Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4413) to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to better protect futures customers, to provide end users with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the Commission, to help farmers, ranchers, and end users manage risks to help keep consumer costs low, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.

This is a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that I introduced along with my colleagues, Ranking Member Collin Peterson and chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, Mike Conaway and David Scott.

This bill is years in the making, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for all of the hard work that they have put in to get us to this point.

Throughout this process, the committee, as well as the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, held numerous hearings, heard from a variety of stakeholders with a wide variety of perspectives.

We heard from end users representing farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms, and utilities. We heard testimony from every CFTC Commissioner and even foreign regulators. We also heard from exchanges, futures customers, and numerous other market participants.

Ultimately, we developed legislation to reauthorize and reform the CFTC in a way that would not only improve operations at the agency, but also protect customers from another market failure, as we saw with MF Global or PFGBEST.

Our efforts will also increase certainty in the marketplace and provide a more balanced approach to regulations impacting job creators.

I am proud to say this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill passed unanimously out of the Agriculture Committee by a voice vote.

First of all, H.R. 4413 will better protect farmers and ranchers who use the futures markets to manage their risk by cementing several new and existing protections into law.

These protections are designed to restore confidence in the marketplace following the failure of MF Global and PFGBEST, where customers, who thought their money was safely segregated, suffered severe financial loss due to the illegal use of their funds.

Such protections include requiring firms to calculate and report customer account balances electronically to regulators, requiring firms who become undercapitalized to immediately notify regulators, and imposing strict reporting and permission requirements before the movement of a customer's funds from one account to another.

Now, as for the reforms of the Commission, H.R. 4413 reauthorizes the appropriations to the agency through 2018. Furthermore, the bill strives to enhance the efficiency of the Commission operations and ensure all Commissioners' voices are heard in the regular order of a well-reasoned rulemaking process.

For example, H.R. 4413 closely follows an executive order issued by President Obama to improve the quality of cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission prior to promulgating rules; requires division directors to serve at the pleasure of the entire Commission, rather than solely at the whim of the chairman; and clarifies the judicial review process of agency rules.

The Commission reform title also calls for the development of a much- needed strategic technology plan to enhance market surveillance and the interpretation of collected data.

Importantly, H.R. 4413 also provides much-needed relief to end users. Those are the market participants who account for only 10 percent of the swaps market and had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis, yet represent 94 percent of U.S. job creators, including farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, energy firms, and utilities.

Due to the consideration of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress clearly intended to exempt end users from some of the most costly new regulations. However, the CFTC has narrowly interpreted the law, resulting in burdensome and often arbitrary compliance requirements which have negatively impacted end users by making it more difficult and costly to manage the risks associated with their businesses.

To address these concerns, H.R. 4413 includes provisions which relieve business owners from arbitrary and costly record-keeping requirements, allow businesses to continue successful fuel-hedging strategies, and prevent the physical delivery of commodities from being unnecessarily regulated as swaps.

H.R. 4413 provides help to America's job creators by including five carefully crafted measures designed to enhance market certainty, which have previously passed the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee and the United States House of Representatives, with overwhelming bipartisan support, three of which received over 400 votes in favor.

In closing, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act is a wide-ranging, bipartisan CFTC reauthorization bill that provides a blueprint for the newly elected Chairman and Commissioners to use in making numerous improvements at the Commission, better protects futures customers, and reduces burdens on America's job creators. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2014.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.

4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act. As you

noted, there are provisions of the bill that fall within the

Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

I appreciate your willingness to forgo action on H.R. 4413,

and I agree that your decision should not prejudice the

Committee on the Judiciary with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I will also include a copy of our exchange of letters in

the Congressional Record during floor debate.

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look

forward to continued cooperation between our respective

committees.

Sincerely,

Frank D. Lucas,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Hudson, who has crafted a key component of this major reform bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), an outstanding Member who also has worked a key portion of this bill, and his legislation reflects it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), who not only has a key component of this bill, but in his role as chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management carried the lion's share of the subcommittee hearing work and the day-to-day efforts that came to be known as H.R. 4413.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) whose good work as a freestanding bill passed unanimously in this body.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), who has a major component in this overall legislation.

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time remains for both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I would note to my colleague, I have no additional speakers and would reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself what time I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind all of my colleagues that once again the House Agriculture Committee, in the tradition of the House Agriculture Committee, has worked very diligently to address issues that are of great impact on rural America and on our national economy. In that tradition of bipartisanship--call it nonpartisanship if you want--Mr. Peterson and I, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Scott have worked in full committee and subcommittee together to craft what is a reasonable, logical set of proposals to address some real issues out there.

Any of you who have observed this process know that the committee is not timid in trying to do the right thing; and we have a track record of however long it takes, however hard it is, to do the right thing.

Now, some will say this piece of legislation may or may not have an impact on the decisionmaking process in some other body. I would just note to you, we have identified, through all of the hearings and all the testimony and all the input from within government and without government, that there are some things that need to be done. With this piece of legislation, we will encourage progress on those issues.

I urge all of my colleagues, vote for H.R. 4413. Move the process along; help us get ultimately to a product that will address these problems. This is a rather substantial impact on the national economy. If we don't do the things that we are proposing in the Agriculture Committee that we do, harm will be done, job creation will be impacted,

every consumer and every working person will feel the effects negatively. So pass the bill. Pass the bill.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Although it is my understanding that the substance of the gentleman from Oregon's amendment would be broadly addressed within the existing language of section 107, I certainly see no problem with ensuring that his concerns are addressed more specifically. Therefore, I will suggest to my colleague from Oregon, let's accept your amendment.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, in a time of economic uncertainty, tight fiscal budgets, I advise against the use of valuable Commission time and resources on a study with some ambiguous terms and no clear practical use.

H.R. 4413 already includes carefully crafted requirements for studies on the pertinent issues of agency funding and on the effects of high- frequency trading. So I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from Washington and her cosponsors, the gentlemen from New York and California--all valued Members of the House Agriculture Committee-- builds on the enhancements of the cost-benefit analysis required in this bill by preserving the court's ability to review the Commission rules or orders.

I congratulate the sponsors of this amendment. Once again, the House Ag Committee proves that working in a bipartisan manner is possible and productive. This is the type of cooperation I think our friends back home would want to see and demand.

With that, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In crafting the Consumer Protection and End User Relief Act, I worked closely with Ranking Member Peterson to ensure that judicial review of CFTC rules would be on the same footing as a review of security laws from the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The current disparity between security laws and the Commodity Exchange Act has resulted in confusion in the past, as aggrieved parties were unsure of where to go to seek review of CFTC rules.

Quite simply, I urge my colleagues to vote against what I fear is a regressive amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself whatever time I might consume.

Once again, I respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against what I am concerned is a regressive amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.

I would simply note: let's cut to the point here. The CFTC, when finalizing the rules for registered investment companies, deferred almost entirely to the SEC to regulate them, so this amendment is in line with what the CFTC has already done.

I urge my colleagues to support the commonsense amendment. Let's just do what is reflected here, and I thank the gentleman for his input.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I thank the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4413, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act, which reauthorizes through 2018 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the CFTC plays a critical role in protecting market participants and our Nation's economy from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices, and systemic risk related to derivatives, both futures and swaps, as well as in fostering transparent, open, competitive, and financially sound markets.

However, H.R. 4413 contains several harmful provisions that impede the CFTC's ability to enforce existing derivatives rules and roll back meaningful reforms in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Specifically, title II of this bill carves out the CFTC from the Administrative Procedure Act process for establishing regulations, which represents the most longstanding and broadly applicable requirements for Federal rulemaking and was written to bring regularity and predictability to agency decisionmaking.

Furthermore, section 203 of the legislation imposes burdensome cost- benefit requirements that likely serve only to prevent, delay, or weaken any rules that implement Dodd-Frank.

Current law already requires the CFTC and other agencies to conduct economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In addition, the CFTC is also bound by the Commodity Exchange Act to consider the protection of market participants and the public; the efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other public interest considerations, under the supervision of the courts.

The redundant cost-benefit requirements contained in H.R. 4413 will not only hamper the appropriate consideration and promulgation of new rules, but expose the CFTC to greater industry litigation.

Finally, H.R. 4413 threatens American taxpayers by deregulating foreign derivatives transactions. Under section 722(d) of Dodd-Frank, the CFTC is authorized to oversee derivatives transactions that ``have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.''

Section 359 of this bill exempts overseas derivatives transactions from regulation, creating a loophole in our system of regulatory oversight that could be gamed by large multinational swaps dealers.

Just 6 years ago, derivatives trading related to the activities of the corporate structure AIG and Lehman Brothers nearly brought down our economy and cost every American household more than $50,000.

I related last night in the Rules Committee that we were there--Ms. Slaughter and I and the chairman, Mr. Sessions--all of us--when Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke brought to us the notion on three or four paragraphs and two pages that this Nation was about to go bust.

It is clear that derivatives transactions outside of the United States pose real risks to United States financial institutions, yet instead of strengthening the CFTC's ability to effectively regulate derivatives transactions involving the foreign operation of U.S. banks, H.R. 4413 presumes that they will be governed by foreign rules, disregarding whether those foreign rules are adequate or if the trades will import risk back to the United States.

Moreover, this presumption can only be overturned after the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission go to considerable procedural lengths to make a joint determination that a foreign host country's regulations are not broadly equivalent to United States regulations.

The futures and swaps markets are essential to our economy and the way that businesses and investors manage risk, particularly for farmers, hospitals, manufacturers, and certain utilities industries.

While I share my colleagues' concern regarding issues affecting many of

these end users, I believe that this legislation falls short of the goals of comprehensive Wall Street reform and ensuring that derivatives transactions do not contribute to another global economic crisis.

I also said last yesterday, in the Rules Committee, that I predict that if this measure were to become law, we could reasonably expect that we would have the same kind of financial crisis that we did 6 years ago.

Instead of creating new, heavy administrative burdens, we should further empower the CFTC to be able to carry out its responsibilities, including those under Dodd-Frank.

Just last week, House Republicans proposed to dangerously underfund the CFTC at 22 percent below the President's request, with an appropriation that will likely lead to either agencywide closures or employee layoffs. This would make the already underfunded CFTC less effective at protecting consumers, end users, and investors.

Additionally, because this bill retroactively reverses rules that have already gone into effect and many of those that are in the pipeline, it increases uncertainty and costs to businesses and end users that will unnecessarily have the rules of the game changed on them.

I simply don't understand this logic. Reducing the CFTC's ability to effectively oversee these financial activities only increases the likelihood that we will find ourselves in another potentially disastrous situation.

Additionally, I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that several of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee share these concerns.

It was also pointed out by my colleague that this came out unanimously from the Agriculture Committee. It did in fact do so, but in the Rules Committee, we had the prerogative, if we so chose, to allow the Financial Services Committee to be able to make presentations that I believe--and in a bipartisan way--other Members, particularly those of the Financial Services Committee, believe should be a part of this discussion today. However, this rule cuts them out of the debate.

In fact, H.R. 4413 rehashes several earlier bills that Financial Services Committee members have previously voiced concern over, including H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act; and H.R. 1003, to improve consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.

The administration has also come out in opposition to the bill. We can't continue with more of the same failed partisan practices and effect a different outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the chairman, my good friend, that good intentions don't always manifest themselves in a positive way. I am sure before we had the recession that there were good intentions. My prediction is that, without appropriate regulation, we can reasonably expect that these same kinds of recessive measures might come into play. I recognize my good friend, the chairman, has his script together when it comes to something bipartisan coming out of the Agriculture Committee, but I also know that this is an end run around the Financial Services Committee, which also has germane interests in the particular legislation at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my good friend that we have no further speakers and that I am prepared to close at this time if he is.

In closing, what has transpired here is interesting. The Agriculture Committee had finished its product, and then it came yesterday to add provisions that in the final analysis are dealing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Then my friend, the chairman, would argue that it is an agriculture bill. Clearly, it is smack-dab in the lane of Financial Services, and they were excluded. Yes, Ms. Waters did come to the Rules Committee last night, and there is no requirement that she be here now, but what we could have done--we keep saying ``last night,'' but it was late yesterday evening--is to let the Financial Services people participate in this debate--but no. What we have are the two people, the chairman and ranking member, who are given time with reference to this matter, and the Financial Services Committee is shut out of this debate. That is just plain wrong, and I believe most people know that.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4413 creates significant loopholes for derivatives by hamstringing the CFTC, and it undermines comprehensive financial reform.

Six years after the Great Recession, families are still struggling in this

country. As of last week, 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I want to repeat that: 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013.

After my friends finish their reconstitution of their leadership this afternoon, I would hope that their new then leadership would come down here and put something on the floor that would allow us at least to have a vote, up or down, as to whether or not people should receive unemployment compensation.

Other things that have expired, along with unemployment compensation that expired in December, are the tax extender provisions, which help individual families and small businesses invest. In the coming months-- real soon--Congress is going to be faced with even more pressing challenges as our Nation's highway trust fund is expected to go 0.0-- bankrupt--and the authorizations for Federal surface transportation projects will also expire. The Export-Import Bank and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act are set to expire. The House still has eight appropriations bills left to pass, and with each passing day of inaction on these items, we come closer to another economic crisis.

Republicans and Democrats must come together to prevent this from happening as well as to move our Nation forward on comprehensive immigration and tax reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting voter rights, and securing equal pay.

Let me go back through that. Securing equal pay, protecting voter rights.

I am personally tired of the suppression and oppression measures with reference to voting in this country. Why in the world would we want less people to vote than, under the circumstances, people that should be participating in this great democracy of ours?

And yet we have States, including my own, circumventing the process of voting, restoring, if you will, age-old problems having to do with voting rights.

How about raising the minimum wage?

Put something down here on the floor and stand up and vote for it or against it. But don't come in here and have everybody believe that you are moving this country forward.

I predict for you what is going to happen: 28 more days, 27 more days, are going to go through the rest of this process. There is going to be further obstruction from the majority in this particular House of Representatives, and then we will go out and we will have an election, and the American people will speak again to those of us that are in the House of Representatives.

Most of us are likely to be back here, and we will be right back here in what is referred to as a ``lame duck session,'' and we will hold that lame duck session, pass some kind of an omnibus bill, and be off into the sunset for the 2016 election.

Enough already. Stop pretending, and have people know that we are confronted with real problems in this country, and it is this institution that has a responsibility to attend to them.

The reauthorization of CFTC is both important and necessary. However, H.R. 4413 includes provisions that put the safety and the stability of the United States financial system at risk. Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3301.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

May I inquire how much time remains?

At this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to point out that H.R. 3301 really, in a way, corrects the inequity. Today, natural gas pipelines are treated one way if they cross international boundaries, and oil pipelines and transmission lines are treated in a different way.

For example, a natural gas pipeline crossing into Canada would not require a Presidential permit, but oil pipelines and transmission lines crossing international boundaries do require a Presidential permit. And I might add that Congress never passed legislation requiring a Presidential permit. That was a power that a President, by executive order, took even before President Obama did it.

But here is the key factor. This law, H.R. 3301, would treat all pipelines the same, whether it is natural gas, whether it is oil, or whether it is a transmission line.

Now, I know that arguments are being made here primarily based on Keystone, and a lot of arguments are being made about climate change.

I would say to all of the American people that we have people coming into Congress on a regular basis from developing countries of the world who say that climate change is not their number one concern. They are more concerned about food. They are more concerned about sanitary living conditions. They are more concerned about

clean water. They are more concerned about jobs and the ability to provide income for their families. And, as a matter of fact, polls in America have shown that climate change is way down the list of primary concerns of people.

Now, I know that for Tom Steyer--who I understand is at the White House today--it is his number one issue. And he has said that he is going to spend $100 million against Republican candidates or any candidate that does not recognize climate change as one of the most important issues facing mankind.

So I simply wanted to make that comment. Sure, climate change is important. And I might add that emissions from energy-produced causes in America today are the lowest that they have been in 20 years. So America does not have to take a back seat to anyone on addressing emissions from greenhouse gases.

And I will tell you that we are the only country in the world where, if natural gas prices go up, we won't even be able to build a new coal plant in America because the technology is not commercially available at a cost that any utility could afford.

So even in Europe, natural gas prices went up. They mothballed natural gas plants. And last year in Europe, they imported 53 percent of all our coal exports.

But yet this President, in the White House today, has such extreme views that if our gas prices go up, we don't have the option in an affordable way to build a new coal plant to help us meet our base loads. And if we are going to have an economy that is not sluggish--the way it has been consistently under President Obama--we have to have affordable, abundant, and reliable energy. And that is what this bill is about.

Now people are saying, if you pass H.R. 3301, you are exempting oil and transmission lines from a NEPA review. But I want you to know, there are 33 other environmental laws--like the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water, Rivers and Harbors, National Historic Preservation, Clean Air Act--that would trigger. If Federal action is triggered, then it would be triggered even under H.R. 3301. That is, unless, of course, it is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which this administration has granted windmills an exemptions from. So you can kill all the migratory birds you want and bald eagles. If you are a windmill company, you won't be prosecuted, but if you are an individual timber owner in North Carolina, you will be find $100,000 and convicted of a felony.

So in conclusion of my remarks at this point, I would simply say that the bill is not designed to expedite the Keystone pipeline, because it can't be approved under H.R. 3301. It is under the Presidential permit process. But the Presidential permit process is arbitrary. Even the State Department has said that it would be of negligible environmental impact to approve the Keystone pipeline. But all H.R. 3301 does is it says, we are going to treat oil pipelines and transmission lines that cross international boundaries with Canada or Mexico exactly the way natural gas pipelines are treated today.

So it is not anything extraordinary. It is not anything radical. It is the way natural gas pipelines are created today. And we believe that is the way to go, and that is what H.R. 3301 is all about.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry on the amount of time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, we don't have any more speakers on our side, so I will reserve the balance of my time and let the gentleman from California proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the American people that, certainly, energy is vitally important, and that is why we have introduced this bill, and that is why we brought this bill to the floor.

Because when you talk about creating jobs and stimulating the economy, you have to have low-cost, affordable, abundant, and reliable energy, or you cannot compete in the global marketplace.

As I had said earlier, I just want to reiterate, once again, that this bill does nothing but make the decision that we are going to treat oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines all the same.

Right now, a natural gas pipeline that crosses an international boundary does not require a Presidential permit, but an oil pipeline and a transmission line to bring electricity across the border does require a Presidential permit.

As many speakers have said today, that Presidential permit or authority was not granted by the Congress; it was taken by executive orders. So all we are doing is saying that we are going to treat all of them the same.

Now, some people are saying that: well, you are eliminating the need for NEPA, you are not allowing NEPA review.

I had pointed out that there are 33 environmental laws that all of these pipelines or transmission lines would be subject to, and any Federal action, like crossing a stream that would create a necessity for a Clean Water Act permit, could very well generate a need for a NEPA review.

Nothing in this bill would limit the application of NEPA to the rest of the project. It would certainly apply to the cross border, but it would not limit application to the rest of the project.

So if a project required a right-of-way across Federal lands, the NEPA review would be initiated. Nothing in the bill would exempt the project from requiring applicable Clean Water Act permits, clean air permits, endangered species permits, or any other Federal permit.

So I would respectfully request the Members to support this commonsense bill. It would bring certainty to entities that are trying to bring more energy to America by treating gas pipelines the same as oil pipelines, the same as a transmission line.

In concluding, I would just like to say this: nothing in the bill creates a Federal right of eminent domain or supersedes a State's exercise of eminent domain authority.

In concluding, I would just like to say that, while the gentleman from California and I are on opposite sides of this issue--and a lot of issues--he has been a real leader in the U.S. Congress.

He announced earlier that he is not going to be seeking reelection, but the gentleman from California, Henry Waxman, has been a leader in the U.S. Congress and recognized so throughout the country.

Even though he is going to be with us for 6 or 7 more months until the end of the year, I did want to acknowledge that he is recognized as a congressional leader, with great empathy and commitment to his views, although sometimes we disagree with his views.

With that, I urge the adoption of H.R. 3301 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), his amendment would, in effect, codify the Presidential permit not only for oil pipelines and transmission lines, but also for natural gas pipelines, which are now exempt from the Presidential permit. So he is going in the wrong direction, and would make it even more difficult.

As I said earlier, NEPA would apply anytime Federal action is triggered, and there are 33 different environmental laws that can trigger Federal action. So I am very much opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that if we pass H.R. 3301, the Keystone pipeline is still caught up in the Presidential permitting process. And if we adopt the Waxman amendment, the Keystone pipeline

would never, ever be able to come back with a new application.

Since they filed an application in September of 2008, and despite the State Department saying that there is no negligible environmental impact by approving it, President Obama continues not to approve it. So if after 2016 the Keystone pipeline entity wants to submit a new application under the new law, they would certainly and should have a right to do that. That is the only reason we oppose the Waxman amendment. I urge that Members vote against the Waxman amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I might say I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) on the committee, and he does great work in the area of efficiency and other areas relating to energy, but I do oppose this amendment.

At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for his comments on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. First of all, ``minor'' is an undefined term that gives little certainty to agencies or industry. One of the things that we are trying to get away from is the uncertainty of a Presidential permit and be treated like natural gas pipelines. As I said, in H.R. 3301, we are trying to treat all of them exactly the same: transmission lines, oil pipelines, natural gas lines.

I would also say that, under the gentleman's amendment, any modifications, such as volume expansion, downstream or upstream interconnections, or adjustments to maintain flow, would potentially be required to obtain a Presidential permit for the modification, even if the original project already has one. Then even operational changes may be subject to a Presidential permit, and ownership changes would be.

So, for those reasons, as I said, I respectfully would oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask the Members to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face, so before approving a multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure project that will last for decades, we need to evaluate its climate impacts. That is the standard the President rightly set last June, but this test is a significant obstacle for tar sands pipelines because they would carry the dirtiest fuel on the planet. Over the last few years, House Republicans have repeatedly tried to short-circuit the process and mandate the approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The bill we are considering today goes even further. It creates a new process to rubberstamp every pending and future tar sands pipeline.

The bill makes an end run around the National Environmental Policy Act. Under this bill, instead of conducting an environmental review of a whole pipeline that crosses the border with Canada or Mexico, the NEPA review, which is the environmental review, would be limited to just the small segment of pipeline crossing the border. That eliminates any meaningful Federal review of the environmental impacts of oil pipelines.

For example, under this bill, the environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline would only examine the environmental impacts of that small piece of pipeline that crosses the border with Canada. The review could not look at the impacts on climate change of all of the other tar sands oil moved through the pipeline. It could not look at the impacts on the aquifers or landowners in Nebraska, for example, or at the public safety or oil spill concerns here in the United States. That dramatically narrowed scope of review is just another way to gut the Federal environmental review of tar sands pipelines.

The bill doesn't stop there. It also creates a rebuttable presumption that the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines are in the public interest, which tips the scale in favor of their approval. That is a subtle but significant change that makes it much more likely that these projects will go forward; and if the President rejects the Keystone XL or another pipeline because it is not in the national interest, which is a requirement in the law today, the bill would allow the rejected project to rise from the grave and reapply under the new, much weaker process. That is why I call this bill the ``zombie pipeline'' bill.

In the northeastern part of the United States, another controversial pipeline project would carry tar sands oil from Canada through New Hampshire and Vermont to Portland, Maine, where it would be loaded onto tankers. That project wouldn't require any approval at all under this bill's new permitting process because the bill exempts major expansions of existing pipelines and reversals of pipeline flows from even that minimal process. The bill would also allow for unlimited exports of liquified natural gas through Canada and Mexico with absolutely no controls or conditions. That is why domestic manufacturers like Dow, Alcoa, and Nucor have criticized this bill.

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 3301, citing the unreasonable 120-day deadline imposed by the bill, which would curtail the thorough consideration of issues involved with these projects, noting that the bill's provisions on natural gas exports would raise serious trade implications. The Statement of Administration Policy says that, if H.R. 3301 is presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Faced with the threat of dangerous climate change, we have a responsibility to think through the impacts of proposed cross-border energy infrastructure projects. If Congress is going to establish a new permitting rule or rules through legislation, it should do so in a thoughtful and balanced way. Instead, this bill creates a process that rubberstamps projects and eliminates meaningful environmental review and public participation. This will undoubtedly benefit TransCanada and other multinational oil companies. It will undoubtedly help them, but it will harm the American people, whom we are here to represent.

I oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. Even if you support the XL pipeline, this is a bad bill, and I would urge all Members to vote against this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from California (Mrs. Capps), who is a senior member of our committee and a very respected Member as well.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Tonko), our colleague who is an active leader in energy policy.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the comments of the gentleman from Kentucky, and I couldn't really follow a lot of it.

After all, if the price of natural gas goes up, that would perhaps help the coal industry because the coal industry is not able to compete economically when the price of natural gas is low because if you are building a utility, you might as well buy natural gas because it is cheaper. Of course the coal people say, it is the government that is doing it. But it is the marketplace that is doing it.

And the other comment that I found peculiar was, we don't need to have the National Environmental Policy Act evaluation because we have got the Endangered Species Act evaluation.

Well, the Endangered Species Act is looking at endangered species. But what about the rest of the environmental review that would be eliminated if this bill were adopted, especially when we are talking about the impact on climate change and all of the other environmental considerations?

So I must say that, while I came here with a clear view, I am reaffirmed in my view. The gentleman from Kentucky did not even come close to persuading me.

At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes just to say that the President has looked at this bill, and they just cited a number of concerns about it, and they very seldom come in with a Statement of Administration Policy, but they did say on this bill that they would be against it.

They think that this bill raises serious trade implications by eliminating the current statutory requirement that the Department of Energy authorize orders for the natural gas exports. I don't think this bill is going anywhere because I think the Senate is unlikely to take it up.

There are serious and urgent problems facing this Nation: unemployment, the need for immigration reform, climate change, gun violence in our children's schools, foreign policy challenges; but, once again, House Republicans are ignoring the real issues. Instead, they are wasting time on counterproductive legislation that has no prospect of enactment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we have better things to do. I would urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides, if it is a cross boundary with Canada or Mexico, you cannot have a NEPA review, an environmental review, except right around there, right around where the boundary is. Now, if you built a pipeline in the United States and it went a thousand miles, you would have a review of it. But they are saying just because it goes across the boundary for a thousand miles, let's say, there would be no review. Even though it crosses streams and aquifers, it would not get a real environmental review that would be required if it were solely domestic. That makes no sense.

I urge support for the Pallone amendment because it fixes a problem and preserves meaningful environmental reviews. That is what we need for these projects. It corrects that part of the bill which I think is a glaring, glaring loophole.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this bill's supporters claim that it is just about the approval process for cross-border energy projects. They say it is not about approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline because that is under review now. But, in fact, that is what this bill really does.

If the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest, this bill would allow TransCanada to reapply under this new process designed to rubberstamp permits, and Keystone XL would almost certainly be approved under that process.

This bill establishes a new permitting process which would ensure rapid approval, and not particularly a clear evaluation. The bill makes it very difficult for Federal agencies to do anything other than approve the proposed project for two reasons.

First, the new permitting process narrows the approval and environmental review. And, secondly, the bill establishes this rebuttable presumption of approval, meaning the Federal agency must approve the project unless it finds that the cross-border segment of the project is not in the public interest.

I think this bill, which I have called the ``Zombie Pipeline Act,'' is just for the Keystone XL pipeline. They keep on trying to push that thing and not let it go through the process by which it is still being evaluated. So I urge that we close this backdoor way to ensure Keystone XL itself is brought up again, and I would urge support for this amendment because this bill is not a proper way to deal with that particular project.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of the nice words, but let's recognize this amendment. We just heard the statement that this doesn't apply to the Keystone XL pipeline because that is pending, and the bill says it doesn't apply to any project with permit approval pending on the date of enactment. But that doesn't exclude them if they are denied from coming right back and getting rubberstamped under the easier process under this bill.

So if this is not about the Keystone XL pipeline, adopt this amendment which says that the Keystone XL pipeline may not come back as a zombie for approval later if it doesn't get approved under the existing process.

I am just trying to keep people honest. I still have got 6 months to do that, so don't say good-bye to me yet. While I am here, and even after I have left the Congress, I will continue to point out when things are said that just don't add up. It doesn't add up to say that this doesn't apply to the Keystone XL pipeline; it could, and in fact it is a backdoor way to do that. And one might suspect that that is the whole purpose of the legislation. I urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

The bill before us today is bipartisan, reasonable legislation to reauthorize the CFTC. I believe this bill strikes the necessary balance to actually become law.

The Dodd-Frank Act tasked the CFTC with implementing a variety of new regulations to better protect the derivative market participants, and while the Commission has made great progress, recent cases have demonstrated there is more work that needs to be done.

H.R. 4413 better protects farmers and ranchers who use the futures markets by cementing into law several new regulatory provisions that arose out of the MF Global bankruptcy and the fraud that occurred at Peregrine Financial. The bill requires electronic confirmation of customer fund account balances held at depository institutions and prohibits firms from moving customer funds from one account to another without regulators' knowledge. The bill also examines two issues that have recently gained notoriety: high-frequency trading and funding for the CFTC.

Michael Lewis' book ``Flash Boys'' has made high-frequency trading a hot topic. But what many people don't realize is that high-frequency trading in securities markets is very different from high-frequency trading in futures and other derivatives markets. This is why the bill directs the CFTC to thoroughly examine this practice and report back to Congress their findings.

And once we have a better understanding of high-frequency trading in the markets regulated by the CFTC, we can then determine if further legislative action is necessary.

The bill also directs GAO to examine CFTC's funding needs. There has been a lot of debate in the House about the agency's funding level and how the fund should be used. And I am not sure anybody really knows. So having an independent third party, like the GAO, look at this question will better inform the debate going forward.

As the chairman said, H.R. 4413 also provides some much-needed clarity to end users, agriculture and energy producers, and others who actually use the derivatives market to hedge against risk and did not cause the financial collapse. Congress never intended for these end users to be regulated in the same manner as financial entities, and H.R. 4413 makes that clear. The bill also incorporates legislation already passed by the House, with strong bipartisan support, including end user margin exemptions, indemnification requirements, and relief for municipal utilities.

I know Members have raised concerns about two particular provisions in this bill, the cost-benefit section and the cross-border section. The cost-benefit language mirrors President Obama's Executive Order 13563, which imposed cost-benefit assessment standards on all government departments. I didn't hear any complaints about increased workload when the executive order was issued. But there are some complaints about what is in this bill.

I guess because the executive order exempted cost-benefit standards from legal challenges, some have suggested that the financial industry will use this bill's new standards to challenge CFTC rulemaking. But, frankly, I think the financial industry will continue to sue the CFTC regardless of whether we change the cost-benefit standards or not. It is the industry's nature to fight regulation. We will also be considering some amendments to address these concerns, and I look forward to this debate tonight.

Finally, I have heard some fears that this bill gives some foreign interests an automatic exemption from U.S. swap rules. So let's be clear. The CFTC has adopted these cross-border provisions. The SEC has not. And what it says in this bill is, if they don't agree, then the current regulations stay in place. So the CFTC's cross-border guidance is going to continue to be effective and remain in place, and whatever cross-border rule the SEC finalizes next week will also be effective. And what it says in this bill is that if they can ever reconcile those two things, then there could be some changes in how the cross-border rule is administered.

But given the history of these two agencies, the chances of them actually coming together on this are probably slim to none. We have been waiting 14 years for joint rules regarding portfolio margining for products under their respective jurisdictions. So their record of cooperation is not good. And as I said, right now, the CFTC has rules. They say that if somebody is doing business in the U.S., they are going to have to come under U.S. law, and that is the way it is going to stay.

So, Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. But if we waited for perfection, we would be waiting forever, and we wouldn't be able to vote for anything. This bill deserves our support so we can move the process along to the Senate and hopefully see a bill signed into law before the CFTC reauthorization expires in September.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4413, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers on our side either.

In closing, I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Lucas, and Congressman Conaway and Congressman Scott for their work on this bill, along with Members on both sides of the aisle for their work and their support.

I also want to thank the Agriculture Committee staff, especially Clark Ogilvie, who did all our work on Dodd-Frank and did the work on this bill. He has been working on these issues for a long time and I think is seen as one of the most knowledgeable--if not the most knowledgeable--staffers around. I want everybody to give him a round of applause and also announce that tomorrow he is leaving to become the chief of staff at the CFTC, so it is pretty good timing. We would like to thank Mr. Ogilvie for his work.

With that, I urge support of H.R. 4413 and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

In opposition, I want to say that I have no opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as one great American said: now, we are going to hear the rest of the story.

This is a situation where industry lost in court, and now, they are coming to Congress to try to accomplish what they couldn't do through the court system, so I rise in opposition.

From President Reagan's time to President Clinton's, the CFTC has--on its own accord--exempted registered investment companies, RICs, from having to register as commodity pool operators or as commodity trade advisers with the CFTC, provided they meet two conditions: one, that the commodity futures activity occurring in the funds they managed was below a set threshold; and, two, that they did not market to retail customers as a commodity pool or investment vehicle for commodity futures or commodity options.

During the first term of the second Bush administration, the CFTC eliminated both the threshold and the retail marketing restriction. These steps allowed investment companies unlimited access to commodity futures markets without any CFTC oversight and were opposed by the National Futures Association, the frontline regulator for the CFTC.

In 2010, the National Futures Association petitioned the CFTC to reconsider the broad exemption for registration given for RICs. From that request and following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, giving the Commission new jurisdiction over swaps, the CFTC reconsidered its exemption for RICs and reinstituted the thresholds for trading activity and retail marketing conditions that would trigger registration with the CFTC.

Not surprisingly, the Investment Company Institute, which represents these funds and the Chamber of Commerce, then sued the CFTC. The Federal district court ruled in favor of the CFTC, and the court ruled for the agency in summary judgment.

The funds appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the CFTC. After the CFTC won its case, the Commission set up a harmonization regime versus SEC rules for the registered trading advisers who were involved in this. If the CFTC and SEC rules conflict, the RIC can defer to the SEC rules.

Despite that accomodation by the Commission, its having lost both the regulation and the litigation, the financial community is here now with this legislation.

The Garrett amendment attempts to accomplish what the financial industry could not achieve in the courts. The amendment would permanently remove the CFTC's jurisdiction over RICs registered with the SEC, regardless of how big they play in the futures or swaps market and regardless of their reach to retail customers.

The amendment's supporters will say that this only applies to investments in futures, options on futures, and swaps in financial commodities, as opposed to agriculture or energy commodities; but I would remind the Members that it was financial swaps, like credit default swaps, that contributed to the financial collapse in 2008. It wasn't energy or agriculture swaps.

The SEC failed in its oversight in 2008. I don't want to have to rely on them to keep an eye on financial instruments, and I don't want to have a repeat of the Bernie Madoff scandal, but, this time, in futures.

The CFTC has gone out of its way to accommodate industry concerns over duplicative oversight through its substituted compliance regime. Given their past bad behavior, I don't think we should rely on one agency to keep an eye on these guys, so I urge you to defeat this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

It is only in certain circumstances.

I think there is more to it than that.

They wouldn't go through all of this to try to get the CFTC to do what they wanted, then go through the courts, and then come here with legislation, if this were just some minor registration issue, no.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking the chairman of the committee, Frank Lucas, and our ranking member, Collin Peterson, for the bipartisan tone that they have set on all of the work that we do in the Agriculture Committee. Under their leadership, we work together to examine the issues under our jurisdiction, and we work together to develop legislative solution to the problems we discover. Their leadership is reflected in the bill we have before us today.

Over the past 2 years, the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittee has heard from two Commissioners, the exchanges and SROs, market participants, end users, and foreign regulators on a broad cross section of issues facing the CFTC. The testimony and questions that we heard formed the foundation of what has become the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.

True to its name, the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act makes important progress in protecting Main Street. We strengthen safeguards against another MF Global or PFGBest and significantly reduce damage a failed FCM can inflict on its customers.

We also protect end users from being roped into registration, reporting, or regulatory requirements that are inappropriate for the level of risk they can impose on financial markets. It is clear that end users did not cause the financial crisis. They do not pose a systemic risk to the financial markets, and they should not be treated like financial entities.

As we drafted this reauthorization, we also examined the internal organization and processes of the Commission. Over the past 5 years, it has become clear that Dodd-Frank has fundamentally changed the role of the CFTC. The law has moved the Commission from a conferring, principles-based regulator to a more adversarial, rules-based regulator. As the Commission changes, so must the rules that Congress sets for its operation.

Today's legislation addresses these changes by making the CFTC more responsive and accountable to each Commissioner, and by ensuring that each Commissioner, not just the Chairman, is given a greater voice on Commission and staff activities. It also creates and defines the Office of Chief Economist to provide every Commissioner with objective economic data and analysis.

Finally, one of the most important changes this bill makes is to require a meaningful quantification of the costs and benefits of a rule when it is first proposed. This analysis, done by the chief economist, will strengthen the rulemaking process and will result in better regulations and safer markets. This small mandate on the economists at the CFTC will ensure that regulatory burdens are justified in the real world, not just in the pages of the Federal Register. Rules that reflect the impact of a proper cost-benefit analysis will be better accepted by those being regulated and may result in less acrimony during the rules-making process.

As I close, I would also like to thank my ranking member, David Scott. Over the past year and a half, we have examined these CFTC issues together and collaborated on legislation and hearings. I am pleased with the fruits of our labor, and I couldn't ask for a better partner on our subcommittee.

The Customer Protection and End User Relief Act is a commonsense, bipartisan reform package. In it we protect customers and end users from overreach and make meaningful changes to the operation of the commission. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very dangerous to require the regulated community to follow rules or regulations that have not been properly considered.

A cost-benefit analysis is an essential requirement for any rule or order. Only after a regulator considers the costs of imposing a rule and then compares that cost to the anticipated benefits can a rule be properly analyzed.

Far too often, regulators at the CFTC ignore cost or important cost factors, so that their regulatory agenda can be implemented unimpeded.

The ability of the regulated committee to ask a court to review the cost-benefit analysis of a rule or order is an essential deterrent to such a practice.

The threat of litigation forces regulators to make sure they properly consider costs and attest that the regulation achieves the goal set out in the law passed by Congress in the most cost-efficient manner.

Striking the ability of a court to review the cost-benefit analysis of a CFTC regulation would vitiate the carefully negotiated bipartisan compromise just offered by Ms. DelBene.

It seems odd on the logic that you would support the DelBene amendment, which improves judicial review and narrows its scope, and then categorically oppose judicial review.

I think her amendment, allowing courts to determine if a cost-benefit analysis of a CFTC-promulgated rule or regulation is an abuse of the Commission's discretion, is a measured approach that will lead to a sound and effective policy.

We have also got an indication from the IG, the inspector general, that throughout the entire Dodd-Frank regulatory process, which the CFTC put in place some 60 rules, that generally speaking--according to the IG, generally speaking, it appears that CFTC employees did not consider quantifying costs when conducting cost-benefit analysis for the definitions as indicated. It took a very cavalier approach to the process.

We think that, based on the testimony we have heard from many of the regulated, the CFTC did a very poor job on the front end of estimating the cost of what all of these rules that they were putting in place with respect to Dodd-Frank would be and, therefore, did not consider them properly, and the benefits were far less than the cost imposed.

With that, I respectfully urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I, too, agree with the gentlewoman that we all want a very effective CFTC.

Reauthorizing the agency ought to be a part of looking at its operations. Given the work that it did and didn't do during the Dodd- Frank regulatory scheme that put in place 60 new rules, we don't believe that the cost-benefit rules that were in place under section 15(a) were properly used and did not generate the benefits that the impact of a properly vetted cost-benefit analysis would have on each and every rule.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we have already talked at length about the benefits of cost-benefit analysis, and section 203 would bring the discipline necessary to the agency for them to consider the costs and benefits when prescribing a new rule or regulation.

The gentlelady's remarks would be much more in line if she were strictly asking to strike the section, but she is asking for a sense of Congress. Why would we need a sense of Congress based on her arguments that CFTC doesn't need this issue at all? I would understand her arguments a lot better if she would have simply asked for a strike.

I am going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because her amendment is a stalking horse, because it would simply replace the bipartisan, well-crafted consideration for the new cost-benefit analysis for the CFTC with a sense of Congress. That, in my view, would gut and negate the value of having the agency actually go through, as they propose a rule, to determine what will be the cost and what will be the benefits.

We are always going to have regulations. God started us off with 10. We are going to have regulations, but they ought to make sense, they ought to regulate the minimum amount needed to regulate, and when the usefulness goes away, they should expire as well.

So as an agency conducts that process, taking into consideration the cost and benefits is an appropriate step as they put together regulations. It doesn't mean that the cost-benefit analysis will control in every instance, but it does allow for a better sense that those who are being regulated here have their voices heard during the process. And then if the agency has done a proper cost-benefit analysis, those who are regulated will stand a better chance of voluntarily complying with those new rules, we will have less

acrimony during the process, and perhaps even less litigation if the agency would use a proper cost-benefit analysis and reflect the impact of that analysis in the rules.

With that, I will oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, throughout the debate on this bill--in committee, in subcommittee--we have made the point over and over that this is simply a prospective change to the rules for the Commission. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rules that are already in place. The 60-some odd rules that are in place to protect under Dodd-Frank are unaffected by this change to the CFTC's rules and cost-benefit analysis.

In the future, if Congress decides on a massive law change, as they did with Dodd-Frank--one side of the House decided that--and the CFTC has to go through this, at that point in time these rules come into effect. But title VII to Dodd-Frank and all the changes that were made at the CFTC are in place.

So this is not going backwards. It is not looking backwards. This is simply a prospective change to the way the CFTC should operate going forward. They should have been operating under this rule anyway, but they weren't. The rules were antiquated. There were not enough teeth in them. So Chairman Gensler and others took advantage of it.

This will close that loophole and future chairmen will have to abide by a rational cost-benefit analysis program that will improve the regulations.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member of the committee for yielding. Maybe in my 4 minutes, I can convince him.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a proud cosponsor and in support of H.R. 3301, the North American Energy Infrastructure Act.

Passing H.R. 3301 will help create the North American energy market. It will help make us energy-independent for North America, between our two free trading partners, Mexico and Canada.

But I also need to correct the record. There is a lot of misinformation about this legislation, and I hope to make a few things clear.

Commerce decisions are the responsibility of Congress. Today we can have 1,000 tank-car trains with crude oil come from Canada without a permit, but to build a pipeline, it has been delayed for years because it couldn't get a Presidential permit. We can bring the same substance from Canada in train cars, but we can't put it on a safer mode of pipelines.

Congress has not acted on legislative cross-border infrastructure since 1850. I think it is time to change that.

The Presidential permit process that my colleague is defending so vigorously is an executive order process that could be changed depending on who is in the White House. My colleague may support the process now but may oppose the process later.

H.R. 3301 gives statutory certainty to build transmission lines, oil pipelines, or natural gas pipelines with our two free trade neighbors, Canada and Mexico. H.R. 3301 eliminates uncertainty that has crippled infrastructure development.

These pipelines are not paid for by tax money. They are paid for by investors.

H.R. 3301 does not eliminate or limit environmental reviews of cross- border infrastructure. In fact, the bill cements environmental reviews by putting it into law. The bill does not eliminate the public interests or deem applications approved. The bill guarantees the public interest must be met but in a timely fashion.

Finally, the bill does not apply to the current project applications, like Keystone XL. This bill doesn't go into effect if it is passed by the Senate until 2016. Keystone may or may not have their project approval or their plan approval by then, but they would have to get back in line with everyone else after this bill goes into effect. We have safeguarded against this by grandfathering current applications and delaying the effective date until mid-2016.

There are more than 60 cross-border projects that have been built over the last few decades. But today, there are more than 10 applications at the State Department awaiting action because political decisions have been bogged down in the process.

Cross-border infrastructure is important in the public interest. The State Department has stated: ``Additional pipeline capacity will advance the strategic interests of the United States, send positive economic signals, and provide construction jobs for workers in the

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. As ranking member on the Health Subcommittee, I, too, am hesitant to rise and oppose your amendment. What the amendment would do is it would ensure that the complete length of cross-border projects would be subject to full environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The bill already guarantees that review at the national boundary based with the Department of Energy.

Existing Federal and State law guarantees an environmental review on the complete length of the project.

Current Federal laws that trigger NEPA reviews in addition to H.R. 3301 include the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination for Fish and Wildlife Service consultation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

The intent of this bill is not to eliminate any of the NEPA reviews within the continental United States. The problem we have right now is the Department of State is making a decision that really ought to be Federal agencies and even State governments who would need that.

If this amendment was adopted, it would require a State Department or a Presidential permit, and then all of the other agencies, and so it would make it impossible.

The argument for this bill, if you are opposed to Keystone, then you are allowing literally a thousand-car train of crude oil to come across the border now without any of these reviews. A pipeline is inherently safer. That is why we need to bring that crude oil by pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast, where our refining capacity is.

The amendment would actually expand what is under current law. It would make it even harder. The goal of the legislation is to have this North American energy independence market, and we don't need to throw up more roadblocks to keep companies from importing or exporting to Canada or importing or exporting to Mexico, where we already have free trade agreements.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding.

Ranking Member Waxman's amendment excludes any project with a pending permit application from the new approval requirements in the bill. The bill does not deal with Keystone XL. The bill shall not apply if an application for a permit for construction, connection, operation, or maintenance is pending. That is what the bill does, H.R. 3301.

The bill does not apply until after July 1, 2016. We are in 2014 now. Keystone XL has been at the State Department and White House for at least 5 years, and are they going to wait another 2 years? Now, if they want to wait until July 1, 2016, they would have to refile and start all over. But this bill has nothing to do with the Keystone permit. They could stand in line like anyone else after July 1, 2016, stand in line and get their permit. I would assume we would have a number of them.

But let me first take some time, and I appreciate my colleague, Ranking Member Waxman. I have been on the Energy and Commerce Committee since 1997, and most of the time we agree, but we do represent individual districts. But I want to say that I appreciate Mr. Waxman's service. We have worked together on a lot of legislation in the committee and even on the floor, but, obviously, we have a disagreement on energy. That is why I think the amendment is not needed, because the bill already prohibits it from applying to any current permit in the law.

Again, Mr. Waxman, I thank you for your service. I will miss you because I enjoy our discussions.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.

I, too, understand where my colleague on the committee and Congressman Welch--let me leave with you one of our examples. You include also pipeline name changes in here. I understand your issue is reversing the flow. I would be glad to work with you, but I have a company that has been waiting years. They bought a pipeline coming from Canada into the United States. They have waited years just for the State Department to change their name.

What really bothered me--and I have contacted the State Department-- the State Department said: Oh, well, we are looking at it, but we know you are going to build a lateral from North Dakota into your U.S. part of the line, and we do evaluate that.

The State Department has no right to evaluate those pipelines. It is on our property in the United States. They have the cross-border. What we are seeing is expansion of State Department authority.

I agree that you have an issue and I would like to see if we could work with you on it, but it shouldn't take 3 years to change a name because another company bought it. And believe me, I think the State Department is trying to overreach by saying: By the way, we are going to evaluate what you are doing in the continental United States.

We already have Federal agencies--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a host of Federal agencies--that will evaluate that pipeline that is in our country. The State Department needs to take care of their business. That is what worries me about your amendment, so I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I would love to work with you, because I think if there is a reverse flow, I think somebody needs to look at it. I appreciate it. I still request a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, we have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation to add fluidity to a very complex, complicated financial arena in which we are in; and that is in the area of derivatives, swaps dealing, and dealing on the international stage as the world's number one economy--very complex, very complicated.

History has shown that the United States is a leader in the world, particularly in economic affairs. We are here today to deal with reauthorization of the CFTC at a time when we have just come out of a very serious economic downturn.

Now, I agree with my distinguished ranking member. We have worked very closely on this, and quite honestly, there is nobody in Congress that has the knowledge of financial services as does our ranking member. The ranking member and I have worked diligently to try to bring a serious bit of compromise to this area. She raises a good point.

Let me take a couple of her concerns, so I can share with you how we have addressed those. The first one is the cross border. The claim that we are opening up and doing business with foreign governments and foreign jurisdictions that have no regulations there and we acquire risk--here is what we are doing, and I want to make sure we are clear.

I serve on the Agriculture Committee as the ranking member on the Derivatives Subcommittee, and I serve on the Financial Services Committee. The very cross border that we are talking about has been debated, has been argued, and has been passed by this House in the form of H.R. 1256.

Now, here is what needs to be understood: we have minimized totally any risk of importation of damage to our economy with the exemption of the top nine--not all the foreign governments and not the foreign jurisdictions--we are exempting the top nine largest swap dealers who deal in derivatives of foreign jurisdictions, and it will be the CFTC, in conjunction and jointly through joint rulemaking with the SEC.

As Chairman Peterson pointed out, they are at loggerheads now. The first order of business is to get them to agree on a rule, and 270 days after that, that rule would go into effect, and immediately, the top five of those foreign jurisdictions that have rules and regulations that are equitable to ours--

which, again, will be determined jointly by the SEC and the CFTC--will go into effect.

One year after that, the remaining four will go into effect, so what we have here is a check and balance right there. They will determine that criteria. We put something else in there, as well, to address Ms. Waters' very legitimate concern.

We said that: look, once the CFTC has done this jointly with the SEC, then what we will do is any one of those foreign jurisdictions who do not measure up to having the equal amount of robust regime on their regulations, they will disavow them, and within 30 days, they must send to the Congress of the United States--specifically to the House Financial Services Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, the House Agriculture Committee, and the Senate Agriculture Committee--the reason why. Stop right there. That back door is closed tight. There will be no seepage.

If these nine foreign countries that we work with--and, Mr. Chairman, you must realize that, historically, we are the leader, we have to show the way here, and we are not going to put in practice any way where there is any leakage that will come back to us that will be damaging to our system, it will be in the hands of where it needs to be, the regulators.

They will determine if their rules and regulations meet ours, and if they don't, they will let Congress know, and then they will not be allowed.

The other point, Mr. Chairman, is we have end users. This bill isn't just about banking. This bill is about farmers. This bill is about people who make things. We are the world's leading economy.

We don't do business just in the United States; we do them all around the world. If we don't put this in--this cross border in--we will be putting our business community on the international stage in a very disadvantaged competitive position. So I submit to my friend, Ms. Waters, that we have certainly dealt with that.

Now, the cost-benefit analysis--first of all, Ms. Waters should take credit for this because she really, on H.R. 1062, which was a mandate that we do, we changed that, thanks to you, and this is clearly an adjustment.

We had a bill, H.R. 1062. Ms. Waters was absolutely right because that bill mandated the benefit and the cost, and it was beneficial, in a way, to certain industries. I voted against that bill with Ms. Waters.

I took Ms. Waters' suggestion, and we went back, and we said that we can't mandate this. So what did we do with this bill? We simply said: let's consider how we can protect the market. Let's consider, let's assess how we can do that and not mandate it.

Again, as Mr. Peterson has pointed out, we modeled this directly after what President Obama's executive order mandated, that you take a risk management assessment before you make the decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify one point made by the gentlelady from New York, and I just pointed out to her, she was clear in her statement, and I am reading from the actual bill here where it says that:

Or other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the

Commission, shall be exempt from the United States swaps

requirements in accordance with the schedule unless the

Commission jointly determines that the regulatory

requirements of the country or administrative region or other

foreign jurisdiction are not broadly equivalent to the United

States.

I just wanted to clear that up.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ms. DelBene.

Ms. DelBene, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Vargas are all hardworking members, Democrats and Republicans, on the Ag Committee. I think this shows you how wonderful the legislative process can be. I certainly want to recognize our ranking member who brought this concern in her opening remarks.

This helps to tighten and, I think, make a better bill. What it will do is that it will address the concerns that Ms. Waters raised, and that would be that improved cost-benefits provision would lead to unnecessary litigation.

What Ms. DelBene, Mr. Vargas, and Mr. Gibson have done with their language is it definitely narrows the potential avenues for litigation on the CFTC's cost-benefit analysis, but still allows the consideration of the points of analysis to take place.

I want to commend Ms. DelBene, Mr. Gibson, and Mr. Vargas for a very good amendment.

This is a very interesting debate in listening to it, but I think the simple point here, Mr. Chairman, is that, number one, this just deals with the registration. Prior to 2012, the SEC handled all of the RICs.

Now, we have caught up in the middle of this millions and millions of pensioners, retirees, people who are getting into the golden years of their lives.

My hope is that we can pass this amendment. It only deals with registration. The ranking member has brought up some interesting points. That is why we do have the courts to settle those.

I think here, tonight, we need to think of what this simple amendment does is stop duplicative areas within registration and gives a better hand for our retirees today.