8:06 PM EST
Jeb Hensarling, R-TX 5th

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

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of all of those who are underemployed, who are unemployed still today in this economy, let us hope that the third time is the charm.

The bill that is before us today, substantially authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, was on the floor in a substantially identical version in the 113th Congress.

This bill, to ease the burdens on small businesses, on job creators to help foster capital creation, so that people can be put back to work, so that people can have good careers, so that people can pay their mortgages and pay their health care premiums, substantially in the same form passed in the last Congress 320-102; regrettably then, the United States Senate, under Democrat control, took up no portion of the bill.

It was last week that a slightly different version of the bill was brought to this House floor under what we know as our suspension calendar, which is reserved for bills that typically enjoy broad bipartisan support; regrettably, it proved to be about a dozen votes short because a number of my friends from the other side of the aisle apparently decided that they were for the bill before they were against the bill. They changed their minds in approximately 7 days.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. There were 11 different modest provisions, all of which enjoyed broad bipartisan support, again which were modest, modest attempts to ensure that small businesses could still survive in an otherwise onerous Washington regulatory climate.

Mr. Speaker, we had a bill that, even combined--and it is quite common for us to roll up bills for the sake of efficiency, bills that are quite similar in nature--was 30 pages long. Not 300, not 3,000--it wasn't the 2,000 pages of ObamaCare, not the 2,000 pages of Dodd-Frank--it was merely 30 pages.

Now, what is included in this bill? Well, included in this bill is H.R. 634, which passed this body 411-12. It includes H.R. 5471, which passed the House by voice vote, not a dissenting vote that I recall. It includes H.R. 801 that passed the House 417-4. It includes H.R. 2274, the bill that passed the House 422-0.

I could go on and on, but of the bills that are rolled up to ensure greater capital formation and regulatory relief for our smaller business enterprises, all of these passed either the committee or the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, and now--now--the minority is coming to this floor and somehow crying foul. Again, many were for it before they were against it.

I don't know how we can look our constituents in the eyes and know that, even today, they continue to suffer in this economy and not do something to help them.

What this is really all about, Mr. Speaker, is there is a division. There is a division within the Democrat Party. According to press reports, some Democrats have reportedly told their fellow Democrats that if they dare to vote for a bill that makes a clarification or modification to Dodd-Frank, they aren't real Democrats.

It is interesting that yesterday, President Obama signed into law a modification of Dodd-Frank. I know the President is not a Republican, but according to some Democrats, apparently by signing a modification to Dodd-Frank, he is not apparently a Democrat, either, so I am not really sure what he is.

It is fascinating that a former chairman, Barney Frank, of the House Financial Services Committee, one of my predecessors, in previous testimony before our committee, indicated a number of changes to Dodd-Frank that he thought would be proper, so according to some Democrats, apparently Barney Frank is no longer a Democrat, either.

What this is really getting at, Mr. Speaker, is of the 11 bills that are rolled up into this 30-page document, some of them either clarify or modify provisions of Dodd-Frank, and for some Members of the Democratic Party, apparently, Dodd-Frank has now been elevated beyond ideology to religion, and there can be no changes in a 2,000-page bill that we know is fraught with unintended consequences.

Yet there are some on the other side of the aisle that say, ``no changes, no changes,'' yet President Obama signed a change into law. Former Chairman Frank has indicated a number of changes he would consider.

It is time to get beyond the religion. It is time to get beyond the ideology. It is time to get America back to work. It is time to start growing this economy [Page: H345]

from Main Street up, not Washington down, because that is not working, Mr. Speaker.

It is time to do what everybody claims they want to do, and that is work on a bipartisan basis. All of these bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, and now, because of this almost religious zeal for the Dodd-Frank brand, again, some of my Democratic colleagues have decided that they were for it before they were against it.

It is time to put America back to work. It is time to enact H.R. 37, Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. Let's make sure the third time is the charm.

I reserve the balance of my time.

8:06 PM EST
Jeb Hensarling, R-TX 5th

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

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the American people, for the sake of all of those who are underemployed, who are unemployed still today in this economy, let us hope that the third time is the charm.

The bill that is before us today, substantially authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, was on the floor in a substantially identical version in the 113th Congress.

This bill, to ease the burdens on small businesses, on job creators to help foster capital creation, so that people can be put back to work, so that people can have good careers, so that people can pay their mortgages and pay their health care premiums, substantially in the same form passed in the last Congress 320-102; regrettably then, the United States Senate, under Democrat control, took up no portion of the bill.

It was last week that a slightly different version of the bill was brought to this House floor under what we know as our suspension calendar, which is reserved for bills that typically enjoy broad bipartisan support; regrettably, it proved to be about a dozen votes short because a number of my friends from the other side of the aisle apparently decided that they were for the bill before they were against the bill. They changed their minds in approximately 7 days.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill. There were 11 different modest provisions, all of which enjoyed broad bipartisan support, again which were modest, modest attempts to ensure that small businesses could still survive in an otherwise onerous Washington regulatory climate.

Mr. Speaker, we had a bill that, even combined--and it is quite common for us to roll up bills for the sake of efficiency, bills that are quite similar in nature--was 30 pages long. Not 300, not 3,000--it wasn't the 2,000 pages of ObamaCare, not the 2,000 pages of Dodd-Frank--it was merely 30 pages.

Now, what is included in this bill? Well, included in this bill is H.R. 634, which passed this body 411-12. It includes H.R. 5471, which passed the House by voice vote, not a dissenting vote that I recall. It includes H.R. 801 that passed the House 417-4. It includes H.R. 2274, the bill that passed the House 422-0.

I could go on and on, but of the bills that are rolled up to ensure greater capital formation and regulatory relief for our smaller business enterprises, all of these passed either the committee or the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, and now--now--the minority is coming to this floor and somehow crying foul. Again, many were for it before they were against it.

I don't know how we can look our constituents in the eyes and know that, even today, they continue to suffer in this economy and not do something to help them.

What this is really all about, Mr. Speaker, is there is a division. There is a division within the Democrat Party. According to press reports, some Democrats have reportedly told their fellow Democrats that if they dare to vote for a bill that makes a clarification or modification to Dodd-Frank, they aren't real Democrats.

It is interesting that yesterday, President Obama signed into law a modification of Dodd-Frank. I know the President is not a Republican, but according to some Democrats, apparently by signing a modification to Dodd-Frank, he is not apparently a Democrat, either, so I am not really sure what he is.

It is fascinating that a former chairman, Barney Frank, of the House Financial Services Committee, one of my predecessors, in previous testimony before our committee, indicated a number of changes to Dodd-Frank that he thought would be proper, so according to some Democrats, apparently Barney Frank is no longer a Democrat, either.

What this is really getting at, Mr. Speaker, is of the 11 bills that are rolled up into this 30-page document, some of them either clarify or modify provisions of Dodd-Frank, and for some Members of the Democratic Party, apparently, Dodd-Frank has now been elevated beyond ideology to religion, and there can be no changes in a 2,000-page bill that we know is fraught with unintended consequences.

Yet there are some on the other side of the aisle that say, ``no changes, no changes,'' yet President Obama signed a change into law. Former Chairman Frank has indicated a number of changes he would consider.

It is time to get beyond the religion. It is time to get beyond the ideology. It is time to get America back to work. It is time to start growing this economy [Page: H345]

from Main Street up, not Washington down, because that is not working, Mr. Speaker.

It is time to do what everybody claims they want to do, and that is work on a bipartisan basis. All of these bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, and now, because of this almost religious zeal for the Dodd-Frank brand, again, some of my Democratic colleagues have decided that they were for it before they were against it.

It is time to put America back to work. It is time to enact H.R. 37, Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. Let's make sure the third time is the charm.

I reserve the balance of my time.

8:13 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Usually, we tell that saying to children to encourage them to achieve greater things, but it seems that when it comes to Congress, it is what Wall Street keeps telling House Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans thought they could sneak this bill by last week through a fast-track process on the House floor, a process with limited debate and no opportunity for amendments. They thought they could ram through this gift to a handful of the biggest Wall Street banks on just the 2nd day of this new Congress right after we had reconvened.

Well, the American people were watching, and the Democrats here in the House told them ``no.'' The Republican bill failed. Now, here they are; they are at it again. Now, H.R. 37 is back on the floor again, without the opportunity to amend it and with limited debate.

[Time: 20:15]

The only difference is that Republicans have reduced how many votes are needed to guarantee passage. That's right. Rather than fix the bill to win broad support, Republicans just changed the rule to make sure the tainted bill passes.

And what does this bill do? Well, for one, it takes a part of Wall Street reform's Volcker rule and delays it for yet another 2 years. Remember that the Volcker rule is the part of Dodd-Frank that stops government-supported banks from gambling with bank depositors' money. And this extra 2-year delay comes on top of a 3-year delay that our regulators carefully crafted to ease the megabanks' transition.

This particular part of the law that Republicans want to see delayed applies to what are known as collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs. CLOs are bundles of leveraged loans, loans often issued by private equity firms to facilitate corporate buyouts that can harm American jobs. The loans are sliced and diced into packages and sold off to investors, including banks that hold customers' deposits. The packages often also contain credit default swaps or other derivatives that can make the position

even riskier.

Somehow, Wall Street bankers--the supposedly smartest people in the room--can't seem to comply with a law passed in 2010 by--that's right--2017. Seven long years isn't enough. The Republicans and the banks want nearly a decade.

In addition to that, the Republican bill wouldn't just let the banks hold on to these CLOs. The bill would let the banks accumulate new CLOs also. That's right. The banks could actively trade in and out of these investments, unlike the rules carefully crafted by the Federal Reserve.

We saw the Republican playbook at the end of last year with the so-called swaps push-out rule. They hope they can jam these bills through Congress by attaching them to must-pass legislation. And most of all, they hope these issues are way too complicated or too technical for the American people to understand or care about. But the American people really do understand. They remember how our economy was nearly brought to its knees in 2008, and they recognize that we can't let Wall Street slowly

chip away at reforms designed to prevent that kind of large-scale financial crisis from happening again.

And President Obama gets it, too. That is why the White House said he would veto this legislation if it got to his desk. And so one cannot help but wonder why are we here on the floor after 8 o'clock in the evening with an attempt to push through something that was jammed into a package of bills? Many of those bills had been heard either in committee or on the floor, but one portion of this bill had not. And so is this simply an attempt to ram down one segment that they fear real debate on, ram

it down the throats of the Members of this Legislature and the citizens of this country, hiding it in this package, hoping that we won't get it?

What is worse is that this legislation has been brought to the floor without regard for any regular order. The nine new members on the Financial Services Committee will not get a chance to hear testimony on it at all. And in just the 2nd week of their term, 52 new Members of the House are expected to vote on it, having complicated deregulation shoved down their throats. Democrats offered 13 amendments, one of them bipartisan, but none of these amendments will be considered or debated. Why? Because

my colleagues on the other side are not interested in legislation but, rather, in political theater.

We cannot let this casual disregard for the legislative process stand. We want to see reforms sensibly implemented. We want to work with regulators to get the rules right, and we want our largest banks to stop gambling and go back to facilitating growth in the real economy. But that is difficult to do when my Republican counterparts continue pushing legislation that masquerades as technical fixes but really makes substantive changes to the Dodd-Frank reform law. And then they package completely

reckless legislation with other provisions that are either necessary or sensible.

Democrats know better, President Obama knows better, and the American people know better. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

8:13 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Usually, we tell that saying to children to encourage them to achieve greater things, but it seems that when it comes to Congress, it is what Wall Street keeps telling House Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans thought they could sneak this bill by last week through a fast-track process on the House floor, a process with limited debate and no opportunity for amendments. They thought they could ram through this gift to a handful of the biggest Wall Street banks on just the 2nd day of this new Congress right after we had reconvened.

Well, the American people were watching, and the Democrats here in the House told them ``no.'' The Republican bill failed. Now, here they are; they are at it again. Now, H.R. 37 is back on the floor again, without the opportunity to amend it and with limited debate.

[Time: 20:15]

The only difference is that Republicans have reduced how many votes are needed to guarantee passage. That's right. Rather than fix the bill to win broad support, Republicans just changed the rule to make sure the tainted bill passes.

And what does this bill do? Well, for one, it takes a part of Wall Street reform's Volcker rule and delays it for yet another 2 years. Remember that the Volcker rule is the part of Dodd-Frank that stops government-supported banks from gambling with bank depositors' money. And this extra 2-year delay comes on top of a 3-year delay that our regulators carefully crafted to ease the megabanks' transition.

This particular part of the law that Republicans want to see delayed applies to what are known as collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs. CLOs are bundles of leveraged loans, loans often issued by private equity firms to facilitate corporate buyouts that can harm American jobs. The loans are sliced and diced into packages and sold off to investors, including banks that hold customers' deposits. The packages often also contain credit default swaps or other derivatives that can make the position

even riskier.

Somehow, Wall Street bankers--the supposedly smartest people in the room--can't seem to comply with a law passed in 2010 by--that's right--2017. Seven long years isn't enough. The Republicans and the banks want nearly a decade.

In addition to that, the Republican bill wouldn't just let the banks hold on to these CLOs. The bill would let the banks accumulate new CLOs also. That's right. The banks could actively trade in and out of these investments, unlike the rules carefully crafted by the Federal Reserve.

We saw the Republican playbook at the end of last year with the so-called swaps push-out rule. They hope they can jam these bills through Congress by attaching them to must-pass legislation. And most of all, they hope these issues are way too complicated or too technical for the American people to understand or care about. But the American people really do understand. They remember how our economy was nearly brought to its knees in 2008, and they recognize that we can't let Wall Street slowly

chip away at reforms designed to prevent that kind of large-scale financial crisis from happening again.

And President Obama gets it, too. That is why the White House said he would veto this legislation if it got to his desk. And so one cannot help but wonder why are we here on the floor after 8 o'clock in the evening with an attempt to push through something that was jammed into a package of bills? Many of those bills had been heard either in committee or on the floor, but one portion of this bill had not. And so is this simply an attempt to ram down one segment that they fear real debate on, ram

it down the throats of the Members of this Legislature and the citizens of this country, hiding it in this package, hoping that we won't get it?

What is worse is that this legislation has been brought to the floor without regard for any regular order. The nine new members on the Financial Services Committee will not get a chance to hear testimony on it at all. And in just the 2nd week of their term, 52 new Members of the House are expected to vote on it, having complicated deregulation shoved down their throats. Democrats offered 13 amendments, one of them bipartisan, but none of these amendments will be considered or debated. Why? Because

my colleagues on the other side are not interested in legislation but, rather, in political theater.

We cannot let this casual disregard for the legislative process stand. We want to see reforms sensibly implemented. We want to work with regulators to get the rules right, and we want our largest banks to stop gambling and go back to facilitating growth in the real economy. But that is difficult to do when my Republican counterparts continue pushing legislation that masquerades as technical fixes but really makes substantive changes to the Dodd-Frank reform law. And then they package completely

reckless legislation with other provisions that are either necessary or sensible.

Democrats know better, President Obama knows better, and the American people know better. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

8:20 PM EST
Jeb Hensarling, R-TX 5th

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that this highly controversial bill that the ranking member alludes to passed on the House floor by voice vote, and this particular financing helps companies like Dunkin' Donuts, American Airlines, Burger King, and Goodyear Tire put people to work in America--hardly Wall Street. The head of the Independent Community Bankers has said it is necessary to protect community banks, and that is why we are here today.

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) on behalf of the Agriculture Committee, which shares jurisdiction on this bill.

8:24 PM EST
Stephen F. Lynch, D-MA 8th

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her great work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 37, the so-called Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act.

I served on the Financial Services Committee during the 2008 financial crisis, and I had an opportunity to witness the harmful impact that lack of regulation had on hardworking families around our Nation at a total cost of more than $22 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. My constituents--and many of yours--lost their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings during that period. Many pension funds today continue to suffer and are on the brink of collapse because

of the reckless policies that were observed during that time by many of our major banks.

While I voted against the bailout of the Wall Street banks who were rewarded with bonuses as a result of the bailout, I did have the honor of helping to assist in reforming our financial system through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I regret the bill under consideration today rolls back many of those reforms that my colleagues and I fought so hard to adopt.

I would note that after being defeated last week under a suspension process that offered no opportunity for amendments, this bill now has inexplicably been brought to the House floor under a closed rule that again does not include any of the 14 amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee. At a minimum, a bill that does so much harm to our financial system necessitates the normal committee process and additional time for debate.

H.R. 37 contains 11 separate bills, a few of them which I support, others I strongly oppose. Portions of H.R. 37 have entirely new provisions that the members of the committee and of this Congress have not had the opportunity to thoroughly analyze.

By the way, if you desire a good review of this legislation, in this past Sunday's New York Times there is an article written by Gretchen Morgenson that I think is extremely well-written and goes into great detail beyond the time that I am allocated here tonight.

Title II of this bill would allow banks with commercial business to trade derivatives privately rather than on clearinghouses. This would increase risk and reduce transparency for these transactions. My amendment, which was not accepted, would have improved the provisions by prohibiting systematically important financial institutions, whose collapse would pose a serious risk to our financial system, from claiming the exemption under this title.

Title VIII of this bill includes new language that has not been considered by the Financial Services Committee under regular order. If passed, title VIII would give banks an additional 2 years to comply with the provisions of the Volcker rule that mandates that banks divest collateralized loan obligations--packages of risky debt.

8:27 PM EST
Stephen F. Lynch, D-MA 8th

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlewoman.

This 2-year extension is in addition to the extension we already provided by the regulation last year. That further delay adds unnecessary risk to our financial system. And that is why I sponsored another amendment to remove this additional 2-year delay, so banks will be required to comply with this provision of the Volcker rule no later than July 21, 2017.

Again, title XI of this bill modifies the SEC rule 701 by allowing private companies to compensate their employees up to $10 million in company securities without having to provide those employees with certain basic financial disclosures about the company stock.

I strongly support employees receiving equity benefits from their firms in which they work, but those benefits should be tangible and real. We all remember Enron and WorldCom where employees were pressured to buy stock as part of their compensation, and at the end of the day, that stock was completely worthless.

Why can't we enable employees to receive some equity in the company in which they work and ensure that those workers get accurate financial disclosure as part of that deal? This is why I offered three amendments to reform title XI in order to make certain workers get accurate information about the equities shares that they are receiving from the companies they work for. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee chose to deny all the amendments to this bill.

In closing, this harmful bill uses the veneer of job creation to provide special treatment for well-connected corporations and financial institutions while doing very little for the workers that it professes to help.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

8:28 PM EST
Stephen F. Lynch, D-MA 8th

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlewoman.

This 2-year extension is in addition to the extension we already provided by the regulation last year. That further delay adds unnecessary risk to our financial system. And that is why I sponsored another amendment to remove this additional 2-year delay, so banks will be required to comply with this provision of the Volcker rule no later than July 21, 2017.

Again, title XI of this bill modifies the SEC rule 701 by allowing private companies to compensate their employees up to $10 million in company securities without having to provide those employees with certain basic financial disclosures about the company stock.

I strongly support employees receiving equity benefits from their firms in which they work, but those benefits should be tangible and real. We all remember Enron and WorldCom where employees were pressured to buy stock as part of their compensation, and at the end of the day, that stock was completely worthless.

Why can't we enable employees to receive some equity in the company in which they work and ensure that those workers get accurate financial disclosure as part of that deal? This is why I offered three amendments to reform title XI in order to make certain workers get accurate information about the equities shares that they are receiving from the companies they work for. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee chose to deny all the amendments to this bill.

In closing, this harmful bill uses the veneer of job creation to provide special treatment for well-connected corporations and financial institutions while doing very little for the workers that it professes to help.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

8:37 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are so many inaccuracies in some of the

testimony that I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle that I don't know where to start to try to clear up some of the points that they are attempting to make.

First of all, let me start with this business about how community banks are going to be hurt. This is simply an attempt to hide behind community banks and scare the Members of this body into believing that if they don't support this bill, that somehow their community banks are going to suffer.

The FDIC said that 95 percent of CLOs owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, with the preponderance owned by Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.

Specifically, JPMorgan Chase has $33.5 billion worth of CLOs; Wells Fargo has $24.1 billion worth of CLOs; and Citi has $4.7 billion worth of CLOs.

So what are we talking about when we use this kind of messaging to claim that somehow we are going to hurt these small banks? That is absolutely not true. And I want to tell you, the community banks have not been in the background putting out tremendous sums of money on this lobbying effort. According to The New York Times:

The current efforts to undermine Dodd-Frank have been textbook lobbying. In the first three quarters of last year, the securities and investment industry spent nearly $74 million on lobbying on 704 registered lobbyists.

So get this picture. We keep seeing attempts by any means necessary from the opposite side of the aisle to push controversial legislation into packaged bills, some of those bills having been supported either in committee or on the floor. It is not enough that they lost when they put this on the suspension calendar. They have come back with a rule that does not allow for any debate, and they are determined to win this by majority vote, even in the face of a veto. Who are they trying to protect?

If it is true that 95 percent of the CLOs owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, and I told you who has a preponderance, then that is who is being protected. It is the biggest banks in America--Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. That is who is being protected. This money I am talking about, $74 million on lobbying 704 lobbyists, these are the big banks spending the money lobbying on this legislation.

And so this business about protecting Main Street, about protecting the small businesses, simply attempts to misguide and mislead, knowing that most folks really don't understand the CLO market, that this legislation, along with many other pieces of legislation, are complicated. Dodd-Frank is an attempt to reform what had gone terribly wrong in this country. We have seen attempt after attempt, probably more than 100 attempts in the Financial Services Committee, to try and undermine Dodd-Frank,

to get rid of Dodd-Frank, to break it up piece by piece, and again by any means necessary.

And so if you can answer why all these attempts, why all of this money is being spent, why we're protecting just these three big banks in America, then you can see that this is not about Main Street, this is not about small businesses. This is now about relationships between too many Members of this House and of this Congress with the biggest banks in America, who are determined to destroy Dodd-Frank. And they have tried all of these tactics and they have tried somehow to make people believe

that we don't care about this fire sale that we are going to cause the big banks.

Well, let me just say this. No, I don't worry about causing a fire sale of the big banks. I am not here to protect the big banks. I am truly here to protect Main Street and small business entrepreneurs and business people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk further about title VIII and how it does not benefit small businesses. CLOs comprised only of actual loans are exempt from the Volcker rule entirely. We are only talking about CLOs that contain other instruments like credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, commercial paper-backed securities, et cetera.

The Volcker rule will have a minimum impact on the CLO market. Nothing in the rule says that other buyers of CLOs need to stop their purchases. Nonbanks like hedge funds or insurance companies can continue to purchase or trade CLOs. The restriction only affects banks, big banks, which have tremendous access to taxpayer subsidies through the FDIC and the Federal Reserve borrowing window.

Various Wall Street research analysts have said that the market ``shrugged off'' the Volcker rule and that the industry can do just fine moving forward. In fact, 2014 saw record issuances for new, Volcker-compliant CLOs.

Banks will have 5 years, including 3 years worth of extensions, to comply with this provision. The Republicans now want to give them 7 years. Our position is this: enough is enough. Eventually the Volcker rule has to become operational or else Dodd-Frank becomes meaningless.

[Time: 20:45]

These CLOs are typically leverage loans. It should buy private equity firms to facilitate corporate buyouts of [Page: H349]

large companies. This is more about facilitating private equity than helping Main Street businesses.

For example, leverage buyouts are when a private equity firm pays for a controlling interest in a company by taking out a loan against that company, saddling the company with debt. The aim is to reduce costs, often by firing workers and slashing employee pay and benefits in order to quickly resell the leaner company for a profit. So this isn't about job creation; this is about job destruction.

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

8:37 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There are so many inaccuracies in some of the

testimony that I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle that I don't know where to start to try to clear up some of the points that they are attempting to make.

First of all, let me start with this business about how community banks are going to be hurt. This is simply an attempt to hide behind community banks and scare the Members of this body into believing that if they don't support this bill, that somehow their community banks are going to suffer.

The FDIC said that 95 percent of CLOs owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, with the preponderance owned by Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.

Specifically, JPMorgan Chase has $33.5 billion worth of CLOs; Wells Fargo has $24.1 billion worth of CLOs; and Citi has $4.7 billion worth of CLOs.

So what are we talking about when we use this kind of messaging to claim that somehow we are going to hurt these small banks? That is absolutely not true. And I want to tell you, the community banks have not been in the background putting out tremendous sums of money on this lobbying effort. According to The New York Times:

The current efforts to undermine Dodd-Frank have been textbook lobbying. In the first three quarters of last year, the securities and investment industry spent nearly $74 million on lobbying on 704 registered lobbyists.

So get this picture. We keep seeing attempts by any means necessary from the opposite side of the aisle to push controversial legislation into packaged bills, some of those bills having been supported either in committee or on the floor. It is not enough that they lost when they put this on the suspension calendar. They have come back with a rule that does not allow for any debate, and they are determined to win this by majority vote, even in the face of a veto. Who are they trying to protect?

If it is true that 95 percent of the CLOs owned by banks are owned by those with more than $50 billion in assets, and I told you who has a preponderance, then that is who is being protected. It is the biggest banks in America--Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. That is who is being protected. This money I am talking about, $74 million on lobbying 704 lobbyists, these are the big banks spending the money lobbying on this legislation.

And so this business about protecting Main Street, about protecting the small businesses, simply attempts to misguide and mislead, knowing that most folks really don't understand the CLO market, that this legislation, along with many other pieces of legislation, are complicated. Dodd-Frank is an attempt to reform what had gone terribly wrong in this country. We have seen attempt after attempt, probably more than 100 attempts in the Financial Services Committee, to try and undermine Dodd-Frank,

to get rid of Dodd-Frank, to break it up piece by piece, and again by any means necessary.

And so if you can answer why all these attempts, why all of this money is being spent, why we're protecting just these three big banks in America, then you can see that this is not about Main Street, this is not about small businesses. This is now about relationships between too many Members of this House and of this Congress with the biggest banks in America, who are determined to destroy Dodd-Frank. And they have tried all of these tactics and they have tried somehow to make people believe

that we don't care about this fire sale that we are going to cause the big banks.

Well, let me just say this. No, I don't worry about causing a fire sale of the big banks. I am not here to protect the big banks. I am truly here to protect Main Street and small business entrepreneurs and business people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk further about title VIII and how it does not benefit small businesses. CLOs comprised only of actual loans are exempt from the Volcker rule entirely. We are only talking about CLOs that contain other instruments like credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, commercial paper-backed securities, et cetera.

The Volcker rule will have a minimum impact on the CLO market. Nothing in the rule says that other buyers of CLOs need to stop their purchases. Nonbanks like hedge funds or insurance companies can continue to purchase or trade CLOs. The restriction only affects banks, big banks, which have tremendous access to taxpayer subsidies through the FDIC and the Federal Reserve borrowing window.

Various Wall Street research analysts have said that the market ``shrugged off'' the Volcker rule and that the industry can do just fine moving forward. In fact, 2014 saw record issuances for new, Volcker-compliant CLOs.

Banks will have 5 years, including 3 years worth of extensions, to comply with this provision. The Republicans now want to give them 7 years. Our position is this: enough is enough. Eventually the Volcker rule has to become operational or else Dodd-Frank becomes meaningless.

[Time: 20:45]

These CLOs are typically leverage loans. It should buy private equity firms to facilitate corporate buyouts of [Page: H349]

large companies. This is more about facilitating private equity than helping Main Street businesses.

For example, leverage buyouts are when a private equity firm pays for a controlling interest in a company by taking out a loan against that company, saddling the company with debt. The aim is to reduce costs, often by firing workers and slashing employee pay and benefits in order to quickly resell the leaner company for a profit. So this isn't about job creation; this is about job destruction.

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

8:46 PM EST
Mike Fitzpatrick, R-PA 8th

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

It is really hard to believe that a package of bills that comes to the floor which individually passed the House 422-0, another bill passes by voice vote, another bill passes 414-3, have become so controversial--become so controversial why? Because they are about to become law and they should become law. These are smart, technical reforms to an overly burdensome law, Dodd-Frank, that are bipartisan.

All of these bills have Democrat and Republican cosponsors, all of them have gained Democrat and Republican support in the committee and on the floor of the House, and these bills should pass.

I want to thank Chairman Hensarling for his longstanding leadership in reining in out-of-control Washington regulators that are hurting small business and Main Street lenders.

Mr. Speaker, smart regulations allow the private sector to innovate and create jobs while protecting taxpayers and consumers; however, one-size-fits-all regulations hurt the economy by treating small- and medium-sized companies as if they are large multinational corporations.

No Main Street small business, manufacturer, farmer, or rancher caused the financial crisis; yet they are subject to thousands of new pages of regulations that were supposedly designed for big Wall Street firms. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair.

That is why I have introduced this bill. It is a bipartisan package of commonsense jobs bills that provides regulatory relief to help grow the economy from Main Street up, not from Washington down.

This bill is made up of individual measures that previously passed either the House or the Financial Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support during the 113th Congress. It is a recognition of the fact that regulations, no matter how well-intentioned, can be made more targeted and can be made more effective.

More than 400 new regulations imposed on our Nation's small- and medium-sized companies impedes their ability to access the capital needed to grow, innovate, and create jobs. These regulations may have been targeting Wall Street, but their burden falls heavily on Main Street.

That is what this bill seeks to fix. These legislative prescriptions represent serious bipartisan commitments to make our regulatory system more responsive to the needs of the workers and the local businesses that we all represent.

The American people want Republicans and Democrats to work together to strengthen our economy and help the private sector create jobs like only it can. Good-paying jobs and greater opportunities are the foundations of real economic growth, growth that is strong and growth that is sustainable, growth that lifts people up from poverty.

That kind of growth can't come from Washington, and it won't happen unless small business owners, entrepreneurs, and workers have the freedom and the opportunity to use their God-given talents and creativity to earn their success.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk in this town about bipartisanship and finding middle ground here in our Nation's Capitol; yet, at this very moment, groups on both the far left and the far right stand in the way of even incremental progress by pulling Members of both parties to the extremes.

I know that if things are going to get done in this body, it will be from strong bipartisan support from principled, yet pragmatic, lawmakers willing to put politics to the side and work together for the common good. As someone who seeks out that course, I would like to recognize those Members willing to look past the demagoguery and misinformation in order to support this bill.

I have high hopes that this Congress can restore the faith of our constituents in the legislative process and the role of Congress in strengthening our Main Street economy, and we can start with this bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the bill and, in doing so, putting aside bill posturing in favor of bipartisan reforms to get people back to work.

8:50 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Despite what my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have said, this package of bills does not simply constitute a technical set of changes to Dodd-Frank or to our securities laws. In fact, these changes are substantive and the package is widely opposed.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about they are protecting Main Street, but let me recite for you what Main Street is saying about this bill. Let me read for you some highlights of the opposition letters we have received in addition to opposition from President Obama, Secretary Lew, and former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker himself.

Main Street is represented by, number one, Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial Reform says that H.R. 37 ``includes numerous changes that could have significant negative impacts on regulators' ability to police the financial markets, so that they function safely and transparently.''

They go on to oppose title VII of this bill, citing a Wall Street Journal article outlining how regulators are increasingly warning banks about the looser underwriting standard for leverage loans.

Further, representing Main Street, the AFL-CIO says of H.R. 37, that they oppose the bill because it ``would loosen key Dodd-Frank protections wisely put in place after the 2008 financial collapse.''

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights notes about H.R. 37: ``One lesson of the financial crisis is that deregulation in areas that appear technical and arcane can have significant impacts on the financial system and, thus, on the well-being of ordinary families, particularly in the communities we represent.''

Finally, Public Citizen noted about H.R. 37 that we should not provide more CLO relief because ``the largest banks dominate ownership,'' as I demonstrated a moment ago, ``of CLOs.''

Mr. Speaker, I think we should heed the warning of Main Street, the warning of these groups who truly represent Main Street.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

8:50 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Despite what my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have said, this package of bills does not simply constitute a technical set of changes to Dodd-Frank or to our securities laws. In fact, these changes are substantive and the package is widely opposed.

My friends on the opposite side of the aisle keep talking about they are protecting Main Street, but let me recite for you what Main Street is saying about this bill. Let me read for you some highlights of the opposition letters we have received in addition to opposition from President Obama, Secretary Lew, and former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker himself.

Main Street is represented by, number one, Americans for Financial Reform. Americans for Financial Reform says that H.R. 37 ``includes numerous changes that could have significant negative impacts on regulators' ability to police the financial markets, so that they function safely and transparently.''

They go on to oppose title VII of this bill, citing a Wall Street Journal article outlining how regulators are increasingly warning banks about the looser underwriting standard for leverage loans.

Further, representing Main Street, the AFL-CIO says of H.R. 37, that they oppose the bill because it ``would loosen key Dodd-Frank protections wisely put in place after the 2008 financial collapse.''

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights notes about H.R. 37: ``One lesson of the financial crisis is that deregulation in areas that appear technical and arcane can have significant impacts on the financial system and, thus, on the well-being of ordinary families, particularly in the communities we represent.''

Finally, Public Citizen noted about H.R. 37 that we should not provide more CLO relief because ``the largest banks dominate ownership,'' as I demonstrated a moment ago, ``of CLOs.''

Mr. Speaker, I think we should heed the warning of Main Street, the warning of these groups who truly represent Main Street.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

8:53 PM EST
Robert Pittenger, R-NC 9th

Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Today, I rise in support of H.R. 37, the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. We are here, once again, debating simple measures aimed at growing the economy and relieving some of the unnecessary burdens imposed by the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Even Tim Geithner, the former Secretary of the Treasury, stated that the Volcker rule and implications of it being regulated were not material in the demise and harm due to major institutions, rather as a result of extended credit.

This legislation included in this bill is bipartisan, which is why so many of my colleagues already voted in support of it in the 113th Congress and again last week.

This is a jobs bill. The relief we can give to small business today directly impacts their ability to create jobs. For instance, although small companies are at the forefront of technological innovation and job creation, they often face significant obstacles in obtaining capital in the financial markets. [Page: H350]

These obstacles are often due to the largest burden that securities regulations, which are typically written for large public companies, place on small companies when they seek to go public.

We need competitive markets that encourage innovation, and we need to a develop regulatory environment that acknowledges the differences between small, private, and start-up companies and well-established public companies.

8:53 PM EST
Robert Pittenger, R-NC 9th

Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Today, I rise in support of H.R. 37, the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. We are here, once again, debating simple measures aimed at growing the economy and relieving some of the unnecessary burdens imposed by the Dodd-Frank legislation.

Even Tim Geithner, the former Secretary of the Treasury, stated that the Volcker rule and implications of it being regulated were not material in the demise and harm due to major institutions, rather as a result of extended credit.

This legislation included in this bill is bipartisan, which is why so many of my colleagues already voted in support of it in the 113th Congress and again last week.

This is a jobs bill. The relief we can give to small business today directly impacts their ability to create jobs. For instance, although small companies are at the forefront of technological innovation and job creation, they often face significant obstacles in obtaining capital in the financial markets. [Page: H350]

These obstacles are often due to the largest burden that securities regulations, which are typically written for large public companies, place on small companies when they seek to go public.

We need competitive markets that encourage innovation, and we need to a develop regulatory environment that acknowledges the differences between small, private, and start-up companies and well-established public companies.

8:54 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There has been a lot of talk about bipartisan support or lack of. There have been a lot of talks about how the Republicans have been able to get Democratic votes and that, somehow, we should be happy, we should be satisfied, and that they really don't understand why it is that we are opposing not only the bill, but the tactics that have been used in several attempts to pass legislation with controversial bills tucked into the big package.

Let me give you a summary of amendments that Republicans refuse to consider as we have attempted to work with them.

Mr. Ellison and Mr. Issa offered a bipartisan amendment to strike title VII of the bill, so that all public companies will have to report their financial statements in a computer-readable format. Mr. Sherman and Ms. KUSTER both offered amendments striking the CLO title.

In a similar vein, because Republicans refuse to hold debate on the CLO title, Mr. Kildee and Mr. Capuano offered an amendment to require the regulators to first determine that such a delay was, indeed, in the public interest.

Mr. Lynch also proposed to revise the delay from 2019 to a date we previously considered and approved in the House, 2017. This revised date is one that we had thoroughly considered in the House. We never considered in the House an extension for 2 more years to 2019.

In an effort to prevent the spread of systemic threats, Mr. Lynch proposed that an affiliate of a financial institution, whose failure could pose a systemic risk to our economy, should be required to clear its derivatives.

Mr. Lynch raised a concern that companies, like GE Capital, might be able to take large bets in one part of their company, but receive relief from rules intended to mitigate those risks in another. Mr. Lynch also offered three amendments on title XI, all intended to ensure that employees understand their compensation.

Elsewhere in the bill, Mr. Capuano offered an amendment to title X, requiring companies to disclose political campaign contributions. In the same title, Mr. Ellison required the SEC to finalize its Dodd-Frank rules related to executive compensation data within 60 days.

Mr. Grijalva proposed an amendment to restore the swaps push-out provision that Republicans eliminated by attaching it to the CR/Omnibus last month. Mr. Ellison and Mr. Grijalva also proposed a substitute amendment to focus this Congress on something that would help our economy, ending budget sequestration.

Finally, I propose that we find a way to pay for part of the budget of the cash-strapped SEC by imposing a user fee on investment advisers. This is a commonsense proposal that has been supported by investment advisers, investment advocates, former Republican Chairman Spencer Bachus, SEC Chair White, and the State securities regulators.

Despite the fact that the SEC can only examine an adviser on average once a decade, our committee didn't even consider this issue last Congress.

That is an effort, Mr. Speaker and Members, to show that we have attempted to work with the opposite side of the aisle. We have attempted to offer commonsense amendments that have been absolutely rejected without any consideration being given to them.

We find ourselves here on the floor at 9 this evening, attempting to debate a bill that is going nowhere, that has been issued by the President, a veto message. We are here debating again about whether or not we are putting our taxpayers and Main Street and our small businesses at risk, going back to some of the same tactics, some of the same ways that were used by the banks that brought us to the point of a recession, almost a depression.

Somehow in this short period of time, we have forgotten what happened in 2008, we have forgotten about how many businesses were destroyed, small businesses were destroyed, we have forgotten how many elderly folks lost money in their 401(k)'s, we have forgotten how many homes were foreclosed on, we have forgotten about how we brought this country to the brink of a disaster.

[Time: 21:00]

And so let me just say that Dodd-Frank is an attempt for reform. And it is not even a tough reform. As a matter of fact, many of us consider it rather mild. But we have on this side of the aisle been fighting day in and day out in our committee to try and just see the implementation of Dodd-Frank rather than the destruction of an attempt to reform an industry that caused great harm to this society.

And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

8:54 PM EST
Maxine Waters, D-CA 43rd

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There has been a lot of talk about bipartisan support or lack of. There have been a lot of talks about how the Republicans have been able to get Democratic votes and that, somehow, we should be happy, we should be satisfied, and that they really don't understand why it is that we are opposing not only the bill, but the tactics that have been used in several attempts to pass legislation with controversial bills tucked into the big package.

Let me give you a summary of amendments that Republicans refuse to consider as we have attempted to work with them.

Mr. Ellison and Mr. Issa offered a bipartisan amendment to strike title VII of the bill, so that all public companies will have to report their financial statements in a computer-readable format. Mr. Sherman and Ms. KUSTER both offered amendments striking the CLO title.

In a similar vein, because Republicans refuse to hold debate on the CLO title, Mr. Kildee and Mr. Capuano offered an amendment to require the regulators to first determine that such a delay was, indeed, in the public interest.

Mr. Lynch also proposed to revise the delay from 2019 to a date we previously considered and approved in the House, 2017. This revised date is one that we had thoroughly considered in the House. We never considered in the House an extension for 2 more years to 2019.

In an effort to prevent the spread of systemic threats, Mr. Lynch proposed that an affiliate of a financial institution, whose failure could pose a systemic risk to our economy, should be required to clear its derivatives.

Mr. Lynch raised a concern that companies, like GE Capital, might be able to take large bets in one part of their company, but receive relief from rules intended to mitigate those risks in another. Mr. Lynch also offered three amendments on title XI, all intended to ensure that employees understand their compensation.

Elsewhere in the bill, Mr. Capuano offered an amendment to title X, requiring companies to disclose political campaign contributions. In the same title, Mr. Ellison required the SEC to finalize its Dodd-Frank rules related to executive compensation data within 60 days.

Mr. Grijalva proposed an amendment to restore the swaps push-out provision that Republicans eliminated by attaching it to the CR/Omnibus last month. Mr. Ellison and Mr. Grijalva also proposed a substitute amendment to focus this Congress on something that would help our economy, ending budget sequestration.

Finally, I propose that we find a way to pay for part of the budget of the cash-strapped SEC by imposing a user fee on investment advisers. This is a commonsense proposal that has been supported by investment advisers, investment advocates, former Republican Chairman Spencer Bachus, SEC Chair White, and the State securities regulators.

Despite the fact that the SEC can only examine an adviser on average once a decade, our committee didn't even consider this issue last Congress.

That is an effort, Mr. Speaker and Members, to show that we have attempted to work with the opposite side of the aisle. We have attempted to offer commonsense amendments that have been absolutely rejected without any consideration being given to them.

We find ourselves here on the floor at 9 this evening, attempting to debate a bill that is going nowhere, that has been issued by the President, a veto message. We are here debating again about whether or not we are putting our taxpayers and Main Street and our small businesses at risk, going back to some of the same tactics, some of the same ways that were used by the banks that brought us to the point of a recession, almost a depression.

Somehow in this short period of time, we have forgotten what happened in 2008, we have forgotten about how many businesses were destroyed, small businesses were destroyed, we have forgotten how many elderly folks lost money in their 401(k)'s, we have forgotten how many homes were foreclosed on, we have forgotten about how we brought this country to the brink of a disaster.

[Time: 21:00]

And so let me just say that Dodd-Frank is an attempt for reform. And it is not even a tough reform. As a matter of fact, many of us consider it rather mild. But we have on this side of the aisle been fighting day in and day out in our committee to try and just see the implementation of Dodd-Frank rather than the destruction of an attempt to reform an industry that caused great harm to this society.

And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

9:00 PM EST
Sean P. Duffy, R-WI 7th

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ranking member talk about this bill tonight and you would think the sky is falling if this CLO portion of our package is passed. The problem with that argument is that 53 of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee, with Republicans, voted to pass this package last year. Only three Democrats dissented--only three. Then it passed this House floor by a voice vote.

If this bill was so disastrous for the American economy, I would ask my good friend across the aisle: At 9 o'clock on a Tuesday night where Members of Congress have nothing going on, where are the Democrats? Where is the outrage with this package?

There is only one. There is only one, because many Democrats in the last Congress voted for this bill because they agreed with it. It didn't get anywhere because it fell into Harry Reid's trash bin.

The Volcker rule directed under Dodd-Frank was supposed to stop big banks from using insured customer funds to engage in risky investments. CLOs had a default rate of less than one-half of 1 percent. These are safe. This wasn't the cause of the financial crisis. The cause was Fannie and Freddie securitizing loans that had no documentation, no verification of income, and subprime mortgages. In Dodd-Frank, the root cause of the financial crisis wasn't addressed because Fannie and Freddie weren't

even brought up.

When we talk about Dodd-Frank, the ranking member is so concerned about Dodd-Frank being chipped away, but the CLO issue wasn't even in Dodd-Frank. Section 619 of Dodd-Frank states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of a banking entity or nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve Board to sell or securitize loans in a manner otherwise permitted by law.

CLOs were excluded in Dodd-Frank, which the ranking member voted for. But not only that, in the first proposal of the Volcker rule, CLOs weren't even included.

9:00 PM EST
Sean P. Duffy, R-WI 7th

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the ranking member talk about this bill tonight and you would think the sky is falling if this CLO portion of our package is passed. The problem with that argument is that 53 of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee, with Republicans, voted to pass this package last year. Only three Democrats dissented--only three. Then it passed this House floor by a voice vote.

If this bill was so disastrous for the American economy, I would ask my good friend across the aisle: At 9 o'clock on a Tuesday night where Members of Congress have nothing going on, where are the Democrats? Where is the outrage with this package?

There is only one. There is only one, because many Democrats in the last Congress voted for this bill because they agreed with it. It didn't get anywhere because it fell into Harry Reid's trash bin.

The Volcker rule directed under Dodd-Frank was supposed to stop big banks from using insured customer funds to engage in risky investments. CLOs had a default rate of less than one-half of 1 percent. These are safe. This wasn't the cause of the financial crisis. The cause was Fannie and Freddie securitizing loans that had no documentation, no verification of income, and subprime mortgages. In Dodd-Frank, the root cause of the financial crisis wasn't addressed because Fannie and Freddie weren't

even brought up.

When we talk about Dodd-Frank, the ranking member is so concerned about Dodd-Frank being chipped away, but the CLO issue wasn't even in Dodd-Frank. Section 619 of Dodd-Frank states:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict the ability of a banking entity or nonbank financial company supervised by the Federal Reserve Board to sell or securitize loans in a manner otherwise permitted by law.

CLOs were excluded in Dodd-Frank, which the ranking member voted for. But not only that, in the first proposal of the Volcker rule, CLOs weren't even included.

9:03 PM EST
Sean P. Duffy, R-WI 7th

Mr. DUFFY. They were not included. It was only in the final rule that we realized that CLOs were so dangerous.

This is a political ploy. Join the American people, join common sense, and join some of your fellow Democrats. Let's support this reform package.

9:03 PM EST
Bill Huizenga, R-MI 2nd

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I, too, share my friend from Wisconsin's frustration at this. This is sort of like saying we are going to have a cookie that is getting baked here on the House floor and our friends across the aisle approve of the eggs, they approve of the butter, they approve of the sugar, and they approve of the chocolate clips, but they don't want the final [Page: H351]

product. I am confused as to why we cannot put all these ingredients together

and get this done finally. The American people are begging us to get this work done. That is why I rise today, Mr. Speaker: to support H.R. 37.

Part of that bill has my bill from the last Congress, H.R. 2274. Excessive and unnecessary regulations have been hurting our economy, increasing costs to consumers and investors, reducing wage growth, and restricting access to private sector capital that our Nation's job creators need in order to grow the economy and create jobs.

This unanimously passed bipartisan legislation is a compilation of commonsense regulatory relief bills that have been carefully crafted to help grow the economy for Main Street and not from Washington, D.C. My bill actually is part of that.

Eleven of these bills have previously been passed by this very body or at the Financial Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, my bill idea came not from anybody on Wall Street, not from anybody in Washington, D.C., but from a mergers and acquisitions lawyer back in my district in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who said: We've been struggling with this problem and we need some help because we cannot get the SEC to move on this.

So that is why I put together the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act, and this has been kindly rolled into this larger package.

It has been estimated that approximately $10 trillion of privately owned, small family-owned-type businesses will be sold or, worse yet, closed in the coming years as baby boomers retire. I don't think any of us would think that that is a good thing. Mergers and acquisitions brokers play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of these smaller privately held companies. Who benefits? Small communities and the workers that they employ and that live in those areas. This bipartisan provision

would create a simplified system for brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of these smaller privately held companies.

In today's highly charged political environment, however, it is hard because it would be nice to show the American people that we have positive, effective initiatives that should be passed.

9:04 PM EST
Bill Huizenga, R-MI 2nd

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I, too, share my friend from Wisconsin's frustration at this. This is sort of like saying we are going to have a cookie that is getting baked here on the House floor and our friends across the aisle approve of the eggs, they approve of the butter, they approve of the sugar, and they approve of the chocolate clips, but they don't want the final [Page: H351]

product. I am confused as to why we cannot put all these ingredients together

and get this done finally. The American people are begging us to get this work done. That is why I rise today, Mr. Speaker: to support H.R. 37.

Part of that bill has my bill from the last Congress, H.R. 2274. Excessive and unnecessary regulations have been hurting our economy, increasing costs to consumers and investors, reducing wage growth, and restricting access to private sector capital that our Nation's job creators need in order to grow the economy and create jobs.

This unanimously passed bipartisan legislation is a compilation of commonsense regulatory relief bills that have been carefully crafted to help grow the economy for Main Street and not from Washington, D.C. My bill actually is part of that.

Eleven of these bills have previously been passed by this very body or at the Financial Services Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, my bill idea came not from anybody on Wall Street, not from anybody in Washington, D.C., but from a mergers and acquisitions lawyer back in my district in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who said: We've been struggling with this problem and we need some help because we cannot get the SEC to move on this.

So that is why I put together the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage Simplification Act, and this has been kindly rolled into this larger package.

It has been estimated that approximately $10 trillion of privately owned, small family-owned-type businesses will be sold or, worse yet, closed in the coming years as baby boomers retire. I don't think any of us would think that that is a good thing. Mergers and acquisitions brokers play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of these smaller privately held companies. Who benefits? Small communities and the workers that they employ and that live in those areas. This bipartisan provision

would create a simplified system for brokers performing services in connection with the transfer of ownership of these smaller privately held companies.

In today's highly charged political environment, however, it is hard because it would be nice to show the American people that we have positive, effective initiatives that should be passed.

9:07 PM EST
Frank C. Guinta, R-NH 1st

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of, and as a cosponsor of, H.R. 37.

Mr. Speaker, back in April 2012, President Obama signed into law the JOBS Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation which makes it easier for small companies, small businesses, to access capital markets by easing the burden of certain securities regulations.

Despite its sweeping scope, the Dodd-Frank Act does little to spur the type of capital formation that is essential for any real and lasting economic recovery to take hold in our Nation. Without access to capital, business slows, and without regulatory certainty, capital disappears.

A small company should not be subject to the same regulatory demands and requirements that a Fortune 500 company is required to meet. That is why H.R. 37 follows on the success of the bipartisan JOBS Act and continues

the Financial Services Committee's extensive examination of finding bipartisan solutions.

This package includes 10 pieces of legislation that my friend from California, the ranking member, supported and endorsed and voted for in the past. We need to make it easier for small companies to access public and private markets so that they can grow, hire, and provide greater economic opportunities for our citizens.

Contrary to this rhetoric we hear this evening, H.R. 37 is not a massive repeal of Dodd-Frank. It is a bill that recognizes Dodd-Frank is not perfect. It is a bill that recognizes market disruptions are not a smart result.

9:07 PM EST
Frank C. Guinta, R-NH 1st

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today in support of, and as a cosponsor of, H.R. 37.

Mr. Speaker, back in April 2012, President Obama signed into law the JOBS Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation which makes it easier for small companies, small businesses, to access capital markets by easing the burden of certain securities regulations.

Despite its sweeping scope, the Dodd-Frank Act does little to spur the type of capital formation that is essential for any real and lasting economic recovery to take hold in our Nation. Without access to capital, business slows, and without regulatory certainty, capital disappears.

A small company should not be subject to the same regulatory demands and requirements that a Fortune 500 company is required to meet. That is why H.R. 37 follows on the success of the bipartisan JOBS Act and continues

the Financial Services Committee's extensive examination of finding bipartisan solutions.

This package includes 10 pieces of legislation that my friend from California, the ranking member, supported and endorsed and voted for in the past. We need to make it easier for small companies to access public and private markets so that they can grow, hire, and provide greater economic opportunities for our citizens.

Contrary to this rhetoric we hear this evening, H.R. 37 is not a massive repeal of Dodd-Frank. It is a bill that recognizes Dodd-Frank is not perfect. It is a bill that recognizes market disruptions are not a smart result.

9:09 PM EST
David Schweikert, R-AZ 6th

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I will try to speak fast. I have missed all of you in my couple years' absence.

Have you ever had a moment where you are heading towards the microphone and you are starting to wonder if some of the debate you have been just listening to is a little bit tongue-in-cheek?

Can we do a quick explanation of CLOs, these collateralized loans? It is commercial paper. That is what the vast majority of it is. It has been around for a very long time.

Now, here is the absurdity that is coming in. If I have commercial paper that is made up of marginal loans, 2 years from now the bank continues to get to own that. But if that paper, that collateralized managed debt actually has a covenant in it that, if something goes wrong, I get to reach in and grab some of the equity of the company, all of a sudden they can't hold that. So the more secure CLOs you don't get to own in 2 years; the more marginal you do get to keep on the banks' books.

This is, first, absurd. But it is perfectly rational to say: Look, why don't we take this part that expires in 2 years and push it out 2 more years so there can be an orderly unwinding of a fairly absurd rule? But the rule is the rule.

So a lot of this debate around the CLOs, I am sorry, it is great hyperbole, but it has almost nothing to do with what the actual product does. And understand, over the last 20 years, CLOs that were AA or higher, not a single instrument went bad.

9:10 PM EST
Jeb Hensarling, R-TX 5th

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have really witnessed here is a debate between the left and the far left, and the far left doesn't want the left to work on a bipartisan basis. That is sad. I think that is what the American people want us to do. The American people, by and large, don't want to occupy Wall Street. They just want to quit bailing it out, and bailing it out is exactly what the Dodd-Frank Act does. It is time to grow this economy from Main Street up, not Washington down, and that is what the

big debate is.

Almost every bill here, Mr. Speaker, is a modest bill to help small businesses, to help capital formation to put America back to work. They passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.

Let's show the American people that we can do it. Don't let the far left torpedo America's hopes and dreams. I encourage all the House Members to support this legislation.

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

[Begin Insert]

9:10 PM EST
Jeb Hensarling, R-TX 5th

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have really witnessed here is a debate between the left and the far left, and the far left doesn't want the left to work on a bipartisan basis. That is sad. I think that is what the American people want us to do. The American people, by and large, don't want to occupy Wall Street. They just want to quit bailing it out, and bailing it out is exactly what the Dodd-Frank Act does. It is time to grow this economy from Main Street up, not Washington down, and that is what the

big debate is.

Almost every bill here, Mr. Speaker, is a modest bill to help small businesses, to help capital formation to put America back to work. They passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.

Let's show the American people that we can do it. Don't let the far left torpedo America's hopes and dreams. I encourage all the House Members to support this legislation.

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

[Begin Insert]