September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6125 

Currently, congressional mandates 

require that the U.S. representative 

must vote ‘‘no’’ on any proposed assistance going from an international financial institution to Burma. This bill before us today would change that. It 

would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to instruct our executive directors 

at the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the IMF to support 

proposed assistance to Burma, if the 

President determines that it is in our 

national interest. 

This flexibility will be needed in the 

coming months. There will likely be 

some important votes coming up at the 

World Bank and the Asian Development Bank on development projects 

and arrears clearance packages for 

Burma. Binding the U.S. representative 

to always vote ‘‘no’’ on such measures 

would work directly against our hope 

of engaging Burma and supporting her 

democratic reforms, and that’s why I 

strongly support this bill. 

The economic and political reforms 

in Burma show great promise. That is 

why the United States lifted the sanctions on investment in Burma back in 

July. And the right thing to do now is 

to support development and economic 

aid to Burma through the international financial institutions. 

Both multilateral development and 

humanitarian assistance are important 

now because Burma needs both longterm and short-term results. Her people need to see that a democracy has 

tangible positive impacts on their everyday lives. 

It is not just in the best interests of 

the Burmese people that they continue 

to support the democratic and economic reforms in the country; it is in 

the interest of the United States as 

well. And I would say that it’s in the 

world’s best interest, too. 

It was a great honor today to welcome Aung San Suu Kyi to the Capitol. 

She is a courageous woman of matchless strength and towering integrity. 

I congratulate her on receiving the 

Congressional Gold Medal, the highest 

award that we can give anyone, which 

she so richly deserves. She honors us 

by her presence and her acceptance of 

this award. 

Her unshakeable conviction that 

democratic values and fundamental 

human rights were not only possible 

but absolutely necessary for Burma 

provided her country with a model of 

courage and perseverance that helped 

to sustain it throughout the most difficult years. 

We congratulate her. We thank her. 

And I want to let her know that she is 

a very special heroine to me, and that 

we remain strongly committed to the 

cause of reform in her country and to 

supporting not only her country, but 

her people. 

Aung San Suu Kyi has said that aid 

and investment in Burma must be done 

in a way that is democracy friendly. 

She describes that as investments that 

prioritize transparency, accountability, workers’ rights, and environmental sustainability. Aung San Suu 

Kyi has also said that the government 

needs to apply internationally recognized standards such as the IMF Code 

of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency. I agree with her wholeheartedly on both of these issues. 

As the international financial institutions move to reengage in Burma and 

we move through this piece of legislation in support of that engagement, I 

urge the administration to use its leadership at the IFIs to ensure that assistance to Burma supports democratic reforms, ensures an open and transparent 

government, and establishes safeguards 

that support growth, alleviates poverty, and safeguards the rights of the 

people. 

There is a tide in the affairs of nations that, taken at the flood, can lead 

to greatness. And this is such a moment of political and economic import 

for Burma. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

bill and to continue to support the efforts of the people of Burma towards 

the establishment of a truly just and 

democratic society. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. ROYCE. We have no further 

speakers. I will close, if the gentlelady 

has no additional speakers. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I have no additional 

speakers and yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. ROYCE. Very good. In that case, 

I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Speaker, it is said that Burma is 

undergoing a triple transition, from a 

military government to a more open 

and democratic government. Also, it’s 

moving from conflict to peace, and it’s 

moving from a closed economy to a 

more open economy. All three of these 

transitions, of course, are equally 

daunting. 

Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to the 

United States tells us just how far this 

country has come, but she also reminds 

us how far Burma has left to go. 

So our responsibility is to keep pushing Burma in the right direction, pushing it in the right direction so that all 

political prisoners are freed and so that 

a fully democratic government respects the rights of all of its people, including its ethnic minorities. 

b 1930 

This legislation is an appropriate response to ensure that Burma continues 

moving in the right direction. 

I urge the passage of the bill, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

ROYCE) that the House suspend the 

rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6431. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill was 

passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

CLARIFYING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REGULATION OF MUNICIPAL ADVISORS 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I move to 

suspend the rules and pass the bill 

(H.R. 2827) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to clarify provisions 

relating to the regulation of municipal 

advisors, and for other purposes, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 2827 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SEC. 1. REGISTRATION OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES DEALERS. 

Section 15B(a)(1)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(a)(1)(B)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘or on behalf of’’. 

SEC. 2. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING 

BOARD; RULES AND REGULATIONS. 

Section 15B(b)(2)(L) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(L)) is 

amended— 

(1) in clause (iii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

end; 

(2) in clause (iv), by striking the period and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(v) not regulate as a municipal advisor 

the activities of a person referred to in subparagraph (C) of subsection (e)(4), to the extent that such activities are described under 

such subparagraph.’’. 

SEC. 3. DISCIPLINE OF MUNICIPAL SECURITIES 

DEALERS; CENSURE; SUSPENSION 

OR REVOCATION OF REGISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 15B(c)(1) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 

78o-4(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) No broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer shall make use of the mails or 

any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce to effect any transaction in, or to 

induce or attempt to induce the purchase or 

sale of, any municipal security, and no 

broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, 

or municipal advisor shall make use of the 

mails or any means or instrumentality of 

interstate commerce to provide advice to or 

on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated 

person with respect to municipal financial 

products, the issuance of municipal securities, or to undertake a solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person, in contravention of any rule of the Board. A municipal advisor, when acting pursuant to an 

engagement described in subsection 

(e)(4)(A)(i), and any person associated with 

such municipal advisor, shall be deemed to 

have a fiduciary duty with respect to such 

engagement to any municipal entity for 

whom such municipal advisor acts as a municipal advisor, and no municipal advisor 

may engage in any act, practice, or course of 

business which is not consistent with such 

municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty or that is 

in contravention of any rule of the Board. In 

issuing regulations to carry out the previous 

sentence and subsection (b)(2)(L)(i), the 

Board shall— 

‘‘(A) require that a municipal advisor act 

in accordance with its fiduciary duty to its 

municipal entity clients, but only in connection with those specific activities involving 

such municipal entity client described under 

subsection (e)(4)(A)(i) (and not excluded 

under subsection (e)(4)(C)); 

‘‘(B) specify when such duties begin and 

terminate in relation to such activities; and 

‘‘(C) not prohibit principal transactions by 

municipal advisors or the receipt of compensation based on commissions or other 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

standard compensation in relation to the 

purchase or sale of a security or other instrument (including deposit or foreign exchange), except that the Board— 

‘‘(i) may issue rules requiring a municipal 

advisor to only engage in such transactions 

or receive such compensation in a manner 

that is consistent with the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty; and 

‘‘(ii) may prohibit a municipal advisor that 

has been engaged to provide advice with respect to an underwritten offering of securities from concurrently acting as an underwriter of such offering.’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 975(c)(5) of the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is amended to read as 

follows: 

‘‘(5) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘or municipal advisor’ after ‘municipal securities 

dealer’ each place that term appears;’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on 

the date of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as if included in such Act. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF INVESTMENT STRATEGIES. 

Section 15B(e)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(3)) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(3) the term ‘investment strategies’— 

‘‘(A) means plans or programs for the investment of the direct proceeds of municipal 

securities (but not other public funds) that 

are not municipal derivatives or guaranteed 

investment contracts, and the recommendation of and brokerage of municipal escrow 

investments, where, with respect to the municipal advisor offering such plans, programs, or recommendations, such proceeds of 

municipal securities and municipal escrow 

investments— 

‘‘(i) are known or should be known to the 

municipal advisor to be comprised of funds 

or investments maintained in a segregated 

account that is exclusively for the purpose of 

maintaining such proceeds or escrow investment; or 

‘‘(ii) have been identified to the municipal 

advisor, in writing, as funds or investments 

that constitute the proceeds of municipal securities or municipal escrow investments; 

and 

‘‘(B) does not include— 

‘‘(i) merely acting as a broker or principal 

with respect to the purchase or sale of a security or other instrument (including deposit or foreign exchange); 

‘‘(ii) providing a list of, or price quotations 

for, investment options or securities or other 

instruments which may be available for purchase or investment or which satisfy investment criteria specified by a municipal entity; 

‘‘(iii) acting as a custodian; 

‘‘(iv) providing generalized information 

concerning investments which are not tailored to the specific investment objectives of 

the municipal entity; or 

‘‘(v) providing advice with respect to matters other than the investment of funds or financial products;’’. 

SECTION 5. DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL ADVISOR. 

Section 15B(e)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(4)) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) the term ‘municipal advisor’— 

‘‘(A) means a person (who is not a municipal entity or obligated person, or an employee of a municipal entity or obligated 

person) that— 

‘‘(i) is engaged, for compensation, by a municipal entity or obligated person to provide 

advice to a municipal entity or obligated 

person with respect to municipal financial 

products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the 

structure, timing, terms, and other similar 

matters concerning such financial products 

or issues; or 

‘‘(ii) undertakes a solicitation of a municipal entity; 

‘‘(B) includes financial advisors, guaranteed investment contract brokers, thirdparty marketers, placement agents, solicitors, finders, and swap advisors, if such persons are described in either of clauses (i) or 

(ii) of subparagraph (A) and are not excluded 

under subparagraph (C); and 

‘‘(C) does not include, solely as a result of 

their performing the following activities— 

‘‘(i) any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer registered with the Commission, 

to the extent that such broker, dealer, or 

municipal securities dealer is serving or is 

seeking to serve as an underwriter, placement agent, remarketing agent, dealer-manager, or in a similar capacity, or is providing 

advice related to or in connection with any 

such activities and not for separate compensation, or any person associated with 

such a broker, dealer, or municipal securities 

dealer; 

‘‘(ii) an investment adviser registered 

under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 

U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) or with any State or territory of the United States that is providing 

investment advice (whether or not of a type 

that would subject a person to registration 

under such Act), or any person associated 

with such an investment adviser; 

‘‘(iii) any person registered under the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) or 

this Act in relation to such person’s activities with respect to swaps or security-based 

swaps that is providing advice related to 

swaps or security-based swaps, or providing 

advice that is related to or in connection 

with any such activities and not for separate 

compensation, or any person associated with 

such person; 

‘‘(iv) a financial institution engaging in 

any of the activities referred to in clause (i), 

(ii), or (iii) pursuant to an exemption from 

registration, acting as a dealer or principal 

with respect to deposits, foreign exchange, or 

identified banking products (as defined in 

paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 206(a) of 

the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 

78c(a))), providing other traditional banking 

or trust services otherwise subject to a fiduciary duty under State or Federal law, providing administrative or operational services 

or support, or providing advice that is related to or in connection with any such activities and not for separate compensation; 

‘‘(v) any person subject to regulation by a 

State insurance regulator providing insurance products or services or providing advice 

that is related to or in connection with any 

such activities and not for separate compensation; 

‘‘(vi) an accountant (or person associated 

with such accountant) providing customary 

and usual accounting services, including any 

attestation or audit service or issuing letters 

for underwriters for a municipal entity or 

providing advice that is related to or in connection with any such activities and not for 

separate compensation; 

‘‘(vii) any attorney offering legal advice or 

providing services that are of a traditional 

legal nature; 

‘‘(viii) an engineer providing engineering 

advice; or 

‘‘(ix) any elected or appointed member of a 

governing body of a municipal entity or obligated person, with respect to such member’s 

role on the governing body;’’. 

SEC. 6. DEFINITION OF SOLICITATION OF A MUNICIPAL ENTITY OR OBLIGATED 

PERSON. 

Section 15B(e)(9) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)(9)) is 

amended by striking ‘‘or on behalf of a municipal entity; and’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘a municipal entity, but communications on behalf of a fund or other collective investment vehicle shall not be deemed 

to be on behalf of any investment adviser 

that advises or manages such fund or investment vehicle;’’. 

SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL DERIVATIVE. 

Section 15B(e) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (10), by striking the period 

on the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(11) the term ‘municipal derivative’ 

means a swap or security-based swap in 

which a municipal entity is a counterparty; 

and’’. 

SEC. 8. DEFINITION OF ON BEHALF OF. 

Section 15B(e) of the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-4(e)), as amended by 

section 7, is further amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(12) the term to provide advice ‘on behalf 

of a municipal entity or obligated person’ 

means to provide advice to a person that is 

known to be engaged by a municipal entity 

or obligated person to provide services to 

such municipal entity or obligated person in 

connection with the issuance of municipal 

securities.’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DOLD) and the gentlewoman 

from Wisconsin (Ms. MOORE) each will 

control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Illinois. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to 

add extraneous material on this bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise today in support of H.R. 2827, 

which would clarify the definition of a 

‘‘municipal adviser’’ to reflect the intent of the United States Congress. 

This bill received unanimous support 

and passed out of the Financial Services Committee with a vote of 60–0. I 

would like to urge my colleagues to 

support this important bipartisan legislation. 

Municipal advisers are consultants 

who advise local municipalities about 

bond issuances, bond-proceed investment, financial derivative uses, and 

other financial matters. Like traditional financial advisers, municipal advisers must comply with an existing 

legal and regulatory framework while 

owing their clients a fiduciary duty. 

But before Dodd-Frank, certain municipal advisers were not subject to 

any regulations—State, Federal or otherwise. Obviously, this legal and unjustified discrepancy between regulated and unregulated municipal advisers created a significant and, I would 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 19, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6127 

argue, unfair competitive advantage in 

favor of the unregulated municipal advisers. 

Even more importantly, the regulatory gap gave a few bad actors the 

opportunity to take advantage of the 

State and local government officials 

who, like most people, aren’t familiar 

with advanced and technical financial 

products. Dodd-Frank section 975 addressed this problem by requiring these 

unregulated advisers to register with 

the SEC and to follow rules written by 

the Municipal Securities Rulemaking 

Board. 

The provisions generally have bipartisan political support as well as widespread industry support. However, 

most of us, both Republicans and 

Democrats, believe that the SEC’s interpretation of the law has gone far beyond what Congress intended by, 

among other things, requiring volunteer members of local governing 

boards, engineers providing technical 

and comparative analysis, and bank 

tellers to register with the SEC as municipal advisers. In response to its proposal, the SEC received over 1,000 comment letters from across the industry 

that were overwhelmingly critical of 

the proposed rule. 

This is why I introduced H.R. 2827. 

H.R. 2827 takes important steps to address these widely acknowledged concerns and specifies the scope and limits 

of Dodd-Frank’s municipal adviser provisions. 

After introducing our original 

version of H.R. 2827, we asked everyone 

on both sides of the aisle—and industry 

participants as well with a wide variety of perspectives—to give us their 

comments and suggestions for improving the legislation. My colleague and 

cosponsor from Wisconsin (Ms. MOORE) 

and I have spent countless hours working and listening to all concerned parties to ensure that we have fully considered all the viewpoints in order to 

come up with the best possible legislation that could also pass with broad bipartisan support. At this time, I certainly want to thank her for all of her 

efforts. 

Mr. Speaker, there were two concerns 

about the original version of H.R. 2827 

that were the most significant. The 

first was that the original version of 

the bill would strike the Federal fiduciary duty for municipal advisers, leaving in place just the State-based fiduciary duty standards. Second, even 

when explicitly engaged to provide municipal adviser services, the original 

bill would have excluded certain parties from regulation as municipal advisers. 

During the subcommittee markup, 

Ms. MOORE and I articulated our plan 

for going forward with the legislation, 

and we invited more comments and 

suggestions from industry and all concerned parties. We were very pleased 

with the genuine engagement of the 

parties from across the industry and 

with their willingness to generously 

share their time, experience, effort, 

and knowledge with us. All of these 

contributions ultimately produced a 

better and stronger amended bill. We 

believe that this new version of the bill 

addresses the points raised since the 

subcommittee markup while still 

maintaining our broad coalition of bipartisan supporters. 

This new bill preserves the Federal 

fiduciary standard and removes the 

blanket status exemptions while still 

maintaining a bright-line municipal 

adviser definition. It protects issuers 

by establishing clear lines and rules for 

municipal advisory activity and provides clarity in the marketplace. 

In addition to the amendment’s substance, I am very proud of the process 

that we’ve been able to undertake to 

get us to this point. I would like to 

thank my colleague again, Ms. MOORE, 

and her staff for working with me and 

my staff, and I thank all of those who 

worked with us to get us to where we 

are in this process. They were so generous in sharing their time, and I am 

confident that what we have is a good 

bill with which we can move forward. 

Again, I urge my colleagues to support 

H.R. 2827. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I think Mr. DOLD has dealt very well 

with very many of the specifics of H.R. 

2827 relating to the regulations of municipal advisers. So, before I lose people, I want to briefly talk about the 

process that brought the bill to this 

point, and I want to thank a lot of people for their contributions to the final 

legislation. 

As you’ve heard, the bill that passed 

the Financial Services Committee by 

60–0 reflects the legislative process at 

its absolute best. It was a collaborative 

effort between Republicans and Democrats, issuers and market participants, 

and very, very diligent staffers on both 

sides of the aisle. If there is a single 

element that is most responsible for 

the bill’s getting to this point, it is the 

integrity of the people involved. It 

speaks to their professionalism in that 

they stayed at the table and negotiated 

with the singular purpose of getting to 

the best result for the municipal market. There were times when the issues 

were tough and the disagreements real. 

There were times when it would have 

been very easy for people to just give 

up and walk away. 

b 1940 

But to the credit of all involved, everyone kept talking and kept searching 

for solutions. 

Mr. DOLD deserves a tremendous 

amount of credit for his leadership of 

this bill. He was consistently willing to 

engage tough issues in an open and 

thoughtful manner. I would also like to 

thank all of my colleagues on the committee, Republican and Democrat 

alike, for their invaluable input as we 

negotiated the bill. Finally, I think it 

is important that I mention the important contributions of Mr. FRANK and 

Ms. WATERS. At many critical points, 

both were instrumental in providing 

guidance. 

H.R. 2827, which passed the House Financial Services Committee 60–0, almost didn’t pass at all as there was so 

much confusion generated from the 

SEC promulgating a rule that initially 

was very confusing. It’s only the second legislative effort related to DoddFrank to pass the committee unanimously. 

Prior to the passage of Dodd-Frank, 

non-dealer advisers to municipal governments were unregulated. These unregulated parties were involved in a 

number of municipal market scandals 

that ultimately defrauded taxpayers. 

Section 975 brings municipal financial 

advisers, swap advisers, placement 

agents, and GIC brokers under Federal 

securities law. It is a goal that is not 

partisan. 

Unfortunately, in 2010, the SEC released a proposed rulemaking related 

to section 975 that created massive 

confusion in the municipal market regarding how section 975 would be applied in the real world. H.R. 2827 seeks 

to clarify section 975 to provide certainty to the market so that the rules 

can be implemented and taxpayers can 

benefit from the protection it brings. 

This bill takes a fundamentally different approach from the SEC and the 

definition of municipal advisers. It 

makes ‘‘municipal adviser’’ an exclusionary definition, rather than trying 

to outline and define certain transactions which end up being very vague 

and overly broad. 

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 16 minutes remaining. 

Ms. MOORE. It doesn’t unnecessarily 

sweep in the universe of other professionals or impinge on the relationships 

of issuers and other market participants engaged in legitimate and necessary market activities like underwriting, providing accounting services, 

engineering advice, or offering traditional deposits and cash-management 

services to municipalities. It is a 

straightforward approach that effectuates the goals of 975 while meeting 

the real world needs of market participants. 

I want to urge all my colleagues to 

support this important regulatory legislation. Again, I cannot thank the participants enough who participated in 

this bill. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I just want 

to again thank the gentlelady for her 

help and support with regard to this 

process which, as she aptly points out, 

was at times a little strenuous; but I 

believe in the end we were able to come 

together in a bipartisan fashion to 

produce what I hope is quality legislation that will be better for municipal 

advisers all across the country. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 19, 2012 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

such time as she may consume to the 

gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 

MALONEY). 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

in support of H.R. 2827 and commend 

my good friends and colleagues, Ms. 

MOORE and Mr. DOLD and Ranking 

Member FRANK, and everyone else who 

worked very hard on this bill and for 

their willingness to work in a bipartisan way. 

It is helpful to recall that the original Dodd-Frank regulations relating to 

municipal bond advisers only came 

about because of a number of manmade 

financial disasters involving municipalities and their advisers who were 

unregulated. It was just about a year 

ago that Jefferson County, Alabama, 

filed the biggest municipal bankruptcy 

in U.S. history. They joined the ranks 

of 11 other entities to file a chapter 9 

bankruptcy that year, including Boise 

County, Idaho; Central Falls, Rhode Island; and Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania. 

They all had unique problems, but one 

of the things that they had in common 

was that they got some pretty costly 

advice, and it will haunt taxpayers for 

years. 

This was an area that was completely 

unregulated before the financial crisis; 

and the Dodd-Frank reforms, including 

the municipal adviser registration requirement, were enacted to respond to 

those crises. The Dodd-Frank reforms 

require individuals who advise municipalities to register with the SEC and be 

subject to regulation by the Municipal 

Securities Rulemaking Board. This is a 

very good thing, but most of us agree 

that the SEC’s proposed original rule 

went just a little bit too far and made 

the definition of a municipal adviser a 

little bit too broad. It was defined in a 

way that could have potentially captured those who were not actually providing investment advice. 

For example, I know many institutions were concerned that under the 

SEC’s proposed rule merely providing a 

bank account to a municipality could 

mean that an institution would have to 

register as an adviser and be subject to 

MSRB regulation all because they just 

provided basic banking services. As 

someone who was there during the consideration of Dodd-Frank, I can tell 

you that that was not what Congress 

intended; however, I was concerned 

that the original version of this bill 

went too far in the other direction, and 

that could have opened up such a gaping hole you could have driven a truck 

full of other people’s money through it. 

I was concerned that the draft bill 

eliminated the critical fiduciary duty 

standard that we included in DoddFrank. The fiduciary duty is a vital 

element that ensures that the advisers 

provide advise that is in the best interest of the municipality. 

I think that with this revised bill we 

have struck a good balance. Fiduciary 

duty is back in, and unintended capture is out. The revised language clearly and reasonably defines the activities 

that municipal advisers engage in and 

describes the kinds of advice that they 

provide. This bill now gives clear legislative guidance to ensure that the goal 

of heightened supervision of municipal 

advisers is realized. It keeps taxpayers 

a little bit safer, credit markets more 

stable, and regulations a bit fair. 

All in all, I would say that it is a job 

well done, done in a bipartisan spirit 

with a great deal of time and commitment. I commend the two major sponsors who are speaking with us today; 

and I thank my good friend, GWEN

MOORE, for her work on this bill. 

Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentlewoman from New York. 

I just want to say again that I think 

we need to credit Mr. DOLD, who is a 

fairly new Member. We actually listened to Members who were senior 

Members and didn’t base it on our partisan differences as so often occurs. We 

really respected people’s experience, 

and listened to their advice very earnestly. 

Again, I would urge my colleagues to 

support this legislation, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I don’t have 

any other speakers, but I do want to 

wrap up with a couple of thank-yous. 

I certainly want to thank Chairman 

BACHUS for allowing this markup to 

move forward, and I certainly appreciated his help and support. I want to 

again highlight how this was able to 

move forward in a bipartisan fashion, 

and I certainly want to thank my good 

friend, Ms. MOORE from Wisconsin, for 

all of her work and efforts to work 

with me on what I hope is going to be 

a bill that everyone here in this Chamber will support. 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask every 

one of my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle to support H.R. 2827, and I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. DOLD) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 2827, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 118, 

DISAPPROVING RULE RELATING 

TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE 

AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO 

THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE 

FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM; 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 

OF H.R. 3409, STOP THE WAR ON 

COAL ACT OF 2012; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 2012, THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 2012 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah (during consideration of H.R. 2827), from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 112–680) on the 

resolution (H. Res. 788) providing for 

consideration of the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule 

submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of 

Health and Human Services relating to 

waiver and expenditure authority 

under section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families program; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3409) to 

limit the authority of the Secretary of 

the Interior to issue regulations before 

December 31, 2013, under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977; and providing for proceedings during the period from September 22, 2012, 

through November 12, 2012, which was 

referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 

f 

b 1950 

MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL 

HISTORICAL PARK ACT 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 

Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill (H.R. 5987) to establish 

the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Hanford, 

Washington, and for other purposes, as 

amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 5987 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 

Representatives of the United States of America 

in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manhattan 

Project National Historical Park Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) the Manhattan Project was an unprecedented top-secret program implemented during World War II to produce an atomic bomb 

before Nazi Germany; 

(2) a panel of experts convened by the 

President’s Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation in 2001— 

(A) stated that ‘‘the development and use 

of the atomic bomb during World War II has 

been called ‘the single most significant event 

of the 20th century’’’; and 

(B) recommended that nationally significant sites associated with the Manhattan 

Project be formally established as a collective unit and be administered for preservation, commemoration, and public interpretation in cooperation with the National Park 

Service; 

(3) the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act (Public Law 108–340; 118 

Stat. 1362) directed the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Energy, to conduct a special resource study 

of the historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project to assess 

the national significance, suitability, and 

feasibility of designating one or more sites 

as a unit of the National Park System; 

(4) after significant public input, the National Park Service study found that ‘‘including Manhattan Project-related sites in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE