[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.

                          ____________________