November 18, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 184 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H8929-H8932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INVESTOR PROTECTION AND CAPITAL MARKETS FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4344) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to 
allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek and Federal courts 
to grant disgorgement of unjust enrichment, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4344

       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 ``Investor Protection and 
     Capital Markets Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Section 21(d) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(d)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(7) Additional relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--In any action or proceeding brought or 
     instituted by the Commission under any provision of the 
     securities laws, the Commission may seek, and any Federal 
     court may grant the following additional relief:
       ``(i) Disgorgement in the amount of any unjust enrichment 
     obtained as a result of the act or practice with respect to 
     which the Commission is bringing such an action or 
     proceeding.
       ``(ii) Injunctions, including officer and director bars.
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Additional relief sought under 
     this paragraph may not be construed to be a civil fine, 
     penalty, or forfeiture subject to chapter 163 of part VI of 
     title 28, United States Code.
       ``(C) Statute of limitations.--A Federal court may not 
     issue relief under this paragraph if the action or proceeding 
     brought or instituted by the Commission was commenced more 
     than 14 years after the alleged violation.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any actions or proceedings 
     pending or commenced on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this section.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 10 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Securities Exchange Commission 
     shall submit to Congress data about each enforcement action 
     brought by the Commission in the 10 years following the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Contents.--In submitting data pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) with regard to each enforcement action--
       (i) categorize the type of enforcement action;
       (ii) categorize the type of issuer involved in the 
     enforcement action;
       (iii) identify the approximate duration of the misconduct 
     that gave rise to the enforcement action; and
       (iv) identify the approximate duration of the 
     investigation; and
       (B) identify the 10 enforcement actions with the longest 
     durations of misconduct that gave rise to enforcement 
     actions.

     SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.


[[Page H8930]]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material 
thereon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4344.
  I would like to start by commending my colleagues, Representatives 
McAdams and Huizenga, for crafting this bipartisan solution to a 
problem that, in just 2 years, has cost investors approximately $1.1 
billion.
  In 2017, the Supreme Court, in Kokesh v. SEC, held that the authority 
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, to recover for 
investors the wrongful gains of securities law violators, known as 
disgorgement, is effectively a penalty. As a result, the SEC's 
authority to obtain disgorgement is time limited by the general Federal 
statute of limitations for penalties so that the SEC must bring its 
case within 5 years of the violation.
  This ruling was a boon to white-collar criminals like Bernie Madoff 
and Allen Stanford, who are now able to defraud investors for a decade 
and keep their profits.
  Even worse, the SEC is currently in litigation before the Supreme 
Court over whether it even has the authority to obtain disgorgement for 
investors.
  I am pleased that H.R. 4344 would ensure that the SEC has the tools 
it needs to hold bad actors accountable and to return funds to harmed 
investors by clarifying that the SEC does indeed have disgorgement 
authority, and its authority reasonably extends to 14 years following 
the date of violation. This longer time limit would ensure that the SEC 
has enough time to detect and sue the Bernie Madoffs of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
McAdams) and the ranking member of the Investor Protection, 
Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Subcommittee, Mr. Huizenga, for 
their diligent efforts on this bipartisan bill.
  This bill is the result of the Supreme Court's Kokesh decision, which 
restricted the SEC's disgorgement authority to 5 years.
  SEC Chairman Jay Clayton almost never advocates for Congress to 
legislate on a particular issue; however, the issue before us today is 
the exception, as Chairman Clayton has expressed concern that a 5-year 
statute of limitations allows bad actors to hold on to their ill-gotten 
gains obtained outside of that 5-year window.
  As Chairman Clayton has pointed out: Many long-running frauds go 
longer and, in some cases, well longer than 5 years; and it is just 
plain wrong to allow a fraudster to keep money made from their fraud 
simply because he or she was good at concealing the wrongful behavior.
  Today's bill is responsive to Chairman Clayton's concerns in a 
thoughtful and balanced way. Statutes of limitations are important 
procedural protections intended to strike the balance between ensuring 
wrongdoers are not rewarded for bad behavior and protecting 
shareholders, who are ultimately responsible for paying large penalties 
for violations they did not commit in the event of an SEC judgment.
  I know there is concern that the 14-year statute of limitations in 
the bill is too long. I share concerns that the SEC could be slow to 
bring a case when certainty and swiftness should be the priority when 
pursuing enforcement actions. However, the reality is this: A 14-year 
statute of limitations is a reasonable first attempt to strike the 
appropriate balance in the disgorgement context.
  I say ``first attempt'' because the bill also requires the SEC to 
report to Congress with data on cases where the SEC has sought 
disgorgement. These reports will be useful in allowing Congress to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the statute of limitations and fine-tune 
it, if appropriate.
  This bipartisan bill carefully balances the benefits of statutes of 
limitations with the downside of fraudsters potentially holding on to 
significant amounts of their gains.
  Again, I thank the gentlemen from Utah and Michigan for their 
thoughtful draft bipartisan legislation, which I support, and I urge 
all my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. McAdams), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. McADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4344, the 
Investor Protection and Capital Markets Fairness Act, bipartisan 
legislation that I introduced with my friend from Michigan, Congressman 
Huizenga, the ranking member of the Investor Protection, 
Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Subcommittee.
  I also want to recognize my friend Representative Carolyn Maloney for 
her work on this bill as well.
  Utah is frequently discussed as one of the top States for fraud and 
Ponzi schemes. A Deseret News article earlier this year noted that Utah 
ranked sixth in most number of Ponzi schemes from 2008-2018, despite 
being only 31st in population.
  In that decade alone, Utah investors lost over $1.5 billion to Ponzi 
schemes, or $502 per person, plus an additional $500 million in other 
types of fraud: $2 billion, overall, taken from hardworking Utahns; $2 
billion that won't be there for retirement, that won't be there to pass 
along to our children and to our grandchildren.
  As a result of a couple of recent court cases, that problem may 
become much worse, leaving Utahns less protected, and leaving 
fraudsters empowered.

  Mr. Speaker, Charles Kokesh opened a firm that provided investment 
advice to business development companies. Over the course of roughly 14 
years, Charles Kokesh misappropriated tens of millions of dollars from 
these companies, funding a lavish lifestyle for himself and, in the 
process, defrauding the investors out of millions of dollars.
  Mr. Kokesh was found guilty of misappropriating these investors' 
funds, and the district court ordered Mr. Kokesh to pay a civil 
penalty, as well as disgorgement, totaling roughly $35 million.
  The facts of this case are not in dispute, but what comes next has 
upset the delicate balance that keeps our markets fair and keeps our 
investors protected.
  In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the SEC's disgorgement 
authority, the ability of the SEC to seek repayment of a defendant's 
ill-gotten gains, that that authority is subject to a 5-year statute of 
limitations. The Supreme Court further hinted, in an obscure footnote, 
that the SEC may not be able to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains 
at all.
  What did this Supreme Court ruling mean for Charles Kokesh? In the 
end, he was only ordered to pay $5 million in disgorged profits, 
keeping roughly $30 million for himself: $30 million that he was able 
to keep that he attained through nefarious means, $30 million in 
profits from illegal activity, but, most importantly, $30 million that 
won't find its way back to the investor victims.
  He keeps $30 million and he loses $5 million--not a bad decade's work 
for a fraudster.
  And what did the Supreme Court decision mean for the SEC? The SEC 
estimates that, in the 2 years since the Kokesh decision, they have had 
to forgo over $1.1 billion in disgorged funds. That is over $1 billion 
of ill-gotten gains that bad actors can now keep that don't get 
returned to investors.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Utah an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. McADAMS. In addition to the over $1.1 billion in forgone funds, 
the SEC is increasingly spending time and

[[Page H8931]]

staff resources fighting new legal challenges from bad actors claiming 
that the SEC shouldn't be able to seek disgorgement at all.
  SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, nominated for that position by President 
Donald Trump, has lamented the impact of the Kokesh decision on the 
SEC's ability to appropriately protect harmed investors and the amount 
of losses they aren't able to recover for these investors. As he told 
me at a recent hearing: ``You shouldn't reward somebody for concealing 
a fraud for a long time.''
  In a letter to the House, he also said that the SEC's disgorgement 
authority is ``particularly important in circumstances where retail 
investors have been the victims of long-running, well-conceived frauds, 
including Ponzi schemes. For these victims, an action by the SEC 
seeking disgorgement may be the only practical means of recourse.''
  And now to pivot back to that footnote in the Kokesh decision, that 
footnote said that the SEC may not have the authority to seek 
disgorgement at all--within or outside that 5-year statute of 
limitations. And just this past month, the Supreme Court granted cert 
on a challenge to that very question. So, within the next year, the 
Supreme Court will hear arguments and possibly decide to remove any 
disgorgement action from the SEC, absent further action from Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Utah an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McADAMS. That would be catastrophic for the ability to protect 
investors and to keep our capital markets fair, which is where this 
legislation kicks in and why I think it is so necessary.
  This legislation would reverse the Kokesh decision, specifically 
authorize disgorgement as a remedy that the SEC can seek, and give the 
SEC up to 14 years to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. So, in 
essence, this legislation seeks to fix the Kokesh decision and would 
address the recent case the Supreme Court agreed to hear about whether 
the SEC has disgorgement authority at all.
  Chairman Clayton says: ``H.R. 4344 will ensure that sophisticated 
fraudsters who carry out some of the most harmful frauds, including 
Ponzi schemes that can defraud investors for long periods of time 
before being uncovered, cannot keep their victims' money.''
  Further, he says: ``H.R. 4344 is an important response to real harm 
suffered by innocent victims.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Utah an 
additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. McADAMS. Our capital markets are the envy of the world, but they 
don't work to the extent that investors have faith that bad actors 
can't profit off wrongdoing.
  I urge support for H.R. 4344.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the ranking member of the 
Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4344, the 
Investor Protection and Capital Markets Fairness Act.
  In June of 2017, as has been discussed, the Supreme Court ruled 
unanimously in the Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission that 
the SEC's disgorgement remedy constitutes a penalty, and, as a result, 
the Supreme Court found that the SEC's disgorgement authority--in other 
words, their ability to go collect those dollars--was subject to a 5-
year statute of limitations.
  That may be how the law is currently reads. That is why we are here 
today to try to change that.
  As a result of the Kokesh case, the Supreme Court decision has 
significantly limited the SEC's ability to obtain disgorgement in 
certain long-running frauds.

                              {time}  1745

  According to the most recent SEC enforcement division's annual 
report, it is estimated that due to this Kokesh ruling, the SEC is 
forced to forgo more than $1.1 billion in ill-gotten gains from 
wrongdoers at the expense of Main Street investors.
  H.R. 4344 would grant the SEC the authority to seek and for Federal 
courts to grant disgorgement within 14 years. Additionally, the bill 
would further clarify that disgorgement may not be construed as a civil 
fine, penalty, or forfeiture. Lastly, the bill requires the SEC to 
submit a report to Congress on the length of certain fraud actions that 
they have encountered, including the 10 longest-running frauds that led 
to Commission action.
  So ideally, I would like to see a shorter statute of limitations. 
There was discussion about matching it with some other Federal 
statutes, but I also recognize that many securities frauds are complex 
and take significant time to uncover and investigate. For example, in 
this particular case, Charles Kokesh, over the course of nearly 14 
years, quietly committed well concealed and elaborate fraud by 
misappropriating nearly $35 million. And to add insult to injury, 
because of the Supreme Court decision, Kokesh was allowed, the 
fraudster was allowed to keep nearly $30 million of what he stole from 
small-dollar Main Street investors. I don't think any of us can look at 
that and feel good about that current situation.
  This bipartisan bill attempts to strike a delicate balance by 
ensuring that the SEC has the necessary resources and tools to go after 
bad actors and to make sure that these sophisticated fraudsters may not 
keep any of the money that they have stolen from everyday investors 
like teachers and military service personnel, the elderly, and 
religious-affiliated groups.
  SEC Chairman, Jay Clayton stated, ``H.R. 4344 is an important 
response to real harms suffered by innocent victims of the worst types 
of securities frauds. These are frauds that undermine the public 
confidence in our markets that the 4,400 women and men of the SEC 
strive to preserve every day.''
  I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
McAdams), for closely working with me on this important issue to help 
protect millions of Main Street investors. H.R. 4344 provides the SEC 
with the necessary tools to ensure sophisticated criminals who defraud 
everyday investors for long periods of time that they are prevented 
from keeping their victims' money.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
overwhelmingly bipartisan investor protection legislation.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter on 
this legislation from the Chair of the SEC, Mr. Clayton.

                                      United States Securities and


                                          Exchange Commission,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 2019.
     Re H.R. 4344, the Investor Protection and Capital Markets 
         Fairness Act.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Republican Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy, I write concerning 
     the importance to our investors and our markets of the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC or Commission) 
     authority to seek disgorgement of unjust enrichment from 
     those who have violated the federal securities laws. This 
     authority is particularly important in circumstances where 
     retail investors have been the victims of long-running, well-
     concealed frauds, including Ponzi schemes. For these victims, 
     an action by the SEC seeking disgorgement may be the only 
     practical means of recourse.
       The recent Supreme Court decision in Kokesh v. SEC, 137 S. 
     Ct. 1635 (2017), significantly limited the SEC's authority to 
     seek disgorgement. In Kokesh, the Supreme Court found our use 
     of the disgorgement remedy operated as a penalty, which 
     subjected that remedy to a five-year statute of limitations 
     from the date of the misconduct. As a result, our ability to 
     address well-concealed frauds has been significantly 
     restricted, including in situations where our Main Street 
     investors need us most. More recently, the SEC's ability to 
     seek disgorgement in any district court action has been 
     questioned.
       With deference to your judgment regarding the appropriate 
     length for the statute of limitations and other terms, I 
     respectively request that you act to ensure that we are able 
     to seek disgorgement to the extent appropriate to protect our 
     investors and our markets. Prompt congressional action also 
     would remove the uncertainty regarding our

[[Page H8932]]

     general authority to seek disgorgement in district court.
       Fortunately, the U.S. House of Representative is 
     considering H.R. 4344, the Investor Protection and Capital 
     Markets Fairness Act, which would amend the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 to explicitly provide the Commission 
     with authority to seek disgorgement of unjust enrichment in 
     district courts. I greatly appreciate this bipartisan, 
     bicameral work underway to address this important issue and 
     welcome the opportunity to continue to work with Congress to 
     ensure defrauded retail investors can get their investment 
     dollars back while being true to the principles embedded in 
     statutes of limitations.


                 Importance of Disgorgement as a Remedy

       The SEC's longstanding ability to obtain disgorgement of 
     ill-gotten gains in federal district court is an important 
     tool for our enforcement program and has allowed the agency 
     to return billions of dollars to innocent investors 
     victimized by perpetrators of fraud. For many--if not most--
     of these victims, disgorgement awards in SEC cases are the 
     only practical way to recoup what was stolen from them. The 
     Commission is committed to returning money to harmed 
     investors promptly and has worked hard to improve the 
     effectiveness of our distribution program over recent years. 
     Since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2017, the hard work of the 
     women and men of the SEC has led to the return of over $3 
     billion to harmed investors.


               Impact of Kokesh on Main Street Investors

       Notwithstanding these successes, the Supreme Court's 
     decision in Kokesh has impacted the SEC's ability to return 
     funds fraudulently taken from Main Street investors. In 
     Kokesh, the Supreme Court found our use of the disgorgement 
     remedy operated as a penalty, which subjected the 
     Commission's ability to seek disgorgement of ill-gotten gains 
     to a five-year statute of limitations.
       The Kokesh case itself highlights this problem in stark 
     terms. Of the $34.9 million that Charles Kokesh 
     misappropriated, $29.9 million fell outside of the 5-year 
     statute of limitations. The SEC was unable to collect that 
     $29.9 million from him for distribution to his victims, who 
     largely consisted of small-dollar Main Street investors.
       Overall, since Kokesh was decided, at least $1.1 billion in 
     ill-gotten gains has been unavailable for possible 
     distribution to harmed investors. Much of this is tied to 
     losses by investors.


                 Importance of Statutes of Limitations

       The SEC's authority to seek disgorgement should not be 
     unbounded. I agree that statutes of limitations serve 
     important functions in our legal system, and as a general 
     matter, our remedial authority should be subject to 
     reasonable limitations periods. However, as I look across the 
     scope of misconduct we encounter, including most notably 
     Ponzi schemes and affinity frauds, I believe a period longer 
     than five years from the date of the misconduct is 
     appropriate in various circumstances. This is especially the 
     case in our private, retail markets where there are fewer 
     causes of action and safeguards available compared to the 
     public capital markets. Further, we often see fraudsters 
     target certain categories of investors. These investors--
     notably teachers, military service personnel, the elderly, 
     and religious-affiliated groups--need and deserve legal 
     protection and the SEC's attention, particularly in the case 
     of private, targeted frauds.


  H.R. 4344, the Investor Protection and Capital Markets Fairness Act

       H.R. 4344 would address two important issues. First, the 
     bill addresses the result of the Supreme Court's ruling in 
     Kokesh that SEC disgorgement claims are subject to a five-
     year statute of limitations. The Court's holding has had the 
     anomalous effect of allowing the most ``successful'' 
     perpetrators of fraud--those who prevent the discovery of 
     their schemes for longer than the limitations period--to keep 
     their ill-gotten gains. H.R. 4344 will ensure that 
     sophisticated fraudsters who carry out some of the most 
     harmful frauds, including Ponzi schemes that can defraud 
     investors for long periods of time before being uncovered, 
     cannot keep their victims' money.
       Second, some perpetrators of fraud have tried to keep their 
     ill-gotten gains arguing that district courts lack the power 
     to order disgorgement in any Commission action. The primary 
     objective of disgorgement is to return circumstances to the 
     pre-fraud status quo. The Supreme Court recently granted 
     certiorari to address this question in Liu v. SEC, No. 18-
     1501. H.R. 4344 would confirm and ratify district courts' 
     authority to do what they have been doing for decades--order 
     violators to surrender the money they obtained by breaking 
     the securities laws so that victims have a chance to be 
     compensated.
       H.R. 4344 is an important response to real harms suffered 
     by innocent victims of the worst types of securities frauds. 
     These are frauds that undermine the public confidence in our 
     markets that the 4,400 women and men of the SEC strive to 
     preserve every day.
       Thank you for your continuing commitment to America's 
     investors and our markets.
           Very truly yours,
                                                      Jay Clayton,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who happens to be the 
chairperson of the Subcommittee on Investor Protection, 
Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and so many 
others.
  I want to thank Mr. McAdams for all of his work on this crucial 
issue. I also want to thank Ranking Member Huizenga, who has been a 
leader on this issue for a long time. And I want to thank the 
chairwoman and the ranking member for getting this bipartisan deal 
done.
  Proper enforcement of the securities laws helps maintain investor 
confidence in our markets. Investors need to know that if a bad actor 
is caught, and the SEC proves that the bad actor committed fraud, then 
the investors will get their money back.
  Unfortunately, the 2017 Supreme Court decision in Kokesh versus SEC 
significantly damaged the SEC's ability to return funds to harmed 
investors, by holding that SEC claims for disgorgement of ill-gotten 
profits are subject to a 5-year statute of limitations. This means that 
for long-running frauds like Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, the SEC 
would not be able to claw back all of the bad actor's profits.
  The Kokesh decision has already cost investors about $900 million in 
disgorgement of illegal profits according to the SEC.
  Mr. McAdams' bill would fix this issue and would lengthen the statute 
of limitations from 5 years to 14 years. This is only fair. So I 
strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill that my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle support, which will claw back bad actor's money and 
put money back in investors' pockets.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I, too, urge support of this bill, specifically because it would 
protect the SEC's longstanding authority to recover for investors the 
unjust enrichment from defendants and set a reasonable time limit to do 
so. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 4344, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________