[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6841-H6850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 992, SWAPS REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT
ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2374, RETAIL INVESTOR
PROTECTION ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 391 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 391
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
992) to amend provisions in section 716 of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act relating to
Federal assistance for swaps entities. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Agriculture and the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services; (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2374) to amend
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections
for retail customers, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 113-23 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the
further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by
Representative George Miller of California or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding section 1002 of the Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2014--
(a) a motion to proceed under such section--
(1) may be offered even if the committee to which a joint
resolution has been referred has not reported or been
discharged; and
(2) shall be in order only on the legislative day of
Tuesday, October 29, 2013, or the legislative day of
Wednesday, October 30, 2013; and
(b) a joint resolution under such section shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
October 31, 2013, through November 11, 2013--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved;
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
{time} 1245
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
[[Page H6842]]
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.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, which is a closed rule
for H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. It only makes in
order one amendment for H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act,
and it would allow for this political game that we like to play which
is called the ``vote on the disapproval of raising the debt ceiling,''
which I will talk about a little bit more later.
What I truly object to here is the way that this body, this House, is
only meeting for one full day this week. We came in yesterday evening
around 6:30 p.m. We are meeting today and, it is my understanding, for
about half the day tomorrow. Most people in this country, Mr. Speaker,
work a solid 40-hour workweek. I don't know why Members of Congress in
this House, the expectations would somehow be they work 10, 12, 15
hours a week, call it a week, and go home, when there are many
important things that we could be doing.
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about today--and
I agree with some of the bills under this rule and I disagree with
others--is an honest day's work. We are discussing and debating
important bills. Would that we were having these kinds of discussions
for 5 days a week rather than 1 day a week, Mr. Speaker.
While I disagree with this approach to getting very little work done
that is important to the people of this country, this bill does make in
order H.R. 992, which I support. I think this bill is common sense. It
modifies a revision of the Dodd-Frank bill, which many, including many
of the bill's authors, like former Representative Barney Frank and
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, regard as problematic. It
corrects that.
Many economists and regulators have noted that, without this
legislation, it is quite likely that certain swaps activity could be
pushed out from the heavily regulated bank institutions, having the
opposite effect of what many of us wanted to accomplish with the Dodd-
Frank bill and increasing costs to financial institutions. In fact, if
we don't pass this bill, it could make our financial system more
susceptible to systemic risk and reduce our international
competitiveness, according to former Chairman Bernanke.
I am confident that this bill will pass with a strong bipartisan
coalition and does represent important work that this body will do.
The underlying bill, H.R. 992, also ensures that federally backed
financial institutions can continue to conduct risk-mitigation efforts
that serve commercial and hedging needs of their customers, while still
prohibiting dangerous swaps that contributed to our economic collapse.
I am pleased to join my colleagues from across the aisle in making this
important fix, rather than repealing the law entirely.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the approach to ObamaCare and the
Affordable Care Act was more analogous to this approach that we are
having with Dodd-Frank. I think many of us who supported Dodd-Frank
agree there are a number of changes that need to be made.
As far as I know, in the history of this institution, there has never
been a perfect piece of legislation passed. It is regularly routine to
have cleanup bills that improve and build upon what has been done. I
wish that we could get there with the Affordable Care Act. I am a
cosponsor of a number of bills that I think would improve the
Affordable Care Act. I know that my colleagues from across the aisle
are as well.
I think it is time to get past this discussion of trying to repeal
ObamaCare and instead get to a discussion of: How do we make it work
for our country? How do we make health care work for our country? How
do we make health care affordable for our country and build upon the
successes of the Affordable Care Act and address the shortcomings of
the Affordable Care Act?
This rule also makes in order H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor
Protection Act, which addresses pending rulemakings at both the
Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the new fiduciary standards of care. Again, while the merits
of this legislation are up for debate, under this rule the House
majority only allowed consideration of one amendment for the two
underlying bills. Instead, it is sending us home early with half a day
of work tomorrow, Wednesday, rather than staying through the week and
allowing further discussion of additional amendments and other
important topics, like replacing our broken immigration system with one
that works for our country.
More disappointingly, the light workload this week of a day and a
half is emblematic of how the next 2 months are calendared for this
House of Representatives. There are only 19 days left of work for this
House before the end of the year. The House is only in session for 2\1/
2\ days before we recess in a week. Again, I think that the American
people expect and demand a minimum 40-hour workweek from the people
that they hire to represent them here in Washington, and I think most
people in this country have more than 19 days that they have to work in
November and December. That is 2 full months, November and December.
Yet, we only have 19 days over that 2-month period that this body will
be in session.
Yet, there are critical issues that the American people are demanding
that we act on. As an example, today is the 302nd day of 2013 that we
have failed to bring to the floor a comprehensive immigration reform
bill. Time is running short, and the need for a comprehensive
immigration overhaul is growing every day. Even the United States
Senate, hardly an institution that is prized for the speed with which
it moves, has passed comprehensive immigration reform with more than a
two-thirds majority.
Now, I am proud to be a part of a coalition of House Members, a
bipartisan coalition, that has introduced a bill very similar to the
Senate bill that has replaced some of the border security language with
House border security language, H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic
Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. This bill would create
jobs, reduce our budget deficit, include a pathway to citizenship,
unite families. It would help reflect our values as Americans in our
immigration laws, grow the economy, create jobs for Americans here at
home, and finally get real about enforcing our immigration laws.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, there are over 10 million people in this
country illegally? When are we going to get serious about enforcing our
laws and not making a mockery of them? This Nation is a Nation based on
the rule of law. H.R. 15 reflects that commitment, as does the Senate
immigration bill. It is time that we fix our broken immigration system
rather than go home on a Wednesday and meet for 19 days in a 63-day
period.
This is a bipartisan bill, H.R. 15. We have been joined by several
Republicans--Representative Denham, Representative Ros-Lehtinen. We
encourage my colleagues, and I certainly invite my friend and colleague
from Texas, to join us as cosponsors of this bill that will allow us to
create enforcement, a pathway to citizenship, grow jobs, and finally
resolve our broken immigration system.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am being paranoid, but it appears to me that
perhaps leadership--Mr. Speaker, leadership, as you know, controls what
we vote on here on the floor of the House. Leadership, of course, being
my colleague, Mr. Cantor from Virginia, and my colleague, Mr. Boehner
from Ohio. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they fear that this bill would pass if
it was brought to the floor. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill would pass if
it was brought to the floor of the House. Twenty-nine Republicans have
already publicly expressed
[[Page H6843]]
support for a pathway to citizenship. Many more Republicans, Mr.
Speaker, have privately expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.
It should hardly take courage to do so. Over 70 percent of the American
people have expressed support for a pathway to citizenship.
Regrettably, the only action that this House has taken on immigration
has been one vote, which voted to undo the deferred action program for
childhood arrivals. It voted to deport DREAMers. Yes, the House of
Representatives actually voted to do that. Fortunately, it didn't
happen. The Democrats control the Senate and stopped it. The President
likely would have vetoed it. It is his program that he started in the
absence of this body acting. By the way, in the absence of the House of
Representatives taking on immigration reform, I hope the President
expands deferred action. What other tools does he have at his disposal
to address our immigration system if this body, the law-making body,
refuses to actually solve the immigration issue? If this body refuses
to solve the immigration issue, the number of people here illegally
will only increase, and this body, the House of Representatives, and
the majority, the Republican Party, who won't allow us to vote on H.R.
15, will be responsible for more illegal immigration and having more
people here illegally if we do not act now.
Mr. Speaker, just this week, nearly 600 conservative supporters of
immigration reform will storm Capitol Hill from the faith community,
the business community, the law enforcement community. An unprecedented
coalition will be meeting with Republican members, and is meeting with
Republican members, demanding that they take action. We are talking
about Partnership for a New American Economy; the Bibles, Badges, and
Business coalition for immigration reform; FWD.us; strong support from
the technology and business community; and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Mr. Speaker.
Regrettably, the only immigration amendment that has passed this
House has been to deport DREAMers. Again, thankfully, it didn't happen.
The Senate and President were able to stop it. That is the only idea so
far that has been proposed and, sadly, tragically, accepted by this
body for dealing with DREAMers. We are talking about young people who
grew up in this country, have been through American schools, football
teams, cheerleaders, prom, got good grades, played by every rule they
knew. They were brought here when they were 2 years old, 5 years old.
Frequently, they don't even speak another language. They want to get
back to our country if only we will let them. Yet, this House voted to
eliminate the program that allows them to work in this country. It
instead would deport them back to a country they don't know anybody in
and don't speak the language of. We would be denying them the ability
to be legally in the only country they know, to make our country
stronger.
That is action. The majority party took action on an amendment. They
passed the amendment to undo the deferred action program, but I refuse
to believe that that is the action that Speaker Boehner had in mind
when he said he wants to move forward and fix our broken immigration
system. Regardless of what we do with the DREAMers, that is only a
small part of our broken immigration system.
{time} 1300
There are many adults that are working illegally in this country
because we refuse to enforce or fix our immigration laws; and that will
continue unless this House of Representatives chooses to change that.
The American people, Mr. Speaker, are fed up. That is why enormous
majorities of Democrats and Republicans, of Independents, of men, of
women, of every single breakdown that you have of the American people
want to see the House of Representatives fix our broken immigration
system, would like to see us pass the bill, H.R. 15, here in the House
of Representatives, a bipartisan bill ready for the floor today and
ready to be passed into law.
The House majority needs to move a bill to the floor that includes an
earned pathway to citizenship, border security, enforcement of our
laws, meets the needs of the businesses, the technology sector, the
agriculture sector, other important sectors that rely on an immigrant
workforce.
And, yes, we can count the votes, Mr. Speaker. We can help Majority
Whip McCarthy with his job. The votes for a pathway to citizenship, I
am proud to report back to my colleague from Texas, who I know is a
member of Republican leadership, and my good colleague, Mr. Sessions,
we can report back, and you can report back to Majority Whip McCarthy
that at least 29 House Republicans have publicly endorsed the pathway
to citizenship as a component of immigration reform, the principles
that are included in H.R. 15 in the Senate bill, and many more
Republicans have privately committed their support.
Yet we are hearing more and more about counterproductive measures
that might be brought to the House. For instance, I have heard that
there might be an effort to introduce the so-called SAFE Act in an
immigration package, which would, essentially, turn undocumented
immigrants into criminals overnight, creating an enforcement challenge.
If we can't enforce our current laws, can you imagine trying to
enforce a set of laws where there are 10 million or 15 million
criminals in our country?
Now, it is important also to distinguish, Mr. Speaker, when we look
at our immigrant detention centers, and we are talking about people who
are here illegally who have committed crimes, not just the civil
violation of being here illegally, we join with our Republican
colleagues in seeking deportation and punishment.
Whether somebody is here legally or illegally, whether they have
paperwork or not, if they ever commit a crime that harms our community,
we have no sympathy for them, and we seek their full punishment under
the law.
But how can you enforce or punish people when you create a whole new
class of criminals?
We can barely punish the criminals we have. We already incarcerate
more people, as a percentage of our population, than any other Western
industrialized nation. Clearly, incarcerating and deporting more not
only is not the answer, but would be a tremendous burden to the
American taxpayer.
Each deportation, Mr. Speaker, costs over $10,000 of your money. Over
$10,000. Is that the solution?
Or should we make sure that people who are working here pay taxes?
Would you rather pay, Mr. Speaker, $10,000, or would you rather
accept their checks to make sure that they are paying their fair share
to reduce our budget deficit and reduce the tax burden on everybody
else, to the tune of over $200 billion, which is how much, according to
the scoring of the Senate bill, comprehensive immigration reform will
reduce our deficit?
And we will be happy to work with the Republican majority to use that
$200 billion to reduce the individual tax rate. It is an issue that I
have talked about with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions). We would
love to bring down those marginal rates. Instead of 39.6 percent, let's
get them down to 38, 35, I think, you know, however low we can get them
and bring down rates for everybody else as well.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. I will address the question to my good colleague and
friend from Texas. We might be able to use the $200 billion in
immigration reform to bring down the individual or corporate tax rate.
I will be happy to pose that question to my good friend.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, and in that mix of the pay-fors might
be immigration reform. That won't get us fully there. That is $200
billion, and I would have to see the scoring on getting it down to 25;
but that is a pay-for that I think would have support from my side of
the aisle. There are other pay-fors that would as well.
Now, we are not willing to do this if it is going to increase the
deficit, as we have talked about. If we just bring down tax rates for
the people and that goes to the deficit, I think there would be
problems on both sides of the aisle.
[[Page H6844]]
But if we can offset it with spending cuts, if we can offset it with
immigration reform, if we can offset it by getting rid of loopholes for
the oil and gas industry, I think we have a good, bipartisan way to
discuss bringing down tax rates for all Americans going forward.
Immigration needs to reflect our values as Americans. It needs to
bring people out of the shadows, enforce our laws, be good for American
business, be good for labor, create jobs, and help make America more
competitive.
Let me talk briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the overwhelming public
support for immigration reform. Take my home State of Colorado as an
example. More than three-quarters of Coloradans support comprehensive
immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for the people already
here.
In California, there have been a number of polls. In the 21st
District, represented by my friend and colleague, Representative
Valadao, 77 percent of voters support the Senate immigration bill, H.R.
15, comprehensive immigration reform.
In the 22nd District in California, represented by my friend and
colleague, Mr. Nunes, over 74 percent support H.R. 15-style
legislation.
Let's move to Nevada. In the Second District of Nevada, represented
by my friend, Mr. Amodei, 72 percent, Mr. Speaker, of voters support
comprehensive immigration reform.
In the Third District of Nevada, represented by my colleague, Mr.
Heck, over 74 percent.
I can go on and on; the point being, Mr. Speaker, that the American
people are demanding action of this body.
H.R. 15 is simply common sense. Instead of going home after 1 day of
work, let's bring it to the floor on Thursday, then pass it on Friday,
Mr. Speaker. Let's get it done. Common sense.
If the House majority is serious about bolstering innovation, growing
our economy, reducing our deficit, bringing down taxes, increasing
prosperity for all Americans, a pro-growth agenda that they frequently
lend lip service to, then put this immigration reform bill on the
floor, and let the House work its will. It will pass.
We can attract investment and entrepreneurs and encourage them to
create American jobs, reduce our deficit, bring down the tax burden
and, guess what, help restore integrity to our entitlement programs,
help make sure that people are paying in to Social Security and
Medicare, and that they are solvent. We can accomplish that this week.
Or, you know, if you really want to go home on Wednesday of this week,
let's come back next week, instead of taking next week off, and we will
pass immigration reform then.
I will be happy, and many Members from my side of the aisle would be
happy, to cancel vacation plans for next week to come back and pass
immigration reform; and I would encourage my colleague from Texas to
encourage his leadership to do that.
It is time, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, it is past time. H.R. 15 improves
border security, interior enforcement, resolves the issue of the 11
million people who are here illegally, improves our legal immigration
system.
The bill makes sure that the Department of Homeland Security develops
a comprehensive plan to protect our southern border, a plan that has
passed unanimously by the House Homeland Security Committee, Democrats
and Republicans joining together to actually get serious about our
border security.
The American people are calling out for this body to take the moral
high road, the economically beneficial path, for Democrats and
Republicans to work together to bring a comprehensive immigration
reform bill to the House before the end of the year.
So I can't support this rule today, Mr. Speaker. I can't support a
rule that sends us home on Wednesday of a workweek. I can't support a
rule that only gives us 19 more legislative days before the end of the
year.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to support a rule here on the
floor of the House. And if my colleague from Texas and my colleagues on
the Rules Committee are willing to bring forward a rule, bring forward
H.R. 15 Thursday, bring it forward next week, I will be happy to stand
here and proudly support that rule.
But until we reach that time, I will have to voice my opposition to
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
speak on an important issue that the Retail Investor Protection Act
addresses.
Employee Stock Ownership Plans provide good jobs and secure
retirements in my home State, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and across
the Nation. In fact, ESOPs had fewer layoffs during the recession than
other businesses.
I have been joined by two dozen colleagues, from both sides of the
aisle, on a bill to prevent the Department of Labor from imposing the
fiduciary standard on appraisers of ESOP stock.
IRS law today requires that ESOPs get an independent appraisal in
order to determine the value of the stock. On the other hand,
fiduciaries are, by definition, not independent. Any rule that would
define ESOP appraisers as fiduciaries would create a conflict with the
IRS regulations; and by creating conflicting duties for appraisers, any
Department of Labor rules in this area would substantially increase the
cost of ESOPs and, in fact, could regulate them out of existence.
DOL's proposal would add costs to all parties and encourage needless
litigation time and again. DOL has failed to sufficiently document the
problems with ESOPs that they claim they are trying to remedy.
This is simply another example of this administration overreaching
and
[[Page H6845]]
creating unnecessary burdens on business leaders for providing a great
service to their employees.
I am pleased to stand in support of the rule and the underlying bill
today because, if enacted, this bill will help protect ESOPs in the
near term. By barring DOL from finalizing a rule on fiduciaries until
after the SEC has acted, this bill will provide some temporary
protection for ESOPs and their appraisers.
We must continue to defend business leaders and their employees from
professional regulators whose ill-considered and counterproductive
proposals are making it more difficult for hardworking Americans to
achieve the American Dream.
And we have been working with both sides of the aisle; and this
party, the Republican Party, on this side of the aisle wants to make
sure Americans have the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. This
bill does that; and, therefore, I support the rule and the underlying
bill.
{time} 1315
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my friend.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my friend from Colorado in
lamenting the lack of legislative action on immigration and so many
other issues.
I am sure the gentleman doesn't want to leave the impression that
Members of Congress do nothing when we are not actually in session.
However, the lack of number of days in session, the small number of
days in session, is really symptomatic of the problem. It is an
unwillingness to deal with the great issues of the day, be they
immigration, appropriations and funding for government activities,
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to replace No
Child Left Behind, providing workplace training and job creation, the
transportation legislation and nutrition programs.
It is worth pointing out that only now--I mean right now, we are
about to lose 13 percent in the SNAP program, the food stamp program.
For all of those reasons, we should be working here in the Chamber and
in committee and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called Retail
Investor Protection Act, which is one more attempt to delay and derail
implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law. The financial
crisis should be all the evidence we need to know that stronger, not
weaker, enforcement; tougher, not weaker, regulations are necessary.
Dodd-Frank is the law of the land. Yet, as with ObamaCare, the
Republican agenda consists only of delay and repeal, with no solutions
to, in this case, prevent a future economic meltdown.
I want to be clear that, in voting against this bill, I am not
stating approval or endorsement of the U.S. Department of Labor's
proposed fiduciary rule. In fact, since 2011, I have voiced concerns
about how the proposed changes to the definition of ``fiduciary'' might
lead to a reduction in financial education and access to investment
advice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOLT. Americans are not well prepared for retirement. I have long
believed that the more investment advice available to employees the
better. They need more advice, not less; more encouragement to invest,
not less.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Secretary of Labor to
craft a rule to allow more Americans, not fewer Americans, to be better
prepared, not less prepared, for retirement.
I thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as I come here today, one of the
things that I have been listening to--and my friend from across the
aisle, from Colorado, we talk about things and substantive issues.
I have been in three committee hearings this morning, and a lot of it
was going across the aisle, working on issues that work.
One of the things that just concerned me as I was listening to this
as well is that the Republican majority is working toward finding
solutions for bad bills. Now that doesn't mean that everything is
delay, as it was just explained. But when you find something that is
wrong, from where I am at, you fix it.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I will yield at the end.
I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bills, especially
H.R. 2374. You know, I rise because we must continue to look at this
regulatory beast. It is strangling, really, what I feel American
business and families are struggling with, the very same issues that
really are across the aisle.
I have Democrat friends. I have Republican friends. The bottom line,
when it comes to business, is that business has always been about
making a profit, money. The gentleman understands that. The gentlemen
and ladies on this side understand this.
We have got to get into a position in which the Federal Government is
out of the way, except in the areas where it needs to be, so that
businesses can flourish and businesses can thrive. I believe this is
what we are looking at today.
The Federal agencies too often move forward with new and burdensome
regulatory mandates without proving they are needed to correct harm in
the marketplace. I call it, in some ways, a job protection.
They want to do good. I am not implying that the government employees
are not hardworking, strong individuals. But many times, they are
looking at their own job, and they are saying, What do I need to do to
make sure that we are ``doing something?''--at the expense, many times,
of the ones that are having to live with what they are doing.
So as I look into this today, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Missouri for putting forward legislation to ensure that families in my
district and across the Nation are not harmed as they strive to pay for
their kids' college or invest for the future.
Our Republican majority is working on bills like this that remove
these kinds of issues. The SEC must explore all other options before
moving to a fiduciary standard for brokers and dealers. Anything less
is a disservice, really, to the individuals the SEC is supposed to
protect.
But before I go, one of the things that I have advocated for in my
short time here is that Congress has to take back its article I
authority. We have got to get into our oversight. Passing bills and
leaving it to a nameless, faceless executive agency is not what we need
to be doing. When need be, Congress needs to be doing things like this,
where we come in and say, No, let's take a break. Let's slow down. Is
this really what the law intended? Is this really what the law meant?
Is this what we are supposed to be doing?
Congress has a constitutional role. We have got to take that back. I
think what we are doing here today--and I think having exchanges across
the aisle, whether it be today or tomorrow or next week, when I will be
back home actually working and talking to people and preparing for what
really right now is crushing in our area, the implementation of the
health care legislation is what we are getting--these are the kinds of
things that we need to be talking about. When we do that, then we have
real dialogue. We have real solutions. But Congress has got to take
back its article I authority. We have let it go for years.
This is a small part. Even what my friend from Colorado is talking
about, these are issues that need to be debated. We are debating.
The Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, has taken up several of
these kinds of issues, and we did it this morning under patents and all
kinds of things. This is what matters to the American people. They want
to see us work. They want to see us be a part of it and not just simply
here talking to the cameras and talking to each other. We have really
got to be out listening and working our committees and doing things
back home so that they understand that as well.
So when I look at this, I look at this as something powerful to move
forward
[[Page H6846]]
on. I look at it as something that is a good rule. It is a good
underlying bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the chairman yielding.
This Republican majority was working in a bipartisan manner, giving
us the ability to work like this. These are bipartisan pieces that we
understand.
So I did promise, and I am good to my word. I yield to the gentleman
from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia, and I appreciate
his words, that there is a lot of important work going on. Committees
are meeting. You mentioned the Judiciary Committee working on patents.
It is a very important issue.
I just wanted to ask the gentleman, with all of the important work
that is going on, why the House will be adjourning on Wednesday and not
meeting next week as well?
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Well, I think as we go back here and if we
really look at this--and you took the opportunity to discuss
immigration and other things--I have to simply back up my chairman and
go back to when the Democrats had the entire floor, they had everything
that they wanted. They chose other priorities, strangling typically
businesses and other ideas that right now we are having to deal with.
The Republican majority is moving forward on getting the un-strangling
back. I just have to go back and say, We will work on those things.
In support of our Republican majority, we are working for businesses
and families who right now are struggling to put back jobs, but I do
appreciate the question.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, part of this rule is addressing the debt ceiling. This
Congress put the American people and our economy through the spectacle
of 16 days of shutdown, with the culmination being the actual threat
that we would not pay our bills; we would default. That is the second
time we have done that in 2 years. There is some progress in this rule
because it is going to allow Congress to vote to disapprove, but it
can't pass unless it gets, in effect, the President's signature.
There is another way that we ought to do this. We ought to, once and
for all, acknowledge that if this Congress, with Republican and
Democratic votes, passes an appropriation that has an impact on the
debt ceiling, that is the time of reckoning at the moment that
appropriation is passed.
What we have done is a good deal hypocritical towards the people we
represent. We will vote for spending on day one, and then on day two,
when the bill comes due, we will vote against the debt ceiling increase
that was required by the very vote we made. That is just not a stand-up
way for a country to operate. We pay our bills.
The idea that we would have a debate, as we did in this Congress,
where the premise of that debate was that it was actually an acceptable
outcome that we would stiff our creditors, that we wouldn't pay the
mortgage, that we might forsake the 1 million veterans who are coming
home from Iraq and Afghanistan and not provide to them the services
that we have all promised, that is just not right.
The damage we did with the debt ceiling debate and the threat to
default was enormous both in August of 2011 and in October of 2013.
In August of 2011, consumer confidence dropped to a 31-year low. The
third quarter gross domestic product increased barely at 1.4 percent.
It led to, for the first time in the history of this country, us losing
our AAA credit rating and suffering a downgrade from Standard & Poor's.
The loss of 0.3 percent of the fourth quarter growth rate translated
into $24 billion of lost revenue. Household wealth collapsed by $2.4
trillion. While it is true that wealth has come back, the loss of that
created an immense amount of insecurity, reduced consumer spending, and
cost us jobs. The Peter Peterson Foundation indicated that the
uncertainty that was created was something that contributed to $150
billion in lost output and 900,000 jobs.
The October 2013 shutdown and the threat of default was the biggest
plunge in consumer confidence--bigger even than August of 2011--the
biggest plunge since the Lehman Brothers collapse in '08. We must
acknowledge something very simple: we must pay our bills.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. HULTGREN. I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Sessions, so
much for your work. I want to thank the entire Rules Committee for your
important work as well.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a couple of deserving bills that
redirect cumbersome and burdensome Federal regulation and, for a
change, put customers first.
I am particularly interested in the fate of H.R. 992, the Swaps
Regulatory Improvement Act. I introduced this bill in the 113th
Congress and want to thank my bipartisan cosponsors Representative Jim
Himes and, also from the Agriculture Committee, Representative Richard
Hudson and Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, who all have done great
work in coming together in a bipartisan way to put together legislation
that solves a real problem with the law that was passed a couple of
years ago. We also owe a debt of thanks to former Representative Nan
Hayworth, who carried this effort in the 112th Congress.
H.R. 992 may seem complicated, but the aim is simple: it is to save,
for me, Illinois farmers and manufacturers, utility providers,
hospitals, and small businesses from higher costs and greater
uncertainty.
So much that I hear from my constituents--specifically from people
who are looking to grow jobs, grow this economy--is the fear and the
uncertainty that they are facing. It is not an uncertainty of whether
they can do the job or whether they can provide a product or whether
they can provide a service. They know they can do that. The uncertainty
they are feeling is can they deal with what government is going to do
to them if they grow their business and the greater uncertainty that
has come from laws that have passed over the last couple of years.
One area that has created great uncertainty is this Dodd-Frank law
that was passed a couple of years ago, and specifically, provision
section 716 was supposed to really be focused at Wall Street. What we
have seen is, it hurts Main Street, Main Street customers more than
anything else, taking away options, raising costs, and raising
uncertainty for, again, farmers and manufacturers, people who are
providing a great product to our consumers in our districts.
{time} 1330
So this legislation is important to bring back that certainty.
For me, as well, this is important. My history is I grew up in a
family funeral home. I worked in helping people plan for their future
certainly through that family business, but also as an investment
adviser and as an attorney helping people.
In Congress, my hope is to continue to help people--and our Nation--
plan
[[Page H6847]]
for the future and to fight for future generations to make sure we are
going to be making good decisions for our kids and grandkids.
This is one of the areas where I see, throughout my lifetime, through
our family business and the work that I have done, that trust
relationships are important; and the trust relationships that our
farmers and our manufacturers have been able to create with their local
community banks are important.
Unfortunately, this law that was passed a couple of years ago forces
those relationships to be broken so that you can no longer use the
trusted financial bank or financial services provider in your local
area to be able to help you plan for uncertainty in the future; but,
again, they are pushed out into other entities that are less regulated
and oftentimes offshore.
I am so excited about taking this step to bring certainty back, and
ultimately, hopefully, as that confidence grows with our farmers and
manufacturers and employers, our job creation will grow once again.
Investment in hiring people is what we want. That is the number one
priority that we are fighting for.
There will be time for further debate on this, but I ask my
colleagues to adopt the rule for the reasons stated by Federal Reserve
Chairman Bernanke in testimony before the House Financial Services
Committee on February 27. He said: 716--the section that we are
changing here--requires the push-out of certain kinds of derivatives.
And it is not evident why that makes the company, as a whole, safer.
And what we do see is that it will likely increase costs of people who
use the derivatives and make it more difficult for the bank to compete
with foreign competitors who can provide a more complete set of
services.
This is an important change.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will
offer an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to consider
the Make It In America Manufacturing Act of 2013. To discuss the
proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is beyond time for Congress to focus on getting
Americans back to work. If we want to get things back on the right
track, we have to start making things again in this country.
Job creation should not be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue;
it is an American issue. At some point, the gridlock in Washington
needs to end and we need to take advantage of the opportunities we have
to reinvigorate this critical sector of our economy.
That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
today, so we can consider the Make It In America Manufacturing Act,
legislation that I have introduced that would facilitate the creation
of unique public-private partnerships, bringing together Federal,
State, local, and regional stakeholders to develop comprehensive
manufacturing enhancement strategies and deliver targeted resources to
strengthen the manufacturing sector, which has proven vital to our
country's economy.
It will provide small- to medium-sized manufacturers with the
resources they need to retool and retrofit their operations and train
their workforce in order to transition to the manufacturing of clean
energy, high technology, and advanced products. It would enhance the
competitiveness of the industry, including through increased exports
and domestic supply chain opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to work together to make things
again so that Americans can make it again; and this is about
strengthening the manufacturing sector, which helped build the middle
class of this country, which helped build one of the strongest
economies in the world. This would allow manufacturers who are
beginning to see a resurgence, a revival, because of some market
conditions. Because of the great innovations and the great quality of
our workforce, it would allow us to strengthen this sector and grow
jobs at a critical time for my State and for our country.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we
can consider the Make It In America Manufacturing Act, something we
should be able to come together on that would create job growth in this
critical sector of our Nation's economy.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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
[[Page H6848]]
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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, since this week is spoken for, that leaves us
with 19 legislative days before the end of the session. Reportedly, I
have read in the press, that House leadership is struggling to find
ways to fill that time. Well, I have an idea.
Four weeks is more than enough time to pass immigration reform; and
if we can't stay here on Thursday and Friday to do it, let's do it in
the 19 days we have left. There is no reason at all for us to leave
here in December, disappoint the American people, without taking action
on an issue that is on Speaker Boehner's agenda and on Majority Leader
Cantor's agenda for over a year. Speaker Boehner and the House
leadership can present a plan for votes on immigration reform before
the end of the year.
Every week that Congress is in session until we pass immigration
reform, I will be on the floor speaking about the cost of inaction.
Immigration reform will create 750,000 to 900,000 jobs for Americans
that are out of work.
My colleague from Texas mentioned that there are dangerous people
that we don't know where they are in this country. That is true. By
passing comprehensive immigration reform, we will make sure that we
know where people who represent a threat to this Nation are. The people
have to register. Enforcement of the law actually means something.
The Senate has acted and passed a bipartisan, comprehensive
immigration bill last June. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives
hasn't dedicated a single minute of legislative floor time to any
immigration bill; and so, too, this week, this House is going home
Wednesday instead of discussing immigration reform.
The price of inaction is too heavy a price to pay for the American
people. The majority of this body--the Republicans who control the
floor of the House--have a choice: they can sit back, twiddle their
thumbs and watch the costs of our immigration problems go up for the
American people, destroying more jobs and decreasing our deficit; or
they can come to the table, start a serious discussion about
immigration reform, bring a bill to the floor of the House and pass it,
reduce our deficit, improve security, and create jobs for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I urge us to
bring up immigration reform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
{time} 1345
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.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 391 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
375) to require the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary
of Labor to establish the Make It in America Incentive Grant
Program, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services and
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 375 as specified in section 6 of this
resolution.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
[[Page H6849]]
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 563]
YEAS--226
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--193
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Aderholt
Bass
Campbell
Cooper
Frankel (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Johnson (GA)
McCarthy (NY)
Rush
Sanford
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1409
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 563, had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230,
noes 188, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 564]
AYES--230
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
[[Page H6850]]
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--188
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Aderholt
Bass
Campbell
Cooper
Cramer
Diaz-Balart
Herrera Beutler
McCarthy (NY)
Rush
Sanford
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
{time} 1418
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________