12:41 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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

12:41 PM EDT

Todd Young, R-IN 9th

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of the joint resolution under consideration.

12:41 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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: 12:45]

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.

12:47 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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

12:47 PM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

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.

1:04 PM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

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.

1:08 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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.

1:10 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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.

1:11 PM EDT

Brett Guthrie, R-KY 2nd

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: 13:15]

1:11 PM EDT

Brett Guthrie, R-KY 2nd

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: 13:15]

1:14 PM EDT

Rush Holt, D-NJ 12th

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.

1:17 PM EDT

Doug Collins, R-GA 9th

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.

1:21 PM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

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?

1:22 PM EDT

Doug Collins, R-GA 9th

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.

1:22 PM EDT

Peter Welch, D-VT

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.

1:26 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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.

1:27 PM EDT

Randy Hultgren, R-IL 14th

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: 13:30]

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.

1:32 PM EDT

David N. Cicilline, D-RI 1st

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.

1:34 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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.

1:40 PM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

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.

1:40 PM EDT

Jared Polis, D-CO 2nd

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.

1:42 PM EDT

Pete Sessions, R-TX 32nd

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: 13:45]

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.