Robert Hurt

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for Roll Call vote Number 613 on H.R. 5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on Roll Call No. 601, yea on Roll Call No. 602, and nay on Roll Call No. 603.

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 590, and YEA on Roll Call No. 591.

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for Roll Call vote #588 on H.R. 5422, To ensure funding for the National Human Trafficking Hotline, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for Roll Call vote Number 589 on H.R. 4757, to expand the eligibility for headstones, markers, and medallions furnished by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for deceased individuals who were awarded the Medal of Honor and are buried in private cemeteries, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for Roll Call vote Number 557 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended, H.R. 3537, the dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was not present for Roll Call vote Number 558 on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5392, the No Veterans Crisis Line Call Should Go Unanswered Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on H.R. 5424 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Foster and his staff for working with us on this measure and for making it a truly bipartisan effort, for which I am grateful. This amendment is simple; yet, much like the amendment that was offered by Representative Foster during the July markup of this bill, it helps alleviate some outstanding concerns, and it helps ensure that the legislation continues to gain bipartisan support. This amendment would remove two sections: First, it would remove the brochure delivery changes that were made a part of this bill. While I believe the private fund sponsors already disclose substantial information in their private placement memoranda, which are included in the books and records requirements that advisers are required to maintain, there was concern that removing the requirement that advisers complete and deliver a brochure and a brochure supplement to a client that is a limited partnership or otherwise would make it more difficult for the SEC to conduct examinations and compile information. The second change would remove the first part of the custody rule changes that were made in the bill. The legislation would, as reported, require the SEC to provide additional exemptions to the custody rule, which will generally require an adviser of a pooled investment vehicle to have an independent accountant conduct surprise or scheduled audits every year of its clients' funds and securities. While I believe that the proposed exemption is carefully tailored to limit its scope to persons with whom the fund sponsor has a close relationship, there were concerns about the level of connectedness and how far current SEC staff guidance could be extended. This is an issue that should continue to be evaluated as, I believe, the current SEC guidance is too narrow, and the cost of the audit is often greater than the investor protection it provides. While I think there are serious policy merits to the legislation as reported, I do think that these two changes that have been proposed by Mr. Foster alleviate some concerns and help make the bill even more bipartisan than it was when it received the strong vote that it did in the Financial Services Committee. I support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for offering this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I close simply by saying that I have certainly appreciated being able to work with Mr. Foster on this over the last several months. I appreciate his leadership on the issue, and I hope this body will approve this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I urge all of the Members of this body to support this good bill. Let's remember where we started with this registration requirement for private equity. In the Dodd-Frank Act, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, private equity was swept into the Dodd-Frank Act in an effort, ostensibly, to try to stop future systemic crises in the United States' markets. As a consequence, over the last couple of years, we have introduced legislation to repeal that registration requirement. This bill does not do that. Those efforts were bipartisan in nature. They were designed to promote more investment in jobs across this country, but that was met with resistance. Registration is now a fact of life. There are Members on the other side who did not support our previous efforts, Mr. Foster being one of them. As has been said, we have more than half of the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee supporting this legislation because it is not a repeal of the registration requirement. What it is, in fact, is a streamlining of a 76-year-old law that has made it more difficult for investment funds to be able to be successful. This bill is not about rolling back investor protection. In fact, investor protection will still be strong. The SEC has the power to bring enforcement actions. Nothing has been done, again, to repeal the registration requirement. These firms will still continue to have to be registered. This is not about investor protection. All of the antifraud provisions that are currently in Federal securities law will continue to apply. This is about teachers. It is about firefighters. This is about the pension funds in these investment funds that have had success over the last 10 years. These have been the places where these pension funds have, in fact, invested because they have been solid-performing funds. That is good for teachers and firefighters and their retirements. That is what this bill is about. It is about making it easier for these funds to be successful so that they can bring back those returns for the retirements of our teachers and our firefighters. At the end of the day, probably as important as anything to me are the jobs that are created all across this country because of the investments of these funds--places like Main Street in Martinsville, Virginia, where we have seen, over the last 15 years, unemployment as high as 25 percent. There have been investments in places like Southside, Virginia, that have created jobs, that have grown companies. That is what this bill is about. It is about those jobs in Martinsville, Virginia. It is about those families in Martinsville, Virginia, or in Rocky Mount, or in Charlottesville, in Virginia's Fifth District. That is what this bill is about. That is why it has garnered strong bipartisan support on our committee, and I hope it will garner strong bipartisan support today on this floor. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling). Chairman Hensarling has done so much to promote pro-growth policies in the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5424, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016. I represent a rural district in Virginia, Virginia's Fifth District, which stretches from Fauquier County to the North Carolina border. As I traveled through my district during August, much as I have done throughout my time in Congress, I continued to hear hardworking Americans express concern about the current state of our economy and the economic uncertainty facing their children and grandchildren. I think every Member of this body can agree that, with millions of Americans out of work, our top focus in Congress should be on enacting policies to help spur job creation throughout our country. Today, we are discussing several legislative efforts that, if enacted, will encourage economic growth and job creation by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. One of these measures is a bipartisan piece of legislation that I have been working on with Representatives Foster, Vargas, Stivers, Hultgren, Sinema, and others. In fact, during a June markup in the Financial Services Committee, H.R. 5424 garnered broad bipartisan support, passing by 47-12. This measure, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act, is an effort to modernize a 76-year-old law to reflect current industry needs and standards. The legislation directs the SEC to update rules that clarify provisions within the Investment Advisers Act. Specifically, the legislation modernizes the outdated portions of the Investment Advisers Act, such as ``assignment'' definition; it removes duplicative requirements, such as the notification to clients for any change in membership of a partnership; and it tailors current reporting metrics so that advisers are not required to provide burdensome and unnecessary information on their portfolio companies, among other things. Most importantly, it streamlines the regulatory scheme, while giving the SEC sufficient discretion to craft these rules to ensure investor protection. To be clear, this bill would in no way compromise investor protection, nor would it hinder the SEC's ability to pursue enforcement actions. In our district, the investment of private capital is responsible for thousands of jobs. These critical investments allow our small businesses to innovate, expand their operations, and create jobs that our communities need. Over the past three Congresses, there has been growing concern about the burden that Dodd-Frank unnecessarily placed on advisers to private equity, while at the same time exempting advisers to similar investment funds. Over recent years, many of us have worked together in a bipartisan effort to eliminate the registration required by Dodd-Frank, but this bill does not do that and would not change the registration requirement that Dodd-Frank mandated. It simply updates the Investment Advisers Act. Instead, this legislation is a pragmatic and bipartisan approach to addressing some of the concerns with the Investment Advisers Act. No matter your views on Dodd-Frank, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act represents the view that Congress should continuously look for bipartisan, commonsense solutions to update and streamline its laws in order to encourage economic growth and job creation. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 5424, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the chairman of our Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 844, I call up the bill (H.R. 5424) to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to amend its rules to modernize certain requirements relating to investment advisers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Accelerating Access to Capital Act. Like many of us here, when I first ran for Congress, I ran because I believed that Washington had become too far removed from the people it is supposed to represent. I was concerned then, as I am today, that Washington's policies are negatively impacting Fifth District Virginians and the future for our children and grandchildren. I represent a sweeping district along the Blue Ridge Mountains that spreads from Fauquier County south to the North Carolina border. Within our district, there are few areas with robust economic activity. In fact, most of our district is comprised of rural countryside and Main Street courthouse towns. Unfortunately, much of our district has suffered devastating unemployment, at times reaching double digits. That is why I am pleased with the work that we have done on the Committee on Financial Services under the leadership of Chairman Hensarling, as it has a real impact on the economic growth of our small companies and their access to our capital markets. Our Nation's small businesses are our most dynamic job creators, and helping them grow and expand ultimately creates jobs. This bill is not about Wall Street. This bill is, indeed, about Main Street. H.R. 2357 is comprised of three titles, the first being authored by Representative Wagner. This measure would amend the Securities and Exchange Commission's Form S-3 registration statement to expand eligibility to small reporting companies. The cost of securities regulation falls heaviest upon smaller companies, and title I eliminates unnecessary costs by expanding the use of Form S-3 to smaller reporting companies. This would lower compliance costs and would not eliminate the SEC's ability to bring enforcement actions. Every one of the investor protection provisions in Federal securities laws would remain unchanged. Title II of the legislation is Mr. Emmer's Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act. This measure would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to provide an exemption for small, private offerings of securities known as micro offerings. For this exemption to apply, each investor has to have a preexisting relationship with the owner, there must be 35 or fewer purchasers, and the amount cannot exceed $500,000. Again, the SEC still has the authority to bring enforcement actions, and every investor protection provision in the Federal securities laws remains intact. Finally, title III, Mr. Garrett's Private Placement Improvement Act, would direct the SEC to revise reg D to eliminate the SEC's harmful proposed rule that is hindering small businesses' ability to raise cash. As we all recall, the purpose of the bipartisan JOBS Act we passed in 2012 was to make it easier for startups to market their securities; but when the SEC implemented the new law, the SEC proposed a separate rule that would impose new regulatory requirements on small companies seeking to use the rule 506 to raise capital. This is not consistent with Congress' intent, and now companies seeking to raise capital using rule 506 would be required to submit additional form D filings on an ongoing basis. The SEC has not acted on this proposed rule, which is why it is incumbent upon Congress to prevent it from doing so. In closing, the SEC has the responsibility to facilitate capital formation while remaining true to its duty to protect investors. The legislative package before this body today is about ensuring that our Nation's small businesses are in the best position possible to do what they do best: to innovate, grow their businesses, and create jobs. These commonsense proposals will help them do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this good bill, and I thank the chairman for the time.

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I submit these remarks to recognize the service and dedication of the members and volunteers at Gleaning for the World, Inc. Gleaning for the World is a non-profit, humanitarian aid organization that provides life-saving supplies and equipment to those in need at home and abroad. From its beginnings in the basement of its founder, Reverend Ronald Davidson, the organization expanded to an ever-growing facility in Concord, Virginia and now serves more than 55 countries. Gleaning for the World currently utilizes over 2,100 local volunteers and expects that number to increase to over 4,000 with the recent addition of its new Volunteer Center. The organization prides itself on operating innovatively and efficiently. Forbes Magazine recognized Gleaning for the World four of the last five years as ``The Most Efficient Large Charity in America.'' Rather than serving as a stand-alone charity, it partners with churches and other charitable organizations to coordinate and maximize the strengths of all for the common good. Over the course of 17 years, Gleaning for the World saved over 35 acres of landfill space by repurposing products for humanitarian purposes. For every dollar donated, it places $103 worth of supplies domestically and $212 worth of supplies internationally. Gleaning for the World serves as a first responder non-profit for emergencies in the United States and provides water and other critical supplies within hours of natural disasters at home. Recently, the organization served as a critical resource in its own backyard following devastating tornado damage in Appomattox County. Gleaning for the World continues that role to this day as a long-term relief coordinator for Appomattox County. I ask the Members of this House of Representatives to join with me in thanking Gleaning for the World, Reverend Ronald Davidson, and all of its members and volunteers, for its unwavering, dedicated service at home and abroad.

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 485 On Agreeing to the Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment No. 4 to H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' personal explanation

Mr. HURT of Virginia

Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall Vote No. 482 On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''