tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  December 4, 2013 10:00am-9:01pm EST

and remindblems people that the benefits of the affordable care act are for people. the caller and others are trying to resell the bill. host: we will have to leave it there, the house is coming in for their legislative session. viewers interested in the magazine, go to politico.com/magazine, follow the month twitter, thank you very much both of you for being here. appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] and now live coverage of the house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] 's room, washington, d.c., december 4, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable paul cook to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. boehner, n a. speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue eyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you. yesterday, i came to the floor to speak about the bilateral strategic agreement and the fact that president karzai has refused to sign the proposal offered by the administration. since we have been in afghanistan, 2,285 americans have given their lives for our country and 19,514 have been

wounded. the time has come for congress to understand history. from the days of alexander the great to the british to the russians, no one has ever changed afghanistan. the american people are tired of the cost of war, both life and money. as i said yesterday, it is my hope that in early 2014, the leadership of the house will permit a debate and a vote on the agreement that will obligate our country to afghanistan for at least 10 more years. i realize that the vote will not change the agreement, because the president does have the authority, but this will give us a chance to represent the people of america who the majority are opposed to this agreement. it is unacceptable that we will continue to spend billions of dollars at a time, according to special inspector general, the waste, fraud and abuse is worse

in afghanistan today than it was 11 years ago. we in congress continue to cut funding for programs for the american people, but we refuse to hold one single dollar from karzai in afghanistan. no wonder the american people have given congress an approval rating of 9%. it is time to end the senseless waste of american lives and american money in afghanistan. i want to thank roger simon for his editorial in today's "politico," and i would like to read the last paragraph of his editorial. he writes, and i quote, is this the neighborhood we want to stay in? and fight for, question mark, and throw more money at, question mark. we have achieved our goals in afghanistan. we have won. it is time for our troops to come home. if we stay for another decade,

our good war could come to a very bad end. so again, mr. speaker, it is my hope that when we get into 2014 that both parties will come together and say that we need to debate on whether this agreement for 10 years is worth one life or one dollar, and i believe it would be a vigorous debate. i think it will be good that the american people can see that we hear them as it relates to this war in afghanistan. mr. speaker, before i close i've got a poster from the greensboro news and record dated february 27 of 2011. it is the military carrying a flag-draped coffin off the back of a plane. how many more young americans will have to go and walk the roads of afghanistan and be killed and lose their limbs? i hope my colleagues in both

parties will join those of us in both parties who want to have this debate on afghanistan in 2014. mr. speaker, i will close now by asking god to please bless our men and women in uniform, to bless the families of our men and women in uniform and god to hold in his arms the family who have given a child that died for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. for as long as i've been in congress, both parties and two successive administrations have danced around the mission of our infrastructure deficit. for all the attention to the various fiscal cliffs, the looming infrastructure deficit is every bit as critical. for two centuries, infrastructure was a bipartisan issue, from lincoln with the transcontinental railroad to democrats and republicans coming together to launch the

interstate freeway system, signed into law by president eisenhower, subsequent roads, transit and water investments helped fuel our economy and tie the nation together. more recently, the failure to address long-term funding has also been bipartisan. the bush administration ignored strong recommendations from their own private sector experts that they impaneled to give advice. although the obama administration did request and employ some modest funding in the recovery act and has proposed an infrastructure bank and talked extensively and i think sincerely about the need for investment, what has been lacking has been a specific concrete proposal from either party to address infrastructure financing in america. while the political maneuvering has secured here in washington, the gap in the highway trust fund has been growing and conditions of our roads, bridges and transit systems

have been deteriorating. this puts america at a competitive disadvantage, complicates the movement of goods and people and contributes to congestion and pollution. at the same time, the needs grow, the resources are in significant decline. the gas tax has not been increased since the clinton administration 20 years ago. the future prospects are even worse. demands are increasing and deferred maintenance takes its toll while we watch the bottom fall out of the highway trust fund. we've seen a slowdown in revenue due to the near collapse of the economy, a shift in driving patterns while people, especially young people, drive less and improved fuel efficiency. it's scheduled to improve -- further reduce gascon sumpings dramatically with -- reduce gas consumption dramatically with plug in hybrid vehicles. it's time for congress to act. we've seen our partners at the

state level increase transportation level in 13 states, but they need congress to act to maintain that partnership. there's a large coalition that stands ready to support congress. the u.s. chamber, the national afl-cio, building trades, trucking industry, numerous associations of small and medium-sized businesses, local chambers of commerce, local government, professional organizations, bicyclists,. the coalition is broad and persuasive, requesting congress to tax them. any resources would have a powerful effect on the economy. the relatively small amount in the recovery act for infrastructure created many jobs because there's a strong multiplier effect. about 36,000 jobs for each $1 billion invested. and these are family wage jobs all across america that aren't going to be outsourced overseas. in less than a year, the transportation bill expires and

absent congressional action we face a precipitous drop in transportation funding, a reduction of 30% overall for the next decade. to be this way. i'm proposing we implement the three-step 15 cent gallon tax ncrease that was part of the simpson-bowles deficit reduction proposals. communities and industry need some certainty, especially for larger projects that are multistate and multiyear. and this should be the last federal gas tax increase. over the next 10 years, we need to replace funding for transportation that's based on gallons of fuel consumed, which is going to be declining, with something more sustainible. a reasonable adjustment now and a permanent fix in the future so we can stop this dance of avoidance. we will find broad support for this form of user fee which

historically has been acceptable to republicans as well, including ronald reagan who increased the gas tax a nickel a gallon back when that was real money in 1982 and he established the mass transit trust fund account. let's address the infrastructure deficit, stabilizing transportation funding and help revitalize and enhance america's all-too-slow economic recovery. the time is now. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, for five minutes. . lankford: i rise today for an admonition and a redirection. this is a philosophical conversation. america started with a great healthy reality of what government can do and what government cannot do. the government can't really control all of what's happening

in every state from one central area. we begin at the very beginning with individual states, individual local governments, individuals making decisions for their family. right now we see in every poll and every conversation that every one of us has this great frustration that's rising among the american people. that frustration is not rising because the american vision, the american dream and the american spirit is failing. that frustration is rising because some what of what we're doing and because of this constant challenge that's occurring nationwide is the concept of a representative republic. the constant asking of a question, has this become too gridlocked, has it become too partisan, has it become too hard to get things done, maybe we need to do it a different way. quite frankly, the american people know in their hearts that they should be represented, they should be heard justice should be done,

the basic principle among so many people that we should speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, that every american should be heard it goes from the book of proverbs to the very foundation of our constitutional system now. so what do we do about that? well, around the world we see it. we see the frustration of other people in other countries. we see it in syria as they're in a civil war. we see it in the streets of cairo. we see thailand, the corruption of their government. we see votes in the parliament in the ukraine as continent by continent, there's frustration for their government and people rise up in the streets. what do we do about it? how do we lead? we're the leaders in our country, so what do we do? here's my quick admonition to us. we're different. we think different. we function different.

our families function different. but we should still be able to honor each other. we see each other's worst. we see on the social media sites and we see on the press reports and we see everything else, we know so much about each other that there's this sense that it's different now. quite frankly, americans have always been flawed people but we're people that are gathered around our work, our faith, our community and our family and that's made us different. we've got to stop demeaning a representative republic. this constant statement of gridlocked and things aren't working implies to people all over the country, maybe this system of government that made us the most powerful economy, the most powerful military, the greatest bastion of freedom, maybe it doesn't work anymore. the problem is not our constitution. the problem is we're trying to do something that's not that. we're shifting away from the way that we were founded into something that doesn't really exist. quite frankly, the partisan gridlock is not something new. the patron saint of oklahoma is will rogers.

you can make every joke he made in congress in the 1920's and pull it up today and it's still funny because things haven't changed on that because quite frankly we think different. that's a nature of a country that's like ours. we've all these voices from all over the country that should come together and should work together but they should find us with solutions not getting into their life and taking things over. they need to see a government that's thinking for them, not trying to make them the servant. they see it. why do we have to vote this week about lead in fire hydrants? isn't that a no-brainer issue? that government has become so strong and so powerful in communities that communities are not sure if they can replace their fire hydrants anymore. why can't people get insurance anymore? they're waiting on a government website. why is it the education outcomes continue to decline when we increase federal control year after year after year but yet our outcomes continue to decline?

even this week, another international poll coming out for that. why is it getting harder to start a company, find a job, pay your gas bill? why is it hard to fill up your gas and pay your cell phone? it's increasing fees and control and americans continue to get frustrated because they know this is not what we were designed to be. we're doing too many things. we've got to get back to trusting the american people, our state leaders, our local leaders and we've got to set the standard for what leadership looks like in america by our rhetoric and by our actions. we can honor people and honor each other even in our differences, but we've got to get back to doing this nation's business the way that american people in their heart know it should be done, where their voices are heard and where they get to make the decisions. with that i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: mr. speaker, a year has passed since the 112 garment workers, mostly women, were killed in a factory in bangladesh that produced clothing for brands like wal-mart, sears, and kmart. earlier this year i went to bangladesh and met with women who left from the third and -- leapt from the third and fourth windos of their factories to escape the fire. there's no good way to jump from that height, and the women who survived the fall were broken, crippled, and unable to support their children. since the fire, several brands have stepped up with payment for survivors. yet some of the companies that were presumably profiting quite nicely from the production at the factory have opted not to compensate a single victim. wal-mart is one of those. they have chosen not to compensate a single woman who died in the factory, was

crippled in the factory, lost their job in the factory. all because of a fire of an unsafe facktry. it was known as a deathtrap. windows were barred and the management lked the doors and stairwells and left workers with no way to escape. wal-mart knew this factory was a deathtrap. the company had commissioned a series of audits in 2011. their audits uncovered that it was an overcrowded factory without proper fire alarms or smoke detectors, that it lacked sufficient firefighting equipment with partially blocked exits and star wells and did not post adequate evacuation plans. because the factory management failed to improve the conditions, wal-mart terminated the contracts with the factory. however, the workers continued to produce for wal-mart. even though they terminated their contract. according to documents found in the ashes, more than half of the factory's total production was dedicated to wal-mart just two months before the collapse. so while wal-mart left the factory because it was unsafe,

over half of the production, according to the documents, was still for wal-mart knowing they were producing in an unsafe factory that claimed the lives of 112 women. wal-mart now claims that the factory was unauthorized subcontractor. half of the work in the factory was there because supposedly wal-mart, whose hallmark of efficiency is their supply chain, didn't know their subcontractor was placing these very significant orders in a factory that they abavend beyond and was also owned -- abandoned and was also owned overall by another company they were doing business with. i think wal-mart is trying to construct a process so they can deny the responsibility for the deaths of the women, responsibility to pay maybe a benefit to those families who are crushed by the loss of their breadwinner, their mother, sister, their wife. it's time to accept that responsibility. when wal-mart terminated direct contracts at the factory, it never told the workers that it

was leaving or why it was leaving. in a recent public forum, wal-mart said the only responsibility was to notify the factory owner, but that's like notifying a criminal you are aware of his crime while you keep his next potential victim in the dark. workers had no reason to suspect that wal-mart walked away due to safety concerns because wal-mart garments still dominated the production there. by quietly walking away and failing to tell anybody who could remedy the danger, workers, trade associations, or the government, wal-mart left it vulnerable to a fire that would engulf them. the wal-mart actions were calibrated to evade responsibility and they put those women at risk. the pattern of evasion was repeated at the plaza where over 1,132 workers, again, mostly women, were killed in a factory collapse earlier this year. wal-mart claims it did not permit production there, but evidence found in the rubble of that collapsed factory was -- shows that it was producing jeans for wal-mart less than a

year before the collapse. there is a theme here. when tragedies occur, wal-mart claims production was not authorized as a way to disown responsibility. but every brand, sourcing garment from bangladesh knows the extensive subcontracting is part of the business model. that is how fast fashion is produced. you can cut your direct deelings with the specific factory, but there is a chance someone in your supply chain will subcontract right back to that factory. the ethics are not complicated. the united nations principles on business and human rights call on multinationals to conduct due diligence through the many layers of their supply chains where the risk is the greatest and to identify, mitigate, and prevent the problems. had wal-mart done that maybe 1,000 women would be alive today and not have a factory collapse on them. maybe 112 women would be alive today. maybe those women who had to jump out of the third and fourth window to survive the fire would not be crippled

today, would be able to support their families and live somewhat of a normal life. audits don't absolve companies of responsibilities. if terminating a contract could lead to even greater harm, there is a special obligation, according to these recognized principles of the united nations, to stay and remedy the problem. brands have an osama bin laden gation to both audit working conditions and to help remedy the risk of the most vulnerable in the supply chain. wal-mart accepts responsibility and start doing business in a humane way. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, for five minutes. mr. speaker, the science space and technology committee recently held a hearing on healthcare.gov cybersecurity threats. our bipartisan expert witness panel included dr. frederick check, a computer science professor at s.m.u., dr. ruben,

a computer science professor at johns hopkins university, david kennedy, former chief security officer of dibold incorporated and currently the principal security consultant for trusted sec, and morgan write, formerly with cisco security and now c.e.o. of crowd sourced investigations. now i'm not a cybersecurity expert, but i can read the words of those who are. the s.s.t. committee's hearing charter informs members that in order to fully use healthcare.gov, american citizens must input or verify highly personal information such as date of birth and social security numbers for all family members, household salary, debt information, credit card information, place of employment, home addresses, and the like. information that is a

treasure-trove for cybercriminals and identity thieves. further, the obamacare website interacts with the i.r.s. and social security administration databases thereby exposing americans to even greater risk of theft of their most private personal information. in their written testimony, these experts warn the following about the health care.gov website. quote, there are clear indicators that even basic security was not, not built into the healthcare.gov website, end quote. quote, the vast amount of healthcare.gov code also means asupplying industry standards, security practices is a task that can have no real chance of success. end quote. healthcare.gov, quote, creates massive opportunity for fraud, scams, deceptive trade

practices, identity theft, and more, end quote. mr. speaker, these threats to american family finances prompted me to ask the panel of cybersecurity experts within, under obamacare, americans can seek compensation from the federal government for financial losses caused by use of healthcare.gov. in reply not one expert, not one indicated obamacare requires the federal government to compensate american citizens for cybersecurity financial losses caused by their forced use of the healthcare.gov website. if these experts are right, and if you are an american citizen who obeys obamacare dictates, and you suffer from identity theft or other financial losses, the white house response is essentially tough luck, you are on your own. well, that's unsatisfactory and unacceptable. i next asked the bipartisan

panel of experts, quote, given healthcare.gov's security issues and assuming for the moment that you would be personally responsible for all damages incurred, if any, from your advice, would any of you advise an american citizen to use this website as the security issues now exist? their bipartisan responsible was a stunning and unanimous no . do not use the website because the security risk associated with healthcare.gov are simply too great. mr. speaker, the obamacare website, healthcare.gov, is the mother lode for identity theft, internet fraud, and other criminal activity. for emphasis, mr. speaker, a bipartisan panel of cybersecurity experts publicly warns that the healthcare.gov cybersecurity threat is so great that no one should use it. based on their expert advice, i concur and encourage all americans to avoid healthcare.gov, the obamacare

website, in any way, shape, or form until its cybersecurity risks are fixed. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, with a lot of enthusiasm i rise to recognize and to acknowledge a renaissance man, a man with a sense of humor, along with his wife, yvette, determined to help to make the lives of children around the world much better. yes, he had a sense of humor and he was also a musician, and he visualized a day without hunger, hoping for it to be

december 31, 2013. yank berry has many sides to him, but enthusiastically he takes each challenge, some that he's overcome in life, and put on the boxing gloves and simply won. i'm excited that he joined in partnership with gary u.s. bonds and muhammad ali, formed the global village champions foundation. not just for boxing, but really to take boxers and box the troubles of the world away. the course of his work he's served almost over one billion meals, 954 million on his way to a billion. he also doesn't take no for an answer and working to release five bulgarian nurses and a palestinian in libya a few years ago, not an easy task.

so along with his 30-year music career, jamming with jimi hendrix, writing jingles, and, yes, singing with the kingsmen of louie, louie fame, we can be grateful that he and his wife turned to a very important challenge, the global village champion foundation, which strives to become the undisputed world leader in private humanitarian delivery of nutrition to needy persons everywhere, sustaining human life, and helping to eradicate hunger from the face of the earth. as someone who has worked with the congressional children's caucus, it excites me to note that he continues to provide continued support for the children that we are already supplying with meals and other necessities. he expands the global village champions team to include people with diverse skills and a determination to make a

difference in the world. for more than 17 years he's joined with his friends, muhammad ali, gary u.s. bonds, they haven't boxed, they haven't sung, but they have worked to put a light in the darkness of lives of so many. his career has expanded many aspects, he even croat jingles. he even was -- wrote jingles. he even was able to put forward a unique form of music. but i would say one of his greatest challenges and greatest successes is that everywhere he goes he takes his product that he has developed and he changes the hearts and minds of those who are suffering. he started donating some of his food products to various charities and n.g.o.'s in canada and the u.s. soon yank's dear friend, muhammad, as i indicated joined the global village and they brought food, medical supply, clothing, and educational tools to refugee camps and orphannages in areas stricken

by disaster all over the world om africa to bulgaria to places beyond our o imagination. well he worked with those like celine dion, michael jordan and many others. as a ruzz of his ongoing fight against hunger, mr. berry has received nearly two dozen awards since 1995, including the india humanitarian service award, the bohemian red cross humanitarian award, juarez, mexico, hands of love, and it goes on and on and on. . he does this for the simplicity of going into bulgaria where those fleeing from the oppression of syria were in camps that were not ready for humankind. because of his frustration and because of his heart, decided to look for a hotel that he

could lease to move some of these desperate syrian refugees already oppressed, already having lost loved ones to hotels with clean running water, places for their family to be. as i chatted with him i was moved by the story of a family of 17. didn't think anything about it. to move them out of a room smaller than a classroom and to give them space in this hotel so they could live in dignity. maybe think about going back to a syria that is free of oppression and devastation. so it is good with his roots in our neighboring country, canada, he came here to the united states to make a difference. i'm delighted today to recognize mr. hank berry for his humanitarian service to all of the world and to be able to say to him well done in life, continue to serve and save others. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, for five minutes. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, it's been said there's nothing that's wrong in america that can't be fixed by what's right in america. now, clearly there are very significant difficulties in this body. there is turmoil in our health care system. the paralysis in washington, the sluggish economy, our fractured culture are all lending themselves to a deeper meaning, for ideals, for something to cling to. mr. speaker, we are quite fortunate where i live in nebraska to maintain a strong tradition and connection to the past which gives guidance to the time in which we live. but we don't often reflect upon our strength, and in the final analysis, it really is this. it's our land, it's our people and it's our values. recently in the heart of farm

country, i had the pleasure of speaking with very attentive and engaged high school students eager to discuss the issues before our nation. we discussed the proud history of our country, the declaration of independence, the debates that will define us as to where we'll impas a country. go as ker, in -- we'll a country. as americans are more and more removed from farm life, we don't think about the contribution that rural life makes to the country as a whole. production agriculture remains a key strength of america's economy, and exciting new opportunities are also emerging. expanding domestic food markets such as those for natural and and organic foods provide new opportunities for new farmers. there is a new biobased economy

which turns corn cobs into pop bottles and bringing about a new kind of american manufacturing based upon the resources of rural communities. another notable point is this, mr. speaker. young men and women from rural areas of america serve in the military and much more significant -- in much more significant numbers. farm policy has an important role in growing new opportunities in rural america. mr. speaker, we need to pass a farm bill. the arduous process of reconciling the house and senate versions of the legislation is now taking place, but it is important for all americans to understand that the farm bill is not just about farms or food but it is also a jobs bill, a trade bill, an energy bill, a conservation bill and even a national security bill. one out of every 12 jobs in the united states is related to agriculture.

in the house version of the bill, i strongly support initiatives that help beginning farmers and ranchers start their agricultural operations. i support initiatives to promote the development of local food markets, tighten payment limitations and enact reasonable reforms to the snap program while also protecting those with food security needs. i'm hopeful that the final bill written will retain the important reforms that actually help save taxpayer money and ensure farmers receive important risk management tools. mr. speaker, a recent university of nebraska survey showed that a majority of students desire to move home to their rural hometowns given the right opportunity to provide for themselves and raise a family. in recent years, our state, through hard work, personal responsibility and responsible governance has distinguished itself as an ideal place to live and to work and to raise a family. more than any one piece of legislation, these are the

deeper values that we need to nurture and protect. those of us in farm country have a great story to tell. we have the resources and sensible stewardship to use them responsibly. we have a great tradition of values that keeps us tethered to an honorable past which also serves as a guide for the future. and mr. speaker, i believe this will help america find her way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, over the last several months, stories about ad economic problems in the territory of puerto rico. it has generated anxiety for individuals and institutions that have invested in puerto rico's bonds and have cost

island residents to relocate to the 50 states in unprecedented numbers. the statistics are staggering. in recent years, puerto rico's population has fallen by more than 4% while the number of puerto ricans living in the states have increased by over 45%. as puerto rico's representative in congress, it pains me to read the island's troubles especially i know my constituents are just as capable and industryous as any other person in other jurisdictions. puerto rico has enormous potential, but the reality is this potential is not being fulfilled. although the island's problems have certainly grown worse in recent months, it's difficult for policymakers and the american public to understand that these problems are not of recent. to the contrary, at least four

decades, puerto rico's quality of life on the island has been far worse than any state, according to every indicators, including unemployment, average household income and the ratio of government debt to economic production. in other words, puerto rico's difficulties have endured in more or less the same form, regardless of who holds power in washington and san juan and irrespective of the policies they formulate. to be sure, fiscal mismanagement at the local level and insufficient attention at the federal level have both been factors contributed to puerto rico's problems, but the record clearly establishes that they're not the main factor. what then is the principal source of puerto rico's long standing woes? in an recent editorial, "the washington post" correctly identified the culprit, noting that the territory's economic problems are structural. traceable or ultimately to its

modeled political status. curiously, "the post" then asserted, there will be time enough to debate the status issue later and puerto rico, for the time being, should concentrate on fixing its finances. in a letter to "post" editor, this is like a doctor recommending a medicine to alleviate a patient's symptoms but doing nothing to treat the underlying disease. as long as puerto rico remains a territory, denied federal spending and tax credit programs, forced to borrow heavily to make up the difference and not being able to vote for president and congressman who make laws, they'll manage rather than surmount its economic problems. this is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from decades of empirical evidence. a majority of my constituents understand this which is why they voted to reject territory

status in a referendum held one year ago. the obama administration recognizes this as well, which is why it proposed the first federally sponsored status vote in puerto rico's history to resolve the issue once and for all. and finally, members of congress, from both bodies, comprehend this which is why 125 of them have co-sponsored legislation i introduced that provides for an up or down vote in puerto rico on the territory's admission as a state and outlines the steps the federal government will take if a majority of voters favor admission. there are many reasons to oppose puerto rico's territory status, which is unequal, undemocratic and un-american. one of the most important reasons why puerto rico must discard this status in favor of either statehood or nationhood is because the current status has failed and will continue to fail to provide the island's 3.6 million american citizens

with the economic opportunities and the quality of life they deserve. those who refuse to acknowledge this fundamental truth for ideological reasons are doing a great disservice to the people of puerto rico. they are on the wrong side of history. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. hompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, there's been much documented and published about the problems resulting from the affordable care act. millions of americans are waking up to the cancellation of health insurance policies and -- that they've depended on to meet their family's needs at an affordable price. skyrocketing premiums and deductible increases under the pressures of paying for coverage mandates that they do not want, they cannot afford and even have -- may have a moral objection to.

the one area that's received hoe attention so far in this debate is what the impact will be on our hospitals where much of the needed health care is provided by caring and competent professionals. now, as a health care professional that served in rural hospitals for nearly 30 years as a therapist and manager, i'm confident that the future of rural and underserved urban hospitals is not good under the pressures and the mandates of obamacare. while some point tens of millions of americans who have some type of coverage, a plus for the bottom line of hospitals, i would encourage a closer and more thoughtful look. first, the c.b.o. has estimated that even after full implementation, there will still be tens of millions of americans uninsured. based on the current reports from across america, this may include a lot of middle-class americans who find themselves for the first time unable to afford what obamacare has dictated. for a hospital, that ensures

the continuation of bad debt and charity care that hampers their balance sheets. for lower income individuals, now that has expanded medical insurance, hospitals will be paid 40 cents to 60 cents for every dollar of care they provide, not exactly a sustainible margin and more accurately a pathway to bankruptcy for hospitals when coupled with the new found population of uninsured. mixed in with the cost of commines that will be rolling out from the obama administration of the approximately 130 new regulatory agencies founded under the obamacare legislation. today, the cost of compliance with government mandates, including medicare billing and hipaa, just those two, account for a significant part of any hospital's overhead expenses. multiply this by 100, yet -- under the yet to be administered mandates and cost of care that will have a dramatic increase just to keep the doors open and lights on for every hospital. the human resources costs of providing health care coverage

for hospitals whose number one asset is a qualified and trained employee will increase as the obamacare employer mandate is finally implemented just a year from now. finally consider the fees or taxes imposed on hospitals in 2014. just weeks away. earlier this week, a hospital c.e.o. from my congressional district reported that, quote, we're going to have to pay close to $200,000 next year as will every hospital, end quote. hospitals will see other various fees, including a $5,000 levy so the government can do research on the effectiveness of hospitals working within the plan. additionally, hospitals will pay a $19,500 health insurers fee and a -- another fee that will protect insurance companies against the risk of winding up with additional high-risk customers. these are added cost to hospitals that we rely on for the access to health care. i have to wonder what now is so

affordable about the affordable care act. bankrupt hospitals serve no one. americans deserve better. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, for five minutes. ms. delauro: 27 years ago i was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. i was lucky. i had excellent doctors who detected the cancer by chance in stage one. i underwent radiation treatment for 2 1/2 months. and because of the grace of god and biomedical research, i stand here today and i am rtunate to say that i have been cancer free ever since.

i can tell you for a fact that access to preventive health care saved my life. if my ovarian cancer had not been diagnosed and caught in stage one, i might not be here today. but many women are not so lucky. over 15,000 die every year from ovarian cancer. and while i survived by that off chance of luck in that diagnosis, no one, no one hould have to survive by luck, which is why my democratic

colleagues and i worked hard, we worked very hard to make re that prevention and wellness are such a critical part of the affordable care act , and before we passed this transformative piece of legislation, one in five women over age 50 had not had a mammogram in the past two years , mostly because they could not afford one. now mammograms are covered, they are covered for all americans with no out-of-pocket costs. o are annual checkups, colonoscopies, diabetes, and other cancer screenings at no

cost. let me repeat that, they are the beneficiaries of lifesaving .reatments, preventive care this not only helps to keep americans healthier, it also helps to drive down the cost of health care so that people can get access to the services that they need, chronic and often preventable diseases such as heart disease and diabetes cause seven out of 10 deaths in the united states of america. and they account for 75% of our health spending. preventive care can help americans avoid these ailments or catch them before it is too late. that is what the affordable care act does.

that's what the people of this country need to know that their countless story after story after story of people's lives being saved because they have a opportunity to get treatment or a -- something that says you may be at risk for a particular disease and you can get that identification not by luck, not by luck but as a routine checkup. no one in the united states of america should survive by luck. now we have an opportunity through the affordable care act, which is the law of the and today, to make sure that everyone, man and woman, can get those services. so if you expand access to

preventive health, it drives the cost down, but most importantly, it saves lives. isn't that worth doing is to be able to save someone's life? that's what the affordable care act is all about and it is just one of the many ways that it is good for men, for women, for families in this nation. and it's good for america to move in this direction. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you. mr. speaker, so, here's a "jeopardy" he question for you. how many days is the republican majority now overdue in getting its work done to produce a udget for the nation for 2014?

our nation needs a budget to operate the government of the united states for the upcoming year. by law april 15 was the deadline by which the budget was to have been completed. but that hasn't happened. now it's december 4, so that means that their bill is 234 days overdue. in fact, technically the federal fiscal year began october 1. the majority's bill is actually seven months and 20 days overdue. a parking ticket that old might land you in jail. not making your car payments for seven months might likely result in your car being repossessed. right? the budget committee is supposed to finish its one

bill, one bill by april 15, but they just can't seem to find a way to do it. then if they were to have done that, the appropriations committee, which depends on the budget committee for a total budget number, could get its work done to produce not just mandated bills it is to move through passage to run the federal departments of the government of the united states of america. everything from the forest service to veterans clinics, to the social security administration, department after department. the american people are waiting for this house, led by the republican majority, to get the job done of producing the 2014 budget. america doesn't need anymore

beauty pictures of committee chairs prancing and posturing in front of cameras. they need to go into the committee rooms and get the work done. the majority is 234 days overdue tomorrow it will be 235 days overdue. my goodness, there are only 26 days left in this calendar year . even santa claus must be shaking his head in disbelief. talk about running the ship of state aground, let the majority produce the budget bill. it's way over time. don't hold up our republic anymore. you're 234 days overdue, and we are all counting. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, for five minutes. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to implore you and the house majority to reach across the aisle to find common ground, to reach out their hands and to fix our broken immigration system. mr. speaker, last summer republicans and democrats in the senate came together and passed comprehensive immigration reform with a strong bipartisan vote, a vote of 68 to 32. 68-32. that's like a superduper majority. in fact, one poll last month showed that 63% of americans, 2/3 of americans, support a

path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. business leaders, chambers of commerce, labor unions, faith groups, immigrant families, law enforcement officials, and americans of every race, creed, color, and ethnicity all across our country applauded our senators for reaching across the aisle. for many it really gave hope and belief in our government that we are still capable of putting aside political posturing and to build consensus around the difficult issues that face our country. but today as i speak americans are asking, what happened? they are confused as to why the house of representatives can't do the same thing that the senate did and pass immigration reform. they are even more confused as to why the house can't even dignify the issue with a simple

up or down vote. and those people have not gone away, mr. speaker, oh, no. in fact, today the call to action is still as loud and clear as it has ever been. just yesterday i visited the fast for families movement on the national mall where faith leaders have actually been fasting for 22 days, 22 days with no food. some were hospitalized, to safely break the fast per the doctor's orders, but others pressed on. replacement fasters stepped up, including our own representative kennedy who, in the lega siff his grandfather, bobby -- legacy of his grandfather, bobby, acknowledged the need to embrace the immigrant issue. so i ask my colleagues in the majority on the other side of

the aisle, what are we waiting for? our job creators want reform. our work force wants it. our spiritual leaders say it's the right thing to do. and overwhelmingly so do the american people. the facts are so clear that reform will tremendously benefit all of our country. in fact, the congressional budget office has followed the money and they estimate that immigration reform will increase gross domestic product $700 billion in 2023, and $1.4 trillion in 2033. but here we are today facing government shutdowns and sequester levels that eviscerate services so that many vulnerable americans rely on and this is where we are stuck. it's been five months, five months since the senate passed their bill, and yet we have only six days scheduled until

the end of the year, and we haven't had one serious vote on immigration reform. americans have put their differences aside for the common good of our country and they expect us to do the same thing in this our beloved democracy. once again i want to reiterate that i stand here ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to move our country forward, and i applaud my brave colleagues on the other side that have already taken a stand and put politics aside, and i encourage more of my colleagues to answer that calling and meet us halfway. the american people are fed up with the status quo and gridlock here in washington. let's come together and strengthen our business, our economy, our work force, and our families. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. bustos, for five minutes. mrs. bustos: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about a piece of legislation i will be introducing that will help put our brave veterans back to work in good-paying jobs in the communities across our country. it is called the jobs for heroes act. good for vets and good for the economy. it would extend and expand two tax credits for businesses that prioritize hiring veterans. both of these tax credits are set to expire at the end of the month without congressional action. the time to act is now. last month i traveled to all corners of my district to meet with local veterans to listen to their priorities and to their concerns. i also hosted an economic summit attended by roughly 200 people who i am here to serve. this was all about jobs and all about the economy.

and this is also about our veterans. making sure veterans have access to good-paying jobs came up everywhere i went, from rock island to rockford, and literally everywhere i went. legislation to help prioritize the hiring of veterans is especially crucial due to the high unemployment rate of young veterans. veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 have an unemployment rate of more than 20%. that's 5% higher than nonveterans of the same age. that is absolutely shameful. i hope all members of congress will join me in supporting my commonsense bill to help put veterans back to work and to making sure that those who have served always remain a priority. good for veterans, good for the economy and good for america. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell, for five minutes. mr. speaker, today i rise to recognize sergeant first class jason manila who won the commissioner of the year during the armies' competition. jason is from my district in fremont, california and recently moved within my district to hayward, california. the army's best warrior competition is a three-day event that test the soldier's physical and mental toughness. sergeant manila is the first-ever reservist to win this prestigious army-wide title. sergeant manila is a member of battalion. 445th

and while serving in afghanistan in 2012, sergeant manila had his convoy attacked, and while it was attacked it left him with a traumatic brain injury. sergeant manila's story is one of hope and the power of resilience. as part of sergeant manila's recovery, he focused on training for the army's best warrior competition. back in august of this year, i had the opportunity to visit afghanistan. i was able to meet with soldiers, men and women serving from california's 15th congressional district. over in afghanistan, i saw firsthand what our men and women in the armed services endure each day to make sure that we rid afghanistan as a breeding ground for terrorism and make sure that never again the united states is attacked from enemies created abroad. i'm very thankful for those like sergeant manila and those i met in afghanistan, and i know that operation enduring

freedom has led to thousands of americans being wounded, who served over in afghanistan and are healing today back home on their own path to recovery. sergeant manila's story is truly one that is uplifting for every soldier, man and woman, who is recovering. congratulations, again, to sergeant manila. your strength, your determination and your character is an inspiration to thousands of other wounded men and women of our armed services. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. speaker, the house judiciary committee yesterday raised the overarching question of our generation. will the american constitution stand? all the laws passed under that constitution have elaborate

enforcement mechanisms backed by armed force, but the constitution itself has no enforcement mechanism. it was designed to be internally self-enforcing with the powers of government clearly divided among three separate and equal branches of government. but this self-enforcement mechanism can only work when the powers are evenly divided, when those who exercise those powers are devoted to the constitution and when the merican people insist on it. that is the great question for our generation. are we allowing the constitution to disintegrate before our eyes? the constitution makes very clear that only congress may make laws and that the principle responsibility of the executive is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. yet, the executive branch is increasingly asserted sweeping powers to unilaterally nullify

laws that it dislikes, to pick and choose who must obey the law and who need not and even to impose entirely new laws that congress has explicitly refused to enact. james madison, the father of the constitution, said that the single most important feature was giving the legislative and not the executive branch the decision over war or peace. yet, the executive now asserts the authority to attack other nations without congressional authorization. the bill of rights protect every american from retributions, for expressing their political beliefs. it protects a free press from intimidation. it protects the free and open expression of religious beliefs. it protects the means of individuals to protect themselves and their freedom. it protects every individual from having their records searched or their properties seized without due process of law. and yet these fundamental rights have been made a mockery by the agents of this administration, from the i.r.s.

to the justice department to the n.s.a. the -- this began long before this administration but under this administration it has become a crisis. all this, we're told, is for the common good. well, it wouldn't be the first civilization to succumb to the song of a benevolent and all-powerful government, but every society that's fallen for this lie is awakened one morning to discover that the benevolence is gone and that the all-power government is still there. much of this structure of the american constitution that has preserved our liberty for 225 years, that has contained the unwarded expansion of governmental power and has preserved the natural and individual rights of every citizen has been allowed to decay. the form is still there, the institutions continue to function, but they no longer serve their principal role to protect the rule of law and the liberty of the people.

here in this capitol, we're surrounded by the symbols of the roman republic. they should be a warning to us. the roman senate continued to exist 400 years after the fall of the republic, but its nature and purpose had become empty. chairman goodlatte quoted gibbon yesterday who observed that the principles of a free constitution are irref kabully lost when the legislative power is dominated by the executive. that is precisely what is happening. the institutions of our american republic continue to operate, but the structures within it are rapidly degrading. in this condition, our constitution is becoming like a rotting porch. we can still discern its form and purpose, but the structure that gave it strength and support is hallowing out through years of abuse and neglect until one day it will simply collapse. the judiciary committee hearing yesterday was the first step by congress to assess the harm already done and to begin reversing that damage before

it's too late. but i must warn that in its current divided condition congress cannot do so alone. ultimately it will require the active assistance of the rightful owners of that constitution, the american people. how ironic it would be if the liberties of this nation, heroically defended by nine generations of americans on far off battlefields might be carelessly thrown away here at home. let that not be said about our generation. let it be said instead just when our constitution seemed most in peril this generation rows up, insist -- rose up, insisted on the constitution by those elected and then went on to revive, restore and preserve that constitution for the many generations of americans who followed. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house noon today.til

you can watch that hearing live, the veterans' affairs subcommittee, at 3:00 eastern on c-span2. at the white house today in just a few minutes, president obama is expected to be talking about the economy, reiterating his call for raising the minimum wage. he's speaking at an event at the center for american progress. we'll have that live for you once it gets under way here on c-span. >> friday on c-span -- "washington journal" looks at the mission and role of the national institutes of health starting live at 7:00 eastern with director francis collins on future projects and the impact of sequestration. at 8:00, allergy and infectious disease anthony fauci followed by director green, director of the human genome institute. at 9:00, national institutes

director harold varmus and at 9:30, a look at the national institutes of mental health with dr. thomas insel live on c-span. >> we'll have president obama talking about the economy coming up in a few minutes. it's scheduled for 11:15 a.m. eastern. until then, some house republican reaction to discussions on the iran nuclear program. host: congressman, let me begin with the iran nuclear deal. in "the washington post" this morning, this is how they begin their story. host: which do you think it is? guest: i don't think anything

has changed. i think those probably completely wrong. i think iran will be doing what it has been doing for the last decade, keep enritching. if they stop short enritching to a nuclear capability, they'll be building up their ballistic missiles and their ability to reach out further and further and hit southeast europe and hit different parts of israel. so even if they stop their -- the enrichment capability just short of what's permissible under this new deal, they'll be able to spread to that in a month or two and arm their ballistic weapons which they're still making in droves. so i don't think this does anything, frankly, except give them kind of a leg up and some cover in the international community. that's what this is doing, in my opinion. i don't think it's going to be a -- we're not going towards a safer world because they're not actually having to do anything with this deal yet. in fact, nothing starts until six months out in this deal. so i don't think this is a good

deal for the united states or for the rest of the free world. host: what about it don't you like? what would you change? comboip it doesn't make them change. i would make them show us they stopped everything. put them to the iaea, to us, the rushesans, whatever international partners want to go in and stop building centrifuges and stop enritching. then at that point, once all that is verified, then you say, ok, we're going to lower those sanctions. you don't lower the sanctions first and just pray iran will do the right thing for once in my generation because they proved over and over the last 30, 40 years they don't do the right thing ever. why assume this time? it seems like it would be folly and almost ridiculous to think they're going to be different this team just because when over the last generation they haven't been -- they haven't been honest, trustworthy and haven't done what they said they're going to do. host: congressman meeks, gregory meeks of new york,

democrat, who sits on the foreign affairs committee, was on the show yesterday and is in favor of this deal. i want to show you what he had to say and get your reaction. >> i think when you look at the agreement in its totality and how it was negotiated, clearly with the transparency that has never happened before and where we would be had we not had this agreement. see, if this agreement was in place it wouldn't stop iran from continuing to enrich and move toward a nuclear weapon. this agreement stops that. so that's significant. and in return, we're not removing the sanctions that was placed on iran by the congress. we're talking about really iran billion and d $8 $9 billion primarily for humanitarian and medicine purposes which is minuscule compared to the oil sanctions

continue and iran continues to lose $30 billion, $40 billion. so the $8 billion or $9 billion of relief they get is nothing in comparison to the continued sanctions that is placed upon them. host: congressman, your thoughts? guest: with all due respect to congressman meeks, the state department actually said, jim said the next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at working levels so we can tee up the implementation of the agreement. obviously once that's done, those technical discussions are worked through, i guess the clock would start. meaning there is no deal right now. there is -- iran is having to do absolutely nothing. america and our international partners are giving them stuff right now, giving them sanctions and nice to them and overturs. they are doing nothing. iran is still enriching. iran is still building ballistic missiles and the ability to launch their nuclear

capability. and once again, even if they stop enritching right now, that doesn't mean within two months when their supreme ayatollah says we want nuclear capability, it takes them a month and a half to get there, it's not unacceptable. it shouldn't be acceptable to israel and the rest of the international community. host: you write -- host: you go on to say -- to think of iran as any differently than what happened in north korea would be foolish. explain. guest: absolutely. iran i think is a much more dangerous foe. north korea has china to keep it in check. they have russia to some extent. south korea. north korea is kept in check, you hope, by china, economically and wanting a peaceful resolution.

iran doesn't have that. there is no check on iran. there is no india-pakistan check. iran has no check but the united states and those sanctions right now because there is no -- there is no country there besides israel in that community that has -- that has or will have the same nuclear capability. to be frank, with iran's government the way that it is, driven by radical extremist muslims, that's different from a self-preservation mindset that north korea has and kind of the old soviet model, that's different from iran's government. when you have them sponsoring terrorism, that hasn't stopped right now. they're still sponsoring terrorism, syria, iraq, all over. these sanctions do nothing towards that meaning iran hasn't changed at all and there is no check on them. that's why i think they're more dangerous. when you will you a blow yourself up for your god, that makes you more dangerous than the sense of self-preservation

that most people in most countries have. that makes them easier and pretty much -- i would say they're more honest. other countries are in wanting to stay alive. i don't think the iranians have that. a lot of folks i saw in afghanistan and iraq when i was over there, they don't have that sense of self-preservation. they don't mind-blowing themselves up. they don't mind strapping bombs onto kids. host: congressman, after the september 11 attacks in 2001, quit his job, joined the marine corps and served in iraq. how many times? guest: twice in iraq. host: where? guest: where babylon is in 2003. and the first battle of fallujah in 2004 and afghanistan in 2007. host: do you think war with iran is inevitable? guest: i sure as hell hope not. let's put it that way. i think a ground war in iran with american boots on the ground would be a horrible thing.

i think people like to toss around the fact that we have to stop them in some way from giving them this nuclear capability. i think it's inevitable. if you hit iran, do you it with tactical nuclear devices and set them back a decade or two or three. that's what you do with a massive aerial bombardment campaign but that's still a huge undertaking. it would cost billions and billions of dollars to do it. no, i don't think especially after iraq and afghanistan, i think america now knows its limitations in that area and what we can do. do we want to spend 20 years there after we tear it down to build it back up again so it's not ran by a crazy tyrannical leader what happened in iraq and afghanistan again? you have crazy guys running things there. what we've set it up have played a role in those countries not being great actors still. host: the phones are lighting up. we'll get to our first phone call in a second. congressional action on this,

secretary of state john kerry, the white house has asked members of congress not to go ahead and vote on a new round of sanctions against iran. secretary of state is going to testify next week before the house foreign affairs committee. will congress wait until after he testifies? guest: congress should not wait. i think what you have in the administration in this bubble which exists in congress and in the administration, too, i think they are so in love with the idea of just saying they did something here, whether it works or not, that they're blind to the reality. and so i think we should proceed with sanctions. let the iranians know this is not an american deal with them. this is a kerry-obama deal with them and that the rest of congress is not behind them. i think the senators, too, that the u.s. senate, they still want to impose sanctions as well. this is going to be very hard for them to say, ok, we're just going to trust iran and hope they do the right thing for the first time in 40 years and we'll see what happens. host: william is up first in athens, ohio, democratic caller.

hi, william. caller: hi. congress, the evidence that the world trade center building seven was brought down with explosives on 9/11 is real and proven. more and more people are waking up to it every day. how much more trust does congress have to lose before it faces reality and acknowledges the need for a new investigation into building seven's destruction? guest: i don't think it needs any more investigation. i think the way that those towers were brought down by islamic radical terrorists and i think every investigation has shown that so far. host: did you read the 9/11 investigation by the committee? guest: no. host: you think it was adequate enough? guest: yeah, i think so. host: lake placid, independent caller. caller: good morning, representative hunter. i remember in the past, president clinton, he was dealing with china. they were having a problem with their missiles and their launch pads, getting off the launch pads and their guidance

systems. after they made deals with clinton, it appeared that clinton sold them or gave them a guidance system for their icbm's and they were able to successfully launch their icbm's with accuracy. it wasn't long after that, just a few months after that that their minister of war was threatening the united states over taiwan. also, you got to remember when madeleine albright went to north korea and dealt with over eader at that time -- it was nuclear power plant and supposedly they wanted nuclear -- they wanted uranium for the nuclear power plant. they took that uranium and they refined it and they made it into a nuclear weapon. they also got missile systems

from china. i do not trust this administration dealing with iran at all. i think we'll come out on the losing end of it. host: ok. congressman. guest: i agree. host: why, explain. guest: because all the things he said i basically said the same thing. host: american hero tweets in this -- why don't you lower the sanctions first? as a gesture, you can put the sanctions back, can't you? guest: yeah. it's harder that way. once you let the monkeys out of the barrel here, you'll have iran getting into opec now. they'll have to make room for them producing oil. it's going to let the iranians know, hey, we're going to reward you for being bad. and whether you raise kids or anything like that, you know you don't reward bad behavior. you reward good behavior. why do anything when the behavior has only been bad until this point? i don't understand the logic. once again, it seems like total

folly to believe iran will act totally differently than it's ever acted before in the last 40 years. i think that's just kind of silly to believe that they're going to change all of a sudden just because. i don't think it's going to happen. host: so the new round of sanctions -- guest: we have to deal with the world the way it is, not the way we would like it to be. we know the iranians are bad actors. we have to keep that in mind. we have been burned. if you go back during the cold war, we have been burned by trusting that the people that we're negotiating with are negotiating in good faith like we are. not everybody's america. not everybody has that honesty or integrity, transparency that we have in this country and whether you're talking about the soviet union and china and north korea, we've gotten burned over and over because we trust but don't verify. host: independence day, though, asks this -- congressman, is america prepared to lead by

example and destroy all of its refinement and enrichment hardware? guest: we are not a bad actor. america is not a sponsor of terrorism. iran is. host: christian is a democratic caller from oklahoma. caller: i will say, first of all, i cannot believe that this gentleman who was lied to when he went to iraq isn't more upset about bush and his administration sending and killing 2,300 of our soldiers, spending trillions of dollars, all right, basically bankrupting us. and then also think about the thousands of soldiers that are coming back maimed. but this guy wants to talk about, let's not give peace a chance. i would think you would talk to your buddy, issa, and find out why the bush administration sent you and your boys and friends over there without the proper body armament. and for you to sit up here and talk about being disingenuous,

look at what the republicans have done to the middle east in the last 10 years. another thing i'd like to say. like my brother said the other day, you guys always say that israel is our closest ally. how many israelis soldiers died in the afghanistan war? how many israeli soldiers died when we were over there or you were over there fighting in iraq? all right. we always talk about israel this, israel that. another thing, israel would not even join our coalition. remember, you republicans were making fun of president obama. oh, he can't have anybody follow or get in his coalition. if israel was our brothers, they should have been the first ones with our coalition. host: ok. we'll take that point, christian. guest: first thing, christian, with israel, we didn't want them in our coalition, as you say, because there's some problems between israel and palestine. it would make things more complex and we wouldn't have been able to get a lot of our partners and allies that we got in iraq and afghanistan if israel had been part of it.

i think israel understands that. at the same time, israel helped us throughout the wars in iraq and afghanistan with intelligence and other things like that. but putting them in the coalition and having israeli boots on the grounds in these countries i think would have more detriment than benefit. number two, president bush didn't kill any soldiers, marines or sailors. radical islamic terrorists did. i think we went into iraq for the right reasons. you know, we know now that assad has used this -- these chemical weapons that iraq had, that those iraqi chemical weapons went straight to syria and assad has had them sense. i think we went in there for the right reasons. i think we underestimated what we needed to do after the initial attack and after taking over the entire country what it would take to build it back up again. i think you see now -- i did two tours in iraq. a lot of my marine brothers lost their lives there or came

back wounded, as you say. because of this president we don't have a single soldier -- i think we have about -- between 50 and 100. we don't have a standing military presence in iraq right now. so iran is left unchecked by iraq. syria is left unchecked by iraq. and the 10 years we spent there now, we don't have anything to show for it. we don't have an oil deal, anything, because this president squandered what our military did for 10 long years in that war. host: want to get your thoughts on the impact this deal might have on peace in the middle east and that region. "the washington post" has a piece this morning that says, turkey, for example, a staunch backer of syria's rebels have joined iran. host: is that a positive outcome of this nuclear deal? guest: sure.

i don't think turkey wants iran to have a nuclear weapon either. these nations, they're either going to believe this and maybe they truly believe that iran has changed and they turned around and going to be really good right now. in that case they're hoping that they do so they don't have a nuclear neighbor. i don't think any of these nations want nuclear neighbors. i tell you what, if iran goes nuclear, saudi arabia goes nuclear, a lot of those gulf states go nuclear and they're going to do it very quickly. you're going to have a nuclear middle east. just take how combustible it is now prenuclearization and think of all these nations that have all this infighting and all of these civil wars and strife going on but then give them all nuclear weapons. that's going to happen if iran gets a nuke. because one country won't have them have one if they don't. you'll have a nuclear middle east. that's not safe for anybody. that can't be allowed to happen.

host: i think that answers this tweet from vivian that says -- it sounds like congressman duncan says that congress doesn't want peace in the middle east, doesn't want peace with iran. that's very odd. guest: once more, you have to be a realist on this. it's not about wanting peace. just because the united states wants peace doesn't doesn't happens. peace you have to look in the past 30 years and look how bad they acted and say are they going to change just like that or are they going to keep doing what they've been doing? and once again, if they get a nuclear weapon, every country in that area will have a nuclear weapon. and the question also comes, how far do you let them enrich? because president obama's plan with them, this deal allows them to enrich uranium to a certain point. it's only -- it only takes a few months to go from that point to nuclearization. so if that's where you want to have them where iran is two months away from having a nuclear weapon at all times, if that makes everybody happy,

then that's pretty scary. host: back to "the washington post." they also write this -- headline what do you think about this and explain it a little bit? guest: i think this administration likes to make friends with our past foes and kind of ignore our allies. i think this kind of plays into that. the saudis, not being the greatest country in the world -- >> "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we'll take you live now in washington, center for american progress is hosting president obama. he'll be speaking about the economy. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you so much. thank you.

thank you, everybody. please, please have a seat. thank you so much. well, thank you for the wonderful introduction and sharing a story that resonated with me. there were a lot of parallels in my life and probably resonated with some of you. over the past 10 years, the center for american progress has done incredible work to shape the debate over expanding community for all americans. i could not be more grateful to cap not only for giving me a lot of good policy ideas but also giving me a lot of staff. [laughter] my friend, john, padesta, ran my transition. my chief of staff, dennis, did a stinted cap. so you obviously are doing a good job training folks. i also want to thank all the members of congress and my administration who are here

today for the wonderful work that they do. i want to thank mayor gray and everyone here at the arc for having me. this center, which i've been to quite a bit and have had a chance to see some of the great work here, and all the nonprofits that call thearc home has everything from education, safe shelter from the streets, which means that your hardest thing, the power of community, to expand community for -- expand opportunity for folks here in d.c. and your work reflects a tradition that runs through our history. the belief that we're getter together than we are on our own. and that's what i've come here to talk about today. over the last two months, washington's been dominated by some pretty contentious debates. i think that's fair to say. and between a reckless shutdown by congressional republicans in an effort to repeal the

affordable care act and admittedly poor execution on my administration's part in implementing the latest stage of the new law, nobody's acquitted themselves these very past few months. so it's not surprising that the american people's frustrations with washington are at an all-time high. but we know that people's frustrations run deeper than these most recent political battles. their frustration is rooted in their own daily's battles, to make ends meet, to pay for college, buy a home, save for retirement. it's rooted in the nagging sense that no matter how hard they work, the deck is stacked against them. and it's rooted in the fear that their kids won't be better off than they were. they may not follow the constant back and forth in washington or all the policy

details, but they experience in very personal way the relentless decades' long trend that i want to spend some time talking about today and that is a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class america's basic bargain that if you work hard you'll have a chance to get ahead. i believe this is the defining challenge of our time. making sure our economy works for every working american. that's why i ran for president. it was the center of last year's campaign. it drives everything i do in this office, and i know i raised this issue before and some will ask why i raise the issue again right now. i do it because the outcomes of the debates we're having right now, whether it's health care

or the budget or reforming our housing and financial systems, all these things will have real practical implications for every american and i am convinced that the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an america where opportunity is real. now, the premise that we're all created equal is the opening line in the american story. and while we don't promise equal outcomes, we've strived to deliver equal opportunity. the idea that success doesn't depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. with every chapter we've added to that story, we've worked hard to put those words into practice. it was abraham lincoln, a self-described poor man's son

who started the system of land grant colleges all over this country so that any poor man's son could go learn something new. when farms gave way to factories, a rich man's son named teddy roosevelt fought for an eight-hour work day, protections for workers and busted monopolies that kept prices high and wages low. when millions lived in poverty, f.d.r. fought for social security and minimum wage. when millions died without health insurance, l.b.j. fought for medicare and medicaid. together we forged a new deal, declared a war on poverty and a great society. we built a ladder of opportunity to climb and stretched out a safety net beneath so if we fell it wouldn't be too far and we could bounce back. and as a result, america built

the largest middle class the world has ever known. and for the three decades after world war ii, it was the engine of our prosperity. now, we can't look at the past through rose colored glasses. the economy didn't always work for everyone. racial discrimination locked millions out of poverty -- out of opportunity. women were too often confined to a handful of often poorly paid professions, and it was only through painstaking struggle that more women and minorities and americans with disabilities began to win the right to more fairly and fully participate in the economy. nevertheless, during the post-world war ii years, the economic ground felt stable and secure for most americans. and the future looked brighter than the past. and for some that meant falling in your old man's footsteps at

the local plant and you knew that a blue-collar job would let you buy a home and a car, maybe a vacation once in a while, health care, a reliable pension. for others it meant going to college. in some cases maybe the first in your family to go to college. and it meant graduating without taking on loads of debt and being able to count on advancement through a vibrant job market. now, it's true that those at the top, even in those years, claimed a much larger share of income than the rest. the top 10% consistently took home about 1/3 of our national income. but that kind of inequality took place in a dynamic market economy where everyone's wages and incomes were growing. and because of upward mobility, the guy on the factory floor could picture his kid running the company someday.

but starting in the late 1970's, this social compact began to unravel. technology made it easier for ompanies to do more with less, eliminating certain job occupations. a more competitive world let companies ship jobs anywhere. as good manufacturing jobs automated or headed offshore, workers lost their leverage, jobs paid less and offered fewer benefits. as values of communities broke down and competitive pressure increased, businesses lobbied washington to weaken unions and the value of the minimum wage. as a trickle down ideology became more prominent, taxes were slashed for the wealthiest while investments in things that make us all richer like schools and infrastructure,

were allowed to wither. and for a certain period of time, we could ignore this weakening economic foundation in part because more families were relying on two earners, as women entered the work force. we took on more debt financed by a juiced up housing market. but when the music stopped and crisis hit, -- and the result is an economy that's become profoundly unequal. and families that are more nsecure. since 1979, when i graduated from high school, our productivity is up by more than 90%. but the income of the typical family has increased by less than 8%.

since 1979, our economy has more than doubled in size. but most of that growth has flowed to a fortunate few. the top 10% no longer takes in 1/3 of our income. it now takes half. whereas in the past, the average c.e.o. made about 20 to 30 times of the average income of the worker, now it is more. meanwhile, a family in the top 1% has a net worth 288 times higher than the typical family which is a record for this country. so the basic bargain at the heart of our economy has frayed. in fact, this trend towards growing inequality is not unique to america's market economy. across the developed world, inequality has increased. some of you may have seen just

last week the pope himself spoke about this at eloquent length. how can it be, he wrote, that it's not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure but it is news when the stock market loses two points? but this increasing inequality is most pronounced in our country, and it challenges the very essence of who we are as a people. understand we've never begrudged success in america. we aspire to it. we admire folks who start new businesses, create jobs, invent the products that enrich our lives and we expect them to be rewarded handsomely for it. in fact, we've often accepted more income inequality than many other nations for one big reason -- because we were convinced that america is a

place even if you were born with nothing, with a little hard work, you can improve your situation over time and build something better to leave your kids. asselin cononce said, while we do -- as lincoln once said, while we do not impose war on the rich, we ask the humblest man a chance to get rich like everybody else. the problem is that alongside increased inequality we've seen diminished levels of upward mobility in recent years. has ld born in the top 20% three chance staying at the top. a child born in the bottom 20% has a chance of less than one in 20 chance of making it to the top. he's 10 times likelier to stay where he is. in fact, statistics show that not only our levels of income inequality rank countries like

jamaica and argentina, but that it is harder today for a child born here in america to improve her station in life than it is for children in most of our wealthy allies, countries like canada or germany or france. they have greater mobility than we do. not less. the idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on earth is heartbreaking enough, but the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care or a community at that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us. and it should compel us to action. we are a better country than this. so let me repeat. the combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the american dream, our way of life

and what we stand for around the globe. and it is not simply a moral claim that i'm making here. there are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility. for one thing, these trends are bad for our economy. one study finds that growth is more fragile and recessions are more frequent in countries with greater inequality. and that makes sense. when families have less to spend, that means businesses have fewer customers. and households rack up greater mortgage and credit card debt. meanwhile, concentrated wealth at the top is less likely to result in the kind of broadly based consumer spending that drives our economy and together with laxed regulation can contribute to speculative bubbles. and declining mobility are also bad for our families and social cohesion. not just because we tend to

trust our institutions less but studies show we actually tend to trust each other less when this is' greater inequality. and greater inequality is associated with less mobility between generations. that means it's not just temporary. the effects last. it creates a vicious cycle. for example, by the time she turns 3 years old, a child born hears 30 -income home million fewer words than a child from a well-off family which means by the time she starts school she's already behind. and that deficit can compound tself over time. and finally, rising inequality and declining mobility are bad for our democracy. ordinary folks can't write massive campaign checks or hire high-priced lobbyists that tilt

the playing field in everyone's exspence so people get the -- expense so people gets the bad taste that the system is rigged and that increasing polarization and it decreases the political participation that is a requisite part of our system of self-government. so this is an issue that we have to tackle head on. and if in fact the majority of americans agree that our number one priority is to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for all americans, the question is, why has washington onsistently failed to act? i think a big reason is the myths developed around the issue of inequality. first, there's a myth that's restricted to a small share of

predominantly minority poor. this isn't a broad-based problem but a black problem or hispanic problem or native american problem. that's true that the painful legacy of discrimination means that african-americans, latinos, native americans are far more likely to suffer from a lack of opportunity. higher unemployment, higher poverty rates. it's also true that women still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. so we're going to need strong application of anti-discrimination. we're going to need immigration reform that grows the economy and takes people out of the shadows. we're going to need targeted initiatives to close those gaps. [applause] but here's an important point. the decades' long shift in the

economy have hurt all groups, poor and middle class, inner city and rural folks, men and women. and americans of all races. and as a consequence, some of the social patterns that contribute to declining mobility that were once attributed to the urban poor -- that's a particular problem for the inner city. single parent households or drug abuse or -- it turns out now we're seeing that pop up everywhere. a new study shows that disparities in education, mental health, obesity, absent fathers, isolation from church, isolation from community groups, these gaps are now as much about growing up rich or poor as they are about anything else.

the gap in test scores between poor kids and wealthy kids is now nearly twice what it is between white kids and black kids. kids with working class parents are 10 times likelier than are more likely to -- the fact is this, the opportunity gap in america is now as much about class as it is about race and that gap is growing. so if we're going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we've got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. and we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interest of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts. [applause]

second, we need to dispel the myth that the goals of growing the economy and reducing inequality are necessarily in conflict when they should actually work in concert. we know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out, when growth is more widely shared. and we know that beyond a certain level of inequality, growth actually slows altogether. third, we need to set aside the belief that government cannot do anything about reducing inequality. it's true that government cannot prevent all the downsize of the technological change and global competition that are out there right now, and some of those forces are also some of the things that are helping us grow. and it's also true that some

programs in the past, like welfare before it was reformed, were sometimes poorly designed, created disincentives to work, but we've also seen how government action time and again can make an enormous action and increasing opportunity and bolesering action into the middle -- bowlesering action into the middle class. laws establishing collective bargaining and the minimum wage, these all contributed to standards of living for a massive number of americans. likewise, when previous generations declared that every citizen of this country deserved a basic measure of security, the floor through which they could not fall, we helped millions of americans live in dignity. and gave millions more the confidence to aspire to something better by taking a isk on a great idea. without social security, nearly half of seniors would be living in poverty.

half. today fewer than one in 10 do. before medicare, only half of all seniors had some form of health insurance. today virtually all do. and because we've strengthened that safety net and expanded pro-work and pro-family tax credits like the earned income tax credit, a recent study found that the poverty rate has fallen below 30% since the 1960's. and that's endeavors didn't just make us a better country, they reaffirmed that we are a great country. so we can make a difference on this. in fact, that's our generation's task, to rebuild america's economic and civic foundation to continue the expansion of an opportunity for this generation and the next generation. and like -- [applause]

and i take this personally. i'm only here because this country educated my grandfather on the g.i. bill. when my father left and my mom hit hard times trying to raise my sister and me, this country made sure we didn't go hungry. when michelle, the daughter of a ship worker at a water plant and a secretary wanted to go to college, just like me, this country helped us afford it until we could pay it back. so it drives me as a grandson, a son, a father, as an american is to make sure that every striving, hardworking, optimistic kid in america has the same incredible chance that this country gave me. [applause]

it has been the driving force between everything we've done these past five years. and over the course of the next year and for the rest of my presidency, that's where you should expect us to focus all of our efforts. [applause] now, you'll be pleased to know this is not a state of the union address. [laughter] and many of the ideas that can make the biggest difference in expanding opportunity i presented before. but let me offer a few key principles, just a road map that i believe should guide us in both our legislative agenda and our administrative efforts. to begin with, we have to continue to relentlessly push a growth agenda. it may be true that in today's economy, growth alone does not guarantee higher wages and incomes. we've seen that. but what's also true is we

can't tackle inequality if the economic pie is shrinking or stagnant. the fact is if you're a progressive and you want to help the middle class and the working poor, you still got to be concerned about competitiveness and productivity and business confidence that spurs private sector investment. and that's why from day one we worked to get the economy growing and help our businesses hire. and thanks to their resilience and innovation, they created nearly eight million new jobs over the past 44 months. now we got to grow the economy even faster and we got to keep working to make america a mag nant for good middle -- mag nent for good middle class jobs for those that we lost, jobs in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure and technology. that means simplifying our corporate tax code in a way that closes wasteful loopholes nd ends incentives that ship jobs overseas. [applause] we can by broadening the base,

we can lower rates to encourage more companies to hire here and use some of the money we saved to create good jobs rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports and all the infrastructure our businesses need. it means a trade agenda that grows exports and works for the middle class. it means streamlining regulations that are outdated or unnecessary or too costly. and it means coming together around a responsible budget, one that fwrose our economy faster right now -- grows our economy faster right now and shrinks our long-term deficits, one that unwinds the harmful sequester cuts that haven't made a lot of sense. [applause] frees up eeze up -- scientific research that's always unleashed new innovation in industries. when it comes to our budget, we should not be stuck in a stale debate from two years ago or three years ago. a relentlessly growing deficit

of opportunity is a bigger threat to our future than our rapidly shrinking fiscal deficit. [applause] so that's step one towards restoring mobility. making sure our economy is growing faster. step two is making sure we empower more americans with the skills and education they need to compete in a highly competitive global economy. we know that education is the most important predictor of income today. so we launched a race to the top in our schools. we're supporting states that have raised standards for teaching and learning. we're pushing for redesigned high schools that graduate more kids with the technical training and apprenticeship and in-demand high tech skills that can lead to a good job and middle class life. we know it's harder -- >> you can continue to watch the president's comments live

on c-span.org. here on c-span, we will break away and take you live to the u.s. house. they're gaveling in for legislative work. this afternoon. and several votes expected throughout the afternoon. they're taking up a bill that would exempt most private equity firms from registering with the securities and exchange commission. we expect to hear from speaker boehner right at the top talking about some of the republican accomplishments during the 113th congress. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] in order. the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. father conroy: eternal god, once again we come to you to ask wisdom, patience, peace and understanding for the members of this people's house. give them the generosity of heart and the courage of true leadership, to work toward a common solution to the many issues facing our nation.

may they find the fortitude to make judgments to benefit all americans in their team of need. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. of pledge of allegiance today will be led by jeafment kansas, mrs. jenkins. mrs. jenkins: the pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republican for -- and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one minute d speeches on each side of the aisle. furpjafment south carolina rise? mr. wilson: meek, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute,

revise and extend my remarks. the president has broken multiple promises to the american people. constituents living in south carolina's second congressional district have lost their coverage and access to doctors because of the president's health care takeover which destroys jobs. and now citizens are seeing massive premium increases. james from lexington says, quote, my son got a letter from his employer informing him that his health insurance would increase $179 per month. 52% more than is he presently paying. he's a plumber and his wife works as a home health aide. now their dream of homeownership is highly unlikely. end of quote. mary was tireless, promoting limited government and advocating alternatives to obamacare. congress should work together to replace it with reforms, such as introduced by congressman tom price, which has been ignored by the media, which is failing to fulfill his first amendment opportunities. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget

september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, last month the president and c.e.o. of fedex freight spoke to the transportation league. he warned that our nation's roads, highways and bridges weren't equipped to handle future needs. the american society of civil engineers reports there are 69,000 structurally deficient bridges in this country, meaning that every second of every day seven cars drive on a bridge that is structurally deficient. and $3.6 trillion will be needed by 2020 to address our aging infrastructure. despite this, the most recent transportation bill passed by congress spends a pathetically weak $52 billion a year on infrastructure. companies like fedex understand the long-term benefits of efficient transportation of

people and goods. the u.s. chamber of commerce estimates that we will experience $336 billion in lost growth over the next five years due to inadequate infrastructure. i urge my colleagues to understand the robust infrastructure investment not only creates jobs but promotes pro-business policies that sustain and produce economic growth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, the speaker, seek recognition? the speaker: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the speaker: mr. speaker, the american people work hard and they've got a right to expect their elected representatives to do the same. house republicans are listening. to date the house has passed nearly 150 bills this congress that the united states senate has failed to act on. many of them would help our economy and boost job creation. nearly 150 bills passed by this house yet to be acted on by the senate. these bills would do things like increase the supply of

american energy and build the keystone pipeline, roll back red tape and unnecessary regulations, provide more flexibility to working families, reform and improve job trake programs, protect -- training programs, protect americans from cyberattacks, help schools recruit and keep the best teachers, allow the american people to keep the health care plans that they'd like or to scrap the health care law that's wreaking havoc on our economy. every single one of these bills have been blocked by washington democrats. the senate, the president continue to stand in the way of the people's priorities. now we're trying to come to an agreement on the budget and on the farm bill. amongst other issues that are in conference. chairman ryan and chairman lucas have made serious good-faith efforts to senate democrats. when will they learn to say yes to common ground? when will they start listening to the american people? i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the 250th anniversary of the synagogue in new port, rhode island, the oldest synagogue. dedicated in 1763, it has been a monument to the history of religious tolerance in rhode island. before construction even began, the design of the building was conceived as a balance between european architecture and tradition alk jewish worship. this became the symbol of the freedom to worship in peace in the 17th century and championed by roger wells. in 1790 in a letter reassuring the hebrew congregation, george washington famously declared the values of our nation at its stark pledging that the united states would, quote, give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. this weekend it was my honor to attend the rededication of the

synagogue which mains a testament of the enduring freedoms of our nation and the tradition of religious freedom that began in my home state and is now deeply embedded in the american experience. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas seek recognition? ms. jenkins: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is recognized for one minute. ms. jenkins: on november 20 during critical negotiations in geneva about tehran's nuclear program, iran's supreme leader tweeted this disturbing statement. israel is the sinister, unclean, rabid dog of the region. that same day he added, the united states and israel are a threat to the world and enemies that should be resisted. this is an iranian regime we are dealing with. they have ignored diplomatic efforts for years and they cannot be trusted. an interim deal might seem like

good news, but it does not make our nation or our allies in the middle east safer, especially when iran claims the agreement is a victory over the great aggressor, the west. this rhetoric leaves me skeptical that any progress has been made, and i encourage our leader and international partners to take the necessary measures to halt iran's nuclear program, not only for our own security but of that of our allies and democracies around the entire world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: jabe. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognize -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kelly: on sunday we celebrated rosa parks day. thursday, we observed the start of the montgomery bus boycott. and friday we commemorate the 148th anniversary of the 13th amendment which ended slavery. as we reflect on these historic

events, we see how far our nation has come in advancing equality for all americans. however, recent actions, like the supreme court's gutting the vote rights act, we have much more work to do. the truth is that voter discrimination and suppression live on today as ugly legacies of our past. in the past few years, many states have introduced legislation that would restrict access to a voting booth. these discriminatory actions prove that the protections in the voting rights act are still necessary its in our world today. so this week, as we remember the struggles and sacrifices made to ensure basic rights for all americans, i urge my colleagues to continue fighting to ensure no american is denied their right to vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the proposed endangered species act for the greater sage grass will impact millions of acres in colorado and hinder existing conservation efforts. it will put private lands off-limits to most use and development, including agricultural production without providing any compensation. mr. tipton: it will kill jobs, devastate communities and disrupt species preservation efforts currently under way. it won't preserve the grass. in my district, plans at the local level are under way to effectively preserve the supposies. because they take into account the unique geography and area of the region. these efforts are seeing success. interior department bureaucrats have yet to provide measurable species preservation goals so local officials can meet them. they are disrupted by federal attempts to have blanket

plants. these one-size-fits-all plans tie up resources that could be used for preservation. if the true goal is species preservation, i hope the secretary will see the work being done to preserve the sage grass and provide measurable species preservation goals. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> perm -- permission to dress and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. chapel hill tended and duke university. he's now a vice chair for veterans affairs at duke and he's dedicated himself wholly to our veterans and serving them our great state of north carolina. co-author the rational clinical

examine is a guide for patient exams and has become a powerful reference for those in the field of medicine. his commitment to his family, his students, his patients and to his veterans make him an exemplary citizen. mr. mcintyre: he'll continue to benefit our veterans and north arolinians in years to come. we thank him for his intelligence, compassion and selfless dedication. we pray that he and his family will receive god's richest blessings and we're thankful for role models like he serves in serving those who served our country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize farmington's commitment in the community's five-year anniversary as

minnesota's first yellow ribbon city. when i first championed legislation to make the minnesota national guard's invaluable yellow ribbon reintegration program available nationwide, one of the pillars of this was to increase awareness among local organizations to improve relationships between veterans and their communities. mr. speaker, the people of farmington understand the mportant role of community playing a role in our troops returning home. centered around relationships with neighbors, veterans organizations and local, state and federal leaders, farmington rallied by hosting monthly dinners for veterans and holiday cookie walks. you can't beat that. as their yellow ribbon organization grew and their efforts expanded, they recognized success and shared their best practices for other inspired communities, leaving their yellow ribbon fingerprint across the great state of minnesota. mr. speaker, i rise today not simply to recognize farmington

on this five-year anniversary but to thank the entire community for being the yellow ribbon trailblazer and their continued dedication. as they honor our sons and daughters in uniform, i'd like to honor them and i salute the entire community of farmington, minnesota, for helping with that noble cause. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute and to ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: during this holiday season, it appears that all that our fellow americans are hearing is a sense of pessimism. i want to rise to talk about the optimism of this nation and the great strides that we have made and particularly as it relates to our seniors. the affordable care act has taken the brunt of everybody's

criticism. my friends on the other side of the aisle are singing a broken record, not a christmas carol, but it is important to note that seniors have benefited. the affordable care act recognizes the financial burdens that seniors face. no group has been hit harder by soaring health care costs, but now under the affordable care act, seniors can have preventive care services without any co-pay, co-insurance or deductible, services like wellness visits, cholesterol and others. sing a good song. and yet we sing a negative song to those would are lining the streets for comprehensive immigration reform. the families who've been fasting have been suffering. let's sing a good song of the health care and do comprehensive immigration reform. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, when the president picks and chooses which laws to enforce, it undermines the foundations of our democracy. yesterday in the house judiciary committee, we held a hearing to examine the president's constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law. our founding fathers formed the structure of our government specifically so that none of the three branches could become too powerful. mr. holding: if we ignore our system of checks and balances, our government will become unstable and chaotic. mr. speaker, unfortunately this president and his administration have abused their executive power. president obama continues to violate his constitutional duty to enforce the laws and instead when and which laws to enforce. he has enforced laws and policies based on his preferences like making changes to our immigration system, our criminal code and his signature health care law. mr. speaker, neither the president nor any president should grant themselves

extraconstitutional authority to change laws they don't like. if the president himself does not follow the law, it sets a dangerous example. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. this holiday season my constituents vin speiered me by writing in -- my constituents have inspired me about writing in about food aid and the snap program. all of us here in congress have the luxury of knowing that we can provide our families with healthy food, but there are so many people in our country that will go this holiday without such a blessing. and sadly most of those in dire need are children. mrs. davis: and in fact 70% of all households that depend on snap are families with children. in my district, a 16-year-old girl named maya was hospitalized last year for issues related to malnutrition. she had struggled in school and

showed signs of depression. maya's hospitalization triggered her father to apply for snap benefits. and having a more reliable source of food gave maya the energy to improve her grades and help her family. she helps her family out now by getting a part-time job. and as we debate the farm bill, let's remember, let's remember that there are children like maya, and work together to protect snap. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor my fastest constituent, jimmie johnson, who recently won his sixth nascar sprint cup championship. in a remarkable display of teamwork, consistency and a burning desire to always improve, jimmie johnson won six nascar championships in the last eight years. more importantly, jimmy is a champion off the track.

since 2006, the jimmie johnson foundation has contributed more than $5 million to charity with a special focus on improving k-12 education in north carolina, oklahoma and california. mr. pittenger: in charlotte, jimmy is a supporter of -- jimmi sembings a supporter of project -- jimmie is a supporter of project lift, improving the graduation rate in some of charlotte's toughest neighborhoods. thank you, jimmie, for using your ontrack success to make a lasting impact in the lives of thousands of children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about the benefits of obamacare. dennis denbow, a 63-year-old constituent of mine, spoke to

our local newspaper to share his story. mr. denbow, who was laid off recently from his computer sales job, went to the california website and found that he and his wife will save $300 a month on a plan comparable to what they have now. a few weeks ago mr. denbow wrote to my office to tell me personally about his experience and how deeply he believes in america's ability to achieve great things. in his letter he said, we are americans, we can solve whatever issues or tactical challenges that come up in the implementation of a nationwide health care solution. we can make it efficient, cost-effective, accessible and a valuable service for all americans. i couldn't agree more, mr. denbow. the benefits of obamacare are real and this body should be concerned with finding ways to improve access to affordable health care instead of delaying and defunding. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i rise to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for unanimous consent to address the house? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate zealen west high school's football team on winning the 2013 division iii state championship on saturday, november 30, at ford field in detroit. the zealen ducks rushed for over 440 yards during the game, resulting in a 34-27 win over dewhich the. the ducks' 13-1 record this season is a testament to the players' dedication, hard work and self-sacrifice. in fact, the program itself has become an example of hard work and leadership. this is the ducks' third state title since the program's inception only nine years ago. mr. huizenga: mr. speaker, i'd be remiss if i didn't also congratulate the ducks' head coach, john shalito, and his

coaching staff for a job well done, not only on the field but off the field with his players as he leads them. again, congratulations to the ducks and we're very pleased to see this big win last saturday. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? does the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to highlight the positive impact the affordable care act is having in my home state of california. a woman by the name of melanie wrote the following letter to the "l.a. times." my daughter and i have been without health care for three years, following my loss of employer-provided insurance. in that period, i have paid handsomely for those times when my things were not sufficient and i had to seek the care of a very expensive doctor. ms. roybal-allard: i've been waiting eagerly for obamacare for the two of us since the law was enacted in 2010.

did i run into problems when i first tried to sign up in california? i did. did i persevere? i did. did i finally get through? i did. in january i'll be able to take care of a condition i've ignored for the last two years and my college-aged daughter will be covered as well. although the subsidies certainly help, i will be paying something for coverage we haven't had for years. to those who cry foul, i say, score. mr. speaker, i couldn't have said it better. the reality is that because of obamacare millions of vulnerable americans now score. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma seeks recognition, for what purpose? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last week we celebrated thanksgiving. we gathered with family and friends to thank god for his provision, his goodness and his mercy.

but for some families this thanksgiving was bittersweet. such was the case for senator inhofe's family. they lost their son parry in a tragic aviation accident on november 10. mr. parry inhofe, i should say dr. parry inhofe, was a highly skilled surgeon associated with central state's orthopedics in tulsa, oklahoma. david long, central state c.e.o., said that dr. inhofe was known as a very caring and compassionate physician. he was the kind of doctor who would make you feel you had his full attention and that your health was the most important thing to him. continuing an inhofe family that dirks parry loved flying with his children and teaching them about flying. mr. bridenstine: from what i understand he was a good pilot. dr. inhofe is survived by his wife, nancy, and two sons, glade and cole. i wish to express condolences to the whole inhofe family. i pray they will be comforted and strengthened by the fact that parry was a believer in the living christ. who said, i am the resurrection and the life. whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.

amen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for at purpose does -- what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. himes: mr. speaker, now that the notorious problems with the a.c.a. website, healthcare.gov, appear to be largely behind us, it's important that we cut through the partisan noise and lack at some facts. one fact is that in two days, sunday and monday alone, almost 30,000 americans have gone to healthcare.gov to sign up for health insurance. many of these families are families with pre-existing conditions that would have no way to get health insurance other than healthcare.gov and the a.c.a. in my own safety connecticut, with less than 1% of the american population, 22,000 families have signed up for health insurance. mr. speaker, from the president

on down, we were concerned by people losing their health care plans in the rather small individual market. but it is important for the american people to understand that when they hear the word repeal, what they need to understand is that repeal means that the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, the millions of americans who will get insurance because of the a.c.a. will lose it. millions of americans will lose their newfound insurance if this word repeal ever becomes law. that is not right and on that i think we should agree. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, it is with great pride that i rise today to honor corporal matthew hampton, an outstanding citizen of our community and a true american patriot. in recognition of his service to this country, matthew was recently awarded the 28th palmer veteran appreciation

award. following his graduation from grundy county high school, matthew volunteered for the united states marine corps and was deployed to iraq where he served as a helicopter crew chief and gunner. corporal hampton's exemp lara service as a devil dog is reflected in the commendations and decorations he received. mr. desantis: including the combat -- mr. desjarlais: including the combat medal. this recognition is a testament to the heroism and dedication to duty that marked his service in the united states marine corps. i along with a grateful nation congratulate him on receiving the palmer veteran award and thank him for his outstanding service to our nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to highlight how the affordable care act is already

helping thousands of breast cancer survivors and those with pre-existing conditions. in late 2007 i heard those terrible words, you have breast cancer. i underwent seven surgeries. but in some ways i was one of the fortunate ones because i had health insurance coverage. i've spoken to women who have foregone mammograms and even cancer treatment because the cost was simply too great to bare. now the affordable care act emphasizes prevention by making it possible for americans to get screenings like mammograms without a co-pay. it also finally end -- ends the egregious practice of denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions like high constituent, caroline, a survivor who will save $7,000 a year with an affordable plan thanks to the affordable care act she could save even more by shopping on the exchange. with the affordable care act making it possible for more women to access preventive services and not be denied coverage, we can work to eraid kate breast cancer once and for all -- eradicate breast cancer once and for all. thank you, i yield back the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? colorado. i apologize. >> the gentleman from colorado requests unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to tell a story of the montes family who live in my congressional district in colorado. they live in arvada, colorado, and because of the affordable care act, they will now be able to afford health insurance. this is a success story of the affordable care act in improving access to quality, aforbled health care. -- affordable health care. oth what you queen and rosalie mondays at the are employed. they have a daughter in college, a 13-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter. with rates ranging from $450 to $600 per month, purchasing private insurance was too expensive for the montes

family, especially with three kids, a house payment and a car payment. due to a constrained budget, the only time the kids were receiving health care was when they were, quote, really, really, really sick, and always at an urgent care center. one time after their daughter got e. coli, the montes family was stuck with a $17,000 hospital bill. thanks to the help of a navigator, they were able to get insurance through the affordable care act, which is a success for this nation and with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, december 13 is nine days away. this is part of that agreement when the c.r. was agreed to and the debt ceiling suspended.

the budget is the statement of the house and senate's values and priorities, and what has been agreed to by december 13. one of the things we must say, mr. speaker, at the very minimum is sequestration has to go. the c.b.o. says it will cost up to 1.6 million jobs if it's alound to stand. conversely, it -- allowed to stand. conversely, it will add 900,000 new jobs if it is gotten rid of. what sequestration has done is affected programs like head start, snap, programs at the national institutes of health, mental health issues, just to name a few, as well as our defense industry. there's no longer any room in these budgets to accommodate all of these expenses just to pay what we need to pay to keep these programs going.

that is why we have to say sequestration has got to go, and that is why the next nine days you'll hear more and more speak about sequestration and the fact that we must act on it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. moran: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: the safe climate caucus has brought to the house floor the reality and the ramifications of climate change. there was a recent report from three very reputable think tanks entitled "the arab spring" and "climate change." let me quote from a couple of the troubling and illuminating conclusions. a prolonged and severe drought during the winter of 2010 in china contributed to global

wheat shortages and skyrocketing bread prices in egypt, the largest wheat importer, and social economic, environmental changes in syria eroded the social contract between citizen and government, strengthening the case for the opposition movement and irreputablely damaging the assad regime. the office concluded that global warming may not have caused the arab spring, but it clearly made it come earlier. the stresses climate change is imposing on nations across the globe has severe consequences in the future. we have to address the reality and ramifications of climate change. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california, the minority leader, seek recognition? ms. pelosi: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to

revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: mr. speaker, today the president has put forth some conversation about the affordable care act that focuses especially on women's health. i'm absolutely delighted to come to the floor to address that issue. because of the affordable care act, and i hope that every woman in america understands this, being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition. as a mother of five children, four daughters and one son, i'm very excited about this. over the break i had the privilege of being at a meeting with some researchers on the subject of breast cancer in particular and they spent a good deal of the time telling us what the possibilities were for -- with research that should be funded and that's a budget issue on another subject but related here that we could remove this threat to women's health with proper research.

but they took time to say that one thing that was helping women with breast cancer more than anything was the affordable care act. that they would have access to care without having been discriminated against because of a pre-existing medical condition. no longer would they have annual or lifetime limits on the health insurance that they would receive. the least of the stress from all of that is a very healthy thing for people who have a diagnosis. so whether -- whatever it is, whether it's mammograms, as my colleague, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz so generously shared her story about her experience earlier, congresswoman delauro, hers and other members, the stories of their constituents, this is really very important. moms are the hubs of families. many of them fear this diagnosis. many families in america have been affected by it.

by the investment in research and the affordable care act, women have every reason to be hopeful that they can be prevented with early detection and not only early detection but regular detection and then on top of that, that if -- if they have that feared diagnosis, they will receive the care that they deserve. one other point i want to make -- because we all worship at the alter of biomedical research and what it means to our country and the thought we could be rid of breast cancer in a handful of years, we want to make sure that every woman in america and every person in america benefits from that research. the vehicle for that is the affordable care act. it stands right there with social security, with medicare, with affordable -- and that's the word -- affordable health care for all americans as a pillar of health and economic security for the american

people. today we focus on moms. we focus on women and say thank god no longer being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. new jersey ept: mr. speaker by the nt: mr. speaker, direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house -- resolved, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3309, to amend title 35, united states code, and the leahy-smith america invents act to make improvements and technical corrections, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-28. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2.

upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 1105, to amend the investment advisers act of 1940 to provide a registration exemption for private equity fund advisers, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-29 shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. two, the further amendment

printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by representative carolyn maloney of new york or her designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. and, three, one motion to recommit with or without nstructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: pending which time, i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule, house resolution 429. house resolution 429 provides the structured rule for both h.r. 3309, the innovation act, and h.r. 1105, the small business capital access and job preservation act. the rule gives the house the opportunity to debate a variety of important amendments offered by members on both sides of the aisle. the innovation act seeks to address a growing problem of abusive patent litigation, commonly known as patent trolling. patent trolls are a nonpracticing entity. in other words, they don't make or sell product and they don't supply services. instead, they exist to secure fees from businesses that use technologies covered by the patents they own. they do this by acquiring weak

patents and then patent intrainingment lawsuits or sending blanket demand letters to businesses. victims of these frivolous lawsuits are all too often small businesses or startups or ill equipped to protect themselves. they simply don't have the resources available to mount an adequate defense. it is by definition a lose-lose scenario for them. defendants pay millions in damages if they lose, and millions in legal fees if they win. more often, defendants are forced to settle despite the merits of a case in order to avoid expensive legal costs. meanwhile, patent trolls are aided by law firms that operate on contingency fees. this means a nonpracticing entity lose their case, there's no monetary consequence to them, none at all. they are not on the hook for legal fees like their counterparts are. as you can see for small companies, this system is inherently unfair.

our small businesses are our most important innovators in this country. they're largely responsible for new products and services we as consumers enjoy. they are also a critical factor in growing our economy and creating jobs. we should provide fairness to them by leveling the playing field in patent litigation process. we ought to ensure that our patent system isn't stifling innovation but encouraging it. unfortunately, this just isn't the case right now. patent trolling is a destructive practice that zaps resources from small businesses and increases costs for consumers and it is a negative impact isn't just limited to the tech sector either. patent trolling affects businesses and industries of all the like. even grossers. it's a drag on our economy.

this not only deserves to be debated by the house, this rule will ensure that a deliberative process takes place. the rule also allows for consideration of h.r. 1105, the small business capital access and job preservation act. this legislation would remove the requirement that small private equity firms register with the securities and exchange commission, the s.e.c. however, it would retain the option of registering if they so choose to. under current law, small private equity firms are being grouped with behemoths despite the fact they played no role and contributing role in the financial crisis we went through. even the chairman of the s.e.c. admitted that the private equity funds were not an underlying cause of the recent inancial crisis. private equity does not pose a systemic risk to the economy so why are we taking limited resources at the s.e.c. away from their mission, and

shifting them to overseas firms that pose no systemic risk at all? why are we burdening these small companies with s.e.c. registration, cost, according to the private equity growth council, can exceed over $1 million per year. more money in unnecessary compliance costs means less money to invest in companies, particularly newer ones, which allow them to grow and create the jobs we desperately -- desperately need. in my home state of florida, there are over 1,000 private equity-backed companies alone. there's over 100 private equity firms within the state of florida. these companies support more than 800,000 workers throughout the country. in fact, in 2012, florida ranked fifth in the nation in attracting private equity investments. that investment is a vital tool for growing companies and we

are needlessly handcuffing their ability to do just that. h.r. 1105 will help these smaller funds increase the capital available for real companies so their businesses can thriving. make no mistake, this -- thrive. make no mistake, thanks jobs bill, and it will help -- this is a jobs bill and it will help grow our economy. i support this rule that would allow us to consider these bills and i hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do the same. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chair. there's many things that my good friend from florida said that i agree with and i will be discussing some of the merits of these bills. but it is worthwhile to bring forward, before discussing what these bills are, what these bills are not. it has been 159 days and 14 hours since the senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. this body's failure to act on immigration reform has already

cost our economy nearly $6 billion. each additional day. each day that we delay action costs $37 million in revenue. hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. failure to secure the border. failure to restore the rule of law to our country. countless families torn apart. while the judiciary committee has found the time to move asbestos bills, patent reform bills to the floor with ease, immigration reform remains stagnant. the judiciary committee has reported out four immigration reform bills. the legal work force act, the agriculture guest workers act, the safe act and the skilled visas act it. reported these four bills out prior to the asbestos bill, which was rushed immediately to the floor, prior to the patent bill, which was rushed to the floor after a hearing in rules committee yesterday. my question to the gentleman from florida, and i'll be happy to yield to him for a moment,

is why we're giving such treatment to asbestos and patent reform when immigration reform would create so many more jobs and reduce our deficit by so much more? i'd like to know if the gentleman from florida has an answer to that question. i yield to the gentleman. mr. nugent: i thank the gentleman from colorado but i will tell you this. that the house is moving through the judiciary committee at a pace to make sure that we do this right in regards to immigration. where the senate has rushed through a bill that is so comprehensive and so large, it will be similar to obamacare. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. 68 members of the senate, including many republicans, including former presidential republican nominee john mccain, supported the senate immigration reform bill. i certainly understand the desire to get it right. but bills don't get right by themselves. these are four bills that have passed the judiciary committee. we in rules like to make them right by allowing good, thoughtful amendments from

colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i hope that next week or when we're back we'll be able to move forward the immigration bills with the same that we've moved forward asbestos and patent reform. mr. nugent: i hope the same thing happens. that as these bills move through jish sear, that we do -- judiciary, that we do see them in rules committee and that they ultimately couple to this floor for debate. mr. polis: reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman from florida. mr. speaker, i do support underlying bills that are contained under this rule. i support h.r. 1105, the bipartisan small business capital access and job preservation act. it exempts private equity funds, which are very lightly leveraged, invest in helping to grow companies and jobs from costly and unnecessary s.e.c. registration and reporting requirements. like venture capital firms that are already exempted and substantially have very similar business models to private equity firms. these registration requirements

are an impediment to business and an impediment to job growth. and have nothing to do with creating systemic risk in our economy. importantly, this bill would only exempt private equity firms with low debt to equity ratios, leveraged at ratio of less than 2-1. once you get talking about much higher debt to debt equity ratios, there's potentially systemic risk if you're talking about funds in the multibillions of dollars that are highly leveraged. it's hard to see how that could happen it. had nothing to do with the financial meltdown of exate-2009. new this case we're being extremely safe in saying, if they're leveraged 2-1, they are no systemic risk to the economy. my state and my district know first hnled the benefits that private equity provides to employees, to companies, to investors, including pensions, in our economy. there's nearly 500 private equity-backed companies headquartered in colorado. many more that operate with employees, more than 124,000 workers in colorado facilities. in 2012 there were 67 private equity investments in colorado,

totaling over $26 billion that was brought to our state. because of this investment mechanism. placing colorado third in the state's receive -- in the states receiving the most private equity investment. the underlying rule also makes in order the innovation act which i also supported in 2011. patent assertion entities, some of whom were bad actors which are sometimes referred to as patent trols, who often produce little or normal and -- nothing and derive their revenue from litigation and licensing, cost significant overhang to other businesses. and to consumers for whom many of these costs are passed along in the products or services that we all injoy. the majority of the targets of patent trolls were startups, hospitals, restaurants, retailers, hotels and other job engines in our economy. the jobs made in the america ineventualities act enacted two years ago went a little ways in this regard but did not do much

to halt or put a stop to or reduce patent troll litigation or improve the quality of pat enlts. in the cafse software patents, growing -- in the case of software patents, growing logs and ambiguities involving standards have led to approval of low-quality software pat enlts that not even -- patents who have not even stood up when brought to litigation. thankfully the moment sum growing to address patent reform and i want to be clear, and i discussed this with chairman good lalt in rules committee yesterday, -- goodlatte in rules committee yesterday, this rule is not patent reform. i believe the gentleman, mr. goodlatte, agrees. this is not patent reform. it may be a few steps in the right direction, it may be a good start, it doesn't fundamentally create intellectual property protection system for the digital era and the 21st century it. continues to put, constructively, band-aids on a 1913 system which i do believe it is high time to rethink. i look forward to an upcoming

symposium in my district at the university of colorado this friday that we'll be having on sort of blue-skying intellectual property protection mechanisms for the 21st century and the digital economy to encourage growth and protect inventors. this bill does not do that. however, it is a step forward in many regards. and while i strongly support many of these patent system improvements, it won't fix our patent system. patent trolls have targeted every form of business and it should come as no surprise that the innovation act enjoys support from members from both sides of the aisle. from companies, from academics, i submitted a letter into the record yesterday from 67 professors at law universities who practice in i.p. from a broad, ideological perspective, into the record in our rules committee yesterday, expressing their support for this bill. and this bill maintains protections for inventors' rights, to enforce their -- to enforce their patent claims. specifically this bill allocates the burden of palletent litigation more

fairly it. includes a provision of -- and restores financial stability to the patent system by making it easier for courts to impose sanctions -- sanctions on anyone who brings a frivolous patent suit it. also requires a disclosure of critical details such as what patents and claims are even infringed, so the person or entity receiving the letter can even know what is being discussed. so defendants don't need to guess the nature of the allegations against them. the underlying legislation further requests patent holders to disclose additional information to the p.t.o., the court and the accused infringer, including the patent ownership, who owns the patent, and parties with financial interests in the patent. these provisions will help stop patent trolls who engage in illegitimate, litigation campaigns and extortion against startups and small businesses. while i strongly support these patent reforms that are a modest step toward improving our patent system, the litigation reforms alone don't have enough to benefit startups and small companies that are

targeted by patent trolls who send prelitigation demand letters. i'm very appreciative of the chairman's effort to allow and the rules committee's efforts to allow for my amendment, along with mr. chaffetz, mr. connolly and mr. marino, who have been working in this regard to see stronger language on the issue of prelitigation demand letters and i'm grateful at we've made in order the demand process. we've been discussing that amendment in a more thorough basis shortly. but in brief, the problem is that before a patent troll even files a suit, it typically send as demand letter or many demand letters demanding some form of payment. under current law, the sender does not even have to disclose even the most basic information. as such, enltities often hide behind numerous shell corporations or send vegas or overbroad letters that don't even identify the owner of the patent or the basis of their legal claim.

essentially leading particularly these small companies to have to hire lawyers or attorneys at great expense. when you have a company that's a $300,000 a year company, a $500,000 a year company and you receive one or more of these notices, you can imagine how that takes away from your growth, your margins, your ability to hire more people. if you have to retain professional counsel to even understand what is being alleged that your company did. importantly the underlying bill requires patent holders seeking to bring willful infringement claims to provide their targets with a minimum level of disclosure information, and the amendment enhances that and builds upon the language and would mandate the demand letters include information identifying the parent entity of the claimant. this language will help ensure that patent trolls can no longer hide under shell companies to conceal their true identity and legitimacy from the letter resilient. i look forward to discussing these bills further and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, first i want to respond to my good friend from colorado. and i appreciate that he appreciates the approach that this house is taking, particularly as it relates to both of the bills that are the underlying aspect of this rule. it is about moving in a deliberative manner to make sure that we get it right. and i thank mr. polis for pointing that out. and with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. collins: thank you, mr. chair, and appreciate it and i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation, particularly h.r. 3309, the innovation act. as a member of the judiciary committee, i have firsthand -- seen firsthand the diligent and deliberative effort put forth by chairman goodlatte and the rest of the committee to bring forth to this body a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-liberty bill to reform our patent laws. and as my friend from colorado

stated, there is more that can be done, but this is a very positive step. i agree with him and i appreciate that support. the committee vote speaks for that as well, when it was 33-5 reported out of committee on final pass and. in the time that i have been yielded i'd like to also talk about a misconception that some in the higher education committee have about a fee shifting provision in this bill. the bill language protects plaintiffs who bring a reasonable and good-faith case and who do not engage in litigation miss conduct. in fact, even -- misconduct in fact, the plaintiff is still immune from a field war if his field had a reasonable kay kiss this -- kay sis in both law and fact. i'm a strong supporter of our universities and the incredible research they are don doing and i believe the patent law should protect them. the ability to enforce one's patent in court is essential to preserving vault of the patent and its inherent value to the right of the patent holder. nothing in the innovation act changes this, ensuring fair and

equity access to our courts isn't done so at expense of universities, but it's a benefit of all patent holders. and would move forward toward general debate in the consideration of amendments made in order by this rule, i urge my colleagues to be very cautious in supporting amendments that would gut or upset the careful balance achieved by this bill. many sanctions -- sections in the h.h. -- h.r. 3309 are intertwined and there are reforms that will help businesses and job creators combat a business model designed solely to benefit from exploitation of our patent system and make no mistake, this isn't just a silicon valley problem. . i hear from hotels and start-ups alike about the impact the vague demand letters and threat of costly frivolous litigation has the ability to do their businesses. end users are often attacked and off threatened with vague demand letters for infringement of an unidentified patent in a product they previously bought in the store. this is why the customer

protection section 5 of the bill are so important and should not be weakened or eliminated. as a strong conservative i believe our government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. innovation thrives when government takes a hands off approach, but there are times congress must step in to ensure our laws operate as intended, and this is why we need h.r. 3309. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and underlying bills, and also ask that each carefully consider any amendment that would weaken or compromise the provisions of 3309, particularly section 5. but i will say this before i leave because i have come and spoke on many bills and my dear friend from colorado continues to bring up immigration. i just want to remind the chair and speaker at this point that there was a time two years ago, a few years ago in which there was a golden era in which his party controlled the house, senate, and the presidency. d immigration didn't make --

and there was choices made and there were plenty of choices you made, even to this day one we are talking about the health care legislation. one of those choice from your point of view sadly was not taken, and that was immigration. today we are dealing with bills we both agree on, but let's not forget the fact when you had a chance you didn't do it. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are advised to direct their remarks to the chair and not to individual members. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i certainly wish that we had acted on immigration reform. we did pass in this body under democratic control a dream act, if the gentleman will recall in the waning days of the 111th congress and did take at least one constructive step with an immigration bill we brought to the full floor of this house and passed. i'd like to yield three minutes to my colleague from colorado, a member of the financial services committee, former member of the rules committee, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. first i want to address house bill 3309, the innovation act,

which is generally a good bill. it's trying to deal with issues of nuisance litigation where somebody is sued and the cost so extreme are that they pay money just to stay away from litigation. that's really the underlying purpose of the bill. now, what we've got to make sure as members of this house and as members of the legislature that we don't advantage one party over another. i see the gentleman from california, mr. roirk, made a good point -- mr. rourke, -- rohrabacher, made a good point at the rules committee, you don't want to disadvantage small inventors who have come up with a good idea or great product, something very novel, and some major corporation takes that idea or that product away and doesn't pay for it. that's the purpose of patent litigation. at the same time you don't want to have some small company that

buys a wi-fi service all of a sudden getting sued by some company they never heard of and they are saying wait a second, we are not a patent infringer. i say all of this because the purpose is to have good litigation where there isn't extortion and there isn't theft as a result of some patent infringement. what's done in this bill i think, though, is micromanagement of the courtroom and its processes. each of these cases stands and falls on their own merits. and the courts are best equipped to determine their own rules and their own procedures as to how these cases should move forward. i'm generally going to support this. i offered an amendment which was not adopted by the rules committee last night to delay until december of 2015, so the effective -- the effect of section 6 of the bill, so that

the courts could create their own rules and not have the legislature do it. 100 years ago we passed a rules enabling act which allows the court to set their own procedure, which is then overseen by the legislature. that is sort of discarded in some ll and we create very specific rules, and i think that's a mistake. and i think we could have some real winners and losers, and i think the small guy, small inventor, small purchaser could be in trouble. i would just suggest to the house and to the rules committee that we do look at delaying so that the courts can offer their own procedure. i do want to address two other things. it has been over 150 days since we started this legislature. we should be dealing with immigration reform. we are not doing that, and i want to finish my story about the mon at the family -- montez family who are from colorado

who could never get affordable insurance and now are able to, under the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. perlmutter: they have three children. they work two jobs. neither of the mom or dad, their employers don't provide health insurance. finally after all these years they have been able to get health insurance at about $150 using the credits that are available under the affordable care act and the children's health program that this congress has passed. these people have health care for the first time in their marriage, which has been for a couple decades, and they are very thankful. this is a good thanksgiving season for the montez family. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i thank

the gentleman from florida for yielding me time. mr. speaker, i support h.r. 3309, the innovation act and the rule we are debating now. this bipartisan legislation brings much needed reforms to our patent litigation process which continues to be plagued by patent trolls. patent trolls use weak patents to extort millions of dollars from innocent business owners due to frivolous patent infringement lawsuits. businesses are forced to decide between years of costly litigation or a settlement. the number of patent infringement claims has almost doubled in the past three years. "the new york times" reported that one lawyer filed patent lawsuits against 1,638 companies in the past five years. these lawsuits soak up capital that is better spent on investment, innovation, and job creation. in fact a 2012 study by the boston university school of law

found that patent trolls cost the american economy $80 billion annually. the study also found that defendants paid $29 billion to patent trolls in 2011 alone. the innovation act targets abusive patent litigation while protecting legitimate patent infringement claims. it provides accountability on the front end of litigation by requiring parties to state exactly why they are filing suit. h.r. 3309 also requires parties who file meritless patent claims to pay the alternatives fees of their victims as a disincentive to pursue their baseless claims. these reforms are vital to restore accountability and reign in abusive, frivolous, and costly patent lawsuits. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i thank chairman goodlatte for introducing this bipartisan bill. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields

back. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from california, a member of the judiciary committee, one of the key architects and somebody who worked very hard on this bill, ms.chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute and a half. ms.chu: i rise today in support of the innovation act. this bill will help curb abusive lawsuits brought by patent assertion entities, more commonly known as patent trolls. rather than relying on patents to protect investments in new innovative technologies, these actors abuse our patent system. they threaten legitimate businesses and consumers with costly litigation for selling or using a product that falls under their overly broad patent. the patent system is nothing short of a net for them to cast in hopes of extorting settlement fees. right now this scheme is costing our economy $29 billion every year.

while the bill is not perfect, the innovation act is a promising first step towards reigning in these abusive tactics. i still have concerns with provisions that address fee shifting and the federal judiciary. and we need to ensure that the patent office is fully funded, but this conversation will continue beyond stayed's vote, and my hope is to see these concerns addressed for the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i -- mr. nugent: i yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for one minute. mr. rohrabacher: i reluctantly rise in favor of the rule because it makes an extremely important amendment, my own, and several others, approves them as they come on the floor, but i oppose final passage because even with those amendments they do not do

enough to make this bill worth supporting. one of the most important amendments made is my amendment as i stated which would strike the section of this legislation which eliminates for the small inventor, for the independent inventor, the right of judicial review if he is being mishandled, if his case is being mishandled by the patent system, and let me just note that if, indeed, this was to protect, if we were going to protect the little guy, if that was the purpose of this bill, there wouldn't be a question here. we are here eliminating the little guy's right to even go to court if he's being mistreated by the patent system. also -- let me just note, a rule not made in favor was marcy kaptur's amendment which would have, again, protected the little guy. we are being told this protects the little guy, yet they won't allow marcy kaptur's amendment which is aimed at protecting the little guy from even coming to a vote.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. we hear over and over again this is about patent trolls and about hinting there are illegitimate patents that we are talking about. we are talking about legitimate patents and the patent troll, let's just note, is who he is going against supposedly? it is multinational mega, mega corporations that routinely infringe on the little guy. but yet marcy kaptur, while we are trying to protect the rights of the little guy against these giant corporations like google, instead we have not permitted her amendment to come forward. this is the greatest attack, this bill, on the small inventor i have ever seen in 25 years. ask for support for the rule but oppose the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to yield two minutes

to the gentleman from cardenas. mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. cardenas: i rise in support of h.r. 3309, the innovation act. this bill will allow businesses of all sizes and in all industries to devote their time and resources to job creation, research development, and continue to support the innovation that makes u.s. companies so competitive in our global market. i have heard from businesses and associations a -- in a cross sector of industries asking for passage of this bill so they can more fully dedicate themselves to building their businesses and the u.s. economy. i have heard for support for h.r. 3309 from the motion picture association of america and movie studios such as 20th century fox who are our economic drivers in los angeles and across the country. there is other widespread and bipartisan supporters such as u.s. chamber of commerce, the

national association of realtors, the national association of broadcasters which shows how essential patent reform is for american businesses and all industries. mr. speaker, i ask for unanimous consent that these letters of support be inserted into the congressional record. thank you, mr. speaker. while we can all agree that this is not a perfect bill, its passage will allow our businesses to continue to fuel the u.s. economy and recovery rather than battle abusive litigation. i urge my colleagues to support innovation by voting yes on final passage of the innovation act. thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'd like to inquire if the gentleman has any other speakers. mr. nugent: i do not. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for as much time as he wishes. mr. polis: the gentleman from

georgia, mr. collins, rightly asserted that the democrats did not, in fact, when they were in charge of the legislature and both chambers, fix our broken immigration system. however we did pass the dream act, and while given that this is football season and i think that my friend, the gentleman from georgia, perhaps shares affinity for football, while we did not, in fact, score a touchdown and fix our broken immigration system, at least we got a field goal. we are still waiting for the republicans to match our field goal here if we can't score a touchdown with comprehensive immigration reform, and we look forward to improving these bills that have passed out of the committee before the asbestos bill, before the patent reform bill, and need the work of the full membership of this body to improve them. . legislation is not a fine wine, when it sits in a barrel it improves itself. it needs to be actively worked

on to improve it. i hope it is a matter of days or hours or minutes until we can dust off these immigration bills that chairman goodlatte and the judiciary committee have worked on, and improve upon them. so that this body can actually move forward and score a field goal, a touchdown or more. and finally replace our broken immigration system with one that reflects our values as americans, restores the rule of law, reduces our deficit by $200 billion, creates six million jobs for american citizens, secures our borders and implements workplace enforcement of our immigration system. i'm confident that we can do that working together. just as we are working together on these bills that are before us today. now, as i indicated earlier, while this bill does distribute patent bill does har-- the patent bill does harvest some low-hanging fruit, there remains work to be done to create a 21st century

intellectual property protection system for our country. one such effort was an amendment that i offered, polis amendment 5 that was not allowed under this rule. this amendment reflects a bill that i sponsor with mr. marino that is in regards to demand letter transparency acts. even the recipient of one demand letter can even be a death sentence for a small, one, two, three-person company. the threat of a demand letter alone can jeopardize a company's ability to raise funds, can scare away potential customers, and god forbid actually defending a patent lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars of legal bills. which to a one or two or three-person company is simply a matter of shutting the doors because they cannot afford to do that. at the rules committee yesterday i offered my bipartisan amendment, based on legislation that i introduced with representative marino and representative deutch. that would provide a comprehensive approach to

increased transparency and accountability in the demand letter process. and while our amendment was not made in order, i'm grateful we did include at least some slight provisions regarding who owns shell corporations, amendment 4 was allowed. we plan to continue to press forward on the need to address this issue through meaningful legislation. our bill would require certain entities to provide additional disclosure information to the p.t.o. and to the demand letter recipient so these startups and mom and pop restaurant owners and stores will know who is sending these demand letters and whether the claims they're making are truthful or grounded at all or just a scam. our bill would establish a searchable and accessible public registry of demand letters and clarify that the federal trade commission could use its authority to impose civil penalties to go after patent trolls. while the f.t.c. has announced its intent to investigate p.a.e.'s, our bill would clarify the role to use

enforcement against p.a.e.'s. our amendment would prevent patent trolls from hiding behind shell companies and to share information and increase reporting so that regulatory authorities and the p.t.o. are on alert as to which patents are being frivolously asserted by whom. in conjunction with litigation reforms that are proposed in this underlying bill, our proposal would produce a more robust patent market and a more productive and predictable and competitive economy. our proposal is supported by a diverse group of individuals and organizations, including dish network, public knowledge, the national restaurant association, the electronic frontier foundation, the national retail federation, the direct marketing association, the mobile marketing association, the association of american advertising agencies, among many others. mr. speaker, for once this body is moving forward on bipartisan legislation that will help spur innovation and economic growth. the first bill that we're

considering with regard to private equity will help increase job growth and job creation in our country. by removing a regulatory burden that was put in without the proper justification. private equity funds had nothing to do with the meltdown in 2008 and 2009, nor do they represent any systemic risk to our economy. they simply allow people to aggregate their resources, to buy stock, equity in companies. we have a cap on the debt to equity ratio of 2-1. and they do what they do and people earn money and people lose money and that's how the economy works. but there is absolutely no systemic risk. and some of these dollar amount s sound high but when we talked about in rules committee yesterday, you might have a private equity fund that is $300 million that. sounds like a lot of money. that's the amount of money they have to invest over a period of years. $300 million, they invest that over five, six, seven years.

that's not their operational budget. their operational budget is 2% or less of that every year. so with $300 million fund, private equity fund, might have an annual budget of $6 million. now, again, $6 million sounds like a lot of money. it certainly is. but when compliance with the s.e.c. reform is $500,000, as has been estimated, you're alking about a sizable percentage of your annual operating budget. so that means you have to hire a couple people less, you might not be able to do that extra investment that you didn't have the ability to do. you might not be able to invest in that additional company and help it grow and create jobs because of regulatory compliance that has nothing to do with systemic risk. mr. speaker, as this session of congress comes to a close, the first session of the 113th congress, there's much at this -- that this body has left undone. while the other chamber across the way has acted on

overwhelming bipartisan measures that help fix our immigration system, saving $200 billion, creating over six million jobs, securing our borders, restoring the rule of law, and uniting families, this body has not passed a single bill. in that area. and while the other body has passed a bill that would prevent companies from discriminating against gay and lesbian employees with strong bipartisan support, this body has not even brought such a bill to committee or the floor. and while i'm pleased to see the bipartisan innovation act and small business capital act and job preservation act come to the floor today, although i'd like to see them with a more open process and let more ideal -- ideas from both sides of the aisle to be introduced as amendments, i just hope that the majority of this body sees fit to hold votes on these other issues, immigration reform, employment nondiscrimination, as well. which i'm confident would pass the floor of the house today.

as i talked to many tech companies and small businesses in my district, many of the purported beneficiaries of this modest patent reform bill, they support it. but they support immigration reform more. they say, good job, now get immigration reform done. that's what i'm hearing from employers in my district and businesses in my district. i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are hearing the same. our nation cannot afford to maintain a 20th century intellectual property protection system in a digital and biological era. this bill does not correct that, it does not change that but it is a modest step forward, an important part of reforming parts of the process that democrats and republicans, many stakeholders, can agree are broken. the measure contains bipartisan , balanced proposals, just as h.r. 15 does, the comprehensive immigration bill in the house with over 190 bipartisan sponsors. and just as this bill will

continue to incentivize entrepreneurship, so too, times 10, times 100, would comprehensive immigration reform which includes a startup visa that allows entrepreneurs who have already received commitments of investment to come to this country and create their jobs here. we are turning jobs for americans away every day we fail to act on immigration reform. we can bring h.r. 15 to the rules committee and to the floor of the house next week. or we can stay the following week and give this body the opportunity to send a bill to president obama's desk, to finally replace our broken immigration system with one that works. mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up house resolution 424, ranking member slaughter's resolution, that prohibblets an adjournment of the house until we adopt a budget conference report. this body should not adjourn until we could prevent a second government shutdown and prevent a fiscal crisis. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous

consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: mr. speaker, while i'm actively encouraging members on both sides iflet to get behind the he -- sides of the aisle to get behind the innovation act, i must urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question, as well as a no vote on the restrictive rule. host: that we can send the message -- i hope that we can send the message that we need to bring immigration reform to the floor of this house, rather than let the four bills that have already emerged out of committee stay sitting and aging and not getting any better while we fast-track asbestos, while we fast-track modest patent reforms. the time has come to act on immigration reform. please join me on voting no on the previous question and no on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back all of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. nugent: thank you, mr.

speaker. and, speaking to some of the comments that were made, particularly as it relates to football, and i guess that, you know, we talked about field goal and three points. but here's the position that this house has taken, the majority has taken in the house as it relates to immigration. it's about first downs, it's about moving the ball forward in measured steps. about getting it right the first time. not going through what we've gone through with these huge -- absolutely. mr. polis: thank you. it seems more like we've been in a time-out for three months since these bills have passed committee. i yield back. mr. nugent: reclaiming my time. it takes time. you know this. to move meaningful legislation through and to get it right the first time. we're living with, you know, with some things, when you have these megabills, thousands of

pages, a thousand-page immigration bill, the health care act, end of the day, let's do this in a reasoned, reasonable approach. because we want immigration reform, because we know we have a broken immigration system. we absolutely know that. and i think this house has taken the right approach in ing things in a measured way to get first downs until we get to the end zone where we all want to be. now, as we notice on this bill, even though there's strong bipartisanon support on both of these pieces of legislation, we still have some that aren't happy because sometimes bills never get to exactly where every want -- everybody wants them to be and i get that. in a perfect world we'd get everything we want. it's not a perfect world. we don't get everything we want. ball is about moving the

forward. and i think that my good friend from colorado has talked eloquently about the issues as it relates to patent reform and private equity, because i know he has been part of that world. he speaks from experience in those areas. is it everything that you want? probably not. we heard from the chairman of the committee, it's not everything he wanted. but it is a step in the right direction. it's moving the ball forward, it's getting the first down, it's moving it so that we can win the game. not a political party, but the american people. and consumers can win. and the holders of patents can win. that's what this is all about. demand letters, i lived through this as a sheriff. when we used to get demand letters that we're going to get sued and the whole idea behind the fact was they thought we would settle for $30,000 or $40,000, to make them go away. and here's what happened. the sheriffs got smart and they put together a consortium of

sheriffs, 60 out of 67, in a sheriff's fund, self-insurance fund, and guess what? the anged the tables and dynamics in regard to it, justs that bill will do -- just as this bill will do. what we did was say, guess what, we're no longer going to be blackmailed into giving money. on a legitimate case you're going to settle. but on a case where it's frisk louis, we would say -- frivolous, we would say, no thanks, let's go to trial, and they never want to do that because it's expensive on their end too, particularly when they could wind up paying for that. so, mr. speaker, a lot has been said today and i think a lot more is going to be said after we pass this rule. so, mr. speaker, as we talk about what i think is fair, that abusive patent legislation or litigation is a growing

problem, we've heard that from both sides today, under our current patent system, small businesses and startups simply don't have the resources to compete with the patent trolls. they're easy targets, they routinely settle and regardless of the merits of the case, to avoid hefty legal costs. we understand that. therefore it's important that we level the playing field for our innovators, our innovators that actually create something, an idea, out of thin air, and create something that can be turned into jobs in the future. . regardless where the members fall on the underlying legislation, it seems we are all in agreement we need to combat this destructive practice. we are also in agreement that we need jobs. the rule provides for consideration of a bill that will give small companies more access to capital, more opportunities to grow, more opportunities to create jobs. the rule makes in order

.mportant, germane amendments mr. speaker, we heard a call to vote no on the rule. for other reasons let's talk about creating jobs in america. let's talk about protecting our innovators. let's not get caught up in the politics of the day. let's do the right thing for the american people today. the thing that is going to be heard today in this house. let's vote on a rule and let's pass that rule. i support this rule and i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule as well. mr. speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back all of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote on the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a, rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

question barry mccaffrey is the best commander to come out of my generation of soldiers. o, barry, i'm honored. my thanks as well to wes. your c.e.o. and other members of the nadcp for inviting me here today. let me further acknowledge judge robert russell. i still remember vividly my

visit to your courtroom in 2009. it's good to see you again, judge. other members of the judiciary drug court professionals, veteran mentors who make these courts innovative and successful, fellow veterans, v.a. colleagues, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, we i, now, you better than that we are guiding monumental change in the way we address crime in this country. instead of jailing veterans who have been brought up on charges, are simply releasing them back to the streets, you have underwritten treatment as a powerful option for dealing with those who have broken our laws. my thanks to the nadcp for helping us all through this ambitious undertaking. the number of veterans courts has grown over the past five years. there are perhaps four or five

of them in january, 2009, as i arrive to assume these responsibilities at the v.a. and barry mccaffrey's urging, i went to buffalo to visit judge russell. the power of the veterans court concept right then was clear, undeniable, and compelling. and since that visit, v.a. has been your full partner agreeing to bring all of its capabilities to bear wherever a judge decided to establish a veterans court. that offer is still good today. last month v.a.'s justice outreach specialists reported 257 veterans courts in operation throughout the country. so from four to five, 257. an increase of nearly 90 this past year alone, with another dozen or so slated to open before the end of the year. so again my thanks and

congratulations to all of you for what you have done for veterans. you see, in my opinion we'll never be able to do enough for the men and women who have signed on to safeguard our way of life. veterans comprise just over 7%, 7% of the entire population in this great country. 22.2 million of them live amongst us. today less than 1% of americans wear our country's uniforms. we ended the draft 40 years ago, and these men and women are the folks who picked that load up for all of us. these are the folks who guarantee our vibrant democracy. of our 22 million living veterans, less than nine million are enrolled in v.a. health care. nearly 58,000 are estimated to be homeless on any given night. i am told that incarceration is the number one predictor of

homelessness. and i'm also told that there is a nexus among factors that describe both veterans' homelessness and vet ran suicides. factors like depression, insomnia, substance abuse disorder, pain, failed relationships. so if we are going to break the cycle between incarceration and homelessness, we'll have to raise our level of collaboration and leverage all of our assets to address these factors which seem so pervasive with -- when dealing with troubled veterans. again, depression, insomnia, substance abuse, disorder, pain, failed relationships. addressing these factors requires v.a.'s collaboration with the host of partners. i would start with the u.s. interagency council on homelessness. the departments of housing and urban development.

labor, justice, defense, health and human services, education, the i.r.s., the social security and small business administrations. as well as a number of other federal, state, and local agencies and organizations. veterans are counting on us to solve these challenges. for its part, v.a. operates a large health care, integrated health care system, maybe one of the larger ones in the country, 151 medical centers, 827 community-based outpatient clinics, 300 vet centers, and another 70 outreach and mobile clinics that reach out into the most rural areas to find veterans who live remotely. over 1,700 health care access points nationwide. but beyond health care v.a.

provides $10 billion in education assistance annually. second only to the department of education. v.a. guarantees nearly 1.8 million home loans. the only zero down entity in the nation and our foreclosure rate is the lowest amongst all categories of mortgage loans. v.a.'s the nation's ninth largest life insurance enterprise, with $1.3 trillion in coverage, 6.7 million clients, and 95% customer satisfaction rating. through the leadership of the president, the support of the congress, and the advice and assistance of our terrific partners in the veteran service organizations, as well as our partnership with a host of federal, state, and nonprofit organizations like nadcp, progress since 2009 includes a 50% growth in v.a.'s budget

requests from 99.8 billion, to $1 2.7 billion for this year. enrollment of over two million more veterans in v.a. health care. 62 new community-based outpatient clinics opened, including our first major v.a. hospital in 17 years in las vegas, nevada. a drop in backlog compensation claims we have all been talking about and working on, but a drop of about 36% in those claims in the last 250 days, as the deliberate plan we put together involving people, processes, and technologies have come together, has come together powerfully. a 24% decrease in the estimated number of homeless veterans. a remarkable trend during the period of an economic challenge. usually during these periods homelessness goes up.

v.a.'s mental health funding has increased by nearly 57% since 2009. our budget requests for f.y. 2014 includes $7 billion to increase access to mental health services. a year ago the president directed the hiring of 1,600 additional mental health professionals. v.a. has exceeded that goal and has also hired 800 peer support specialists to augment the professional staff. one of our most successful mental health initiatives has been our veterans crisis line. many of you know about it. d.o.d. knows it as the military crisis line, same number, same trained mental health professionals answering the phone 24 hours a day, seven days a week. an example of our partnering to deliver optimal care to those in need. since start-up in 2007, the veterans crisis line has answered over 890,000 phone

calls from veterans in need. most importantly 30,000 of those callers were rescued from uicides in progress. three years ago v.a. asked itself whether we might be overmedicating our patients, especially those under mental health treatment. v.a. worked with d.o.d. and together we developed and v.a.'s implementing the joint d.o.d. -v.a. pain management guidelines that discourage overuse of opiates in favor of other medications and therapies. some of our 21 health care networks have taken steps to reduce the use of opiates. since 2012, one network in particular, the one based in

minneapolis, has cut its use of high dose opiates by more than 50% and all but eliminated oxycontin prescriptions, ecreasing them by 99%. for veterans entering the justice system already dealing with mental health or substance abuse issues, we established something called the veterans justice outreach, v.j.o., it's an office of 172 full-time specialists working directly with justice officials to see that veterans who are either before the court or already in jail get the care they need that courts -- and that courts are supported in their consideration of best possible alternatives to incarceration. we are in support of you on this. we are also working to connect our v.j.o. specialists with american indian tribal justice ystems to do the same thing.

in their first year, 2010, v.j.o. specialists served about 5,800 veterans. this year that number is up to nearly 36,000 veterans, and we plan to hire another 75 specialists next year. very few veterans served by v.j.o. specialists are first time offenders, and i think most of you in the room know that. in fact, they average seven prior arrests. of the 93% who have spent time in jail or prison, 20% have spent a year or more behind bars. of the veterans in this program, 40% have been homeless at least once. these are the challenging segments of our veteran population, but the numbers also tell us we are making positive differences, positive differences for them when we work with the courts to provide these veterans v.a. care and

services. 2/3 of veterans before the treatment courts successfully complete their training, their treatment regiments, when they receive v.a. services, they experience an 88% reduction in arrests from year prior to to year after treatment court admission. they also benefit from a 30% increase in stable housing in the year a v.a., the courts, and our volunteer mentors have been able to attack this cycle between homelessness and incarceration. giving these veterans a much better chance for success. prevention doesn't always work, and some veterans do still go to jail or prison. and so we have increased our presence there as well. our health care for re-entry health program, hcrv, care for entry veterans, i don't make these up, has 44 full-time specialists working and 1,000

prisons. that's about 80% of all prisons in the united states. our goal is to connect soon-to-be released veterans with v.a. health care, housing assistance, educational assistance, vocational counseling, and training to help re-entry veterans become productive. we currently assist about 9,000 re-entering veterans each year, but we also know by an estimate that that's probably one in six of all veterans being released. so last year we added a new online capability called vrss, veterans re-entry search service. to enable corrections officials to quickly and easily identify any veteran in their i.n.s. igs -- institutions. in just the past three months the number of jail systems using it has more than doubled with 30 more in the process of accessing the service. i have written to each governor

encouraging collaboration with us through vrss. with greater participation we'll be able to better identify and treat veterans in need of our services and hopefully reducing their appearances before you. we intend to make vrss available to the courts as well. veterans who may be dealing with ptsd, t.b.i., depression, insomnia, substance use disorder, and pain need and deserve our help. we have an opportunity to help them with health care, safe housing, education, and jobs. a chance to rebuild lives that somehow lost their way. in closing in the spring of 2012 navy veteran donald martin parked his pickup truck at a virginia rest area. it had broken down. and federal park rangers found him with an opened container of

alcohol, charged him with d.u.i. martin, 57, had been living in his sister's basement essentially homeless, after losing his job, unemployed, and going through a divorce, failed relationship. he had also been battling alcohol dependence for decades and had two d.u.i.'s on his record. so substance use disorder. a third d.u.i. conviction would mean automatic incarceration, and another slip in the downward spiral in his post navy life. his federal defense attorney recommended participating in a veterans treatment court. without knowing much about it, martin consented. the u.s. attorney agreed to take the d.u.i. charge off the docket, allowing him to appear before a veterans treatment court. that treatment court team charged robert, who i think may

be here today, the u.s. attorney, martin's defense attorney, his probation officers, and a v.a. justice outreach specialist from the salem v.a. medical certainty helped martin develop a plan towards recovery and he began attending a 24-week, outpatient substance abuse treatment program at the salem v.a. it included weekly individual and group treatment sessions. he also met with a vocational rehab counselor to address his need for employment. two months into his participation and veterans treatment court, martin was hired as a sprinkler system installer. he's later told the court, as he was dwrad waiting, this was a boost to my -- graduating, this was a boost to my self-esteem and so bright. veterans treatment court lasted six months during which he successfully completed his substance abuse treatment and

maintained his so bright -- sow bright and employment. when the six months were up, the judge presented him with challenge coin, symbolizing his graduation from his court. today martin remains employed, has maintained a sow bright, and has had no further run-ins with the law. he's been promoted three times and received the performance bonus from his employer. he's also reconnected with his ex-wife. martin says of his arrest and aftermath, treatment court changed my life. the court wasn't against me. they were actually in my corner. they wanted me to do well to get my life straightened out. you wouldn't believe the turn of events in my life. so, none of us can imagine a better ending to donald martin's story, but it's all because a judge and his treatment court team dared to care.

i'm sure each of you in this room has a similar story to tell . so to all of you, my heartfelt thanks for giving these veterans a chance to demonstrate that they were the folks who carried the safety of our country on their shoulders. i'm honored to be here this morning and honored to get to see my old friend, barry mccaffrey, thank you very much. >> by the way, veterans administration officials and others will testify at a house veterans' affairs subcommittee hearing on the status of v.a. disability claims. that's coming up at 3:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span2. here on c-span waiting for the house to gavel back in which should be at about 2:00 p.m. eastern. they are returning for a rule vote on two bills, one that would modify the patent inspringment litigation process, the other would exempt most private equity firms from registering with the s.e.c. we'll have the house live when they return on c-span.

earlier today at the white house in washington, president obama spoke about the economy. calling for the raising of the minimum wage. saying that the income gap between america's rich and poor is, quote, a defining challenge of our time. the president speaking this afternoon at the white house about the affordable care act. he's speaking to the youth summit gathering there coming up at 2:05 eastern. can you follow that live on c-span.org. meanwhile report out today about the annual program for international student assessment, the annual international assessment test for 15-year-olds which shows scores in math, reading, and science posted by 15-year-olds were plat, while their counterparts in other asian province and countries sored according to those results. randy whitegarden is the president of the federation of speechers. she spoke today and responded to the latest report on those scores.

>> stayed is like the day after day. i'm sure most of you filed some stories about pisa and about the sky falling and things like that. although i haven't actually seen much of that. i saw actually a lot of really good reporting under the numbers, and i just want to thank all of you for that. we have been through this rodeo before. this is the third or fourth time that pisa results, the third time in my memory, but the -- what fifth time does it say that the united states is pretty much in the middle of the pack on mathematics, science, and english? particularly this year where there was a real focus on

mathematics for the first time in 10 years. it says two or three things. number one it says that things like poverty, socioeconomics reilly matter because you look at the states like massachusetts and connecticut that did well and what they have done and you look at the data when you pull it out and try to account for poverty and you see where the statistics are. but there's more to this because if you just stop there we are in the inane debate that we have been in for the last 20 years. because the issue is not whether poverty matters, but what do we do about it? the dominant strategy, educational strategy that we have done about it for the last 10 years is chind and race to the top. -- no child left behind and race

to the top. there's been other things like charters and competition and now new standards. but that's the hyper testing, the sanctioning of teachers, the closing schools. that's the strategy. i think what we learned from the last results is that strategy is not what works to move the needle. it keeps us where we are, but it's not what works to move the needle. so that's why you start looking at what do the other countries do that actually the one that is outlapped us, what do they do? i'm not suggesting we should be finland and i'm not suggesting we should be shanghai, two places i have been to and love and adore, but the united states is different, and we just -- but we have to look at some of the things that they have done and say, can we adapt that here? let me click off the four things

and then let me go to what we are trying to do to accomplish that. number one -- >> about four minutes more. >> that's ok. number one we actually have this -- the countries that outcompete us actually really val ue, deeply respect and value public education. in fact, the pisa results actually have a big caution flag, saying that for my friends at the examiner, they have a big caution flag about the -- the data is important to look at. a big caution flag about choice and competition. and about how that has actually increased segregation and increased poverty in countries like chile who have used it as the dominant education theory. number two, it says a lot about preparing teachers, supporting teachers, giving them time to corroborate as tom friedman has seen in shanghai and has written about it.

number three, parents are really engaged. and they are really engaged not just told what to do, but they are really engaged. number four, standards matter, but done the right way, not just thrown out there and said go do it, but really implemented well. and you see then in the countries that outcompete us. and last, poverty does matter, ut we need to lead with equity and equity strategies in order to address it. so things like pre-k, like wrap around services. that's what it says. so the bottom line is what do you do about this? there's a whole bunch of groups, including our union and n.e.a., d the opportunity to learn group of communities, partners, parents who actually have

started talking about this for the last two or three years, and we have what we call now the principal for unity. we have having a big day of action on december 9 about reclaiming the promise of public education. not as it is today, not as it was 50 years ago, but in order to actually be something that fulfills our collective responsibility for individual opportunity for all kids. so that means really doing things such as having well prepared teachers. and if teachers are well prepared, and if they are supported, and if they still can't do their job, they shouldn't be there. but we have to have their eval -- fair evaluation system. we also have to have standards. i'm big believer in the common core, but they have to be implemented right and we have to do the kinds ever things like california has done which is testing at least for the time team so that we can actually prepare and actually try to make

these work. number three, we have to actually focus on poverty about how we ensure that kids have a level playing field. so the pre-k program, the wrap around services we need to do. and last, every school that works, every district that works focuses and makes sure that schools are welcoming, safe environments. working, safe and collaborative environments. you can't tell me a district or state or country that works where that notion of collaboration as opposed to competition, that notion of welcoming a safe environment so that schools are central to communities are not the dominant theory as opposed to testing and sanctioning. and so that's what we are rying to do. work with community, bottom up, align with solutions that communities need, great

neighborhood public schools and ultimately really trying to make sure that every -- that public education is an anchor of our dreaks, a propeller of our community and probably most important, really, really make sure that we give and figure out how to enable all kids to have the opportunity to not only dream their dreams but achieve them. >> all of that event later on in our program schedule on the c-span networks. you'll also find it live shortly at c-span.org. here on c-span, we're waiting for the house to gavel back in. they'll be in shortly for a rule vote. two bills under consideration. one, if they pass the rule today, they'll take up a bill that will exempt most private equity firms from registering with the securities and exchange commission. the other bill, if the rule passes, will be debated tomorrow, likely. it would modify the patent infringement litigation process, trying to discourage abuse of the system. again, those votes coming up

momentarily. so we'll stay here live on c-span with a note about our companion network, c-span2, in just a moment we'll bring you news coverage from the pentagon with defense secretary chuck hagel and general martin dempsey who today said teams ought to be careful what they post online. if they don't believe their parents, they may believe the pentagon's top general, says the associated press. he warned the next generation of possible military recruits are -- damage that could come from bad behavior online. that news conference on c-span2 shortly. now live to the house. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the question on ordering the previous question on house resolution 429 and adoption of the resolution, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution

429 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 77, house resolution 429. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3309, to amend title 35 united states code and the leahy-smith american advance act, to make improvements and technical corrections and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1105, to amend the investment advisors act of 1940 to provide registration exemptions for private equity fund advisors, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 194. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i ask a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a record the vote is requested. those favoring a robbeded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 185. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. he house will be in order.

lear the aisles. the house will be in order. would members please take their conversations from the floor. clear the well.

lear the aisles. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 429, i call up h.r. 1105, the small business

capital access and job preservation act, and ask for its immediate consideration by the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 197, h.r. 1105, a bill to amend the investment advisors act of 1940 to provide for registration exemption for private equity fund advisors, nd for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: once again, members are asked to remove their conversations from the floor of the house chamber. to clear the aisles. so that the house may be in order. pursuant to house resolution

429 and amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of text of rules committee print 113-29, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. after one hour of debate on the bill as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in part b of house report 113-283, if offered by the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, or her designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, ach will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and submit remarks extraneous material for the record on h.r. 1105, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i recognize myself for as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, since congress was not in session last week, perhaps some of my colleagues missed the front page headline from "the washington post." i read, quote, among american workers, poll finds unprecedented anxiety about jobs and economy. according to the report, american workers are living with unprecedented economic anxiety, more than six in 10 worry that they will lose their jobs. nearly one in three said they worry a lot about losing their jobs. it goes on to mention an american named jon stewart, wakes up every morning at 1:30 a.m. for a two-hour commute to catch two different buses in philadelphia so he can get to work on time. in the newspaper he said, quote, i can't save money to buy the things i need to live as a human being. mr. speaker, we don't have to

read "the washington post," all we have to do is listen to our own constituents. since even today millions, millions of our fellow countrymen remain unemployed and underemployed. i hear these stories every week myself. recently i heard from ida in wills point, texas, in the fifth congressional district that i represent. she and her husband own -- and her 79-year-old husband own a small trucking company, but she wrote me that quote, because of increasing regulations and taxes in the past four years, we have lost all but two of our trucks. she goes on to write me, my husband is the only driver right now because i can no longer drive. he drives full-time, 3,500 miles a week most weeks because we can't live on his social security. she says, quote, we are really stuck in a hole. millions, mr. speaker, are stuck in a hole. today we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to do something to

help raise many of our fellow countrymen out of that hole of economic anxiety and economic hardship. today we have the opportunity to pass h.r. 1105, the small business capital access and jobs preservation act. i want to commend the bipartisan group of members, two republicans and two democrats, who introduced the bill. mr. hurt of virginia, mr. himes of connecticut, mr. garrett of new jersey, and mr. cooper of tennessee. as chairman of the financial services committee, mr. speaker, i want to thank all the members of the committee who came together across party lines to approve the bill. mr. speaker, nearly one third of the democrats who sit on our committee joined with 30 republicans in supporting h.r. 1105. in short, mr. speaker, this is indeed a bipartisan jobs bill. we know that small businesses face an incredible red tape

burden. in fact, a recent survey of the national federation of independent business said that, quote, government regulations and red tape are the single most important challenge that small businesses face in creating and preserving jobs. mr. speaker, the house is not n order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the gentleman may proceed. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i heard from another small businessperson in my district. said because of overregulation our business has devolved from one that provides a service for a customer into one that provides that same service as an afterthought while our real efforts go into paperwork.

mr. speaker, we can debate the relative merits or demerits of the dodd-frank act, but even the primary author himself, former chairman frank, admitted that perhaps not every aspect of dodd-frank achieved perfection, and many of us would argue in a bipartisan basis that the part of the act that requires small business investors, who are private equity advisors, to register with the s.e.c. is perhaps one of those provisions that is in need of reform. this is a provision, mr. speaker, that many of us believe was aimed at wall street but ends up hurting main street. . because of this provision, small businesses face yet one more significant regulatory cost, regulatory burden, more red tape. as one of the small business

investors testified before our committee, it's going to cost his company $200,000 every year to comply with the regulation. mr. speaker, he went on to say, quote, for larger firms, this is an insignificant cost. for medium sized firms such as ours that provides capital, it is a significant expense. pay attention to this, mr. speaker. he said, quote, this money comes directly out of our funds intended for investment into main street. in today's economy, to help pull these people out of this hole of economic anxiety, we need more private sector, more private equity investment into main street. private equity equals small business jobs. in fact, mr. speaker, between 1995 and 2010, 23,000 different companies across our nation benefited from private equity

investment, employing three million different people and the investments that are made by private equity historically have grown jobs three times at rate of other companies. so what does this look like? i got to tell you, mr. speaker, it looks like an outfit called new mountain capital that invested in a company national coupon and logicics processing company. -- logistics processing company. they now sport 4,200 different employees. the faith of private equity looks like capital south partners, that invested in a north carolina firm, avita nonwovense, and now they have 95 employees in high point, north carolina. and i should add paraphernalia eycally, another 55 --

parenthically, another 55 employees in my native texas. now, we may hear from some this is needed to somehow battle wall street. but let me tell you what, private equity is not wall street. it's not complex derivative trading. it's not currency swaps, mr. speaker. it is not about systemic risk. that is not what this is about. and so again this was a provision aimed at wall street that unfortunately is hitting main street. it is time to make sure that americans like john in philadelphia can live like a human being. it's time to make sure that constituents like mine, ida and her husband, don't have to drive 3,500 miles a week just so they can put food on the table. mr. speaker, it's time, again, for this institution to put jobs first, not regulators first, but jobs first. and i urge, i urge all of my colleagues to adopt h.r. 1105. i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from massachusetts manage the time at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. lynch: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and i thank her for her leadership on this issue. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1105. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: thank you. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 1105, which will create a gaping loophole for private equity fund advisors and deprive investors and regulators of important information about the risk that these funds pose. the dodd-frank act wisely required that advisors to all hedge funds, private equity fund and other private funds register and file regular reports with the s.e.c. 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 advisor 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. one of the most important lessons that 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. given the exemption, -- 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 also point

to the provisions that ensures advisors to private equity funds with leverage ratios over 2:1. this may sound attractive until you realize that every private equity fund is basically within that parameter. private equity funds invests in companies, and it is these portfolio companies that load up on leverage and that have the potential to take on outside risks, piling on 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 they are in xcess of 30:1, masking the risks they impose. nearly every private equity fund today would come in at below the 2:1 leverage cap. this 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 grows in the dark corners of our financial markets and the more information we can gather how the markets work, the safer we will be. the registration and reporting requirements for private equity advisors are modest and narrowly tailered but they provide investors and regulators with important information. rolling back these reforms now move us in the wrong direction. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1105, and i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield to a real leader on our committee and in this congress in creating jobs, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker, and mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1105,

the small business capital access and job preservation act, a bipartisan bill that representatives cooper, himes and garrett and i introduced earlier this year. i thank all of them for their leadership on this issue. i'd also like to thank chairman hensarling and again, chairman garrett, for their leadership and support on this bill that we were able to achieve a bipartisan vote out of the financial services committee. every member of this body can agree with millions of americans out of work our top focus in congress should be and it must be enacting policies to help spur job creation throughout our nation. today, the house takes up another bill to encourage economic growth and job creation by increasing the flow of private capital to small businesses that are found on main streets all across america. at a time when the available avenues of capital and credit for small businesses continue to decrease, capital investments from private equity into our communities are more important than ever. unfortunately, dodd-frank has

placed a costly and unnecessary regulatory burden of f.c.c. registration on advisors to private equity while, by the to exempting advisors other firms. these restrict the strict private equity to -- these restrict private equity. in virginia's fifth district, my district, trr literally thousands of jobs that exist because of the investment of private equity. these critical investments allow our small businesses to innovate, expand their operations and create the jobs that our communities need. if enacted, the unnecessary burdens on advisors' private equity funds that do not have excessive leverage will be eliminated and they will be given the same exemption from the s.e.c. that venture capital advisors enjoy. this imposes an undue burden on

mid sized and private equity firms and decrease their ability to create jobs. during our financial services committee hearing on the bill, witnesses discussed the costs these requirements would impose on private equity firms. resources that disproportionately -- it would cost thousands of dollars annually or more to comply with these requirements. it is important to note that most people, including s.e.c. chair, mary jo white, can see that private equity funds did not cause the 2008 financial crisis and are not a source of systemic risk. despite that argument being the impetus for the registration requirement under dodd-frank. these funds are not highly interconnected with other financial market participants and therefore the failure of a private equity fund would be highly unlikely to trigger cascading losses that would lead to a similar financial crisis. additionally, these funds

invest primarily in liquid assets including small main street businesses found across our country. these businesses are diversified across multiple industries and therefore lack concentrated exposure to any single sector. furthermore, investors in private equity firms are investors who negotiate with the strongest investor protections. these sophisticated investors include public pension funds, university endowments, nonprofit organizations, many of whom are the beneficiaries. these are represented by counsel and heavily negotiate fund terms in advance of investing, including reporting governance and conflicts of interest. should also be noted that h.r. 1105 does nothing to change the urrent law of the if i dishary protections. these are already existing significant investor protections available both contractually and in the form of state and federal law and

anti-fraud protections, investor protections exist whether or not the advisors are registered with the s.e.c. in the end, the cost of unnecessary registration represent real capital that otherwise could be used to invest in companies such as virginia candle in our district, a company that through private equity investment expanded from a garage in lynchburg, virginia, to millions of homes across the world. beyond virginia candle in virginia, private equity based companies, private equity employees over 7 1/2 million people. private equity backed companies employ over 7 1/2 million people nationwide. in over 17,000 u.s. companies. the impact of the registration requirements stand to diminish job creation in each of the congressional districts represented on this floor today. i ask all my colleagues today to join me in voting yes on h.r. 1105 and pass this bill

from the house in order to increase the flow of private capital to our small businesses so that they can innovate, grow, create jobs for the american people. mr. speaker, i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i thank the gentleman. i give myself one minute. i do want to respond to the gentleman's invoking of the s.e.c. chair, mary jo white. judging from the gentleman's remarks, you'd think she might be in favor of this bill. let me tell you what she says about this bill in particular. this is a quote. our markets would not be well served by narrowing the scope of the commission's jurisdiction and oversight of these advisors with respect to this bill. she also said that private equity investors are in need of the same protection as other private fund investors. she has also said,

the commission has brought enforcement actions. they are talking about the advisibility of having oversight over advisors and having these disclosures made. the quote is that the commission has brought enforcement actions against private equity funds and their advisory personnel involving unlawful pay to play schemes, insider trading, conflict of interest, valuation and misappropriation of assets. now, if you think about the argument that pension funds may not -- i yield myself another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: 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. this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, an active member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentleman from massachusetts. you know, mr. speaker, before i

launch into the substantive critique of this bill, and i urge members to vote no, i'd like to make a preliminary observation and that is when our chairman of our committee begins his presentation, making a broad based critique on legislation, members should be very careful about this because good regulation is good for american people. we need health safety protections. we need to be -- we need to be protected when -- from unsafe water, unsafe products and investors need to be protected as well. and so when any time a member of congress or anyone comes up and says, well, regulations are bad, this is obviously wrong and the american people know it and therefore when you're being told to do something just because regulations are always bad, you should be very suspicious of what's going on and dig deeper into the situation. i urge members to just consider

how important good, solid solid regulation is to benefit the american people and i push back on anybody who just makes a funnel assault on all regulation no matter how good or how bad or just regulation in general. and this has been a theme, you know, from -- around here and i urge members to be suspicious of it. it also should be considered that when this bill is in front of us, we should know that people who have looked carefully at it, members who are wondering what they want to do on this bill should consider that the ogbonnaya administration has strongly opposed -- ogbonnaya administration has strongly oppose -- obama administration has strongly opposed this bill. this is a bill that's not going to become law anyway. there is no senate companion. i just checked. o so we're really here talking about a bill that is going to be -- threatened vetoed by the president and has no senate companion.

it's also opposed by the s.e.c. chair and council of constitutional investors, an organization which has investors' interests in mind, as this bill is trying to make investor information more opaque, and americans for financial reform, not to mention consumer federation of america and afl-cio and state securities regulators. so the people who work with these regulations all the time don't think they're the right thing to do. and even if some members might consider that, well, maybe this might get capital to someone who wouldn't otherwise might get it, the people who regulate and use these regulations every day have carefully considered h.r. 1101 and have come to the conclusion -- 1105, that it is bad for investors, that it creates less transparency, not more, and therefore is in fact a risk to our financial

well-being. so, americans are looking for obviously jobs. this is the big hook. people lure -- put the jobs -- one more minute? mr. lynch: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. ellison: a way to get anybody to vote for anything around here is to say it's going to create jobs. there's been no demonstration of how this is going to create jobs. but the point is, it will create a situation where there's less information to investors who need it. and it's important for members to know that the s.e.c. has taken enforcement actions against private equity firms. in know, for example, neilman asset management group, the s.e.c. found that registered private equity funds advisor, neilman asset management group, l.l.c., and managing director, chief executive officer and former

c.c.o. violated the advisors act custody, antifraud compliance reporting and books and records provisions. there's a case where you have the s.e.c. using information to bring accountability in the private equity arena. also in the area of insider trading enforcement, the ground insider trading case involved an individual who allegedly stole confidential -- i'll wrap it up. mr. lynch: all right. i yield another 20 seconds. just to wrap up. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ellison: let me wrap up by saying we urge members to vote no, to look out for advisors, even private equity advisors need transparency, not less information. a no vote is urged here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield four minutes to a co-author of the legislation and the chairman of the capital markets and g.s.e. subcommittee, mr. garrett of new jersey.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for four minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chair and i thank the chair and before i give my remarks, i just want to say in response that i believe the chairman said that he is not opposed to all regulation, i think he said he's in favor of regulation. but make into are sure that it is -- but make sure it is smart and appropriate regulation. that's my position as well. and understand too, to the gentleman's point, that even when this legislation is passed, the s.e.c. still will have significant authority, it will still have its enforcement division, it will still have its new asset management unit which it has recently recruited industry professions with -- professionals with experience to do investigations the gentleman wants to have continued and it will continue, even after the passage of this legislation. and so with that said, i want to again thank the chairman and thank the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, and also the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, as well for their hard work on this very important legislation, as well as all of our co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle.

and so with that i'm pleased to support h.r. 1105 and do make no mistake about it, this is bipartisan legislation. and it is all about helping small businesses and helping to create more jobs in this country. today more man 17,700 companies backed by private equity employ over 7.5 million people. my home state of new jersey alone, 597 private equity-backed companies support more than 377,000 workers. while the new jersey division of pension benefits has invested billions on behalf of retirees in private equity firms, hoping all those facts give you the facts you need to know, how much is important to the creation of jobs. and yet, despite their long track record of supporting small business nationwide, the dodd-frank act has imposed enormous, innumerous burdens on private equity firms, funding most fund advisors to -- forcing most fund advisors to spend millions of dollars on reporting requirements.

so these burdensome regulations no doubt crimp the flow of what is much needed investment dollars to america's small businesses. and so there's little or no evidence that they are needed to promote the stability of our financial system or to protect investors. so, unlike, say, federal housing policy and the government-sponsored enterprises like fannie mae and freddie mac, private equity did not cause the financial crisis and is not and never has been a source of systemic risk. as former s.e.c. chair mary shapiro admitted back in 2011, she said, private equity funds have less potential to pose systemic risk than any other type of private funds. indeed, if the s.e.c. is so concerned about the systemic risk of private equity funds, their recent examinations of private equity advisors certainly don't show it. as chair white recently said, neither the s.e.c. examination staff nor the division of investment management, quote, has conducted examinations of advisors to private funds based

primary on -- primarily on systemic risk. he also said, s.e.c. examiners have quote, not to date risks. thirdly, none of the advisors to private funds that withdrew their registration had systemic risk in the marketplace. and so now we must ask ourselves this question. do we really want the s.e.c., already saddled with a multitude of unfinished, nongermane dodd-frank mandates, expending valuable resources on risks that don't even exist? in addition, because only sophisticated investors may invest in these private equity funds, the need, if you think about it, to protect investers in this case is more limited compared to other areas of the security market. so, while i whole heartedly support the s.e.c.'s mission to protect investors, the agency with limited resources should be devoted first and foremost to protecting the less sophisticated, the retail mom and pop investors. they need the most protection.

it was paul who was back in congress when dodd-frank went through, he said, i for one could care less about high-wealth individuals who want to contribute trare un-- their money to a group of investors. if they want to take the shot of losing it, it does not really affect the rest of society. and it also bares mentioning that this legislation -- bear mentioning that this legislation no no way alters he tool the s.e.c. has for investigating. and with that i urge support of h.r. 1105, at a time when most small businesses continue to have difficulty getting credit, and need to grow, passing this bipartisan legislation, commonsense legislation, should be a no-brainer. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i yield myself just one minute to respond to soom of these allegations -- some of these allegations. with 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, opposed this bill. they opposed this bill because the record of enforcement actions of the s.e.c. to go after risks that do actually exist. with that i yield three minutes to mr. himes of connecticut, a co-sponsor of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. himes: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my friend from massachusetts for the time. and ranking member waters for being willing to hear different perspectives on this bill from our side. and i want to start by saying that dodd-frank, which i think i can say i contributed more than my share to, was on balance a very good and very important thing. the dragging of drisktives into the light of day, trading on exchanges, clearing through clearing houses, the creation of the cfpb, taking steps to

eliminate too big to fail, there's lots of stuff in dodd-frank which is important and good. but not everything in dodd-frank is important and good. like all other works of mortals, there are things in this that are probably unintended and perhaps overreaching. i happen to believe that the requirement that private equity funds register with the s.e.c. is one of those areas. why is that? first, private equity funds, as has been pointed out on the floor today, weren't a million miles from the bad mortgages, from fannie mae and freddie mac, from the subprime mortgages, from all of those things that caused the failures in 2008. they weren't anywhere close. secondly, investor protection is important. but by law, the only people who can invest in these funds are accredited investors or institutional investors. who don't just sign up. they hire attorneys to negotiate partnership agreements. they negotiate with these private equity funds for disclosure, for the terms, and

all of those sorts of things. we're not talking about retail investors here. finally, the issue of leverage. we have finally gotten to the point where people acknowledge that these are not large leverage funds. and the point is made that the leverage is at the investment company level. that is true. private equity firms do buy companies, invest in them, and then those companies take on leverage. the average leverage across the entire universe of private equity-sponsored companies is less than 3-1. not 30-1. 3-1. less than 3-1. by way of comparison, hedge funds on average are leveraged 15-1. lehman brothers when it went down, was leveraged in excess of 30-1. we're talking about companies which are assuming the same kind of debt that any other small business assumes out there, less than 3-1. what we have happening right now is we have examiners and the intention and the resources of the s.e.c., which has

terribly important missions around real estate and mortgages and derivatives and finding the next bernie may doff, going to -- may doff, going to $175 million funds, and examining these funds on behalf of sophisticated investors. that does not make sense. dodd-frank exempted venture capital funds from this registration requirement. venture capital funds do the exact same thing with the exact same invests that are private equity funds do, they just do it at an earlier stage in the company's history. the only reason for that exemption is that we like venture capital funds more than we like private equity funds. they sound better, they make nice things in garages in palow alto. private equity sounds more ominous and therefore they have been subjected to registration. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. lynch: give the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional one minute. mr. himes: thank you.

we exempted venture capital funds from 40 act registration. same set of investors, same types of investing. actually, a more risky asset class than private equity. we exempted them for no other reason than that we like venture capital better than we like private equity. that's fine. but in statute and in regulation, we should be consistent. so i think you can argue that venture capitalists should be subject to the same kind of registration requirements the private equity is or you can argue as i do that probably both types of funds don't need to be registered under 1940. but you can't support dodd-frank and say venture capitalists are exempt but private equity is not, and be consistent in policy. so i would urge my colleagues to in the interest of balancing a very good piece of legislation, to support 1105 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i now am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is

recognized for two minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman hensarling. here e are trying to do today is to get small business jobs growing again and private equity helps do that. the infusion of private investment helps these small businesses create jobs. so we can get the economy moving again. over the last 15 years, private capital has helped about 23,000 small businesses, employing approximately three million people. businesses backed by private capital grew jobs 3.5 times faster than other businesses. we need to encourage this kind of growth by bringing more opportunity, not more regulation. capital is better spent getting people back to work in growing our small businesses than it is tied up in compliance costs. in illinois in my state more than $2 billion has been invested. private equity is about skin in the game and we need to keep these resources in the economy, not on the sidelines. i ask my colleagues to support

h.r. 1105. i'm a proud co-sponsor and believe we should pass this important bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: may i ask how much time is remaining for each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 16 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas has 12 remaining. mr. lynch: at this time i three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. cooper: i thank the gentleman for yielding and it's a pleasure to serve with you. it's also a pleasure to support this bill. i want to address my remarks particularly to the new democrats and blue dog democrats because not everyone in this body is an expert on private equity or venture capital. this sounds like a complicated topic. it sounds technical but it's really all about jobs. there's nothing we can ask more back home than about creating jobs. there's nothing more we talk

about here than creating jobs. passing this bill is a good way to do that. it's easy to get wound up in the details but the bottom line is this -- private equity creates job. these are funds who have wealthy investors investing in them and they lend their money, -- in companies and create jobs. they've created some 17,000 individual companies. these are the companies we try to recruit to our districts. these are the companies that we try to grow back home so more of our good people back home can have good jobs. the paperwork requirement that unfortunately -- and i think probably inadvertently that was put on them by the dodd-frank bill needs to be removed. s.e.c. registration is not appropriate for these funds. it costs between 3/4 of a

million dollars and $1 million for this paperwork. that's money that's embalmed in red tape. so this is a chance -- and we do need to make sure there is a senate companion when this bill passes the house. i'm proud to be part of a job creation effort. people that understand venture capital and private equity knows this is a great way to help create more jobs in this country. by removing a little bit of the red tape that probably shouldn't have been there to begin with, you know, this bill passed the financial services committee last session of congress by voice vote. by voice vote. this shouldn't be controversial. this year the vote was overwhelming, 38-18. so i hope my colleagues, particularly among new democrats and blue dogs, will understand this is a job-creation issue, this is a bipartisan job-creation opportunity. 105 should pass overwhelmingly

bipartisan support. let's get this over to the senate and i thank the chairman for yielding time and i hope my colleagues will vote for 1105. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i now yield a minute and a half to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman hensarling of the financial services committee and also the gentleman from virginia, my friend, mr. hurt, for their very hard work in bringing this important legislation to the floor today. mr. speaker, today i rise in support of h.r. 1105, the small business capital access and job preservation act. this legislation addresses yet another misguided provision of the dodd-frank act that will help ensure that private equity maintains its critical role in our economy. private equity firms provide capital to main street businesses in missouri and all across our country. importantly, private equity often invests in companies when

others are unwilling to do so. these investments support nearly 18,000 businesses in the united states that employ some 7 1/2 million workers. unfortunately, the dodd-frank act seeks to make it more difficult for private equity to maintain this important economic role. to my knowledge, no evidence has been produced which shows that private equity was a cause of the 2008 financial crisis or that it presents a systemic risk to our financial system. it makes sense, little sense then to impose unnecessary and costly red tape burdens on private equity investors which will only make it more difficult for them to invest in american businesses and create jobs. h.r. 1105 is therefore a necessary response to an overreach of the dodd-frank act and will help support main street businesses and jobs all throughout our country. i am pleased to support this very bipartisan bill and urge

my colleagues to vote in support of h.r. 1105. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: 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 democrats and republicans, to agree to go by voice vote to promise to work on some of those issues going forward. so it was an agreement to try to continue to agree and work on the bill. favor of a vote in any particular provisions in this bill. there's been a lot of talk here about the risk that don't exist, and i do want to point

out some of those. as a result of this bill, more than -- 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 advisor who, for instance, violated securities law. the advisor's business practices, its fees, any conflict of interest on the part of that advisor. 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 s.e.c. from conducting compliance examines

of private equity funds advisors even though s.e.c. chairman white notes that the commission has already uncovered issues such as unlawful pay to play schemes, insider trading, that we all read about recently, conflicts of interest, valuation issues and misappropriation of assets. i want to talk about some of these. since there's been a complete dismissal of any risk here, i think the record speaks to the risk. the s.e.c. has brought several enforcement actions against private equity firms while they don't represent all private equity firms, they do highlight the need for a strong police officer with the authority to examine all private equity advisors. capital formation relies on investor confidence and the -- in the underlying assets. without registering with the s.e.c., they will no longer have a cop on the beat that will reduce investor demand.

for example here, there have been broad violations related to fraud, custody, compliance and reporting. in a management group, the s.e.c. found that registered private equity funds, mehlman asset group, l.l.c., and another chief executive and former c.o.o., violated the anti-fraud, compliance, reporting and books and records provisions. an insider trader enforcement. the trading case involved an individual who lemmedly stole confidential acquisition information from his employer, s.p.g. capital, and sold that information to two friends who made $500,000 in illicit trading profits. valuation related enforcement a ons, the arpenhiemer has portfolio manager that misrepresented details of 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 ones that we see in private equity. finally, kcap, valuation case involving alleged overstatements of debt securities and c.l.o.'s held in the investment portfolio, a.m.u.'s emphasis on pursuing valuation cases. in another case, the s.e.c. found that an investment manager knowingly used a sanction under registered 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's what the risk is. that's not fiction. those are actual cases that the

s.e.c. has introduced enforcement actions on. so there is real risk here for investors. and for the markets themselves. and with that i yield -- i actually reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 30 seconds, mr. speaker, to say that the gentleman from massachusetts sets up a straw man and then knocks it down. what he calls things illegal continues to be illegal. and i would say the private equity funds has extensive reporting to investors, including annual audited statements, private equity advisors are subjected to the anti-fraud provisions of the advisors act of 1940. and part of the securities act of 1933. the real choice becomes, are we going to get even greater

protections for millionaire investors or help struggling single moms trying to find a job in this economy? mr. speaker, i am happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. stivers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding time. the small business capital access and job preservation act is an important bill that i believe will allow more capital to go and flow to small business so they can create jobs. you know, at a time when we have 7.3% unemployment and underemployment over 10%, we have a need for more capital to flow into our businesses so they can create jobs. meanwhile, the dodd-frank act created burdensome new s.e.c. registration on private equity firms but as the gentleman from connecticut said earlier, not on venture capital firms that do exactly the same thing.

so in fact, i would argue that venture capital firms have more risk than private equity. there already are important protections, consumer protections around private equity. you have to be a sophisticated, accredited investor and there's already important fraud detection and fraud enforcement actions that are available to the s.e.c. in the cases of these investors being taken advantage of. so at a time when private equity is helping provide over six million jobs in america, we should be doing everything we can to actually encourage more activity by private equity to encourage more jobs in america, not burdening them with big regulations. and i want to just make four quick points. these middle market private equity firms, like we have in towns like columbus, ohio, where i live, contributed a lot toward job creation but not a lot towards systemic risk.

and the compliance costs for these smaller firms in towns like columbus, ohio, will be especially high as a percentage that it could drive many of them out of business. many of these firms that manage both sbic and non-sbic funds already face multiple layers of regulation, and the fourth point is, many of these investment advisor rules are not really perntnent to private equity funds. so i -- pertinent to private equity funds. of this in approval legislation. i think it's a win for job creation. and i urge all my colleagues to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: i yield myself a couple minutes here to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: thank you. we need not worry about small firms in this. they're already exempt under this bill. they're already exempt.

so concerns about small firms being covered by this -- they're already exempt, number one. number two, the other assumption or the other scenario that's been said here allowing -- by allowing private equity firms the right to keep secret -- to refuse to disclose that their employees have been prosecuted for violating securities laws, by allowing that to remain undisclosed, that's going to help some single mom go to work. i don't think that is a rational assumption. i have a bunch of stuff here i have to submit for the record but thank you. i'd like unanimous consent into enter into the record letters

from the following organizations, all opposed to this bill. one, the americans for financial reform, a letter from e afl-cio, a letter from the california public employees retirement system, a letter from the consumer federation of america, a letter from the council of institutional investors, a letter from the north american securities administration association, and a statement of the administration policy from the obama administration. i ask unanimous consent that they be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: and i ask to reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased now to yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. mr. speaker, strong job creation is the foundation for health a healthy economy, while overregulation kills jobs. private equity provides much-needed capital and better investment returns to pension

plans, university endowments, foundations and other investors than if they simply deposited their money in a bank. the various forms of capital provided by private equity in our economy result in more resources for companies to operate their firms, expand their facilities and create more jobs. h.r. 1105 sponsor d 1105, sponsored by mr. hurt, would help expand private equity by relievinging certain advisors to private equity funds from the burdensome and unnecessary process of registering with the s.e.c. this bill would simply allow investors -- excuse me, allow advisors and private equity firms to do what they do best, invest in promising companies in order to help them expand and create more jobs. let's support job growth in this country by voting in favor of h.r. 1105. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: can i ask how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 7 3/4 minutes remaining.

the gentleman from texas has 7 1/2. mr. lynch: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would like to remind my colleagues that we are still recovering from a massive financial crisis that cost this country $16 trillion. and i would venture to say that we should be more focused on protecting investors, not removing investor protections. and i would say that all investors deserve to be protected. sophisticated investors, retail investors, pension investors. all investors should be protected. which is why the obama administration has come out so strongly in opposition to the underlying bill. and why the securities and

exchange commission, whose mission is to protect investors, is so adamantly, strongly opposed to this bill. now, i am sympathetic to the point that my colleagues have raised on the other side of the aisle and on this side of the aisle. that some of the reporting and registration requirements are onerous. so let's address that. let's direct the s.e.c. to come forward with simplified forms. to do it quickly, within six months. let's save money. let's simplify the process. but let's not remove important investor protections. uch as the fiduciary duty to act in the client's best interest. what's wrong with that? i think that's a moral responsibility. such as the obligation to disclose conflicts of interest. now, that's not onerous.

how difficult is it to say, yes or no? i have not had any conflict of interest, or if you are advising your client to invest in your business, then disclose your conflict of interest. what's so onerous about that? that's not onerous. that's easy. and what's wrong with the obligation to disclose fees? everyone talks about transparency. that is why we are opposing this bill, we wanted to be transparent, and we want to protect investors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional one minute. mrs. maloney: i feel that there are many ways that we could address this that would come forward with a strong piece of legislation that president obama could sign into law. instead he's got a lot of ink in his veto pen and he has said right out front he will veto this bill. now, if they want to simplify disclosure and registration requirements, then let's do that. let's require the s.e.c. to

come forward with it. let's simplify the process and save the cost for small businesses. we want to save that cost. and honest, private equity firms have grown jobs in this country and it's important to grow jobs, it's important to support them and -- in every single way. but by removing all investor protection, according to the obama administration, would literally assault the safety and soundness and the strong financial security that we are trying to build in this country. what's wrong with protecting investors? that's what we're saying. i have an amendment which would do just that. protect the investors, but simplify the forms and maintain the cost. if their goal is to save the money for the small firms, then let's do that. but let's not erase very important investor protections in the process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas.

mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: again, i want to address the gentleman from massachusetts who again i believe sets up a strawman only to knock it down. i would urge all members to actually read the bill. i know that many of my democratic colleagues now have buyer's remorse from not reading the 2,000-page obamacare bill. but, mr. speaker, this is a two-page bill. 36 lines. and i would say to my friend, the gentleman from massachusetts, that on page 2, that the s.e.c. can, quote, require investment advisors described in paragraph 1 to maintain such records and provide to the commission such annual or other reports, as the commission taking into account, fun-sized, governments -- fund size, governments, and other

things necessary. to make the assertion that these records of foul play could never exist is simply not true. i would say to my friend, the gentlelady from new york, who made the assertion that the s.e.c. has opposed this bill, i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the s.e.c. has not opposed this bill. one member, one member, mary jo white, has issued an opinion that she does not support the legislation, but the s.e.c. has taken no official position. with respect to a threatened veto, i don't recall that when my democratic colleagues had the majority here that they refused to pass bills simply because president bush threatened to veto, but i must admit, our committee has produced i believe it is at least 10 or 11 bipartisan bills , all receiving veto threats from a president who says he wants to work on a bipartisan basis. this is most regrettable. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. lynch: thank you. i yield myself two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lynch: no? well, i have to re-enter -- there was a problem with submitting some documents for unanimous consent. i'd like to unanimous consent to enter into the record for the following organizations, 1105, the ppose h.r. afl-cio, california public employees' retirement system, and north american securities administration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lynch: 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. that's my point. sure i will. mr. hensarling: by definition,

it's private equity. it is not a public fund. mr. lynch: right. but those are public investors. they're the ones that need the information. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield the balance of our time to the gentlelady from california, ms. waters, our ranking member and a real champion of america's working families. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for the balance of the time which is 3 3/4 minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i'd like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for managing in my absence. i'm pleased to have the opportunity to come back to the floor to add a few comments. prior to leaving, the chairman of this committee talked about this being a job-creation bill. he wrapped this bill in job creation. and i must say that i don't think that the gentleman had much else he could say about why they're trying to exempt all of these private equity funds from registering with the s.e.c. wrapping it in this notion of

creating all of these jobs and we should all be very appreciative is one way to deflect attention from the fact that here we have private from funds, $180 million the smaller private equity funds have been exempted already. those firms that have $180 million in those funds are already exempted. that was done in the dodd-frank legislation. now they're coming back and they're saying, exempt everybody. what is it you're trying to hide? why is it you do not want these firms to register? well, first of all, they are registered at this point. the s.e.c. is given the oversight and the regulation that they need and they're finding that it is very important for them to do so because they're finding that there are unlawful play-to-pay schemes, insider trading and

misappropriation of assets, etc., etc. that's not to say that all private equity funds are doing these things. but weeding out the bad apples is extremely important. the s.e.c. is our cop on the block. they're there to protect the investors. this is their number one responsibility. and we want them to do this. ust as you have calpers from california that's against this bill, they should be against this bill. they have the retirement funds of policemen and firemen and all of the middle class people that make up the basis of this economy. well, lets me just add to the ones that were mentioned by my friend from massachusetts. we also have americans for financial reform, we also have the consumer federation and all of the state regulators who are against this bill, and the president's advisors have said they're recommending a veto. what do you have to hide? why don't you want registration? that's the question that must be asked. that's the question that has

really not been answered. and, mr. speaker, members, i would ask for a no vote on this bill, because we endanger the investors that they claim they want to protect, because they claim they want them to produce all of these jobs. and certainly that will never happen if we allow the kind of situations to continue to happen, that are described under the discussion about capital in the presidential elections debates. do i still have time, mr. chairman? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady remains to be recognized. yes. ms. waters: thank you very much. now, further, let me just say, that we have worked very, very rd to try and make sure that we have protection, that is the role of the s.e.c., and again they are already -- they already have these registered private equity firms that they are taking a look at and they're learning things about

them and this information will be used to make sure that we have the kind of private equity funds that can do the kind of jobs that we want them to do. yes, we appreciate investment. yes, we want job creation. but why should we have private equity funds that somehow have no oversight? that don't have anybody scrutinizing what they're doing? why is it we don't want any regulatory agencies looking at them? that just doesn't make good sense. and i would say to my friends, you have to oppose this bill. there will be an amendment coming up, that was mentioned by mrs. maloney, that makes good sense. and if they had gone to that simply as a way of trying to help out in this area, they could have gotten a lot of support. but they stepped way over the line. when they say, no oversight, no scrutiny by the s.e.c. or anybody else. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield two minutes to the

gentleman from new jersey, again, a co-author of the legislation, and the chairman of our capital markets and g.s.e. subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: thank you. let's step back for a moment and see where we may agree on certain points. i guess at the 30,000-foot level we agree we want to work together on legislation that will try to prevent the next financial crisis we agree that we want to try to protect investors. it's after that level, however, and getting into the details, that we disagree. as far as protecting and try to make sure the next financial crisis does not occur, there has been no evidence either today on the floor or in the committee process during the discussion of this debate, or in any of the debates when we discuss dodd-frank, that the origin of the last financial crisis was from private equity, no evidence. or from hedge funds. no evidence. or from venture capital. no evidence whatsoever. so to say that we need to have extensive overbearing, overlapping, extraneous

regulations on private equity, to prevent the next one, they have no evidence to say that that was the cause in the past. so we say, just as the gentleman from connecticut said before, venture capital was excluded from it, why not private equity as well? that's why we have come together in a bipartisan manner to make sure the next crisis doesn't occur in an area such as this. the second point of area was made as far as cost. the gentleman from massachusetts says, well, we're talking about the larger funds here. if he was at the hearing last night on rules committee, he would have heard one of his colleagues, mr. poll friss -- polis from colorado, refute that point. why is that? because when you're talking about firms, this is what he said last night, really interesting, when you're talking about firms, $150 million, $200 million, sounds like large firms, right? but that's just how much money is under management. the actual profits, the actual money that they're spending in the company is just a fraction of it. a little tiny fraction, as he pointed out, around 2%.

so if you're talking about $150 million fund under management, sounds big, actually you're talking about around a $3 million business and now you're asking that $3 million to have to pay upwards to a half a million dollars each year for all their compliance costs and the examination which goes to the last point by the entlelady from new york. we'd like to find common ground on her amendment. the initial filing of the forms and what have you. after that there's the extraneous additional examinations and all the other costs that is so overly burdensome, that we have found both in a bipartisan manner, as mr. himes from connecticut already pointed out, is overly burdensome and unnecessary. if there was some other way to pull this together on a bipartisan amendment, more than already have, i would gladly do so. i'm goodlatte the gentleman from virginia and also the gentleman from connecticut have

been able to come together on all the points to come to a final bill in a bipartisan manner and i support the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas with 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: you know, mr. speaker, listening to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it's hard not to conclude that some of them have never met a regulation that they didn't like. regardless of what it does to the hopes, dreams, aspirations of the unemployed and underemployed in america. as i look over at your chair, mr. speaker, and i see the words, "in god we trust," i sometimes question whether some members would like to take down the word "god" and replace it with regulators, "in regulators we trust."

the question hasn't been, mr. speaker, the question between regulation and deregulation, the question is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. and in order to make that determination, one needs to see what cost is being imposed again on the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the unemployed and the underemployed. why does this underlying regulation need to be there in the first place? is it systemic risk? well, even the chairman of the s.e.c. has admitted that private equity played no role in the financial crisis. we know in terms of the economy, private equity may represent somewhere in the world of 1.5% to 2% of g.d.p. there's no evidence of interconnectedness, which many maintain is at the root of systemic risk. so what are they trying to protect? well, investor protection, this

is all about giving additional protection to millionaire investors at the expense of single moms trying to make ends meet. i'm not really sure that meets the test of smart regulation. and we know already that private equity fund advisors are subject, as they well should be, to the anti-prod provisions of the investors act of 1940. the securities act of 1933. the s.e.c. still has the ability to ensure that proper documentation is maintained. no, we do not want to see any investor, regardless of sophistication or income, be subject to coercion or fraud but at the same time we don't want to deny small businesses the job engine in america the funding they need to put

america back to work. there are many companies today that we recognize. skype, oughnuts, petco, j. crew, that have benefited from private equity. where would the hundreds of thousands of jobs they represent be today if private equity had to face yet another burden that's going to cause these small investment firms half a million dollars, a million dollars? now, today we really haven't heard that much of international smart comp but maybe they are tomorrow's petco, tomorrow's toys r us. so it really comes down to us, mr. speaker. again, are there going to be additional protections for multimillionaire investors or protections and opportunities for unemployed, single moms trying to make ends meet? our side of the aisle said let's help the single mom,

let's pass h.r. 1105 and put america back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 113-283 offered by ms. carolyn b. maloney of new york. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 429, the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i thank the chair and i first want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their hard and dedicated work on the financial services committee. i'd also like to commend the vice chairman, mr. hurt, congressman hurt for his work on this bill. and i agree with him that private equity funds did not cause the financial crisis. and i also agree that many

private equity funds and especially the small private equity funds invest in middle market businesses that support jobs across our country. i also agree for many small equity funds, the cost of complying with every single requirement in the investor advisory act can be burdensome and costly. however, while i share the goal of reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on small private equity funds with under $1 billion in assets, i believe there are better ways to accomplish this goal, to reduce the burden, to reduce costs ithout eliminating important investor protection. and i say we should have equality in this country and equality of treatment to everyone, including investors. if you're a small investor, a large investor, a teacher,

unemployed worker and you've invested, whoever you are, you should have protections. aren't we a country of laws and equality of treatment? so my amendment would direct the s.e.c. to create a simplified disclosure form for fund advisors between $150 million and $1 billion while also retaining important investor protections. so we would reduce the burden, reduce the reporting, reduce the disclosure, simplify the forms, make it easier but protect the fiduciary duty to act on a client's best interest. isn't that the moral, right thing to do? the disclosure of conflicts of interest and the obligation to disclose fees. i thought we all supported transparency. but let's have transparency in these investment funds too.

now, i would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are objecting to this amendment, how much of a burden is it to disclose whether or not you have a conflict of interest? you just have to check yes or no, i have a conflict of interest. maybe you have to disclose what that conflict is, but that's the fair and right thing to do. how burdensome is it to disclose fees? tell people what you're charging them and how burdensome is it to have the really necessary if i dishary duty to -- fiduciary duty to act in the client's best interest. many people think you're acting in their best interest. i think they would be horrified to know that some members of this body want to roll back that protection for them. i would also like to note that in august, the s.e.c. did provide relief for smaller private equity funds from what the industry tells me is one of

the most burdensome aspects of registration. the so-called custody rule which requires that the funds use independent custodians for stocks that don't even trade. so private equity funds have already gotten relief, and i applaud the s.e.c. for this commonsense decision. the reforms in my amendment would build on this relief and would direct the s.e.c. to act quickly on simplified forms within six months and save these small businesses money so that money can go out into the community. the underlying bill grants a complete exemption to private equity fund advisors with under 2:1 leverage which is pretty much the entire industry, because the funds themselves are not leveraged, it's the

companies the funds invest in hat are leveraged. the prime mission is to protect investors and by president obama's administration and he's even threatened a veto. if the problem is the high cost of registering at the s.e.c. and preparing for disclosures, then it is to simplify the disclosures for small equity funds. that's what my bill does, but it also protects investors. it does not exempt the entire industry from investor otection which is what the underlying bill does. and i do not believe that that is the intent of my colleagues on ear side of the aisle. so my -- on either side of the aisle. so my amendment has the expressed goal of saving money, simplifying but protects the integrity of our system and

investors. so i would like to yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i urge everyone to support my amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to claim the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, the amendment, regardless of how well-intentioned it may be, functionally guts the bill and is essentially redundant of current law in dodd-frank. perhaps, and i certainly grant the gentlelady who is a very senior and thoughtful member of this committee that her amendment is more articulate than the underlying law, but section 408 in -- of dodd-frank already says, quote, in prescribing regulations to carry out the requirements of this section, with respect to investment advisors acting as investment advisors to mid sized private funds, the commission shall take into

account the size, governance, investment strategy of such funds. it goes on to say, the commission shall provide for registration, examination procedures with respect to the investment advisors of such funds which reflect the level of systemic risk. so, again, it is essentially redundant of what is already in current law, but according to the private equity growth council, on average it is taking $1.8 million for the initial dodd-frank compliant $1.3 d additional million each year in dodd-frank compliant cost all for what? all for what? we already have underlying investor protections in place. no evidence, no evidence presented whatsoever that this has anything to do with systemic risk. all at the cost of jobs at a time when again, mr. speaker, tens of millions of our

countrymen are struggling, underemployed, unemployed. again, who are we going to help? are we going to help regulators? are we going to help millionaire investors? are we going to help struggling americans trying to pay the bills? and so we should oppose this amendment, mr. speaker. at this time i'd have been happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, again, the author of h.r. 1105. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: thank you. i rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment. i appreciate her work and interest on this important issue but with all due respect, this amendment would defeat the entire purpose of the bill. if adopted, all advisors to private equity that are currently undergoing the burdensome and unnecessary registration process would still be required to do so. additionally, it would establish an entirely subject so-called simplified compliance standard that would have to be defined by the securities and exchange commission. there's no reason to believe that such a so-called

simplified standard would provide any meaningful relief for those private equity companies investing in small companies across this country. as has been stated, small and midsized private equity firms are expending hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual compliance costs and would still have to be registered with the s.e.c. instead of addressing this problem, this amendment if adopted would continue to restrict the ability of small and midsized equity firms to invest in small business. as members have pointed out, they are not good arguments that they provide systemic risk. and we have already adopted a standard proposed by mr. himes in committee that would require registration for advisors to firms with leverage that exceeds 2-1. i know that the gentlelady understands that access to private capital is the lifeblood for small business. the current s.e.c. registration requirements are unnecessary, they produce significant burden on private equity firms and therefore restrict the flow of private capital to small

businesses across the country. i urge this body to defeat this amendment and vote in favor of the underlying bill. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has one minute and 30 seconds remaining. mr. hensarling: i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. speaker. again, private equity historically has invested in tens of thousands of small businesses, helped create millions of jobs in america, and the question is today, are we going to put a road block, a road block in place of private equity, the small business investment engines, so that we can somehow help regulators, and with all due respect to our regulators, and there are many good ones, many great ones at the s.e.c., but i've never met a regulator who turned down the opportunity to regulate more. i've never met them.

and so the question is, are we going to grant even greater ability to take funds away from small businesses to create a work product that doesn't meet the commonsense test, the jobs test, the smell test, or any other test at a time when people are still suffering and wondering how are they going to put gas in the tank, how are they going to take their kids to school, how are they going to afford their health care bills, since clearly they cannot keep their health insurance even if they want to, how are they going to do this? we need private equity to fund small business, to get america back to work. we need to defeat this amendment, we need to pass the underlying bill. it is time to be projobs and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of our time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended and on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. the question is on the amendment by the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlelady asking for the yeas and nays? mrs. maloney: yes, i do demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 186 and the nays are 225. thes remain -- the amendment is not adopted. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the investment advisors act of 1940, to provide a registration exemption for private equity fund advisors and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. he house will be in order.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom nevada seek recognition? mr. horsford: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. i am opposed in its current form iment the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. horsford of nevada moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 1105, to the committee on financial services, with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith, with the following amendment. page 2, line 17, strike the quotation marks and final period and insert after such line the following, 3, protecting american jobs, the exemmingts describes under paragraph -- the exemption described under paragraph 1 shall only apply to an invest, -- investment advisor giving advise to, a, --

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the motion be dispensed as read. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. he house will be in order. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee, if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is correct. he house will be in order. the gentleman may proceed.