Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased that I had an opportunity to be on the floor today managing this legislation on behalf of my caucus. I am pleased that I was able to shine some light and create some transparency on what has transpired over a long period of time. I am sorry that it had to take this long. I am sorry that my chairman at first refused to support reauthorization. He finally came around and that is good. The negotiations took place and there was a compromise. That compromise is not everything certainly that we would have wanted, but at least it is a compromise that will allow terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization. That is extremely important for all of the reasons that you have heard on the floor here today. I want to say to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle--some of whom I talked with when it was unclear what the chairman was going to do--I am so pleased that we have been able to relieve your anxiety about what was going to happen. I know that many of you early on were in support of the reauthorization of the terrorism risk insurance program just as it had been framed in the Senate. So now we are at the point where we have flushed out the fact that this terrorism risk insurance program reauthorization is needed, that businesses and our citizens deserve it, and they should have it. We have also flushed out that adding to this legislation a Dodd-Frank concern was not necessary. It is this kind of interference with the process that oftentimes causes confusion. We would hope that this kind of legislating would not continue. Let's take up these issues in a way that they are clear, that they can be debated, that we can hear from both sides of the aisle, we can hear the pros and cons, without having to drag it out until the last moment when we feel that you have the opposition up against a wall and they have no choice but to accept whatever you have done because you have a legitimate issue that is before us, even when that issue is attached to something that has nothing to do with that main issue. Having said that, I am going to move on because we still have work to do as we move toward trying to make sure that we do not shut down this government, that we have the omnibus bill to fund the government and to keep it operating. I am going to move on to deal with the fact that just as this was inserted, the end user provision was inserted in this bill. In the omnibus bill, we have an even more difficult situation to try and resolve. As a matter of fact, we know that our citizens are at great risk because there is an attempt to repeal an important part of the Dodd-Frank legislation. There is an attempt to make sure that somehow the biggest banks in America have an opportunity to use the taxpayers' dollars to do risky trading and put the taxpayers at risk one more time of having to bail out these institutions that have used the taxpayers' money that was protected by FDIC, have used their money to do this risky trading. We simply ask in Dodd-Frank for some of these trades, for some of these derivatives trading ideas, not to be placed in such a fashion that they would cause us to have to say to our consumers and our taxpayers, once again, we are going to have to bail out some big bank because they have failed. We need to protect our consumers, we need to protect our taxpayers. All they have to do is push out, push out these derivatives into their subsidies where they don't have the taxpayers' protection. So I am going to be working on that. I am going to stand here today and say to my chairman, I am going to ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, and I am going to vote for it. Will you work with me to pay attention to the omnibus bill and help me to negotiate tonight to get out of that bill the risky trading that is now being put back in the bill, the same bill that came through our committee, that was written by Citicorp, that would allow this to happen? Will you work with me to try and prevent this from happening and prevent another bailout of the biggest banks in America with taxpayers' dollars? I am going to support TRIA. Will the gentleman support me getting rid of that in the omnibus bill?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, Congressman John Garamendi, for the time, and I congratulate him for organizing this evening's Special Order Hour on Alzheimer's Disease. As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I know how devastating this disease can be on patients, families, and caregivers. The Task Force works on a bipartisan basis to increase awareness of Alzheimer's, strengthen the federal commitment to improving the lives of those affected by the disease, and assist the caregivers who provide their needed support. Alzheimer's disease in the U.S. is at crisis proportions. As our population ages, the number of persons affected by this brain disorder are expected to triple by 2050. The costs associated with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia are also growing at an unsustainable rate. A recent RAND study of adults ages 70 and older found that the total economic cost of dementia in 2010 was estimated to be $109 billion for direct care alone. That is higher than the cost of both heart disease and cancer. Furthermore, the economic cost of dementia rises to $159 billion to $215 billion when the cost of informal care is included. In the U.S., someone develops Alzheimer's every 67 seconds. According to recent data, women have a 1 in 6 estimated lifetime risk of developing the disease at age 65, while the risk for men is nearly 1 in 11. The Alzheimer's Association estimates as many as 16 million Americans over age 65 could suffer from Alzheimer's by 2050. It is now the fifth leading cause of death in my home state of California. Alzheimer's has a devastating impact upon families. Right now nearly 15 million people, mostly family members, provide unpaid care for individuals with Alzheimer's or dementia, a market value of more than $220.2 billion. In California alone, about 1.5 million unpaid caregivers grapple with the tremendous challenges of Alzheimer's disease or dementia every day. Caregivers include spouses, children, and even grandchildren. As compared to caregivers for other diseases, Alzheimer's caregivers disproportionately report being forced to miss work, reduce work hours, quit their jobs, or change jobs due to caregiving demands. They are more likely to experience financial hardship, report health difficulties, experience emotional stress and suffer from sleep disturbance. The bipartisan supported National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease calls for a cure or an effective treatment for Alzheimer's by 2025. In an effort to meet this goal, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education approved a budget for fiscal year 2015 that calls for an additional $100 million in funding for the National Institute on Aging (NIA) to expand Alzheimer's disease research. NIA, along with other institutes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are supporting a number of promising Alzheimer's disease research projects, including cutting-edge ``prevention'' trials that are studying whether or not the disease can be prevented or slowed substantially by administering treatments earlier in the disease process. I am urging the leaders of the House Appropriations Committee to include at least the additional $100 million for the NIA in the final budget package for FY 2015. This modest increase in Alzheimer's research funding will provide vital resources to support meritorious Alzheimer's disease research projects. This action will also demonstrate further resolve in support of our national priority of eradicating this insidious brain disorder. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education also included language directing NIH to submit a professional judgment budget for Alzheimer's disease research. As a cosponsor of the Alzheimer's Accountability Act (H.R. 4351), I believe that unfiltered information specifying the resources necessary to meet the goals and objectives laid out in the National Plan would provide Congress with a valuable tool for setting research and service priorities. I also plan to urge the President to include robust funding for Alzheimer's research and caregiver support services in his fiscal year 2016 budget, which the President will be submitting to Congress early next year. Increased funding for Alzheimer's programs will allow us to meet these challenges head on and enhance our chances of meeting the goals articulated in the National Plan. As we continue to search for a cure, our nation is at a critical crossroads that requires decisive action to assure the safety and welfare of the millions of Americans with Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Together, let us commit to take every possible action to improve treatments for Alzheimer's patients, support caregivers, and invest in research to find a cure for this disease. Once again, I thank my colleague from California for organizing tonight's Special Order.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Congresswoman Moore, as well as Congresswoman Fudge, for their efforts to craft the text of this bill which represents a dramatic improvement from a similar bill that was considered in the Financial Services Committee 18 months ago. At that time, Commodity Futures Trading Commission--that is, the CFTC--Chairman Gary Gensler warned that providing such a broad interaffiliate exemption from the requirement to clear derivatives could harm its efforts to regulate the market. Since that time, however, the authors of this legislation have significantly tailored the language, incorporating several technical edits provided by the CFTC, and the measure now only extends the interaffiliate exemption to instances when the commercial risk of an exempt end user is being hedged or mitigated. Last week, the CFTC provided the same tailored relief that this bill would provide. I submit for the Record the CFTC's no-action letter. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Washington, DC, November 26, 2014. Re No-Action Relief from the Clearing Requirement for Swaps Entered into by Eligible Treasury Affiliates The purpose of this letter is to amend the no-action relief previously granted by the Division of Clearing and Risk (``Division'') of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``Commission'') under No-Action Letter 13-22 to address certain challenges faced by treasury affiliates in undertaking hedging activities on behalf of non-financial affiliates within a corporate group. Those challenges pertained to certain conditions in the prior relief. The Division in this letter is altering some of those conditions to enable additional market participants to avail themselves of the treasury affiliate relief originally set forth in No Action Letter 13-22. Treasury Affiliate Exemption from Clearing On June 4, 2013, the Division granted no-action relief from the clearing requirement under section 2(h)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA'') and part 50 of the Commission's regulations, for swaps entered into by certain affiliates acting on behalf of non-financial affiliates within a corporate group for the purpose of hedging or mitigating commercial risk (hereinafter referred to as ``treasury affiliates''). No-Action Letter 13-22 was issued based on the Division's understanding that treasury affiliates were undertaking hedging activities on behalf of non-financial affiliates that were eligible to elect the end-user exception from clearing, but were themselves ineligible to elect the exception. As discussed further below, because treasury affiliates can act in a wider capacity as treasury centers that provide financial services for all or most of the affiliates within a corporate group, including daily cash management, debt administration, and risk hedging and mitigation, treasury affiliates met the definition of ``financial entity'' under section 2(h)(7)(C)(i)(VIII) of the CEA and thus could not elect the end-user exception. As a result, the Division granted treasury affiliates relief to continue entering into non-cleared swaps on behalf of the non-financial affiliates, subject to specific conditions and requirements. The Division has since learned that there are treasury affiliates precluded from electing the relief in No-Action Letter 13-22 because they do not meet certain conditions contained in the letter. As discussed below, based on input from market participants, the Division is hereby issuing this letter to amend some of the conditions and requirements contained in No-Action Letter 13-22 to allow additional treasury affiliates to rely on the relief from clearing. Applicable Regulatory Requirements Under section 2(h)(1)(A) of the CEA, it is unlawful for any person to engage in a swap unless that person submits such swap for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization (``DCO'') that is registered under the CEA or exempt from registration if the swap is required to be cleared. On November 29, 2012, the Commission adopted its first clearing requirement determination, requiring that swaps meeting certain specifications within four classes of interest rate swaps and two classes of credit default swaps be cleared. Pursuant to section 2(h)(7) of the CEA and Sec. 50.50 of the Commission's regulations, a counterparty to a swap that is subject to the clearing requirement may elect the end-user exception from required clearing provided that such counterparty is not a financial entity, as defined in section 2(h)(7)(C) of the CEA, and otherwise meets the requirements of Sec. 50.50 of the Commission's regulations. Thus, the end- user exception from required clearing may be elected for swaps that are entered into between two non-financial entities, or between a non-financial entity and a financial entity, for swaps that hedge or mitigate commercial risk. As noted above, the Division granted relief from required clearing for treasury affiliates of non-financial companies that fall within the definition of ``financial entity'' under section 2(h)(7)(C)(i)(VIII) of the CEA when acting on behalf of affiliates that otherwise would be eligible to elect the end-user exception from required clearing.''As such, No- Action Letter 13-22 effectively allowed treasury affiliates, subject to certain additional requirements and conditions, to take advantage of the end-user exception from clearing that its non-financial affiliates in the corporate group would otherwise have been eligible to elect had they entered into the transactions directly. Summary of Relief Since the Division issued No-Action Letter 13-22, market participants have highlighted several requirements and conditions that make use of the relief granted thereunder impractical for many treasury affiliates. As discussed below, the Division is therefore amending the following requirements and conditions. i. The requirement that the ultimate parent of a treasury affiliate identify all wholly- and majority-owned affiliates and ensure a majority qualify for the end-user exception. Market participants have expressed concerns about the second condition for eligible treasury affiliate status in No-Action Letter 13-22. The second condition requires that the ultimate parent of a treasury affiliate identify all wholly- and majority-owned affiliates within the corporate group and ensure that a majority qualify for the end-user exception. Market participants have noted the ratio of the absolute number of financial entities to nonfinancial entities does not necessarily provide meaning-fill information about the corporate family as a whole, and adds on-going surveillance responsibilities and expenses for the corporate family. The Division agrees and has removed the requirement accordingly in the revised relief set forth herein. ii. The requirement that the treasury affiliate is not itself or is not affiliated with a systemically important nonbank financial company. Market participants have also expressed concerns about the fourth condition for eligible treasury affiliate status in No-Action Letter 13-22. The fourth condition prohibits the treasury affiliate from being, or being affiliated with, a nonbank financial company that has been designated as systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Council. As explained above, section 2(h)(7)(D) of the CEA permits affiliates acting as an agent and on behalf of entities eligible for the end-user exception to elect the end-user exception themselves, unless the affiliate is one of seven enumerated types of entities listed in section 2(h)(7)(D)(ii). Among others, these prohibited entities include swap dealers, commodity pools, and bank holding companies with over $50 billion in consolidated assets. Market participants have pointed out that the fourth condition for eligible treasury affiliate status provides a list of entities that generally tracks the list in section 2(h)(7)(D)(ii), except for the addition of systemically important nonbank financial companies. The Division believes that additional restrictions relating to systemically important nonbank financial companies are appropriate. As a result, the Division is maintaining the requirement that the treasury affiliate itself cannot be a systemically important nonbank financial company. However, the Division also recognizes that certain corporate families with significant non-financial operations are precluded from using the existing relief because of the affiliation with a systemically important nonbank financial company, regardless of the degree to which the operations of the financial and non-financial entities are conducted separately. The Division believes restricting the treasury affiliate from (i) entering into transactions with, or on behalf of, a systemically important nonbank financial company and (ii) providing any services, financial or otherwise, to such a designated entity, provides sufficient protection from the risks of systemically important affiliate, while allowing the treasury affiliate to provide the necessary support to its related operating entities. The Division is amending the conditions relating to systemically important nonbank financial companies accordingly. iii. The requirement that treasury affiliates act only on behalf of certain types of related affiliates. Market participants have indicated that the definition of ``related affiliates'' under No-Action Letter 13-22 unnecessarily excludes certain entities that perform a cash pooling function for a corporate family that includes a financial entity. The definition of related affiliate currently includes either: (i) a non-financial entity that is, or is directly or indirectly wholly- or majority-owned by, the ultimate parent; or (ii) a person that is another eligible treasury affiliate for an entity described in (i). Market participants claim that the limitation is unnecessary, highlighting that the third General Condition to the Swap Activity already precludes an eligible treasury affiliate from entering into swaps with, and on behalf of, its financial affiliates. The Division agrees the definition is problematic because the collection and disbursement of cash within the corporate family is a core function of a treasury affiliate. Given the existing restrictions on swap activity by the eligible treasury affiliate with or on behalf of a financial affiliate, the Division has amended the related affiliate definition to allow entities that provide financial services on behalf of a financial entity to nonetheless qualify as an eligible treasury affiliate. iv. The requirement that treasury affiliates transfer the risk of related affiliates through the use of swaps. Market participants have expressed concern with the first General Condition to Swap Activity in No-Action Letter 13-22. The condition requires the eligible treasury affiliate enter into the exempted swap for the sole purpose of hedging or mitigating the commercial risk of one or more related affiliates that was transferred to the eligible treasury affiliate by operation of one or more swaps with such related affiliates. According to market participants, there are a number of ways for commercial risk to be transferred between affiliates, and that the risk that a treasury affiliate may have been seeking to hedge or mitigate would not necessarily be transferred from the operating affiliate to the treasury affiliate by way of a swap transaction as required by No- Action Letter 13-22. The method by which the risk is transferred can be dependent on the type of risk being hedged. For example, it may be more common for foreign exchange risk to be transferred between affiliates through the use of book-entry transfers, as opposed to interest rate risk, where the use of back-to-back swaps may be more prevalent. The Division agrees that this limitation is unnecessarily strict and is revising the condition accordingly. However, as the transfer of risk from the related affiliate to the treasury affiliate will no longer be evinced by back-to-back swaps, the Division will require that the treasury affiliate be able to identify the related affiliate or affiliates on whose behalf the swap was entered into by the treasury affiliate. v. The requirement that treasury affiliates do not enter into swaps other than for hedging or mitigating the commercial risk of one or more related affiliates. Market participants have questioned whether an eligible treasury affiliate would lose its status if the entity entered into hedging transactions that were mitigating a commercial risk of the treasury affiliate itself. The second General Condition to the Swap Activity states that the eligible treasury affiliate cannot enter into swaps with related affiliates or unaffiliated counterparties other than for the purposes of hedging or mitigating the commercial risk of one or more related affiliates. The Division agrees that a treasury affiliate should not lose its status as an eligible treasury affiliate simply because it entered into a hedging transaction on its own behalf. The Division is therefore amending the language in the second condition to allow an eligible treasury affiliate to enter into its own hedging transactions. However, the Division notes that such transactions entered into by the eligible treasury affiliate on its own behalf would not be ``exempted swaps'' as defined below, and may be required to be cleared if subject to the Commission's clearing requirement and no other exception or exemption to clearing applied. Further, the Division notes that treasury affiliates entering into any speculative transaction, on its own behalf or otherwise, would not be consistent with this condition. vi. The requirement that related affiliates entering into swaps with the treasury affiliate, or the treasury affiliate itself, may not enter into swaps with or on behalf of any affiliate that is a financial entity. Market participants have expressed confusion as to whether a related affiliate can enter into transactions with multiple eligible treasury affiliates under the third General Condition to the Swap Activity in No-Action Letter 13-22. The third condition states that neither any related affiliate that enters into swaps with the eligible treasury affiliate nor the eligible treasury affiliate, may enter into swaps with or on behalf of any affiliate that is a financial entity (a ``financial affiliate''), or otherwise assumes, nets, combines, or consolidates the risk of swaps entered into by any financial affiliate.

Ms. WATERS. After conversations with CFTC Chairman Massad and following this action by the regulator, I felt comfortable having H.R. 5471 be considered under a suspension of the House rules. Now, I have heard from several companies that, while the CFTC's actions are welcome, they still need the legal certainty that only H.R. 5471 could provide. On the other side, of course, I have heard concerns that if we pass this bill we may be binding the CFTC's hands to deal with a problem that could arise in the future. I believe that people on both sides of this issue are working in good faith and want to help rebuild our economy. Again, I applaud Congresswoman Moore's efforts to improve this bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide an important and long overdue reauthorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act, or NAHASDA. Through NAHASDA, the Federal Government provides housing assistance to Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, two groups that not only experience some of the poorest housing conditions in the Nation, but also face unique barriers to housing due to the legal status of tribal lands. Through block grants and loan guarantees, NAHASDA ensures Federal assistance is tailored to address their needs while respecting their right to self-determination. I am encouraged that my Republican colleagues have finally agreed to include a provision to reauthorize Native Hawaiian programs. As a supporter of the reauthorization of NAHASDA, I did not object to the bill before us today moving forward under suspension; however, this is one of those times, while you understand very well why reauthorization is necessary, I must go on record to continue to support a fight and a struggle that I have been involved in with some of my colleagues for many years. The bill will do nothing to protect the Cherokee Freedmen-- descendants of former African American slaves of the Cherokee--who are facing possible expulsion by the Cherokee Nation. The ancestors of the Freedmen marched with the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears; yet, today, their tragic history continues as the Freedmen face ongoing discrimination from the tribe that they call their own. For the past several years, under the leadership of former Members, including former Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick and former Congressman Mel Watt, the Congressional Black Caucus has stood up for the rights of the Cherokee Freedmen. I attempted to deal with this issue by way of an amendment, but the Republicans again refused to offer protections for the Cherokee Freedmen in this legislation. During the committee markup, my amendment was rejected, which would have made NAHASDA funding to the Cherokee contingent on full recognition of the Freedmen as citizens of the Cherokee Nation. It causes me great pain to not be able to support the continued silence on this issue. Furthermore, there is one other issue that I have to be concerned about. This bill would seriously undercut the central goal of providing affordable housing for low-income Native Americans. It would waive a low-standing tenet of affordable housing known as the ``Brooke rule,'' which states that the maximum rent paid by assisted households must be no more than 30 percent of their income. I have to be concerned about this because this is a rule that is throughout HUD. I do not wish to be part of opening up that door and then having to face that later on as we deal with public housing and assisted housing. This bill strips away this basic safeguard, making low-income Native Americans vulnerable to unlimited increases in rent without any kind of hardship exemptions in place. Lastly, this bill includes a new demonstration program that moves toward increased privatization and deregulation of tribal housing activities. I remain very concerned that this program could have negative impacts on low-income Native American households in participating tribes. I would like to sincerely thank Ms. Moore, Mr. Heck, and Mr. Kildee for their efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement on this bill. I would like to thank Ms. Hanabusa and Ms. Gabbard for the work that they are doing. I won't support the reauthorization in its current form for all the reasons I have stated, but I thank all of those who have worked so hard to try and deal with the need for assistance for both the Hawaiians and the Native Americans in housing.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the National Low Income Housing Coalition, or ``NLIHC,'' on its 40th Anniversary. NLIHC is the only national advocacy organization solely focused on the housing needs of extremely low income households--that is, households with incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income. While numerous organizations concentrate on federal housing policy, NLIHC is unique because of its sole focus on the needs of extremely low income people, the only population experiencing an absolute shortage of affordable housing. NLIHC remains firm to its mission, even at times when doing so is not popular. Since its inception, NLIHC has been a leader in the effort to address the housing needs of those with the lowest incomes. From the time that Cushing N. Dolbeare founded the Ad Hoc Low Income Housing Coalition, a predecessor to NLIHC, the organization has worked to better educate constituents about when and how to make their voices heard. Ms. Dolbeare authored or co-authored dozens of articles, books and reports, most notably a widely-cited annual report on the gap between housing costs and the wages of low income people. This publication continues to be relied upon on Capitol Hill, and the data included in it are instrumental in making the case for continued federal support for housing programs that reach those in our society with the very lowest incomes. NLIHC has found through its research that for every 100 extremely low income renter households, there are only 31 affordable and available units. This shortage worsens every year and exists in every state in the country. The need is particularly acute given current funding for HUD programs, which is only enough to reach one in four eligible households. Households who cannot get assistance, even though they are eligible, must spend the majority of their meager incomes on housing, leaving very little for other expenses. Often, something like a medical emergency or job loss leaves a household at risk of experiencing homelessness or another unstable housing situation. To address the housing shortage, NLIHC's most notable achievement to date has been its work towards creating a National Housing Trust Fund in 2008. The NHTF was initially to be funded by contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The contributions were temporarily suspended in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis. The Trust Fund, once it is capitalized, will provide the largest investment in over 40 years for the production, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing for extremely low income households. It would jumpstart construction in our communities--providing both jobs and sustainable housing opportunities to moderate and low-income people. I have been eager to see the Housing Trust Fund funded, and I call on my colleagues to find additional sources of funding from outside of the appropriations process, to capitalize it. The NHTF, funded to scale, is the most promising way for our nation to end the affordable housing shortage which exists in every state in the country, and advance on the progress we are already making as a country towards ending homelessness. In addition, NLIHC has been a leading voice in assuring that the rights of renters and extremely low income households are protected as Congress addressed foreclosures. With hundreds of members across the country, and consistently incisive research and policy analysis, NLIHC is a respected voice in Washington, D.C. that has helped produce policies impacting the lives of millions. I congratulate NLIHC on its 40th Anniversary, and I look forward to working with NLIHC in the future to address the housing needs of the very poorest Americans. There is a lot of work that remains to be done, but I have no doubt that with NLIHC as a partner, we are up to the task.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following: Americans for Financial Reform, Washington, DC, September 18, 2014. Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 4, the ``Jobs For America Act''. Division III of the legislation contains a number of extremely problematic provisions that would require regulatory agencies to satisfy dozens of additional mandates prior to any regulation of Wall Street, and which would create numerous additional opportunities for large financial firms to block any government action in court. AFR has joined the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards and dozens of other civil society organizations in a joint letter opposing these provisions. We would also like to draw attention to Title I of Division II of this legislation, the ``Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act''. This legislation would exempt private equity fund advisors--who include some of the wealthiest and most significant entities on Wall Street--from registration and reporting requirements designed to allow regulators to protect investors and the public and monitor risk in the financial system. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, hedge and private equity funds received almost no regulatory monitoring, despite the fact that they manage some $3 trillion in assets in total on behalf of numerous investors, including many pension funds. The Dodd-Frank Act created more transparency for this previously dark portion of the markets, by requiring hedge and private equity fund advisors to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), maintain a code of ethics and a compliance program, and report basic financial information relevant to systemic risk. This legislation would effectively exempt all private equity fund advisors from these requirements. Since this legislation was voted on as a stand alone bill in December, 2013 as H.R. 1105, the SEC has reported publicly on its basic `presence examinations' of private equity fund advisors pursuant to its new Dodd-Frank responsibilities. These examinations found widespread evidence of abuse of investors and violations of the law. In a recent speech, Andrew Bowden, the SEC's Director of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, stated that ``when we have examined how fees and expenses are handled by advisers to private equity funds, we have identified what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50% of the time''. The speech details evidence of deception and abuse of investors in other areas as well. Mr. Bowden also stated that due to the opaque nature of the private equity model and the limited information rights of investors, outside investors in private equity funds ``often have little to no chance of detecting'' these abuses on their own. Given the findings of the SEC in its initial investigations of private equity advisors, it is deeply disappointing to see that the House is once again pursuing a broad exemption from registration, reporting, and associated ethics requirements for private equity advisors. The passage of ``The Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act'' would effectively remove the SEC's most effective tool for addressing the evidence of widespread investor abuses recently uncovered through their examinations. We urge you to oppose this legislation. Thank you for your consideration. For more information please contact AFR's Policy Director, Marcus Stanley. Sincerely, Americans for Financial Reform.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rangel for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 4, the so-called Jobs for America Act. Six years ago this week marked the collapse of Lehman Brothers. That bankruptcy on Wall Street quickly spread across our country, bringing small business lending to a halt, causing a devastating number of foreclosures, and pushing far too many of our fellow Americans into personal bankruptcy. In the wake of this devastation, Democrats in Congress worked diligently to put in place serious and comprehensive safeguards to prevent another collapse. And, today, my Republican colleagues continue their hard work to thwart that effort and roll back meaningful reform. Indeed, this bill, H.R. 4, places significant additional administrative hurdles on our Federal regulatory agencies, particularly on our independent financial regulators, like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Certain provisions of this bill would impose requirements on our financial regulators to conduct onerous cost-benefit analysis, to submit their rules for review to the Office of Management and Budget, and to delay effectiveness of major rules until Congress enacts an unprecedented joint resolution. Not only would these provisions limit the independence of our Wall Street sheriffs, it would also tie up their already insufficient resources and put them at even greater risk of litigation for every rule. In fact, this bill would create a constitutional crisis by allowing the ``do-nothing'' Republican Congress to intervene in the actions of our executive branch, which is diligently trying to implement critical portions of the Wall Street Reform Act. The effect of this legislative effort would be to grind to a halt all meaningful regulation on everything from payday loans to mortgage services to the types of risky trading that caused the 2008 crisis. And, ironically, it would stop JOBS Act implementation dead in its tracks. Worst, this comes at a time when House Republicans want to hold funding for our financial regulators flat, despite their new responsibilities, the increase in the number of entities they oversee, and the growth in the complexity and size of U.S. financial markets. With our economy still recovering from the $14 trillion financial crisis, we simply cannot, under the guise of so-called ``job creation,'' afford to destroy crucial reforms and hamstring our financial regulators. I enter the following letter of opposition from Public Citizen into the Record. Public Citizen, Washington, DC A Vote for the ``Jobs for America Act'' Is a Vote Against Public Health and Safety Republicans will have you believe that a vote for H.R. 4, the ``Jobs for America Act,'' is not a vote against clean air and water, against food safety, against safe consumer products, against safe workplaces, and against a stable financial system less prone to excessive risk-taking. But that is false. The Impact of the ``Jobs for America'' Act is clear and simple: it will lead to more polluted air and water, more dangerous workplaces, more tainted and contaminated food, more dangerous workplaces, and a deregulated Wall Street allowed to gamble our economy into the next financial crash. By taking regulators ``off the beat'' and preventing them from updating and modernizing basic health and safety protections, the public is once again dependent on Big Business to ``self-regulate.'' Our public has seen the disastrous impact of letting industry regulate itself whether it's the BP Gulf Oil Spill, the West Virginia Chemical Spill, The Upper Big Branch Mine explosion, oil train derailment explosions, or the Wall Street financial meltdown. The solution is not to make our public even more vulnerable to deregulatory disasters that put Americans in harm's way and damage our economy as the ``Jobs for America Act'' would do. The enormous costs of deregulation a. West Virginia Chemical Spill: those who were hurt by the damage caused by the spill are claiming 160 million in damages from the spill. These include small businesses in Charleston who were forced to shut down for days and the many thousands of residents who were forced to buy bottled water because of the severe water contamination. http:// www.insurancejournalcom/news/southeast/2014/08/12/337282.htm b. Lake Erie Algae Bloom: a half million Ohio residents were forced to buy bottled water because their water had become so badly contaminated from algae. In 2008, the government estimated algae blooms resulted in 82 million dollars annually in economic damages: http:// www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/ econimpact 08.pdf the damage to Lake Erie can be directly traced to successful attempts to roll back the Clean Water Act by special interests. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ blogs/the-toledo-water-crisis-wont-be-the-last/ c. Oil Freight Train Explosions: Trains carrying highly explosive crude oil are traveling through communities every day without most of those communities even aware of the threat. A massive oil train derailment and explosion in Canada killed 47 people and will cost 2.7 billion in economic damages over the next decade. http://bangordailynews.com/ 2014/04/17/news/state/after-end-of-the-world-explosion- Quebec-town-tries-to-find-hope/ d. Preventable Workplace Deaths and Injuries: Every day, an average of 150 workers die from job injuries or occupational diseases. Every year, the lack of effective workplace safety protections costs our country 250 billion to 330 billion in injuries and illnesses. http://www.aflcio.org/content/ download/126621/34645631/DOTJ2014.pdf e. Climate Inaction: Blocking or delaying new carbon emission rules from the EPA and other climate change measures will cost our country up to 150 billion dollars annually in economic damage in the future. http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/ white-house-in-action-on-climate-costs-150-billion-a-year/ f. BP Oil Spill: This massive environmental disaster in the Gulf ended up costing more than 42 billion dollars. The oil spill harmed thousands of Gulf Coast residents and destroyed many local small businesses. BP has now been found ``grossly negligent'' in causing the disaster and faces up to 18 billion in fines, some of which will go to Gulf Coast restoration projects. http://www.edf.org/blog/2014/09/05/bp- oil-spill-ruling-could-jumpstart-gulf-coast-restoration-work g. 2008 Wall Street Crash: The rampant deregulation that led to the crash cost our economy anywhere from 6 trillion to 14 trillion dollars or 50,000 to 120,000 for every US household. In addition, 8.7 million Americans lost their jobs during or immediately following the crisis. http:// ourfinancialsecurity.org/blogs/wp-content/ ourfinancialsecurity.org/uploads/2012/09/Costs-of-The- Financial-Crisis-September-20142.pdf The ``Jobs for America Act'' will not create a single job The bill trades on the fallacy that deregulation leads to job growth by freeing up capital to invest in labor. There is simply no neutral, non-partisan empirical evidence to back this up. In fact, journalists and academics who have thoroughly studied this claim have concluded that regulations have no overall effect on job growth. The claim that regulations kill jobs is the very definition of a baseless and fabricated talking point. A thorough investigative report by the Washington Post concluded that regulations have no effect on jobs (highlights below): http:// www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/does-government- regulation-really-kill-jobs-economists-say-overall-effect- minimal/2011/10/19/gIQALRF5IN story.html. Conservative thinker Richard Morganstern (Resources for the Future): ``Based on the available literature, there's not much evidence that EPA regulations are causing major job losses or major job gains.'' Mike Morris, CEO of AEP, one of America's largest coal- based utilities even admitted EPA regulations will create jobs: ``We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant'' Morris said. ``Jobs are created in the process--no question about that.'' A recent and exhaustive exploration of the ``job-killing regulation'' claim by Academics from across the political spectrum concluded that regulations have no net impact on jobs: http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/15183.html The editors of ``Does Regulation Kill Jobs?'' Cary Coglianese and Christopher Corrigan conclude: ``the empirical work suggests that regulation plays relatively little role in affecting the aggregate number of jobs in the United States.'' Big business ``job-killing'' claims are always wrong Big Business groups have been making hyperbolic claims about regulations killing jobs for decades and it never comes true. Not only is this talking point patently false, but it also never dies despite being proven wrong every time. The following examples are from Public Citizen's recent report, ``It's an Outrage: Regulations are Entirely to Blame for Unemployment and a Leading Cause of Death, According to Industry and Allies'' http://www.citizen.org/documents/ regulations-are-to-blame-unemployment-death-report.pdf 1974: OSHA bans the carcinogenic vinyl chloride. The plastics industry claimed that the OSHA regulation would kill 2.2 million jobs. Those claims were proven completely false and a new way manufacture vinyl chloride was developed within a year without any jobs lost. 1975: NHTSA increases fuel efficiency standard. Industry reports warned of 1.5 million jobs lost. By 1985, auto makers had met the higher standard without losing any jobs. 1990: EPA sets new pollution standards under the Clean Air Act. In response the Business Roundtable (BRT) and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) responded with doomsday hysterics, claiming up to 2 million jobs would be lost. Those were proven entirely wrong. Instead, according to the Investor's Business Daily, ``Pollution has been falling across the board for decades, even while the nation's population and economy have expand 1995: EPA removes lead from gasoline. A Monsanto official testified to Congress that the regulation would cost up to 43 million jobs. The removal of lead is now considered one of the biggest public health success stories while gas prices did not dramatically increase and no jobs were lost. The new industry-funded study on regulations doesn't pass the laugh test The study just released by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is not worth the paper it is printed on. NAM turned to discredited economists whose last study was so poorly done and inaccurate that it was roundly criticized by observers in bipartisan fashion, including by the CRS, Republican economists, and then OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein. The study brought so much negative attention that the agency which commissioned it, the Small Business Administration, had to formally and publicly disavow it. Business Media Push Industry-Funded Study On Federal Regulations Experts Call ``Bogus'': Reuters and CNBC uncritically promoted a new report claiming that government regulations cost the economy over $2 trillion each year, ignoring any benefits of regulation. But the study uses the same flawed methodology as an earlier report by the same authors that was so widely panned that even the organization that commissioned it distanced itself from it. http:// mediamatters.org/research/2014/09/11/business-media-push- industry-funded-study-on-fe/200732 NAM's ``Cost of Regulations'' Estimate: An Exercise in How Not to Do Convincing Empirics: The bulk of these costs (75 percent) are estimated using a cross-country regression analysis. This cross-country analysis, however, is completely unconvincing and should be ignored. http://www.epi.org/ bloginams-cost-regulations-estimate-exercise/ The ``Jobs for America Act'' is a Broken Record The ``Jobs for America Act'' is just a re-packaging of the same old and tired legislation that the House has already passed. Each of these bills, if enacted, will significantly exacerbate the current problems in our regulatory system. Collectively, these bills amount to a virtual shutdown of our system of public protections by blocking federal agencies from responding to public health and safety crises and putting forth strong new safeguards to prevent the next one. 1. Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS, HR): This bill is a blatant power grab by the House GOP. Requiring Congressional approval of regulations before they take effect means, in practical terms, that the House GOP can unilaterally veto any regulation it opposes. Even Congressional inaction would kill a regulation. This is a recipe for extending the same paralysis and dysfunction that has plagued our lawmaking process to the regulatory process. 2. Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA, H.R. 2122): This bill would re-write dozens of critical public health and safety laws, including the Clean Air Act, to require agencies to choose safety standards not based on whether they are the most effective but on whether they are the least burdensome to regulated special interests. This bill is a backdoor way of gutting laws that the GOP knows are too politically popular to overturn directly. 3. Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (RFIA, H.R. 2542): This bill is a small business bill in name only. It does nothing to help small businesses directly. Instead, it would delay or block rules that in many instances disproportionately impact Big Business. For example, the bill requires agencies to consider the ``indirect'' effects of their rules on small businesses without ever defining what constitutes an ``indirect'' effect. Ordering an agency to discern all indirect economic impacts of any rule, however small, is akin to ordering a meteorologist to discern the effects on Washington, D.C. weather of a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan. Even worse, agencies could be sued by industry for not complying with this wholly undefined mandate. Agencies will be forced to waste precious time and resources looking for small business impacts where there clearly are none. In the meantime, lives could be lost and people could be needlessly injured. 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA, H.R. 899): Once again, this legislation forces agencies to pick the least costly rule to industry, rather than the rule that is most effective at keeping the public safe. It also undermines the independence of important agencies that are working to put new Wall Street reforms and product safety standards in place. Ironically, the new mandates in this bill do not come with any additional funding for agencies, making them the very definition of ``unfunded mandates.'' 5. The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act (H.R. 1493): This legislation targets citizen suits aimed at spurring agencies to move forward with overdue and congressionally mandated protections. Consent decrees and settlement agreements have long been an effective tool to provide citizens and the courts with a means of ensuring that Congressional mandates are implemented, whether they are new environmental safety standards or civil rights and antidiscrimination measures. This bill would force them to run a gauntlet of burdensome, time-consuming, and redundant procedures--furthering slowing agency action. This bill would weaken the power of citizens to ensure agencies follow the law--and waste government resources in the process. 6. The All Economic Regulations are Transparent (``ALERT'') Act (H.R. 2804): This legislation would add a blanket six- month delay to most rules essential to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the American public. When the norm is federal agencies missing Congressional and legal deadlines for new public protections, rather than meeting or beating deadlines, the last thing our public needs is more delays. Bottom Line A vote for H.R. 4, the ``Jobs for America Act,'' is a vote against life-saving public health and safety standards and will put American lives at risk without creating any jobs. We need stronger public protections, not a weaker system of safeguards. We need better enforcement of health and safety and environmental rules, not more needless delays. We urge you in the strongest terms to vote against the ``Jobs for America Act.''

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 24, a bill that would undermine the Federal Reserve's independence and politicize its monetary policy decision making. Mr. Speaker, this so called ``Federal Reserve Transparency Act'' has little to do with bringing transparency and accountability to the Federal Reserve. The truth is--this bill is nothing more than an effort to pressure and discourage the Fed from ever again being able to take the extraordinary action it has taken in recent years--action which has lowered unemployment, stabilized prices, and kept our economy from entering a second Great Depression. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reserve is already subject to extensive transparency, oversight and disclosure requirements, including regular audits with limited exemptions. The fact is, since 1982 the Government Accountability Office has had the authority to audit the books of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. And in 2009, as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress required GAO to audit the emergency lending facilities created in response to the financial crisis. This has already been accomplished and the results of the audit are posted on the Federal Reserve's website. If that wasn't enough, the Board's financial statements are audited on an annual basis by an outside auditor--and the results are published in the Board's Annual Report. In addition to audits of its financial statements and emergency lending programs, the Federal Reserve provides comprehensive communication on monetary policy deliberations--releasing statements, publishing minutes and issuing transcripts following the completion of Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. Furthermore, since 2011 the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has held regular press conferences to discuss the outlook for the economy and explain the rationale for its Federal Reserve policy decisions. I find it baffling that we are here debating whether the Federal Reserve should be more open and transparent--even as Janet Yellen is scheduled to hold a press conference to discuss the outlook for monetary policy tomorrow afternoon. While the Fed's decisions are--and must continue to be--transparent, it is also imperative that monetary policy decision making remain insulated from short-term political pressures--in order to promote economic growth and keep inflation in check. But Mr. Speaker, this legislation would empower the GAO to investigate any and all policy decisions made by members of the Federal Reserve's rate setting committee, including decisions about when, and how, to unwind the Federal Reserve's ongoing stimulus program. Doing so would wipe out all of the statutory protections that ensure deliberations, decisions, and actions on monetary policy matters are shielded from second guessing. By empowering the GAO to challenge the decisions of Fed policy experts, and make legislative or administrative recommendations to the Congress, this measure aims to inject political pressure into monetary policy decisions--something that would undermine Fed's ability to make the tough--and sometimes unpopular--decisions that are necessary for the good of the economy. But this is not the Republican Majority's first politically motivated assault on the Federal Reserve's independence. We've seen this time and again. Earlier this year Financial Services Committee Republicans took up and passed the ``FRAT Act'', a bill which virtually eliminates any discretion the Fed has to set monetary policy--by forcing it to make decisions in accordance with a mathematical formula and by requiring GAO to investigate any deviation from it--even in the case of changing economic conditions. Such absurd constraints on the Federal Reserve would inevitably increase uncertainty surrounding policy decisions, and decrease the public's confidence that the Fed can act appropriately in response to new economic realities. In closing I would reiterate that it is important for the American people to understand that these bills are not designed to address real problems, or a lack of transparency. Rather, the FRAT Act--and the bill before us today--are unnecessary. They will cause needless uncertainty and undermine the Fed's ability to conduct monetary policy in an independent manner. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You have heard from me and Congressman Ellison why this process is a process that we cannot in any way allow to take place without the kind of criticism that we are putting forth about this. This rises to the point of being shameful. This rises to the point of being disrespectful. This rises to the point of placing all of our colleagues in a position where, if anybody asked them about what is in this bill, if any of their constituents wanted to know what they voted on, they would not be able to tell them so. They would not be able to tell them so because most of the Members, for the most part, that are going to come to this floor and vote on this bill just simply have not had the time, even if they had the background, to look into this bill. They have not had the time to ask others in their caucus about this bill. They have not had time to ask any of the advocacy organizations about this bill, for or against. Now I understand again, and I want to repeat this, why some Members feel it absolutely necessary even though they don't like it. They have got one bill in here that they have worked on, that they have put a lot of time in and that they believe in, and they want desperately to have their bill passed. So they are going to swallow what is being done to them in order to get, perhaps, an opportunity to get their bill, but they don't like it. And they will tell you, not on this floor, but behind the scenes, that they don't like it. They don't like the way they are being treated. As a matter of fact, if we had the time for a real debate on this floor tonight and we asked any of the Members on the opposite side of the aisle to go down and debate these 11 bills that are in this first package, you wouldn't find two or three that would be able to do it. And the same thing on the second bill that is going to come up that talks about some issues in the insurance industry. This should not happen. And the fact that the suspensions process has been hijacked is something that this floor and this Congress is going to have to deal with for the future. This should not happen. We know why it was intended, why suspensions are necessary to expedite or when you have noncontroversial bills, but it was not intended for this kind of hijacking. It was not intended where you could take a whole bundle of bills, throw them into one, behind one bill that was hastily put together, that is going to do a lot of damage, and somehow call it a legitimate suspension bill. So, Mr. Speaker and Members, let this be a lesson to all of us that we are going to have to pay attention to the rules of suspension; and if there needs to be a modification or change that will not allow this kind of thing to happen, some of us are going to have to take up leadership in doing that modification, coming forth with some new kind of ruling that will not allow this to happen. And more than anything else, if my friends on the opposite side of the aisle get away with this, we can just throw our hands up because what they will do for the future is save all the difficult bills, add to it a bill, and then package them all and put Members in the kind of position that they are trying to put them in tonight. It is unfair. It should not happen, and I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some Members will come to the floor, and they will support this legislation because they may have one bill in this package, and I understand that. Some Members may have cosponsored a bill or worked on one bill. These Members, no matter how well-intended they are, cannot speak to the other 10 bills in the package because they don't know what those other 10 bills are all about. Many don't have a clue about these other bills. Members will not even remember how they voted for or against bills that have been placed in this package. What is being asked of the Members of this House is to forget about what really works for all Members. What they are asking Members to do at the last minute, before we close down this session, is to vote for a bill where they have packaged this large number of bills without understanding what they are or what is in them. Just vote for them because we want a political package that says, ``We are doing something about jobs. We are going to present this as a jobs package. We are going to do more than anybody else for jobs.'' This is unreasonable. It is actually unconscionable. They should not put this burden on the Members. I am going to ask Members to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not only in opposition to this legislation but to a process that has been conducted in secret and in bad faith. Tonight, the House will debate two legislative packages that have been brought to the floor over the objections of the minority and without regard for due process or the opportunity for robust debate. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake: these measures are being advanced for no other reason than political gain. The bill we consider presently is H.R. 5405, a newly created package that combines 11--11--separate Republican-authored bills. These complex and wide-ranging measures have been hastily merged together and rushed to the floor for a vote. The expedited process in which the Republicans have engaged, over my objections, have denied Members the opportunity to debate how these pieces will interact with each other and the problems that may occur as a result. Keep in mind that H.R. 5405 is so far-reaching that it amends the Securities Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Securities Exchange Act, the JOBS Act, the Bank Holding Company Act, and the Investment Advisers Act, not to mention that many provisions interact with the Dodd-Frank Act. With this omnibus proposal touching so many different aspects of our directives and securities laws, Members ought to have the chance to offer amendments on the floor and debate whether this laundry list of provisions is the right approach. Again, this is a substantial piece of legislation with the package requiring three separate reports by the SEC and another robust cost- benefit analysis. Keep in mind that the majority is placing all these new rule-writing and reporting requirements on the SEC at the same time that they are denying the Commission the funding they need to do their job efficiently and be the tough sheriff for Wall Street that we need them to be. I, for one, oppose this last-minute attempt to circumvent the legislative process. At the eleventh hour, it seems the majority is using all the tricks at their disposal to prove to the American people that they are more than the do-nothing Republican Congress. I think the American people are smarter than that. Again, I think the American people would agree that Members of this House should be afforded the opportunity to discuss what is in these packages, offer amendments, and have a robust debate on these bills. Tonight, in a mad dash for political victory, that fundamental element of democracy will be thwarted; furthermore, the chairman has broken with the tradition of a bipartisan suspension vote process by putting forth more than 15 pieces of legislation in exchange for one Democratic bill. This is just unacceptable. Unfortunately, as with flood insurance legislation, the Export-Import Bank, and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, the ideological wing of the Republican Party is unable and unwilling to work together to get things done for our Nation's citizens. I am dismayed that they continue to put partisan interests ahead of job creation, certainty for our businesses, and the democratic process. Mr. Speaker, to preserve the principle of fairness for the minority and to ensure the democratic process continues as it has for centuries, I am, indeed, opposing this legislation as well as the Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act that we will consider shortly. I believe that if gone unchecked this type of legislating could increase and soon become commonplace. We must not circumvent our time- honored traditions for political gain. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I must correct the gentleman from Michigan when he talked about our unwillingness to look at Dodd- Frank in any critical way and our unwillingness to modify, amend, or do anything to Dodd-Frank. It is absolutely not true. As a matter of fact, I am recorded time and time again--even in my speech before the Chamber of Commerce, where I have said and I have acted in this manner and in this fashion--that where there were complications, I was willing to work with the opposite side of the aisle to try to deal with those complications so that everybody would understand what was intended. Where there appeared to be conflicts, I would work to undo those conflicts. I have no problem with changing or modifying or dealing with problems in Dodd-Frank, and I have acted that way time and time again. Today, I rise to express my disappointment with a Republican Party that has politicized consensus legislation that would provide real, tangible regulatory relief. When we began this Congress, Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee both agreed to support technical fixes to the Dodd-Frank Act that have broad bipartisan support. In that spirit, the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, who is on this floor this evening, worked hard, provided leadership, helped to straighten out any confusion, and worked with both sides of the aisle to come together in a consensus around the legislation that we are going to hear so much about. I worked with Mrs. McCarthy. I worked with both sides of the aisle also. We came up with targeted, bipartisan insurance capital standards, and we fixed it, and our hard work paid off. After months of holding hearings and building consensus, we delivered to our chairman a bill with no opposition. Democrats and Republicans supported the measure, as did outside experts on financial reform and the financial services industry. It was a bill that unanimously passed the Senate, a bill that represented the kind of work Congress should be doing. In other words, Mr. Speaker, virtually no one opposed these reasonable changes to insurance capital standards; but, instead of passing the measure, this noncontroversial technical change has been ``repackaged'' into a broader and more controversial bill by attaching provisions that make substantive changes to Dodd-Frank that, unlike the insurance capital standards fix, are nontechnical in nature and are not universally supported. The reality is, by circumventing and politicizing the process, this commonsense legislation is going nowhere in the United States Senate. Countless Senate Democrats have made clear that any changes to Dodd- Frank must be targeted and have overwhelming bipartisan support; and Republicans, like Senator Collins, whose contributions to the Dodd- Frank Act we are fixing today, are opposed to it as well. Her statement was unequivocal, saying, ``I would hate for a bill, after many months to have achieved consensus, to get bogged down in unrelated issues.'' She went on to say, ``This isn't reopening a major issue in Dodd-Frank. It is simply bringing clarity to a provision that I authored that the Fed has misinterpreted. I think, given how closely we've worked with everyone, it really is more of a technical correction.'' Senator Johanns, another author of the ``clean'' Senate bill, also wants to see an up-or-down vote on the House side; and he said, ``My hope is that we can do this in a straightforward way and get it done.'' He went on to say, if changes were made to the bill, he has to ``start all over.'' Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been infamous for its inability to get anything done; but, on this one issue, we have managed to get the policy right and get incredibly broad support. We have a clear path to getting something done; but, unfortunately, the chairman has decided to throw a wrench in the works at the last minute for no reason. Finally, it is clear that this is an exercise in political theater. It is well-known and widely reported that Republican leadership has privately told insurance industry stakeholders that they would bring up a ``clean'' insurance capital standards bill after the midterm elections. It simply shows the disgraceful nature of this debate and the partisan, dilatory tactics that create more distrust in the political process. Rather than do what is right and enact legislation that everyone has agreed on, the chairman has decided to create a fight where there was none. Make no mistake, but for the chairman's intransigence, the insurance capital fix bill could be on the President's desk for a signature tomorrow. I oppose this bill due to the particularly flagrant affront to bipartisan efforts to fix narrow issues in the Wall Street Reform Act, an important and complex bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a distinguished member of the Financial Services Committee. She is a woman that has worked hard to bring a clear bill to the floor.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker and Members, I think the argument that we had a piece of legislation here authored by Mrs. McCarthy and Mr. Miller that truly had bipartisan support, that had been worked on so long and so hard by the gentlewoman from New York, that could have passed, and it should have, not been placed in this controversial position. This bill should have been a clean bill that was put forth in a way that would allow the Senate to support it, and to place it--well, the Senate--we would put this on the President's desk if, in fact, we just passed this bill out as a clean bill. It is quite unfortunate. My colleagues can say all that they want to say about jobs and creating jobs. They talked about bills that had been supported in the committee and bills that had even been supported on the floor. Why are you bringing them back again? Why are you repackaging them? Why are you taking bills that you are identifying as having had all this great support and passed off the floor, passed out of committee, why are you repackaging them? I will tell you why you are repackaging them: because you are trying to create this picture that somehow you have this great jobs bill, that somehow you have worked in some extraordinary ways to put together, despite the fact that you are just repackaging bills that, as you said, had support. The gentleman from Michigan said he is confused. Yes, I think you are, and I think you are confusing others, and that is my point. My point is it doesn't matter whether or not we have bills that were jointly supported or passed out of committee or passed off the floor. This process and this procedure that you are employing is one that is not fair to the Members of this House. You are putting forth a process that is complex, that is not easily understood, and now the Members who come to the floor, if they have to take a vote, are going to try to decide did I support that or didn't I support that. I think that the way that you are doing this is somewhat dangerous; and I can just envision that for the future that we may have a situation where you will hold all of the bills that perhaps do not have bipartisan support, and again you will package them with maybe one bill, as you are doing with this one, with support, and we will never have an opportunity to have the kind of debate and amendments that we should have. It is about process. It is about procedure. It is about making sure the American people understand what we are doing and how we are doing it. It is not about being slick. It is not about being cute. It is not about trying to take the process and package it in such a way that you can get what you want with a big title of jobs to make people think you have done something new, creative, and extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Oh, very good. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), the author of the bill.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3374, the American Savings Promotion Act, which has been offered by my colleague from Washington (Mr. Kilmer). This bill is an example of the innovation Democrats bring to addressing the concerns of the chronically unbanked. Building on the success of credit unions offering such programs, this bill enables banks to offer similar products, vastly increasing the reach of this creative savings product. Prize-linked savings accounts encourage customers to set aside savings by combining the more mundane task of setting aside money with the excitement of playing the lottery. Customers are always eligible to withdraw the principal of their savings account but forego accrued interest for the chance of winning all of the interest of participants in the program. Such programs have been offered in South Africa, resulting in more than $200 million being set aside in savings accounts by more than 750,000 individuals who had largely not set up a bank account. In Washington State, credit unions that offer such accounts have found that these accounts are helping to build an ethic of frugality. Today, credit unions are permitted to offer such programs if State law permits them, which includes four States: Washington, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina. However, even though these States permit prize-linked savings accounts, Federal banking laws prevent banks from offering them because of a decades-old prohibition on participation in a lottery. Mr. Kilmer's bill retains the general prohibition against lotteries but permits banks to offer prize-linked savings if the bank's State also allows them. It is not a secret that this country does not save enough, that we are not preparing for the unexpected or even for how we will afford college tuition expenses or retirement. We also know that, once someone begins to pile on debt, it can be nearly impossible to dig out. Mr. Kilmer's bill enables our constituents to say ``no'' to debt by encouraging good savings habits. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS

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

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 2866, as amended, a bill which provides appropriate recognition for the outstanding work conducted by Boys Town, a nonprofit organization which selflessly promotes the interests of children and their families across the Nation. Boys Town, which takes its name from Father Flanagan's Boys' Home, impacts the lives of more than 2 million families across America each year through its counseling services, outreach, and education. I am also pleased to report that, each year, Boys Town directly touches the lives of 45,000 Californians through its community support services and homes for troubled youths. Father Flanagan, the founder of Boys Town, focused on the inherent good in children and built a world-class organization that emphasized the rehabilitation of troubled youths rather than punishment. It is this compassionate approach and commitment to love, training, and guidance, regardless of race, creed, or color, that has made Boys Town such a success story and a lifeline for countless children and their families. In commemoration of the organization's centennial anniversary, the bill before us today will require the U.S. Treasury Department to mint and issue $5 gold, $1 silver, and half-dollar clad commemorative coins. Surcharges associated with the sale of the coins will allow Boys Town to raise needed funds that will be dedicated to making a positive impact on the lives of children and families from underserved communities across America. I am also pleased to report that the passage of this bill entails no net cost to taxpayers. I would urge my colleagues to join me in passing this commonsense, bipartisan bill without further delay. I reserve the balance of my time.