Providing For Further Consideration Of H.R. 4173, Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

Providing For Further Consideration Of H.R. 4173, Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act Of 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to bring H.R. 4173, the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, to the floor of the House. I'd like to thank Chairman Frank and my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee as well as their staffs for the hard work in crafting this legislation. I'd also like to thank the other committees who worked on this bill, including the Agriculture Committee; the Energy and Commerce Committee; the Judiciary Committee; the Budget Committee; the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; the Committee on Ways and Means; and, of course, my Chair, Chairwoman Slaughter, on the Committee on Rules, as well as my colleague Representative Perlmutter for managing the rule. The crafting of this legislation has truly been an all-hands-on effort.

The rule is a fair one. I would like to thank Chairman Frank for including two amendments which I offered into his manager's amendment.

Our economy is driven by private investment. In order to encourage investment, we need to give investors peace of mind that at the end of a fraud, they have some recourse. Due to limited protections available, many investors realized significant losses as a result of investment fraud, the most infamous of which was the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In my district in Colorado, the dreams of a comfortable retirement from a lifetime of work or a college education for their kids were stolen from many of my constituents, most of whom had no idea that they were investing in Madoff. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation, or SIPC, is a wise insurance program that is simply outdated and insufficient. Investor protection must evolve. My first amendment is an important step in this evolution. My amendment directs the Comptroller General to study the feasibility of optional, premium-based additional coverage for investors. While there is private insurance available, SIPC plus will give investors at once choice and peace of mind to know that should they become a victim of a fraud, they're protected and will be able to realize a cash settlement in the event of a fraud to begin rebuilding.

My second amendment relates to student loans. As a representative of the district that's home to one of our Nation's premier public institutions of higher learning, the University of Colorado at Boulder, I'm keenly aware of the importance of college affordability. Families have had less income to pay for students' education, and State governments have had fewer dollars to fund higher education, resulting in higher tuition for students and families. We have a healthy Federal student loan program because we recognize that subsidizing investment in education yields positive economic results. Unfortunately, high interest private industry loans disguised as equal alternatives to Federal loans have condemned graduates to debts so outrageous as to destroy the very opportunity for prosperity that college offers. An alarming number of students are taking out high-cost debt, frequently with interest rates as high as 18 percent, and debt that doesn't offer the same favorable deferment or repayment options as Federal loans. Even more troubling, one out of four private loan borrowers took out no Federal Stafford loans and more than half of them didn't even apply for student aid.

My amendment addresses this by requiring that before a private loan is funded, financial aid advisers inform students about the Federal loan options that are available to them. In 2007, two out of three students with private loans hadn't exhausted their lower-cost Federal financial aid. Students and their families should apply for and exhaust all of their available less-expensive Federal financial aid options before turning to risky and expensive student loans.

I am also grateful to Chairman Frank and the Rules Committee for eliminating troubling language regarding liability of Internet access providers and also for the study of how best to fund dissolution authority and hopefully find alternatives to the current language.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source