nutshell. It makes it easiest for people to invest in companies.

We've often said that in America one of the dreams--and we've had a difficult time with this recently--is homeownership. Another is to either own a business or invest in a business that does well.

How many of us have thought, I wish we had invested in Apple. I wish we had invested in Google. I wish we'd gotten in on the ground floor.

The gentleman from California's bill allows investors to get in on the ground floor without having to spend $200,000 or $300,000 to the Securities Exchange Commission, and put their money that they have earned, not the government, to work.

And let me say this: when it comes to investing our money, I'll trust individual investors every time over the government.

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

Mr. Chairman, I feel like I'm having a dream, and in that dream my colleague, Patrick McHenry, has legislation on the floor, and President Obama has endorsed that legislation. I feel like I ought to wake up and find out that that was a dream. But in reality, it's actually what's happening here today. I told Mr. McHenry that I would like unanimous consent to ask that we call this the McHenry-Obama friendship bill, but I won't do that.

Let me say this: The President did issue a statement yesterday, and in that statement, it says that the administration supports House passage of H.R. 2930. It goes on to say, in the President's September 8 address to the Joint Session of Congress on jobs and the economy, he called for cutting away redtape that prevents many rapidly growing startup companies from raising needed capital, including through crowdfunding exemption from the requirement to register public securities offerings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He goes on to say that he believes that this bill will make it much easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs. And it will.

Last night, I was at a Faith & Politics dinner where our friends, Congressman Steny Hoyer and Senator Roy Blunt, were receiving the John Lewis-Amo Houghton Award. As we know, both those colleagues are bridge builders. The gentleman at the table next to me, and these were people that were supporting Faith & Politics, said to me, I appreciate the fact you're going to bring a crowdfunding bill to the floor of the House. And I was somewhat amazed, because a few months ago--I have to admit, I'm not a high techie like the President or Congressman McHenry--I really didn't know the difference between clown funding and crowdfunding before we started talking about this bill.

I said to him, how do you know about this bill? He said, well, I'm an executive with Facebook. And he said many companies similar to Facebook, and you mentioned this in your earlier speech, in other countries they raise money through crowdfunding. And he said they even do it here, but they avoid the law. It is a modern thing to do. It's like Facebook, it's like Google, and it's like BlackBerry several years ago. It's something that we didn't know about. But we do now, and we do need to keep our laws current.

I do also close by commending Congressman Perlmutter for making this bill a better bill and one that protects consumers. With this legislation, we'll move this provision into the 21st century and bring it up to date with modern ways to finance businesses.

That will give us an advantage that presently is a disadvantage when it comes to competing with some of our foreign competition. We certainly want to level that playing field and create jobs, and this bill does that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), an original cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the subcommittee chair, Mrs. Capito from West Virginia, to speak in favor of the bill.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

At this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

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

About 2 years ago, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters) and I were in Kabul and Kandahar together on a trip.

I remember talking to my Democratic colleague, saying that there must be things that Republicans and Democrats can work together on to solve. We were obviously in a country that was torn apart by differences, but we both had something in common--we were concerned about our constituents; we were concerned about unemployment; and we were concerned about jobs. I think that's true of every Member in this body.

We know that the path to prosperity is jobs and that, if Americans are working, if they're earning, they feel better about themselves and that, if they're losing their jobs, then it's going to be not only a problem for them and their families but for their communities and for their country.

I am happy to report--and I think it's fitting that the gentleman from Michigan would be across the aisle from me managing the time for the minority--that here we are moving four pieces of legislation today, tomorrow, and on Friday, legislation which will create jobs and will do so without government expense. In fact, they'll do so with some marginal savings to the government but with a great savings to those businesses.

This morning--and I don't know that it was a coincidence--the job figures came out. Large corporations lost 1,000 employees last month, but our middle-sized and small businesses created 108,000 jobs. Now, those aren't enough jobs; those aren't enough jobs for the people graduating and going into the workforce, but that's where job creation is coming from in the economy now--from small- and middle-sized businesses, those with under 500 employees particularly, and from that midrange of 50 to 500 employees.

This bill that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) has brought forward has won bipartisan support because it actually will create jobs in those small community banks and credit unions because it will make their cost of capital less. In a recent survey, 70 percent of small- and middle-sized businesses, those with 500 or fewer employees, said if we had more capital, if we had more funding, we would hire. This is 70 percent. Only 14 percent said they were going to hire. The difference in that number is that the others weren't sure that they could get capital. There are two ways that you obtain capital to create jobs. One is you go and borrow it from a bank, or from an insurance company in some cases, or from someone else. But there is another way, which is by someone willing to invest in your company.

As a small boy, I can remember my father had a business, and before that, he'd invested with another man in a business. I think that one of the American Dreams is not only owning a house--and that's still an American Dream to own your own home even in the circumstances we've been through--but either to have your own business or to be able to invest in somebody else's business.

The gentleman from Connecticut's legislation will allow that threshold of people who want to invest in a community-based financial institution, and it will encourage those community banks to allow more shareholders, more people, to participate. Yes, they will be participating in the risk, but they'll also be participating in the profit, which is really the American system. When you invest, you take risks, but if things are successful, you profit. That's where the risks and the profits ought to be taken. They shouldn't be taken by the taxpayers involuntarily, and they shouldn't be taken by the government. The government shouldn't take the taxpayers' money and invest in business. It is those taxpayers--our constituents, our citizens--who ought to make the decisions on what companies they want to invest in. We all know community banks are struggling today. It will allow them to attract investors, people who say, ``I want to invest in your bank.'' They may be people who do business with the banks, and will probably be people who live in the community.

This bill will be the first of four bills that we bring forward, and they are going to be successful. They're going to move from the House to the Senate, I'll predict this week, because, as the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland, said, there is agreement that this is the right thing to do and that we do have an obligation not only to oppose some things but to also be for positive legislation. The House this week will be for something. It will be for job creation. It will be for allowing people to invest. It will be enabling companies to attract that capital and hire people. So we can feel very good about ourselves this week, and it can start with this bill.

This is not a minor piece of legislation, but it's on suspension because it enjoys widespread support, as does the bill tomorrow. As for the two in the following days, we've worked out the differences. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) had a concern about a bill later this week. He felt like it didn't have enough investor protection. We've addressed that concern and have added his suggestion to the bill.

All four of these bills that will move this week are bipartisan bills. They're not Republican bills, they're not Democratic bills. They're bipartisan bills. I commend the minority whip for speaking out for these bills--I think that bodes well--and I hope the Senate was listening. I also appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut for a bill that really is long overdue. It will immediately allow our community banks to invest and not be dependent on the government for help.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1070) to amend the Securities Act of 1933 to authorize the Securities and Exchange Commission to exempt a certain class of securities from such Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous materials on the bill.

At this time I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the main sponsor of this bill.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Earlier I said that the American citizens, our American citizens, would like to see Republicans and Democrats work together to tackle the challenges facing our country, and this bill is a great example of that. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo from California introduced this bill, along with my colleague Mr. Schweikert from Arizona, and they are meeting that challenge. As I said, it's a bipartisan effort. I know she deserves much credit for this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

You've heard from a member of the Commerce Committee, Ms. Eshoo, who I think said it well when she said that we're modernizing, we're updating a rule which had come to restrict job growth.

Secondly, she mentioned technology. We know that small businesses are the innovators. In fact, you look at Google, you look at Apple, you look at Facebook, these companies just in the past two or three decades started off as small businesses and they were able to grow. With the passage of this legislation, we believe that path will be an easier path. Sixty-five percent of the jobs created over the last 15 years have been in small business. As every speaker has acknowledged, if there is a time to encourage job creation and capital formation, that time is here.

I urge the Members to vote in favor of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 2447, introduced by the gentle lady form Florida, Corrine Brown, to award a collective Congressional Gold Medal to the Montford Point Marines for their patriotic service during World War II and their important role in promoting the cause of equal rights in our country.

Like the Tuskegee Airmen from my native Alabama, the Montford Point Marines fought for the principles of our democracy overseas at a time when prejudice and segregation prevented them from enjoying all of our country's freedoms here at home.

Recently, our nation has paused to remember two giants in the civil rights movement. Here in Washington, the new memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King was dedicated on the National Mall. Over the past few days in Birmingham, thousands of people from all races have united to pay tribute to the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who passed away on October 5th at the age of 89.

In the face of prejudice, hostility, and physical attack, individuals like Dr. King, Reverend Shuttlesworth, and our own cherished colleague John Lewis always held to the highest ideals and did not allow the hate they experienced to diminish their love for their country.

Behind the prominent leaders of the civil rights movement, as they themselves would tell you, have been many courageous foot soldiers with the same ideals. The phrase ``foot soldiers'' is literally true when it comes to the Montford Point Marines.

These men, our first African American Marines, willingly stepped forward during World War II to risk their lives to preserve freedoms that they themselves were being denied. All too often, they encountered vicious racial discrimination that was as painful in its own way as any bulletfire. This could have ripped the morale of our service apart and helped the enemy.

Instead, the soldiers who endured the harsh conditions at Montford Point and racial indignities in the field of battle--more than 20,000 in all from 1942-1949--served with the highest level of honor and loyalty. They fought fiercely in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They cleaned up ash after the atomic bombing of Nagasaki.

The Montford Point Marines were never properly recognized for their bravery and heroism--not during the war and certainly not at the end, when they were essentially dismissed and officially all but forgotten.

But their colorblind service raised a profound contradiction: after fighting for freedom abroad, how could any American be denied full rights here at home? We all know the answer, you could not continue to deny those rights.

In the beginning, the Montford Point Marines set out only to serve their country during a time of war. With their valor, they helped to change military history. They wound up changing the social history of America as well.

Today, we are belatedly telling these heroes, ``Thank You.'' Marine Commandant James F. Amos should be commended for his determination to make sure that these veterans are properly remembered not just by the Corps but by a grateful nation as well.

As the proud father of a son who served in the Marines, it is a personal honor for me to be able to speak in support of a Congressional Gold Medal for the Montford Point Marines, and I urge the immediate passage of this long-overdue legislation.

Madam Speaker, never in my life will I forget the Sunday afternoon when this House, under the previous majority, passed a health care law that permitted taxpayer funding of abortions.

It remains as inconceivable to me now, as it was then, that the very first act by our government on an innocent and defenseless life could be to end it. We all remember the assurances we heard that the bill would respect the Hyde Amendment, which has enjoyed bipartisan support in this House for decades. Many of us knew better.

The ink had barely dried on the legislation before instances came up of taxpayer money potentially being used, in one form or another, for abortion services. This House needs to state without equivocation that the Hyde Amendment fully applies to the new health care law, for however long the act may continue to be in effect. There should be no possible wiggle room for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

The law also put health care providers and hospitals in the unconscionable dilemma of having to perform abortions against their own beliefs and principles. The government should not have the power to do that. This bill protects the exercise of individual conscience.

In my view, the health care law--Obamacare, as many of us call it--is so flawed that the best approach is to repeal it altogether, but we will not get that with this President. Until that day, we must stand in support of life and innocent babies and we can do that by passing The Protect Life Act.

Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia means jobs. If you are looking for bright spots in the U.S. economy, our trading relationship with Colombia is one of them. Even though we have been operating under a handicap to competitors like Argentina because of higher tariffs and duties, American exports to Colombia have been growing. Our exports last year were worth $12.1 billion, up 26 percent, and the International Trade Commission estimates this agreement will increase exports by at least another $1.1 billion.

Each of those exports supports jobs in the United States, not to mention jobs in the State of Alabama. Colombia is one of Alabama's best export markets in this hemisphere, and it is an excellent customer for high-value manufactured products like machinery and transportation equipment. Our former Governor Bob Riley demonstrated the importance of the partnership when he led a trade delegation to Colombia in 2009, and it is my view that this agreement will create even more opportunities for mutually beneficial trade.

Colombia is a strategic ally committed to a free market economy. Working together, our governments have made progress in addressing the scourge of narcotics. The Colombian government has also instituted major labor reforms, and the labor provisions in this agreement reflect the government's commitment to protect those rights. For the record, I am submitting information I received from the Colombian Ambassador to the U.S. regarding the Action Plan on labor protections.

The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement will open up new avenues of cooperation between our two countries, and provide an immediate boost to our farmers, the textile industry, our energy industry, and our manufacturers to name just a few. It is a win-win agreement and I am pleased to support it.

Third Party Validators

Colombia Has Achieved All of the Action Plan Milestones

September 15 Milestones: ``Colombia continues to meet its

milestones for the action plan.''--Deputy USTR Miriam Sapiro,

September 23, 2011.

June 15 Milestones: ``The Action Plan is designed to

significantly increase labor protections in Colombia, and we

are pleased

that Colombia is meeting its commitments. We are eager to see

Congress move the Colombia trade agreement forward as soon as

possible (. . .).''--USTR Ron Kirk, June 13, 2011.

April 22 Milestones: U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk

sent a letter to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the

Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees

``indicating that Colombia has taken the necessary steps,

consistent with the April 22 milestones outlined in the

Action Plan, to move to the next stage in the process.''--

USTR Ron Kirk, May 4, 2011.

Colombia is on the Right Track: Promoting and Protecting the Rights of

Workers and the Respect to Human Rights

``On September 8, 2011, the Department of State determined

and certified to Congress that the Colombian Government is

meeting statutory criteria related to human rights.''--U.S.

State Department, September 15, 2011.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) Committee that

has monitored Colombia since 1985, excluded Colombia in June

2010 and again this year from the list of countries that need

special monitoring.--ILO, June 2011.

For the first time in more than a decade, Colombia has been

selected as a titular member of the ILO Governing Body for

the 2011-2014 term. Colombia was elected with 96 percent of

votes from the tripartite delegations of 182 countries around

the world.--ILO, June 2011.

Colombian Government and Labor Unions: Working Hand In Hand

An effective Three-Party Agreement was signed by the

Colombian Government, labor unions and employers to

strengthen democracy and advance the social dialogue on labor

issues. The Agreement, which was originally signed in June

2006, was updated in May 2011 to reaffirm all three parties'

commitment to reestablishing a social dialogue to generate

solutions on labor-related issues and address conflicts and

differences.--May 2011.

The Colombian Government and Colombian Federation of

Educators--Fecode, which represents 250,000 educators--signed

an historic agreement on May 4, 2011 that will improve

working conditions and the quality of life for the nation's

educators. ``We achieved very important points and discussed

important topics such as the teachers' status. As teachers,

we have welcomed this agreement.''--Senen Nino, President of

Fecode. June 15, 2011.

Trade Unions and NGO Express Support for Action Plan and Progressive

Agenda

On the Progressive Agenda: ``The General Labor

Confederation (CGT) salutes the achievements of the

Administration of President Juan Manuel Santos during his

first year in office. The Administration has enacted a series

of policies of enormous value to workers and all

Colombians.''--CGT, August 11, 2011.

On the Progressive Agenda: ``The agenda that is being

constructed at this moment is the result of a constant battle

and the work of the Colombian union movement with the support

of international unions. The measures contained in the

agreement signed by Presidents Santos and Obama last week,

the recommendations of the High Level Mission of the OIT that

visited us in February, and President Santos' programs on

labor are all measures that the union movement has advocated

for years.''--Luciano Sanin, Director of the National Union

School (ENS), April 2011.

On the Action Plan: ``It is a step in the right direction

that the President (Santos) deepened the agreement so that

the topics of union liberty, human rights and guarantees for

workers are included in the FTA.''--Julio Roberto Gomez,

General Secretary of the CGT, April 8, 2011.

A View from Outside: ``Colombia's Progress Deserves Support''

``The best way to encourage Mr. Santos to take further

steps to end impunity and protect activists, political

candidates and indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities is

to approve the FTA.'' (. . .) ``Democrats should join in

ratifying the Colombia pact, and they should credit progress

on human rights.''--Mark Schneider, Senior Vice President,

International Crisis Group and Former Principal Deputy

Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, September 18,

2011.

``We commend President Juan Manuel Santos's commitment to

compensate the victims of violence and return confiscated

land to poor farmers. And we applaud efforts to reduce

homicides of union members, which Colombia reports have

declined by nearly 90% since 2002. These are significant

steps. The FTA will further Colombia's progress by providing

clear protections for fundamental labor rights.''--Sens. John

Kerry (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT), Wall Street Journal Op-

ed, April 4, 2011.

``A Gain for Workers.'' In an article on labor

cooperatives, Revista Semana highlighted that the new decree

that tackles illegal forms of labor intermediation ``is very

good news for the working class (. . .) 300,000 jobs will be

formalized (. . .) several companies are already adjusting to

the new standard. Carrefour added 600 employees to its

payroll, representing additional annual costs of about 5,000

million pesos (US$2.5 million). Exito has hired 2,500

packers, as part of a plan that includes the direct hiring of

6,250 employees this year. This will cost Exito about 70,000

million pesos per year (US$35 millon).''--Revista Semana,

June 18, 2011. The Colombian news weekly Revista Semana was

awarded in 2009 by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA)

with the Charles A. Perlik, Jr. Award for Excellence in the

Field of Print Journalism throughout the hemisphere.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think we can all agree on some things. I think Mr. Waxman would agree and Mr. Moran, number one, that we want to preserve American jobs if we can; but I think, number two, we don't want to compromise our health standards. There has been a lot of talk today about we have to either do one or the other, but I think we can do both.

Now, if you'll look at the EU, which passed what they call the ``gold standard'' on emissions from cement plants, they determined that mercury they could bring down to .05. What has the EPA said? They've said they want to bring it down to .01. That's five times more restrictive than in Europe. .5, which is the European standard, is about four times more strict than in Mexico. I think we all agree that even the EPA said we'd close 20 percent of our factories, but we would get that cement, according to the Congressional Budget Office, from Mexico, which is polluting our air and does not have nearly the standards we have.

So if mercury is a problem, why would we shift production to something that is four times more dangerous than even that of the European Union? On the other hand, as to the European Union, which is the strictest on environmental standards in the world now, why are their standards so bad? They don't go below this.

One reason with mercury is it is naturally occurring. There's a debate whether it's 60 or 40, but let me say this: At .01, it's actually more severe than what is naturally occurring in some of the supply.

Yes, I have a vested interest. The second largest employer in my second biggest county is a cement plant. The largest employer in one of my cities of 20,000 people is a cement plant.

Those jobs won't exist. They're willing to spend $350,000; but in an industry that only had $2 billion worth of revenue, there is no way they can spend $10 billion.

Let's restore a little sanity, and we can do that. Common sense dictates that we can have jobs, and we can have safety, and we can do that not by these onerous standards on hydrochloric acid and other things.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and, in fact, both gentlemen from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Doyle, I commend you, and I commend my colleague, Chris Smith, for your excellent work over the years in combating autism and for bringing this bill to reauthorize the Combating Autism Act.

As Mr. Doyle said, there is an increasing prevalence of autism, and it is a diagnosis and a condition that these children and their families deal with for their entire life. It's a challenge for those families, a tremendous challenge, one that can't be overstated; but it's also a challenge for society as well because the long-term cost involved in providing care for individuals with development disorders can be great, although it can be lessened. There is hope; there is treatment.

The blessing of recent years, in fact, has been that new research and early intervention programs are making an enormous difference in bettering the lives of young boys and girls with autism spectrum disorders.

With early intervention, many can lead much better if not almost normal lives, which is a blessing for all of us, and it's a joy to see. It's a joy to see these children respond to early intervention and begin to develop emotionally.

As a member of the Congressional Autism Caucus, I personally have seen exciting innovations at facilities using a comprehensive approach to care. Mitchell's Place in Birmingham is helping young children and adolescents in Alabama improve both their academic performance and social behavior by combining the latest in research and services with a structured and caring environment.

That center was started by a couple whose young boy had autism, and it is a blessing for our community. You only need to visit that center and see the beautiful children and the new hope that they have, not only they but their proud parents and grandparents as they realize that every day, every week, every month they are improving and becoming more a part of society and more a functioning individual as far as their interaction with others. It is literally a godsend to these people. It's an oasis. It's a spring in the desert.

A coordinated and comprehensive approach to the treatment of autism spectrum disorders has been key to this encouraging process. My home State of Alabama, I am proud to say, has recognized the importance of close cooperation when it formed the Alabama Interagency Autism Coordinating Council in 2008. To a certain extent it looked to Pennsylvania and the work that had been done there. Children and parents across my State are being helped by the council's planning and awareness efforts.

Finally, the Combating Autism Act has been crucial to promoting a coordinated approach on the national level. The renewal of this legislation will build on the successes that have already been achieved in a responsible and effective way. I close by saying that it's my hope that this legislation will receive overwhelming bipartisan support because it is doing good work while making life-changing investments in the health and well-being of

very special children and very precious children.

I thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. BACHUS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 1539. A

bill to repeal section 939G of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street

Reform and Consumer Protection Act and to restore Securities

and Exchange Commission Rule 436(g) repealed by such section

(Rept. 112-196). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House

on the state of the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I've been listening to the debate on the floor, and although this was concerning the rule, there have been a lot of false claims lodged against what this legislation does.

It does not gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is not anti-consumer. It is not an attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank. It does three simple things, and all three of those things, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats were for before they were against. These are all proposals that they have made. We all know who the person who first proposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is. I think all of the Members of this body would say it was Elizabeth Warren.

What did she propose? She proposed a bipartisan commission. She did not propose the end result of Dodd-Frank, which was an unaccountable czar. A five-member board is done for almost every other agency, the exceptions being the EPA and the OCC. With both of those, the OCC is accountable to Congress because it is part of the Treasury Department, and is subject to OMB. The EPA is a Presidential appointee, a Cabinet member. He has to be confirmed. Not only that, he has to come to the Congress for appropriations. There is no accountability on the part of this body.

I will yield to the gentleman to just answer this question: Was a bipartisan commission proposed by Elizabeth Warren? That's number one. Then you can respond to it or ask me a question. My number one question: Did she propose a bipartisan commission?

Number two, is that what you introduced into the House, saying that that was the fairest approach?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

That doesn't sound like a ``yes'' or a ``no.''

Yes.

That's right.

I reclaim my time.

What the gentleman said is, yes, that's what Elizabeth Warren proposed. Then he said, yes, that's what I introduced. Then he said, but I decided at some point that we would rather have an unaccountable czar because we want him to do whatever we want him to do.

Point of Order

I will change my remarks. He said a single director, who doesn't have to come to Congress for an appropriation. The second thing we do is we have an appeal process, or a review process.

Now, if I could have the second slide, what we have asked for is what you said you gave us; but this legislation--I won't say who--created a sham review process, and we want a realistic review process. We don't think any single person ought to be able to dictate a rule without any accountability.

So what do we do? What is set up in Dodd-Frank?

Seven out of the 10 regulators have to determine that any one rule will endanger the entire financial system--one rule. In other words, it takes seven of President Obama's 10 appointees to say that it would bring down the entire financial system. How would one rule ever do that?

What we say is it endangers the safety and soundness of our financial institutions. That's all we do. That's all we do.

Mr. Chairman, what is this awful thing that Republicans are bringing before the Congress today? This monstrosity, the Democrats have called it, is an attack on consumers. Well, it is a proposal that was first brought to us by our Democratic colleagues, and that was to have a bipartisan commission to protect consumers. That is what we're being attacked for today, a five-member board.

Now, all of us in this body are for consumer protection. Our voters, our constituents are all consumers, and we're all for protecting them. We're also for protecting our financial institutions and our economy. And we need a balance. So how do we achieve that?

Well, the Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, who is the originator of this consumer protection commission, back in 2007 proposed a Consumer Protection Product Safety Commission. In 2008, the Consumer Federation of America proposed a financial product safety commission. Senator Dick Durbin, acting on their recommendations, introduced, in 2009, a consumer protection commission with a director and a board.

Then the then-chairman of the committee, in July of that year, introduced a bill, a five-member board. The Energy and Commerce Commission followed that a few months later with what? A five-member commission.

Then Senator Dodd issued his draft discussion. What did he propose? A five-member commission because it needed to be bipartisan, it needed to be balanced.

But what was passed out of this body, really, after three nights of amendments and sessions that went all day? Well, what came about was an unaccountable czar--one person. The Dodd-Frank bill put a single Director in charge, and it gave him unmitigated discretion to issue rules, to ban financial products, to determine what products would be offered. Whether you're a borrower, whether you're a lender, whether you're a consumer of financial services, or whether you offer financial services, he will determine or she will determine what those services will be and the terms of those services.

So what is wrong with that? Well, let me say this: In America, do we give one person the power to do whatever they want to regulate every product and service that we are offered or that we can accept or that we, as a company, can offer? That sounds to me like a government command and control economy with the government making choices that we make. So for that reason, we've been attacked for proposing a five- member bipartisan commission instead of an unaccountable czar.

The pattern from my Democratic colleagues continues to be: We're going to put one person in charge of an agency and we're going to let them make all of the decisions, and that way there will be no real review of those decisions. People can either take it or leave it. It's up to the government. The government controls everything.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want George Washington, I wouldn't want Abraham Lincoln, I wouldn't want Mother Teresa to have that kind of power. That, to me, is not what a democracy is about. And if you look at the person, who is he appointed by? He's appointed by the President of the United States. There's no input from Congress. Not only can he determine all of these problems, but his funding, he doesn't have to come to the taxpayers or their representatives for funding. He doesn't have to come to the Congress to get funding. He's totally unaccountable.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how in the world is proposing for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the exact same model that the FDIC is set up with, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities Exchange Commission--all of these are commissions. All of them are bipartisan. They basically ensure that no one political party, one agenda or one person, will make decisions for every American every day. But that's what has been created.

And the monster is not the bill that we bring forward. The monster is the bill that you've created. You took a good idea and you ruined it. You took a good idea that was all about consumer protection and you converted it into a one-man show where one person could control every financial product or every offering in America. It could ban any product. It could say to any American: You cannot enter into that financial agreement. It could say to every American: You can't make that financial decision.

And, Mr. Chairman, that is un-American.

Mr. Chairman, I never voted for a stand-alone consumer protection financial bill and I never voted against it because it was never offered. What was offered was a 2,400-page extravaganza which hires about 10,000 new Federal employees to enforce rules that weren't enforced in the first place. And I have consistently said let's enforce the rules we have and not just hire more regulators and create more rules.

As you know, we offered a bill which did have several protections.