Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so this House can bring the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act up for a vote. This bipartisan legislation will provide critical relief for families who have been devastated by outrageous flood insurance increases required by recent changes to the Flood Insurance Program. FEMA's insistence on moving forward with these extreme rate hikes, without first completing an affordability study and certifying that their mapping techniques are accurate, as required by Congress in the Biggert-Waters Act, has created a crisis for working families who can't afford to pay 5 or 10 times more for flood insurance. Before we ask the American taxpayer to pay 1 cent more in premiums, we need to ensure that FEMA is implementing the Flood Insurance Program in a fair and lawful way. Now, we are not asking to repeal that law. We are just asking for a timeout while we figure this out, and we are asking that we do an affordability study so that we don't force people out of their homes. There is no sense doing it after the people are gone. We need this done in the right way. We can help middle class homeowners across the country by voting ``no'' on the previous question and bringing up the Homeowner Protection Act.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. First of all, I want to say that as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, I rise in strong support of Mr. Farenthold's measure here, H.R. 2860, the OPM Inspector General Act, legislation that will enhance oversight of the background check process for the issuance of government security clearances. At the outset as well, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Farenthold, for working in a bipartisan manner to sponsor H.R. 2860. I would also like to thank our full committee chairman, Mr. Issa, and ranking member, Mr. Cummings, the gentleman from Maryland, for their hard work and their leadership on this legislation as well. Recent events involving Edward Snowden and his leaking of classified information and as well Aaron Alexis and the tragic shooting at the Washington Navy Yard have called attention to the need to reexamine and improve the Federal Government's background investigation and security clearance process. H.R. 2860 is a key component of our examinations. This legislation provides the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management with the resources that he needs to assist Congress in our review and oversight of a process that is critical within our national security framework. We rely heavily on our Inspectors General. They are at the front lines of investigating fraud, waste, and abuse in government programs. We as Members of the legislature rely heavily on them in getting accurate information. In particular, H.R. 2860 would give the Office of Personnel Management the authority to access a portion of OPM's revolving fund to pay for audits, investigations, and oversight of the agency's revolving fund program, which includes the Federal Government's background investigations process, their leadership training, and personnel management solutions. I think OPM Inspector General Patrick McFarland did a great job on this in making us aware of the necessity for this legislation. During a June 2013 Federal Workforce Subcommittee hearing, as has been noted, Mr. McFarland stated that his office was handicapped in its ability to conduct proper oversight of the OPM's revolving fund activities. Under existing law, the Inspector General's oversight costs cannot be charged to the revolving fund. As a result, for fiscal year 2013, the Inspector General had only available $3 million to conduct oversight of OPM's program involving $2 billion. Because of these limited resources, the OPM Inspector General was not able to thoroughly investigate issues regarding falsification of background investigations, conduct audits of the revolving fund, or examine the fund's high-risk areas. However, H.R. 2860, if enacted, would allow the OPM Inspector General's oversight costs to be paid from the revolving fund up to a maximum of one-third of 1 percent of OPM's revolving fund budget. Assuming a revolving budget of $2 billion, the Inspector General may be authorized to receive up to a maximum of $6.6 million to fund oversight costs. Common sense indicates that giving the OPM Inspector General authority for this funding is a sensible and prudent investment. Moreover, if national security is implicated, the importance of preventing or mitigating national security threats is, of course, immeasurable. Let me also add that this proposal was included in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request, and the Senate passed, by unanimous consent, substantially similar legislation last October. In addition, a provision granting the OPM Inspector General access to the revolving fund was included in the omnibus appropriation bill released just last night. I would note, however, that that provision expires after 1 year. So Mr. Farenthold's legislation, which I have cosponsored, is incredibly important and should be adopted. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with myself and Mr. Cummings and Mr. Farenthold.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1105, which will create a gaping loophole for private equity fund advisers and deprive investors and regulators of important information about the risk these funds pose. The Dodd-Frank Act wisely required that advisers to all hedge funds, private equity funds, and other private funds register and file regular reports with the SEC. It did this for two reasons: one, to help regulators better understand the systemic risks that these funds pose to the overall financial system, and to provide investors in these funds with meaningful information about the funds' governance. This bill would exempt nearly every private equity fund adviser from these important disclosure requirements. Some of my colleagues who support this bill will argue that because private equity funds were not the cause of the last crisis, we should not subject them to these modest transparency and accountability requirements. But one of the most important lessons we did learn during the financial crisis is that systemic threats seem to always bubble up from the opaque and unregulated sectors of the market. Giving this exemption will allow threats to once again grow in the dark corners of our financial system, only showing themselves when it is too late to prevent serious harm to the American taxpayer. Supporters of this bill, while well-intended, will point to the provision that ensures advisers to private equity funds with leverage ratios over 2:1 will still have to register. This may sound attractive on its surface until you realize that every private equity fund is basically within that parameter. Private equity funds invest in companies, and it is these portfolio companies that load up on leverage and that have the potential to take on outside risk, piling on the leverage while the private equity fund itself appears on its surface to be modestly leveraged. A private equity fund could have a leverage ratio well below 2:1, while its portfolio companies are leveraged in excess of 30:1 masking the actual risk that these funds pose. Nearly every private equity fund in existence today would come in below the 2:1 leverage cap. This is a hollow limitation that provides no protection to the funds' investors or to the American taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, we learned the hard way after the recent financial crisis that systemic risks grow in the dark corners of our financial markets and that the more information we can gather about how the markets work, the safer we will be. The registration and reporting requirements for private equity advisers are modest and narrowly tailored, but they provide investors and regulators with important information. Rolling back these reforms now moves us in the wrong direction. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1105. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I do want to respond to the gentleman's invoking of the SEC chair, Mary Jo White. Judging from the gentleman's remarks, you would think she might be in favor of this bill. Well, let me talk about what she says about this bill in particular: Our markets would not be well served by narrowing the scope of the commission's jurisdiction in oversight of these advisers. That is with respect to this bill. She also said: Private equity investors are in need of the same protections as other private fund investors. Lastly, she has also said that the commission has brought enforcement actions, talking about the advisability of having oversight over advisers and having these disclosures made: The commission has brought enforcement actions against private equity funds and their advisory personnel involving unlawful pay-to-play schemes, insider trading, conflicts of interest, valuation, and misappropriation of assets.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself another 30 seconds. Now, when you think about the protections that are necessary for pension funds, especially where these workers have invested their whole lives in these pension funds, you understand the need for this disclosure. At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. LYNCH. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to some of these allegations. In respect to sophisticated investors, the Council of Institutional Investors, which is an association representing corporate, union, and public pensions, foundations and endowments, largely very sophisticated investors with combined assets of $3 trillion, opposes this bill. They oppose this bill because of the record of enforcement actions of the SEC to go after risks that do actually exist. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining for each side.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to point out, in response to the gentleman from Tennessee's remarks about this bill going on voice vote in committee, I just want to remind the Members and the public that during that debate there was a need for further work on this bill. I think, in a moment of bipartisanship, we agreed, both Democrat and Republican, to allow the bill to go by voice vote with the promise to work on some of those issues going forward. So it was an agreement to try to continue to agree and to work on the bill. It was not a vote in favor of any particular provisions within this bill. There has been a lot of talk here about the risks that don't exist, and I do want to just point out some of those. As a result of this bill, funds investing more than $300 billion a year, much of which is the retirement savings of workers like teachers, firefighters, police officers, they would no longer be required to provide basic investor protections. Specifically, H.R. 1105 would deprive investors of basic disclosures about an employee of a fund adviser who, for instance, violated securities law, or the adviser's businesses practices, its fees, any conflict of interest on the part of that adviser. It would also eliminate a compliance program and code of ethics within the bill, within Dodd-Frank, and would eliminate the need for a chief compliance officer for each fund manager. H.R. 1105, the bill under consideration here, would also prevent the SEC from conducting compliance exams of private equity fund adviser, even though SEC Chairman Mary Jo White notes that the Commission has already uncovered issues such as unlawful pay-to-play schemes, insider trading that we have all read about recently, conflicts of interest, valuation issues, and misappropriation of assets. I want to talk about some of these since there has been a complete dismissal of any risk here. I think the record speaks to the risk. The SEC has brought several enforcement actions against private equity firms. While the defendants do not necessarily represent all private equity firms, they do highlight the need for a strong police officer with the authority to examine all private equity advisers. Capital formation relies on investor confidence in the underlying assets; and without registration with the SEC, investors will no longer have a cop on the beat that can enforce the rule of law, reducing investor demand. In Knelman, for example here, there have been broad violations related to fraud, custody, compliance, and reporting. In Knelman Asset Management Group, the SEC found that registered private equity fund-of- funds adviser Knelman Asset Management Group, LLC, and Irving P. Knelman, KAMG's managing director, chief executive officer, and former CCO, violated the Advisers Act's custody, antifraud, compliance, reporting, and books-and-records provisions. In insider trading enforcement, the Gowrish insider trading case involved an individual who allegedly stole confidential acquisition information, TPG Capital, and sold that information to two friends who made $500,000 in illicit trading profits. Valuation related enforcement actions, the Oppenheimer/Brian Williamson matters concern an investment adviser and portfolio manager who misrepresented material details about his valuation methodology to his investors. Recently, the Commission filed a case against Yorkville Advisors, where Yorkville allegedly inflated the values of certain liquid assets. While Yorkville managed hedge funds, the valuation issues are very similar to ones we see in private equity. Finally, the KCAP valuation case involved alleged overstatements of the value of certain debt securities and CLOs held in the investment portfolio, highlighting the division and AMU's emphasis on pursuing valuation cases. And in the Ranieri Partners case, the SEC also found that an investment manager knowingly used a sanctioned, unregistered broker- dealer to solicit capital for a pooled investment vehicle. So all of these illegal activities would be made unavailable to private equity investors under this bill. That is what the risk is. That is not fiction. Those are actual cases that the SEC has introduced enforcement actions on. So there is real risk here for investors and for the markets themselves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. We need not worry about small firms in this. They are already exempt under this bill. They are already exempt. So the concerns about small firms being covered by this, they are already exempt, number one. Number two, the other scenario that has been posited here is that somehow, by allowing private equity firms the right to keep secret--or to refuse to disclose that their employees have been prosecuted for violating securities laws, by allowing that to remain undisclosed, that somehow that is going to help some single mom go to work, I don't think that is a rational assumption. Mr. Speaker, I will now enter into the Record letters from the following organizations who are all opposed to this bill: Americans for Financial Reform, the Council of Institutional Investors, the North American Securities Administrators Association, and a Statement of Administration Policy from the Obama administration. I reserve the balance of my time. Americans for Financial Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to express our opposition to HR 1105. Contrary to its title, this bill is not designed to benefit small business. Instead, it would exempt private equity fund advisers--who include some of the wealthiest and most significant entities on Wall Street--from basic reporting requirements designed to help regulators monitor systemic risk in the financial system and protect investors and the public. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, hedge and private equity funds received almost no regulatory monitoring, despite the fact that combined they manage some $3 trillion in assets and played a significant intermediary role in the financial crisis. Section 404 of the Dodd-Frank Act created more transparency for this previously dark portion of the markets, by requiring advisers to hedge and private equity funds to report basic financial information relevant to systemic risk to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The experience of the 2008 crisis--where risks emerged from parts of the markets not being monitored by regulators--clearly demonstrates the importance of ensuring that regulators can track financial risks wherever they originate. The Section 404 reporting requirements as implemented by the SEC are far from onerous. All advisers with below $150 million in assets under management are completely exempted, and advisers with up to $1.5 billion in assets under management must report only limited and basic information once per year. Advisers to large private equity funds are required to respond only once per year (advisers to other large funds report quarterly). HR 1105 would exempt almost all private equity fund advisers from reporting requirements to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The sole requirement for the exemption is that the fund must not have outstanding borrowings that exceed twice the fund's invested capital. But this requirement places little if any real limitation on the exemption, since the great majority of borrowing connected with private equity activity is conducted through portfolio companies, not at the fund level. (That is, companies owned by private equity funds borrow large amounts as the direction of the fund, but the fund itself rarely borrows a great deal). It is particularly distressing that Congress would consider granting this exemption at a time when concern is growing among regulators and market observers about risks created by a possible bubble in the leveraged loan market, which is dominated by loans sponsored by private equity firms. Several warnings have been issued recently by regulators concerning the risks being created in these markets. As Moody's investor's service has stated: ``Private equity firms have been exploiting investors'' willingness to lend to speculative-grade companies . . . Higher yields are drawing investors to riskier structures at a time when interest rates remain at historical lows.'' Since leveraged loans are also being sold to small retail investors, a bubble could impact both the stability of the broader financial system and the retirement savings of retail investors. The situation in the leveraged loan market clearly demonstrates the connection between private equity activity and important risks to financial stability and to investors. An additional source of concern is the danger that the exemption granted in HR 1105 could too easily be exploited to reach beyond private equity firms alone. The distinction between a hedge fund and a private equity fund is not a formal legal distinction, it is simply a differentiation between general investment strategies. While HR 1105 grants the SEC the ability to define more precisely what a private equity fund is, if that definition is at all overbroad then it could be taken advantage of by a wide range of hedge funds in order to avoid oversight. Private equity funds already receive significant subsidies through the tax system, as they are major beneficiaries of the favorable treatment for `carried interest', as well as the general tax subsidy to debt costs. It is totally inappropriate to also grant such funds a blanket exemption from even the limited and basic Dodd-Frank regulatory reporting requirements. Such a blanket exemption would make it more difficult for regulators to monitor systemic risk and risks to investors, solely in order to exempt wealthy managers of large private equity funds from a minor administrative task. HR 1105 should be rejected. Thank you for your consideration. For more information please contact AFR's Policy Director, Marcus Stanley. Sincerely, Americans for Financial Reform. Following Are the Partners of Americans for Financial Reform All the organizations support the overall principles of AFR and are working for an accountable, fair and secure financial system. Not all of these organizations work on all of the issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to every statement.; A New Way Forward; AFL-CIO; AFSCME; Alliance For Justice; American Income Life Insurance; American Sustainable Business Council; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc; Americans United for Change; Campaign for America's Future; Campaign Money; Center for Digital Democracy; Center for Economic and Policy Research; Center for Economic Progress; Center for Media and Democracy; Center for Responsible Lending; Center for Justice and Democracy. Center of Concern; Center for Effective Government; Change to Win; Clean Yield Asset Management; Coastal Enterprises Inc.; Color of Change; Common Cause; Communications Workers of America; Community Development Transportation Lending Services; Consumer Action; Consumer Association Council; Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability; Consumer Federation of America; Consumer Watchdog; Consumers Union. Corporation for Enterprise Development; CREDO Mobile; CTW Investment Group; Demos; Economic Policy Institute; Essential Action; Greenlining Institute; Good Business International; HNMA Funding Company; Home Actions; Housing Counseling Services; Home Defender's League; Information Press; Institute for Global Communications; Institute for Policy Studies: Global Economy Project. International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Institute of Women's Policy Research; Krull & Company; Laborers' International Union of North America; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Main Street Alliance; Move On; NAACP; NASCAT; National Association of Consumer Advocates; National Association of Neighborhoods; National Community Reinvestment Coalition; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients); National Consumers League; National Council of La Raza. National Council of Women's Organizations; National Fair Housing Alliance; National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions; National Housing Resource Center; National Housing Trust; National Housing Trust Community Development Fund; National NeighborWorks Association; National Nurses United; National People's Action; National Urban League; Next Step; OpenTheGovernment.org; Opportunity Finance Network; Partners for the Common Good; PICO National Network. Progress Now Action; Progressive States Network; Poverty and Race Research Action Council; Public Citizen; Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law; SEIU; State Voices; Taxpayer's for Common Sense; The Association for Housing and Neighborhood Development; The Fuel Savers Club; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; The Seminal; TICAS; U.S. Public Interest Research Group; UNITE HERE. United Food and Commercial Workers; United States Student Association; USAction; Veris Wealth Partners; Western States Center; We the People Now; Woodstock Institute; World Privacy Forum; UNET; Union Plus; Unitarian Universalist for a Just Economic Community. List of State and Local Affiliates Alaska PIRG; Arizona PIRG; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizonans For Responsible Lending; Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development NY; Audubon Partnership for Economic Development LDC, New York NY; BAC Funding Consortium Inc., Miami FL; Beech Capital Venture Corporation, Philadelphia PA; California PIRG; California Reinvestment Coalition; Century Housing Corporation, Culver City CA; CHANGER NY; Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and Improvement Corporation (NY); Chicago Community Loan Fund, Chicago IL. Chicago Community Ventures, Chicago IL; Chicago Consumer Coalition; Citizen Potawatomi CDC, Shawnee OK; Colorado PIRG; Coalition on Homeless Housing in Ohio; Community Capital Fund, Bridgeport CT; Community Capital of Maryland, Baltimore MD; Community Development Financial Institution of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells AZ; Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund, Atlanta GA; Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina; Community Resource Group, Fayetteville A; Connecticut PIRG; Consumer Assistance Council; Cooper Square Committee (NYC). Cooperative Fund of New England, Wilmington NC; Corporacion de Desarrollo Economico de Ceiba, Ceiba PR; Delta Foundation, Inc., Greenville MS; Economic Opportunity Fund (EOF), Philadelphia PA; Empire Justice Center NY; Empowering and Strengthening Ohio's People (ESOP), Cleveland OH; Enterprises, Inc., Berea KY; Fair Housing Contact Service OH; Federation of Appalachian Housing; Fitness and Praise Youth Development, Inc., Baton Rouge LA; Florida Consumer Action Network; Florida PIRG; Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, Ft. Collins CO; Georgia PIRG. Grow Iowa Foundation, Greenfield IA; Homewise, Inc., Santa Fe NM; Idaho Nevada CDFI, Pocatello ID; Idaho Chapter, National Association of Social Workers; Illinois PIRG; Impact Capital, Seattle WA; Indiana PIRG; Iowa PIRG; Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement; JobStart Chautauqua, Inc., Mayville NY; La Casa Federal Credit Union, Newark NJ; Low Income Investment Fund, San Francisco CA; Long Island Housing Services NY; MaineStream Finance, Bangor ME. Maryland PIRG; Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition; MASSPIRG; Massachusetts Fair Housing Center; Michigan PIRG; Midland Community Development Corporation, Midland TX; Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation, Detroit Lakes MN; Mile High Community Loan Fund, Denver CO; Missouri PIRG; Mortgage Recovery Service Center of L.A.; Montana Community Development Corporation, Missoula MT; Montana PIRG; Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project; New Hampshire PIRG. New Jersey Community Capital, Trenton NJ; New Jersey Citizen Action; New Jersey PIRG; New Mexico PIRG; New York PIRG; New York City Aids Housing Network; New Yorkers for Responsible Lending; NOAH Community Development Fund, Inc., Boston MA; Nonprofit Finance Fund, New York NY; Nonprofits Assistance Fund, Minneapolis M; North Carolina PIRG; Northside Community Development Fund, Pittsburgh PA; Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing, Columbus OH; Ohio PIRG. OligarchyUSA; Oregon State PIRG; Our Oregon; PennPIRG; Piedmont Housing Alliance, Charlottesville VA; Michigan PIRG; Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO; Rhode Island PIRG; Rural Community Assistance Corporation, West Sacramento CA; Rural Organizing Project OR; San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority; Seattle Economic Development Fund; Community Capital Development; TexPIRG. The Fair Housing Council of Central New York; The Loan Fund, Albuquerque NM; Third Reconstruction Institute NC; Vermont PIRG; Village Capital Corporation, Cleveland OH; Virginia Citizens Consumer Council; Virginia Poverty Law Center; War on Poverty--Florida; WashPIRG; Westchester Residential Opportunities Inc.; Wigamig Owners Loan Fund, Inc., Lac du Flambeau WI; WISPIRG. Small Businesses Blu; Bowden-Gill Environmental; Community MedPAC; Diversified Environmental Planning; Hayden & Craig, PLLC; Mid City Animal Hospital, Pheonix AZ; The Holographic Repatteming Institute at Austin; UNETO.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains on each side.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. LYNCH. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to enter into the Record statements from the following organizations which all oppose H.R. 1105: the AFL- CIO, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and North American Securities Administrators Association. And regarding reading the bill, I certainly did read the bill, and my point is that the bill does not require public disclosure of those matters, as the gentleman points out. It just goes to the Commission. So it doesn't go to the public. The public doesn't get the information. It stays within the custody of the Commission.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. LYNCH. Reclaiming my time, that is right. But those are public investors. They are the ones that need the information. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), our ranking member and a real champion of America's working families. Legislative Proposals to Relieve the Red Tape Burden on Investors and Job Creators United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises (Statement of Anne Simpson Senior Portfolio Manager, Investments Director of Global Governance California Public Employees' Retirement System, May 23, 2013) Chairman Garrett, Ranking Member Maloney, and Members of the Committee, on behalf of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), we thank you for convening this hearing. CalPERS is pleased to submit testimony for the record to reassert our strong support for efficient and effective financial regulation, as enacted by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd- Frank''). This statement includes a brief overview of CalPERS, including how we benefit from effective financial markets regulation and the role that shareowner rights and corporate governance play in building investor confidence. It also includes a discussion of our views on HR 1135, HR 1105, and

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Capuano, for reserving this time on our behalf to recognize our great friend. Mr. Speaker, Barry Sullivan has been here a long time. I know that the title ``cloakroom manager'' has a rather antiquated sound to it. As a matter of fact, there is a rumor around here that Barry Sullivan actually was the manager of the cloakroom back when they still wore cloaks. I am not sure he has been here that long, but I do know the beginning of his service started with marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade in South Boston with Joe Moakley, our dear departed friend. Now, after 33 years, our friend has decided to retire from his position. I think it is a truly bittersweet moment for a lot of us. Barry has been an extension of our staffs. I will miss the daily contact that I have with Barry, because most of the time he is reminding me to make all the votes. But he is also an extension of our families, in many ways. So many of us travel back and forth from our home districts--mine, in South Boston, and around the city of Boston-- back here to Washington. And Barry is an extension of that. I have had the good fortune to call Barry my friend since I arrived here in Washington, D.C., shortly after the attacks on September 11. I came in in a special election. I was the only Democrat elected at that time. I was given one bit of advice by my friends. They said, Make sure you get to know Barry Sullivan in the cloakroom. That is some of the best advice that I have ever received in coming here. Barry may not know it, but to a new Member of Congress, his assistance is immeasurable, especially when you are first getting used to understanding the rhythm here in Washington, D.C., and the importance of the whole process here. Barry has been in D.C. all these years now--at least 33 years--but he has never lost his connection to his hometown of South Boston. As a matter of fact, Barry may not know this, but he is actually still voting in South Boston each and every election. There is an old South Boston rule that if someone moves away or even if they pass away, as long as you know how that person would have voted, you are allowed to vote on their behalf. I am actually kidding on that. Barry has never lost his connection to his local community in South Boston, as well as his love for Cape Cod. A true son of South Boston, Barry and his family still make their annual trip to Falmouth, Massachusetts. Of course, they always stop at Sullivan's at Castle Island for a couple of hot dogs. While there is no doubt that Barry loves to get back to the Cape, there was always the rumor that Barry traveled back home simply to work on his Boston accent. While I may have had trouble when I first got here in talking to some of our colleagues from the Deep South, I never needed an interpreter to talk to my friend Barry. I still remember how proud we were back in 2007, standing right in this Chamber, in this aisle, at the State of the Union address. It was Barry Sullivan who made the announcement: Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States. While most of the country didn't know what he was saying, a lot of people back in South Boston in our district were very, very proud of that moment. The phone was ringing off the hook. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of Members here who are the face of the Congress. We are up here at the microphone on a continual basis, sometimes much to the chagrin of the people we represent, but behind the scenes it is people like Barry Sullivan who make things work. His manner and respectful way of dealing with everyone, whether it was a page, the Speaker of the House, or whether it is a Democrat--he's even nice to the Republicans. I think it helps the camaraderie and the way this body works, and I think it goes beyond what people would rightfully expect. Barry conducted his job with that level of respect and dignity and efficiency in guiding us in our jobs and in our responsibilities. On a personal level, I am proud to call Barry a friend. I have also come to know his wife, Barbara--Saint Barbara, we call her--and his sons Barry, Brendan, and Brian. We do regret that he has decided to move on to other endeavors. I just want to say that the job that you have done here, Barry, and the dignity and professionalism that you have lent to this Congress and to your country is something that we are enormously proud of. I cannot think of a better compliment and recognition of a job well done. You have been a blessing to this Congress--both sides of the aisle--and to your country. Barry, we all wish you well in your future endeavors. We wish the best for Barbara, your sons, and your family. I thank you for all the kindness you have shown towards me and towards all the other Members and their families during our times in this Congress. God bless you and thank you. Godspeed.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to associate myself with her earlier remarks on this bill, as well as the remarks of Mr. Peterson of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 992, the misleadingly named Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. If you need to know one thing about this bill, it is that a vote for this bill is a vote to provide taxpayer funding and backing for the kind of reckless derivative trading that brought our economy to the brink of catastrophic collapse. It is as simple as that. The bill before us today would repeal the provision in the Dodd-Frank reform law that requires too-big-to-fail banks to push their risky derivative dealings out of banks that receive taxpayer support and into separately capitalized subsidiaries. This bill is not a regulatory improvement. It is a giveaway to Wall Street, and it is an abdication of the duty of this body to protect taxpayers from Wall Street speculators. I want to point out a couple of things that have been, I think, misleading here. Dodd-Frank already allows banks to keep derivatives that they use for bona fide hedging purposes or for traditional banking activities within the insured bank. Interest rate and foreign exchange swaps, which make up 90 percent of swaps volume, are the most likely to be used by end-users to manage their risk; and those are already exempt from the push-out under section 716. So end-users can already benefit from 90 percent of the swaps that are out there. Moving risky derivatives activity outside of the insured banks will ensure that the risks to the banks--those that are traditional and measurable--and the speculative derivative risks, which are totally unmeasured and unexpected, those are not commingled, which make bank risks easy to understand for regulators and actually leads to better regulation. Finally, I want to call my colleagues' attention to an article about this very bill that appeared yesterday in The New York Times on the front page of the Business section.

Mr. LYNCH. I appreciate that. Go read yesterday's New York Times. It says on the front page of the Business section, To Wall Street, Washington, D.C., ``might seem like enemy territory. But even as Federal regulators and prosecutors extract multibillion-dollar penalties from the Nation's biggest banks, Wall Street can rely on at least one ally here'' in Washington. And that ally is the House of Representatives. We ought to change our position, stand with the taxpayers, stand with the investors, stand with the people that we were elected here to represent and tell Wall Street where to go on this. They get enough breaks as it is. We ought to stand up for the American people and protect them for a change.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2374, the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act. Despite its innocuous-sounding title, the intent of this bill is not to protect investors, but to protect an outdated system that systematically weakens the average American's retirement savings protections. When Americans sit down across the table from a financial adviser and entrust their retirement nest egg, they expect the advice they receive to be the best financial advice for them. That is why when Congress created the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in 1974, it did so with the express purpose of protecting employees and their dependents through robust disclosure requirements and fiduciary standards of care. But the quality of advice they receive is often dependent on whether their adviser is an investment adviser or a broker-dealer, a distinction which is really a reflection of an accident of chance that retail investors typically are not aware of and do not fully understand. Moreover, as employers have come to back away from defined benefit pension plans to defined contribution plans like 401(k)s, average workers more often are on their own to weigh advice received directly from their financial adviser about how best to invest their retirement. The result is a retirement savings system in which many workers often are unaware that they are turning over their savings to advisers who may have no legal requirement whatever to act in the worker's best interest. This bill before us today will make it harder for the Department of Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect workers' retirement savings at a time when expanding and strengthening those retirement savings and protections has never been more important. The average Social Security beneficiary receives about $1,200 per month, or just under $15,000 per year, representing just 41 percent of required pre-retirement income. With the cost of services for retirees--such as health care, food, and other essentials--continuing to go up, it is more important than ever that Americans have robust retirement savings to supplement the modest benefit that Social Security now guarantees. Unfortunately, this bill before the House today takes us in the opposite direction in order to protect its status quo. That is why AARP opposes this bill. That is why the AFL-CIO opposes this bill. That is why the Consumer Federation of America opposes this bill. That is why Americans for Financial Reform opposes this bill. That is why I will vote ``no'' on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me time, and I also want to thank Chairman Miller for his hard work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2189. This legislation takes important steps to address the deplorable disability claims backlog at the Veterans Affairs Administration. It does so by establishing a special task force to evaluate the full extent of the backlog and, more importantly, to determine solutions to eliminate the backlog. We all agree our veterans deserve better. It is in this same spirit that I introduced H.R. 2185, Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act. This bill brings together all Americans to observe 2 minutes of silence each Veterans Day. It is a time when we all, regardless of ideology, can stop and reflect on the brave service of generations of U.S. veterans. I want to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Michaud for including the text of my bill into the text of H.R. 2189. Particularly, I want to thank Daniel and Michael Bendetson and their father, Dr. Peter Bendetson. As a family, they have worked relentlessly to bring the moment-of-silence provision to fruition, and I am honored to present this proposal today on their behalf in this 113th Congress. Again, I am thankful to Mr. Michaud and to Chairman Miller for enabling this provision to come to a vote today, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2189. It is a very timely bill. With hundreds of thousands of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan and with over 700,000 veterans waiting for disability determinations, it is a very important bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, and to commend committee Chairman Shuster and ranking member Rahall, as well as subcommittee chairman Gibbs and ranking member Tim Bishop, for their efforts in crafting and bringing to the floor this very important water infrastructure bill. Mr. Chair, according to the American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. seaports move 99.4% of the country's overseas cargo by volume. Every one of the 50 states relies on seaports for imports and exports, totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods moving through U.S. seaports each day. And our ports support the employment of more than 13 million Americans. As the Representative from the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts, I represent the Port of Boston. In fact, my District Office is actually located on a pier within the industrial port. Observing the day to day operations of the Port, and also being a Member of the Congressional Ports Caucus, I know firsthand that ports and waterways are vital to our economic prosperity. For instance, the Port of Boston generates $2.4 billion in economic benefits annually and 34,000 jobs are connected to port activities. With the expected 2015 completion of the Panama Canal expansion project, those numbers should only increase as larger container ships utilize our ports on both coasts. Mr. Chair, the Boston Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, recently recommended and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will allow the Port of Boston to keep pace with what lies ahead and with our global competitors. I look forward to working with the authors of this bill to move this important project forward. Mr. Chair, we all have a stake in the success of our ports and waterways and need to more frequently address our critical water infrastructure and flood control projects. That is why I also applaud the authors for including in the bill a Sense of Congress that we consider a water resources bill no less than every two years. Getting this bill to the floor required making difficult choices. I Want to again thank its authors for their efforts.