Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to "Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers".

Mr. President--

Up to 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the resolution before us, which really ought to be titled the ``Kleptocrat Relief Act.''

My Republican colleagues today are trying to repeal a critical bipartisan rule initiated by Senator Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, and Senator Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. It is a critical bipartisan rule to prevent corruption.

This transparency rule is part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law. It is one of the best anti-corruption tools that President Trump now has to keep his promise to, in his words, ``drain the swamp'' in Washington and around the world.

But now, in just week 2 of his Presidency, Republicans are racing to use an obscure law called the Congressional Review Act to wipe it out. The CRA was not intended to hand a new President the power to roll back regulations that protect workers, protect the environment, protect investors, and protect consumers.

In this case, Republicans are using the CRA to target rules that have gone through extensive years-long administrative and public review, including on issues that agencies were specifically ordered by this Congress to study and address.

Republicans' unprecedented use of the CRA is not about Congress performing due diligence or agency oversight, it is a gross abuse of power to make their big corporate allies happy. I heard my friend from Idaho talk about the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. That is just a start.

The rule they are trying to repeal protects U.S. citizens and investors from having millions of their dollars vanish into the pockets of corrupt foreign oligarchs. It does that by requiring all oil, gas, and mineral companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose the royalties and the bonuses and the fees and the taxes and other payments they make to foreign governments.

This kind of transparency is essential to combating waste, fraud, corruption, and mismanagement, as Senator Isakson talked about the poverty he sees in these resource-rich countries.

Yet Rex Tillerson, whom this body just, I believe yesterday, confirmed with a pretty much partisan vote--Rex Tillerson and congressional Republicans want to strip it away. Rex Tillerson, in his years as CEO of ExxonMobil--and we will talk about that in a moment-- strongly opposed this rule, almost by himself, with ExxonMobil as the head of that company.

At Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing, Senator Kaine from Virginia introduced into the record a 2008 report by Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. That report was the basis--Republican staff, I assume at the behest of Senator Lugar and others--that report was the basis for what eventually became section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, known as the bipartisan Cardin-Lugar amendment to fight corruption in mineral- rich developing countries. That report concluded that many resource- rich countries are poor because their vast mineral resources often breed corruption. That corruption lines the pockets of the kleptocrats--read ``thieves''--increases poverty, increases hunger, and increases instability.

As Senator Lugar said:

Paradoxically, history shows that rather than a blessing,

energy reserves can be a bane for many poor countries,

leading to fraud, corruption, wasteful spending, military

adventurism and instability. Too often, oil money that should

go to a nation's poor ends up in the pockets of the rich or

is squandered on the trappings of power and massive showcase

projects instead of being invested productively and

equitably.

That is called the resource curse. It prevails all over the world today. For example, oil-rich Venezuela is running out of food and medicine. Resource-rich Nigeria is in an economic mess wracked by terrorism and poverty. Armed groups have fought for years

over mineral wealth in the Congo and elsewhere in Africa.

Resource-rich countries in Asia have similar problems. The natural resource sector in so many countries is famously corrupt--the world's single most corrupt industry, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. But oil companies can no longer hide behind the excuse of confidentiality. Increasingly, companies are expected to disclose what they pay in taxes and other payments to governments whose natural resources they extract. That is what this language from Senator Lugar, Senator Cardin, and Senator Leahy did. That is what the rule does. That is what we should do. This Congress wants to undo that. This is now required under the laws of the United States and 30 other countries, as well as international initiatives. In other words, what we did here was followed by 30 other countries, and a number of more responsible energy companies, I would say, passed this language and began to implement these laws.

The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is a global standard that aims to put information about government revenues from natural resource deals into the public domain in 51 countries, including ours. This includes telling us what taxes the companies pay, which is key to ensuring citizens know what benefits they get--from Venezuela or Nigeria or Congo--from their own natural resources.

Let me offer some concrete examples of the kind of corruption we are talking about. This just turns your stomach.

In Equatorial Guinea, according to anti-corruption groups, oil companies, including Exxon, have had a long history of problems on this front. The regime of President-for-life Obiang, who executed his brutal uncle to gain power almost 40 years ago, has been tarnished with allegations of corruption, cronyism, brutal political repression, routine human rights violations, and drug trafficking for years and years.

Years ago, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report and held a public hearing which revealed that a number of oil companies--again, ExxonMobil; they keep coming up in this--were making direct payments into an account in the name of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea located at Riggs Bank in Washington, DC. Virtually all of the money in the account, tens of millions of dollars, consisted of royalties and other payments from oil companies, primarily--surprise--ExxonMobil, to the country of Equatorial Guinea for the right to explore and produce oil in that country. But instead of paying the money to the government or the national treasury of Equatorial Guinea, the companies sent the money to the account at Riggs Bank. That account was controlled by President-for-life Obiang and two of his relatives. The account signatories were the President-for-life, his son, and his nephew. Imagine that. Instead of paying the national treasury, the oil companies made payments into this account in another country, controlled by a dictator and his relatives. I can't believe we in this body support that. How could the citizens of Equatorial Guinea know how much royalty money was coming in for their oil in their country and where it was going when it was in a secret account controlled by a dictator? The answer, obviously, is they couldn't.

The report from the PSI--the committee that investigated--documented that some of the funds from that account were used to make suspicious transactions. The United States then investigated the President-for- life's family finances. Prosecutors noted that President-for-life Obiang's son ``received an official government salary of less than $100,000 a year but used his position and influence as a government minister to amass more than $300 million worth of assets through corruption and money laundering.'' He paid himself $100,000 but found a way to amass $300 million more--all in violation of the laws of his country and our country both.

In 2014, the son settled a case brought by Federal prosecutors. He agreed to sell his $30 million mansion in Malibu, his Ferrari, and various items of Michael Jackson memorabilia he had collected.

The New York Times reported earlier this month that he is still working to delay his trial on corruption charges in France, where prosecutors say he amassed a personal fortune of $115 million, which he used to indulge his tastes.

When he served as Agriculture Minister of Equatorial Guinea, prosecutors say he used his influence over the timber industry--next to oil, the most important export industry in the country--to line his pockets.

Last November, prosecutors in Switzerland seized luxury cars belonging to him, and last month, at the request of the Swiss, the Dutch authorities seized his 250-foot, $100 million yacht named the ``Ebony Shine'' as it was about to sail to Equatorial Guinea. He said the yacht belonged to his country's government. All the while, his people are starving.

You can't make this stuff up. If the bill before us were adopted, the Obiang family would be celebrating. They would be celebrating in Washington, in California, and in Equatorial Guinea.

In Nigeria, again according to Global Witness, a major oil deal struck by--surprise--ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government is being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, a law enforcement agency that investigates high-level corruption. The probe centers on a protracted and controversial deal agreed to by ExxonMobil and the Nigerian Government in 2009 to renew three lucrative oil licenses, which at the time accounted for around a quarter of Nigeria's entire oil production.

ExxonMobil agreed to pay $600 million to renew the licenses and construct a powerplant at a cost of $900 million to the company, making a total contribution of $1.5 billion. Yet documents suggest that the Nigerian Government may have valued the licenses at $2.5 billion and that the Chinese oil company CNOOC offered to pay $3.7 billion for the same licenses--over six times the amount reportedly paid by ExxonMobil.

Other incredible and notorious examples abound. It would be reason enough for us to act to try to help the millions of people around the world who are victims of this corporate collusion, but in today's world, the resource curse doesn't just impact far-off countries; it affects Americans every day. It has empowered anti-American dictators in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, situations which cost American lives and American taxpayer dollars. It worsens global poverty, which can be a seedbed and a fertile growing ground for terrorism against us and our allies. It leads to the instability that threatens global oil supplies. It raises gas prices at home.

That is why we need this rule--all of the above--to protect American national security interests by combating the corruption and secrecy, with all these oil companies at the table with them. That has caused conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in Africa and the Middle East. As ISIS has demonstrated, nonstate actors benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their terrorist operations.

Despite all this, the Republican-led House of Representatives, as Senator Crapo said, voted yesterday to repeal this bipartisan initiative--an initiative that holds Big Oil accountable and protects the American people. Today, the Senate Republican leadership is following suit. It is a little ironic in light of the fact that Candidate Trump, at almost every rally in my State, almost every rally in State after State after State where he was campaigning, talked about draining the swamp.

Since the rule's creation, ExxonMobil, led by Mr. Tillerson--now the Secretary of State--and Big Oil allies, such as the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation, have fought to kill it.

Who else opposes this rule besides Senate Republicans, House Republicans, and President Trump? There are the autocrats in Russia. We know about the connections between Russia and the Secretary of State. We don't know quite enough about the connections between our President and President Putin because we can't get the President's tax returns. We know something is going on. Everybody knows it. Nobody knows quite what.

Who else opposes it? Autocrats in Iran, where Advisor Flynn made some interesting and provocative comments today, autocrats in Venezuela, autocrats in Africa with oil wells, gasfields,

or copper mines who want to keep their payments a secret. It is working for them. It is working for the autocrats. It is working for Exxon. Apparently it is working for Republicans in the House and Senate too. I am not sure exactly how, but I know it is working.

More than 30 countries--mostly the United States, Canada, and European nations--have adopted similar anti-corruption standards. Senator Lugar, Senator Leahy, and Senator Cardin's law passed as part of Dodd-Frank, and the SEC is adopting this rule. More than 30 other countries in the world followed our lead, and some of the more responsible oil companies were prepared to comply. So to be clear, with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level. It is working.

Many companies already report such payments under European rules and are doing just fine, so this is hardly causing them undue burdens in the regulatory framework that my colleagues like to talk about. That is why many in industry support the rule, despite the actions of Exxon, the bad actor here, and the CEO of Exxon--now, amazingly, our Secretary of State.

BP and Shell--two major, large oil companies--have publicly endorsed payment reporting and lining up U.S. rules with those in other markets. Foreign and state-owned oil companies from China and Brazil, including CNOOC, PetroChina, Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras, are required to disclose under U.S. rules, leveling the playing field for U.S. companies. Gazprom, Rosneft, BP, and Shell already report under UK rules. The largest mining companies in the world, including Newmont Mining, BHP Billiton, and Rio Tinto, have supported similar reporting. Oil, gas, and mining workers unions, such as United Steelworkers, back the rule.

Notice who doesn't back the rule: Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, and autocrats in Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

Investors also support it--including investor groups with $10 trillion under management--so they can better understand and manage the reputational, expropriation, sanction, and other risks facing firms in which they invest. It is supported by the American Catholic bishops, the Presbyterian Church--all kinds of religious groups.

Who is against it? Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, the President of the United States, ExxonMobil, the Secretary of State, who used to be CEO of ExxonMobil, and autocrats in Iran and Venezuela. We get the picture.

All these groups who care about justice, who care about fair play, who care about doing business with predictable and fair rules, like BP and Shell, all of them support it--Global Witness, the ONE Campaign, Oxfam, and Publish What You Pay.

We need to be clear on one other thing my friend from Idaho said: This rule won't cost a single American job. Everything oil companies can legally do today is still allowed under the anti-corruption rule. They only have to do one more thing: They have to report their numbers to the Securities and Exchange Commission. How can that cost millions of dollars?

The Cardin-Lugar rule makes Big Business and government more transparent, fights corruption, and does it all without hurting taxpayers. It is a creative approach to global problems that our leaders did embrace until we had a President who wants to ``drain the swamp,'' he says--should be embracing, not rejecting at the behest of just a few actors.

Again, who is lobbying to overturn this rule? It is autocrats around the world. It is Exxon. It is the American Petroleum Institute. It is a very small number of companies, when so many people are on the other side.

If we repeal this measure today, shareholders, investors, and poor communities around the world will continue to see their money and natural resources stolen by crooked oligarchs. We will be undoing the moral leadership. This is in so many ways a moral question that Senator Cardin, Senator Lugar, and Senator Leahy brought to us bipartisanly, with broad support by both parties. We will be turning a blind eye to corruption, we will be betraying our principles, and we will be undercutting our allies in Europe and Canada who followed our lead and crafted their own rules based on ours.

Under the terms of the Congressional Review Act, any future ``substantially similar'' rule will be forever prohibited from being written by the SEC. That makes no sense.

I hope this effort fails. I know my Republican colleagues understand this because enough of my colleagues recognize the merits of this anti- corruption measure and they refuse to kowtow to the dinosaur wing of Big Oil. It is not even all of Big Oil; it is the dinosaur wing of Big oil. It is the autocrats. It is the American Petroleum Institute. It is the Chamber of Commerce. It is ExxonMobil.

I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Leahy for their work, and I thank former Senator Lugar from Indiana for the important work he did on this measure.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Alaska--also from Cleveland--and those of my friend from Cincinnati, Senator Portman, about opioids. I appreciate his leadership in my State, the work he has done, and the work we have done together on opioid addiction. It is a tragedy, and I don't go much of anywhere in the State without finding someone who is affected, someone who is addicted in a family, or a close friend who has died.

As Senator Portman said, Ohio has more opioid deaths than any State in the country. We are the seventh largest State, but the State with the most deaths. It is troubling, and clearly we are not dealing with it as well as we should.

Mr. President, I rise to close the debate on this motion today on the Congressional Review Act to wipe out the SEC rule. I rise in opposition to the bill, as a number of colleagues on my side of the aisle have very strong feelings on it. With the exception of my friend from Idaho, the chairman of the Banking Committee, there weren't many Republicans who wanted to come to the floor for this, in part because I think it is just the supporters they have on their side don't make you want to rush to the floor and support them. Some called this the Kleptocrat Relief Act. I will give you a real quick history before I wrap up.

There is a provision in Dodd-Frank to deal with giving the President and others the best anticorruption tools we could have around the world, where countries that have lots of natural resources have been countries with all the wealth from natural resources. They are some of the most corrupt governments with some of the worst poverty anywhere on Earth.

This legislation in Dodd-Frank, and the rule that came out of it from the SEC, was going a long way to preventing corruption. What we saw was the support. Thirty countries in the world followed suit from our country. The companies that were affected, with a few very notable exceptions, were beginning to do what they knew they needed to do and should have done and that the rule called for. As a result, we were going in the right direction until this new administration, this new Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record relevant letters from investors.

Mr. President, on one side of this argument, one side of this rule, we see in the end--and this kind of sums it up. We have these 30 countries that followed us and passed the rules and the laws the same as we did. We have on our side, the American Catholic Bishops, the Conference of Bishops, the Presbyterian Church, groups like the One Campaign and Oxfam--public interest groups that made their mission trying to end corruption and deal with the economic and social distress and devastation brought on by some of these companies and some of these kleptomaniacal--for want of a better term--governments. That is on the one side.

On the other side, we have my Republican friends in the Senate and House. We have Rex Tillerson, the new Secretary of State, who lobbied vigorously and unceasingly against this rule as president of Exxon. We have Exxon on the other side. We have the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. And on that side for this bill--against the rule--we have autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, Venezuela. You can bet on this vote tomorrow morning, if 7 a.m. comes out the way it looks like it will, you can bet there will be celebrations in Russia, in Iran, and Venezuela, in all these countries where these kleptocrats, where these leaders who are so corrupt, where they benefited so much.

I think that really sums it up, how important it is that we defeat this bill, how important it is that this President, who came to town and has been in office less than about 2 weeks, his second week in office--his campaign was all about drain the swamp, and one of the first things he did, with his Republican House and Senate Members following along like sheep, they have done this. It is just incredible how they moved so quickly to side with the autocrats, to side with the Russians, to side with Big Oil, to side with ExxonMobil and these autocrats in places like Iran and Russia. It is not a good commentary on this body. I am sorry to see it.

I ask my colleagues to vote no.

I yield back my time.

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

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for extending me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are only one month into 2017; and today we have another closed rule or, as I call them now, Putin rules. This is the kind of process they have in Russia: no amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down. It is your way or the highway.

This is not the way the United States House of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should be run. This is shameful. I have very serious concerns about the road that we are traveling down, Mr. Speaker.

The 115th Congress is only a few weeks old, and we have already ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. Sadly, it has become routine in this Republican House for the majority to close down the process, rush bills through the House without regular order, enforce the rules for Democrats but not for Republicans, and insist on spending all of our time on partisan legislation instead of working together to find bipartisan compromises and solutions to the real problems facing American families and workers.

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation makes clear that the Republicans are eager to repeal protections put in place to help the American people. We should be working to expand opportunity for hardworking families and strengthen safeguards to put the American people first, not corporations, not wealthy CEOs, not big donors, and not special interests, but the people ought to come first.

Today is another sad day. We are engaged in what I would call mindless legislating. While my Republican friends say they want to repeal needless regulation--something that we all want to do--the process my Republican friends have embraced, to put it gently, is reckless. No matter what you think of a particular regulation, or rule--or, in many cases, they are protections--no matter what you may think of a particular regulation, there is no denying that these rules that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor to repeal went through a vigorous process that took months and months, and even years to complete.

They went through agency review. They went through a lengthy comment period, oftentimes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people weighed in on the pros and cons of a particular idea. But the idea that we would just erase them with the blink of an eye, no hearings, no markups, nothing, it is a mindless way to legislate and a disturbing way to govern.

The ``act first and think later'' approach was on full display with President Trump's Muslim ban. It was so hastily enacted that his own Secretary of Homeland Security didn't even know that the President was signing the executive order until he saw it on cable news. The Trump White House did such a poor job of briefing the Federal agencies charged with enforcing the policy that airports across the country were caught completely off guard, and there was widespread confusion and chaos about how to carry it out.

That is what happens when you don't embrace a process that is thoughtful. You get confusion, you get chaos, and you usually get bad policy.

The mindless approach to governing by Republicans continued this week. On Monday, President Trump announced that, for every new regulation passed, two regulations must be repealed. That is it. No details on what kind of regulations would be repealed, or why they would be repealed. This is a blind shotgun and arbitrary approach to our Nation's laws. We shouldn't be dumbing down the way we govern. The American people deserve better from their leaders in Congress, and I think they deserve better from their leaders in the White House.

Now, when this legislation came before the Rules Committee the other night, there were plenty of questions. The hearing went on for a long time. Lots of the questions came from my Republican friends. And I will tell you, the chairman's answers were not always that enlightening. I think maybe some more hearings would have helped. But in response to some of these objections, namely, did the bill undergo any review by a committee, one of my Republican friends--and it may have been the gentleman from Colorado--said: We don't have time. We don't have time for hearings. We have so many regulations that we want to repeal.

Don't have the time for a hearing? Don't have the time to understand what we are doing? I thought that was part of our job. We were supposed to deliberate. We were supposed to read the bill. We were supposed to understand the impact of the actions that we may or may not take in this Congress. That is our job.

The American people have given us the responsibility to take the time to do our job right and to carefully consider the laws we pass. To say that we don't have time for hearings and deliberation--never mind, we don't have time to allow an open process where people might want to offer amendments--is ridiculous. It is shameful. And I will tell my Republican friends, stand up to your leadership on this. This is not the way this House should be run.

So as we consider the repeal of the NICS rule, we should remember that Congress has failed to take any meaningful action on gun violence at all. We have massacres on a regular basis in this country. All we do is we have a moment of silence. That is our response. We have a high rate of suicides in this country due to gun violence. It is something we ought to talk about. And I think that the NICS rule is a commonsense, responsible gun safety measure that could potentially save the lives of thousands of people in this country. I think Congress has the responsibility to keep our families safe, not remove safeguards that help prevent gun violence.

Far too many have lost their lives to preventable gun violence. This rule is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those suffering from severe mental illness. That is a commonsense idea that I think we all should agree on. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a bipartisan bill to identify individuals ineligible to possess firearms because of severe mental health issues. This rule allows for a reporting method to ensure that the law is implemented effectively.

It is intended to save lives. Every year in the United States, more than 21,000 people kill themselves, and mental illness is also an important factor. A gun is used in the majority of these cases. The people listed on NICS are the 75,000 dealing with the most severe mental illnesses. These are people who need help, not access to a dangerous weapon like a gun.

I think this rule is a critical step, but we must close the online gun show loopholes, and we must ensure universal background checks. I think we ought to bring to the floor a bill that says that if the FBI and our security agencies have put you on a terrorist watch list and think that you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you ought not to be able to go out and buy a gun.

But under the way this House is run, we can't even bring those things to the floor for a debate. The Republican leadership and the Republican Rules Committee blocks it so that there can't be real deliberation on the House floor.

When people ask me all the time, Why can't you have a debate on this, or why can't you have a vote on it, I have to explain that the House Rules Committee, run by nine Republicans, says

no to everything, says no to every idea that they don't absolutely embrace. And that is not the way Congress should be run.

Mr. Speaker, even if you disagree with me on the value of this rule, I think it is an important enough issue that there ought to have been a hearing. There ought to have been that opportunity to deliberate and to talk about it and what the impacts are. But no, nothing. We don't have the time. So here we are.

Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is a naked attempt by Republicans to undo anticorruption rules. The rule that they are so upset about would require energy companies on the U.S. stock exchange to disclose payments they make to foreign governments for access to their natural resources.

Now, there are reasons for this. It is important that there be transparency. We heard all about the plans to drain the swamp, but President Trump and the Republicans are doing all they can to turn the swamp into a cesspool.

Putting aside all of his conflicts of interest that, I think, are on a collision course with corruption, I mean, repealing things like this, is just a bad idea. The Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back regulations like this one that are aimed at increasing transparency and fighting corruption.

ExxonMobil heavily lobbied against this rule. And now, with former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on the cusp of becoming our country's new Secretary of State, Republicans are proposing to kill this anticorruption rule that benefits Big Oil. That is reckless, and it is irresponsible.

When this rule was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010, the Big Oil lobbies strongly fought against it in court, but Congress fought back to assert America's traditional role as a global leader in fighting corruption. American leadership delivered results. The European Union promptly moved to enact nearly identical legislation, as did Canada with support of its global mining companies.

But now, Big Oil is back seeking repeal of the rule so their payments can be kept secret from the American people. They claim they will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreigners, or they will have to reveal commercially sensitive information.

But with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level and the companies already filing have suffered no commercial harm, nor revealed vital secrets. The fact is, this won't cost a single American job, and the only thing oil companies will need to do differently is report their numbers.

Aside from Big Oil, those most eager to repeal this rule are autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela--with oil wells, gas fields, or copper mines--who want to keep the money secret from their citizens. Why should we do their bidding? Why should we be in league with them?

On top of that, this rule is our most affordable and effective way to fight corruption abroad. We cannot afford to betray our own principles and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost countless lives over the long run and endanger our security. We need to put American interests first, ahead of the special interests, ahead of the corporate interests, and retain that important rule.

Obviously, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of these two rules, but you got to do what you got to do. But I urge you to vote ``no'' on this rule.

And I ask you to vote ``no'' because it should be a principle vote.

This place is becoming so closed up, so restrictive, that this is not a deliberative body anymore. We are not talking about things anymore. It is basically whatever the leadership wants, whatever Donald Trump wants, you bring to the floor, rubber stamp it, and that is it.

I don't care what political party you are in, nobody who got elected by the people of this country should stand for that kind of process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

With regard to the NICS bill, I have a very different version of history than the gentleman does, including one that represents a bipartisan compromise with the Bush White House.

So I have a very, very different recollection of history than he does on that. And on the other bill, it is all about corruption, and it is all about giving Big Oil what they want.

At the end of the day, the two interests that are most happy with the repeal of this rule are Big Oil and Russia. And if that is where we believe that we ought to be using our energy to help then go ahead and vote to repeal it. But again, I think that this process speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and, if they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund President Trump's immoral, unconstitutional, and discriminatory executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from certain countries.

President Trump's executive order flies in the face of our Nation's values. It compromises our national security by providing terrorist groups with a recruiting tool. This executive order needs to be overturned, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up legislation to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to discuss our proposal.

Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, as my distinguished colleague, Ms. Lofgren, stated, we want to defeat the previous question because we are horrified, quite frankly, by the impact that President Trump's executive orders on immigration have had on a lot of good, decent people, many of whom have already been vetted. We have students who have been held up who have student visas, we have dual citizens who have been caught up in this mess, and we have people coming to get human rights prizes. I could go on and on and on, but we need to correct this. We are better than this.

I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than circling the wagons to try to defend the indefensible, they ought to join with us and defeat the previous question so that we can actually do the right thing and overturn this narrowminded, misguided, and discriminatory policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he has additional speakers or is that the speaker we were waiting for?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am not sure where to begin, because I have heard so many fascinating things here today.

The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we are here today to enunciate the rules. I don't know what there is to enunciate. The only thing to enunciate is this is a closed rule. It is yet another closed rule. There is no opportunity to have any real deliberation, no real discussion. On top of that, there were no hearings on any of this stuff.

No matter what your position is, I have to be honest with you, listening to the gentleman, Mr. Massie, just speak, I think it would have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have actually had a hearing on this and maybe delved into some of the issues that the gentleman raised.

When people say that there is no due process, I would remind them that, under the rule, impacted beneficiaries are notified that this determination is being considered and they are provided a process to challenge that determination. Should the Social Security Administration determine that that recipient is able to safely use or possess guns, rights are restored and the person's name is removed from NICS. That is what it says.

Now, if there is a way to improve this, I am all for improving it; but by passing this measure here today, you prevent the agencies that are impacted here from ever being able to revisit the issue unless Congress deemed it appropriate.

So we are not trying to fix anything here. Basically, what we are doing is the bidding of the National Rifle Association to eliminate anything aimed at protecting people from gun violence in this country.

The gentleman from Colorado talked about the fact that his constituents want the right to protect their rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, my constituents want that, too, but they have a right to not have to be victims of gun violence. They have a right to protect their loved ones who may use a weapon against themselves or their family members.

But again, we can have this argument on whether or not we should do more--and I believe we should--to protect people in this country from gun violence, but that discussion ought to have happened first in the Judiciary Committee, at a minimum, not in the Rules Committee. I am on the Rules Committee. I admire the intellect of everybody on the Rules Committee, but our expertise is not on judiciary matters.

Similarly, on the other rule that is being repealed, the Financial Services Committee should have deliberated on that. I think there are some serious issues raised by repealing that rule, issues that I think go to the heart of corruption not only here in the United States, but around the world.

When the chairman of the Rules Committee got up and gave his description that somehow the U.S. oil companies are only being singled out, it makes my case why we should have had a hearing. What he just said, in my opinion, does not reflect reality.

The fact of the matter is, I looked at section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. It doesn't just require all extractive companies in the U.S. It says that all extractive companies, U.S. and foreign, listed on the U.S. exchanges are to publicly disclose the payments they make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources.

And then, on top of that--and I said this earlier--is that other countries have followed suit. Canada and the European Union and Norway have all passed similar laws. It is not just the United States being singled out. That is just wrong. Maybe, if we had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, that would have been clear, and this wouldn't be a point of contention.

The fact of the matter is, it is a simple reporting requirement. It places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to or how much or for what. It has absolutely no regulatory effect on any aspect of their business operations. There is absolutely no benefit to nullifying this commonsense law unless your objective is to make it easier for corrupt elites to steal money. The rule has no regulatory impact on business operation and does not define illegal or improper payments. It is a simple reporting requirement.

There is a problem with corruption, especially in places like Russia. Now, I know with the new administration, Russia is now in, and we are all supposed to say nice things about Russia. But Russia has a terrible record on human rights, and Russia has a terrible record when it comes to corruption, and we know that. We ought to not just cave to everything that Russia wants, and Russia and Big Oil want this repealed.

So I would say to my colleagues that we can argue about the merits of all of this, and that is fine, but I go back to my original point. This is the rule, and the Speaker of the House talked about the importance of regular order. I have heard my colleagues talk about the importance of regular order. We don't have regular order. You are all out of order. We end up coming to the floor with legislation that is always under restrictive processes, and most of the time now, in this new Congress, completely closed rules. That doesn't just disadvantage Democratic lawmakers who may have some ideas or may want to raise some issues, it disadvantages Republicans who may want to come to the floor with thoughtful ideas.

I urge my colleagues to absolutely vote ``no'' on this rule because, again, we are getting into this habit where it is closed, closed, closed, closed, closed, and it undermines the integrity of this House of Representatives. It really is shameful.

Finally, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a debate and a vote on overturning President Trump's awful, discriminatory executive orders on immigration. It jeopardizes our national security. It was carelessly implemented, carelessly put together. It is shameful. It is unconscionable that we are confronted with the mess that we are confronted with now.

I know it is uncomfortable to talk about issues that impact the new President who is of your party, but this

is absolutely the right thing to do. And if you want to vote no on these things, vote no on them, but allow us to have the debate and allow us to have the vote. I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

H.J. Res. 41 would roll back the SEC's rule that implemented an important congressional mandate in Dodd-Frank requiring oil, gas, and mining companies to publicly disclose payments made to foreign governments for access to their natural resources.

That rule helps fight corruption in the extractive industries sector, provides investors with crucial information on their investments, and enables citizens to demand greater accountability from their governments for spending that serves the public interest. It also helps to diminish the political instability in resource-rich countries, which is not only a threat to investment but also to our own national security.

Specifically, the disclosure rule enables shareholders to make better informed assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest.

In addition, opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in resource- rich countries, which are often underdeveloped countries that are politically unstable, rife with corruption, with a history of civil conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.

Moreover, the SEC's rule is a reasonable disclosure and places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to, how much, or what for. After 5 years of robust debate and input, the final rule accommodated a number of industry concerns, providing companies with a generous 4-year phase-in period and a case-by-case exemption process for companies that face implementation challenges. The SEC also allowed companies to comply with the disclosure by using a report prepared for other substantially similar disclosure regimes, which include regimes in the European Union and Canada.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to claim that the SEC's rule is harmful and puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign competitors.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to their own set of opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I suppose these are alternative facts.

The truth is that U.S. companies are not the only ones required to make these disclosures. Many foreign companies must report under the U.S. rules, including a number of state-owned oil companies, such as China's PetroChina and Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras.

Also, after the SEC issued its initial rule in 2012, the rest of the world followed our lead, establishing a global standard for the public disclosure of extractive payments companies make to governments.

A wave of transparency laws have been adopted in foreign markets that mirror the U.S. law. This includes legislation in the European Union, Norway, and Canada, which are all now in force. These laws cover the vast majority of oil, gas, and mining companies that compete with U.S. firms.

Now, leading global oil companies like BP, Shell, and Total, as well as Russia's state-owned companies--Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil--are entering their second year of reporting under EU rules without any negative impact.

So contrary to Republican claims, U.S. and foreign companies already compete on a more level playing field here and abroad. Therefore, rolling back the SEC's disclosure rule would directly undermine the interests of extractive companies in having a level playing field.

Worse, once the rule is nullified by this resolution, the SEC would not be able to put another rule in place that is substantially similar. This would create different reporting regimes directly contravening what companies have requested from the SEC. And, the SEC final rule accommodated industry concerns by including a generous phase-in period. U.S.-listed companies are not required to report until 2019. The rule also provides for case-by-case exemptions if covered companies face any implementation issues.

Therefore, the rule does not put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage, nor does it impose an unreasonable compliance burden.

I would also point out to my Republican colleagues the importance of the SEC's disclosure rule in protecting U.S. national security and energy security interests.

Specifically, it helps protect U.S. national security interests by helping prevent the corruption, secrecy, and government abuse that has catalyzed conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond.

As ISIS demonstrated, nonstate actors can benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their operations. Project-level disclosures in the rule will make hiding imports from nonstate actors more difficult, thereby limiting their ability to finance themselves with natural resource revenues.

Corruption and mismanagement of oil revenues destabilizes regions and leads to conflict. And, resource-rich countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Angola are considered to be among the top ten countries perceived to be the most corrupt according to Transparency International.

In addition, transparency of Russian companies and its extractive industry is critical. The SEC's rule would create transparency of Exxon and other company payments to the Russian Government. Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil are already disclosing under the U.K. rules, and BP has already reported payments to the Russian Government. The SEC's disclosure rule will make a crucial contribution as Russian citizens seek to follow the money received by their government.

A vote to roll back the SEC's resource extraction disclosures would be a vote to abandon U.S. leadership in the fight against global corruption.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 41.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets on the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee and of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

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

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

Include a number of articles in the Record. One is a Bloomberg article, entitled: ``Exxon Set for Early Victory As Congress to Rescind Payments Rule.'' The other one is a Politico Magazine article that says: ``Tillerson tried to get this rule killed. Now Congress is about to do it for him.'' The other article is a Washington Post article: ``One of House GOP's first targets for regulatory rollback is tops on the oil industry's wish list.''

[From Bloomberg Government, Jan. 30, 2017]

Exxon Set for Early Victory as Congress To Rescind Payments Rule

(By Catherine Traywick)

For years the oil industry has appealed to the executive

branch and courts to de-fang a U.S. rule forcing Exxon Mobil

Corp., Chevron Corp. and other producers to disclose their

payments to foreign governments.

Now, the Republican takeover in Washington is handling it

for them.

The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on

killing a Securities and Exchange Commission edict that

requires publication of overseas payments by oil, natural gas

and mining companies. The industry says the rule, part of the

2010 Dodd-Frank act, gives global rivals a competitive edge.

Backers say it will help keep payments to foreign nations in

government coffers, not private pockets.

``To roll it back would be a complete abdication of U.S.

initiative and leadership on issues of corruption,'' said

Daniel Kaufmann, president of the Natural Resource Governance

Institute, an International transparency watchdog.

The SEC rule, set to take effect next year, is one of a

series of Obama administration regulations Republican

lawmakers are trying to reverse using the Congressional

Review Act, a law that allows Congress to undo regulations

with a simple majority vote.

Congress also plans to vote this week to kill rules curbing

methane venting and mountain-top mining. To do so, both

chambers must pass a resolution disapproving the rules, which

the president would then have to sign. While President Barack

Obama would have reliably vetoed such resolutions, President

Donald Trump is likely to sign it.

Trump argues that curbing regulations is key to unleashing

investment by U.S. companies. He pledged to rescind two

existing regulations for each new one that's issued.

``The SEC's rule forces U.S. companies to disclose

proprietary information to its competitors while foreign

entities do not. This can give some large industry players an

advantage on future business projects,'' the American

Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said in a statement.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged in a Wall

Street Journal op-ed, to ``take the ax'' to the SEC rule,

which he characterized as ``an unreasonable compliance

burden.''

Transparency advocates dismiss that argument, pointing out

that the European Union and U.K. already require such

disclosures from some of Exxon's biggest competitors. BP Plc,

Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell are among those that annually

report taxes, bonuses and other payments to foreign

governments.

U.S. Advantage

Because Exxon and Chevron aren't listed on the European

exchanges, they don't have to comply with the EU disclosure

rules. That may give them an edge over other oil majors who

must report project-level payments, critics say.

In its 2015 disclosure to the UK, Rosneft reported $29.8

million in payments to the Russian Federation, Vietnam,

Brazil and Norway. In the same year, BP reported $15.2

billion in payments to 23 countries, Total disclosed $16.7

billion to 44 countries, and Shell reported $21.8 billion to

24 countries.

The idea behind the measure is simple: If foreign oil

companies disclose payments of $1 million to the government

of Country X, then the lawmakers and citizens of Country X

will know that $1 million should show up on the country's

budget. If less shows up, that means it has been diverted for

private use.

ExxonMobil and Chevron say they support financial

transparency in the oil sector. Both are members of an

advisory committee under the Interior Department that

oversees a voluntary corporate financial disclosure program.

sec comments

In comments to the SEC, the companies say they would

support a version of the regulation that protected company-

specific data. They argue that the current SEC rule would

make available potentially valuable company information to

state-owned competitors such as Saudi Aramco and Cnooc Ltd.,

neither of which are subject to the disclosure rules.

The American Petroleum Institute successfully challenged an

earlier version of the rule in court, forcing the SEC to

rewrite it.

API asked the agency to consider a reporting model that

detailed payments by resource type and production method--

omitting company-specific data. But, the SEC didn't adopt

that approach.

``The SEC largely ignored industry's comments,'' said Exxon

spokesman Bill Holbrook. While the final rule included

exemptions for acquired companies and exploratory activities,

it ``remains based on the EU's model and likely will

adversely affect the ability of publicly-traded companies to

compete globally,'' he said.

A Chevron spokesperson did not respond to a request for

comment.

pattern of behavior

Transparency advocates say they're concerned that the

repeal effort is part of a pattern of behavior among

Republican lawmakers.

``The GOP that tried to gut the ethics committee is trying

to gut a critical anti-corruption law,'' said Jana Morgan,

director of the advocacy group Publish What You Pay. ``It

sends a really disturbing message.''

The planned vote is generating tension among members of the

anti-corruption advisory committee on which Exxon, Chevron

and API sit. The panel, made up of representatives from

government, industry and civil society, publishes an annual

report detailing U.S. government revenues from the oil,

natural gas and mining industries, as well as voluntarily

reported payments made to the U.S. government from companies

in those sectors.

Civil society members of the committee say Exxon's

opposition to the SEC rule jeopardizes its standing on the

panel. At a meeting on Wednesday, members will discuss

whether Exxon, Chevron and API should keep their seats at

all.

``I really have to question whether it's appropriate for

companies like Exxon and Chevron and API to continue to sit

around this table,'' said Zorka Milin, an attorney with the

anti-corruption group Global Witness, and a member of the

advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely surprised at how brazen our friends on the opposite side of the aisle are. They come here on this floor today with this rule that they would like to overturn. They have not been in committee. We have not had any hearings. They have moved very, very quickly to do exactly what all of these articles are discussing. They are concentrating on how to roll back disclosure that the SEC had developed a rule for for the oil industry.

And why are they trying to do this?

It is so interesting that this is happening on the same day that Mr. Tillerson has just been voted on to be the Secretary of State for the United States Government, the former CEO of Exxon; and I am going to talk about that connection, which should cause a lot of people to be concerned.

This government is not about disclosure. First of all, the President of the United States refuses to disclose his income tax returns. I didn't expect them to support disclosure of the oil industry to avoid corruption.

As a matter of fact, they have the audacity to come here today and say that it is too expensive to be honest. It costs too much money to these huge billionaire oil companies to disclose, and somehow that is going to prevent them from creating jobs. That is nonsense.

I would like to just show some connections here.

Both during his campaign and since his election, Donald Trump has surrounded himself with people who have extensive ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government, and then we are going to see the connection between Tillerson and the Russian Government. First of all, let's look at this circle of people around him and their connection to Russia.

Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was a paid lobbyist for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian politician in Ukraine who fled to Russia in 2014 and was subjected to U.S. sanctions related to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Manafort has also been involved in multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, which were reportedly the subject of an FBI inquiry.

The other person, Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend, is reportedly under investigation for possible links with Russia. He has denied ever visiting Russia but admitted he had worked in Ukraine. Stone announced in a speech last summer that he had spoken to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and Stone predicted that there would be additional leaked documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.

Let's go to another person. Michael Flynn, Trump's National Security Adviser, did a paid series of events in Moscow, including a speech and appearance at a party for RT, a Kremlin-funded TV station, where he was photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin.

Trump's nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was a business partner of Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch and Putin ally, in a major financial project involving the Bank of Cyprus.

Finally, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee and now the person who has been voted by the Senate for Secretary of State, signed a multibillion-dollar agreement with Russia in 2011 on behalf of ExxonMobil for an oil drilling project in the Arctic. The project was brought to a halt in 2014 as a result of the sanctions that were imposed on Russia in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

Putin personally awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship in 2013. Don't forget, this President talked about lifting sanctions. Oh, you can see the connection here.

In addition to that, I just want to point out that it comes as little surprise that ExxonMobil is one of the leading companies in the fight against the global initiative to enhance the transparency of extractive industry payments made to foreign governments, given its long history of engaging in questionable transactions with governments of oil-rich countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, and Chad.

The move to eviscerate the rule issued under section 1504 that we are talking about here today makes clear that Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration believe that profits are more important than people and that fighting corruption is less important than enriching oil, gas, and mining companies.

Without the SEC's extractive industry transparency rule, citizens around the world will lose a critical tool for holding their governments and corporations accountable for how natural resource proceeds are used.

Let's talk about Nigeria. Just days before the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its final rule pursuant to section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Global Witness, a highly respected and good governance NGO, issued a report detailing how a major oil deal, as I referred to earlier, struck by ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government, was being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, an agency charged with uncovering high-level corruption.

The investigation relates to a widely reported deal in which the Nigerian Government in 2009 agreed to renew a

40 percent share of three oil licenses from Mobil Producing Nigeria, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil. This is all about the billionaires. Just follow the dollars and you can see what this is all about.

Little town, America, needs to know that this is not about them. This is about these billionaires, and they will go to any extent to continue to steal from them.

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

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

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Hawaii, both on the substance of the issue and on the Congressional Review Act and how it is an unsuitable tool in a situation like this because of how it bars the door for a simple way to replace or modify a regulation.

I am coming to the floor tonight to share my concerns about a basic challenge we have in the world. This basic challenge is that when you get a ruler of a country who is corrupt, they forge contractual relationships, particularly if they are rich in minerals or oil, and they pocket the money and they spread the corruption. It makes it virtually impossible for the interests of the people of that country to be represented by their government because whatever governing body they have keeps making decisions based on those corrupt payments.

Now, we are a nation that values government by the people--of, by, and for the people. That is the vision of our Nation, but that vision would not be fulfilled if the Members of this body were being paid by foreign companies to serve the interests of the foreign companies instead of the interests of the people. We can understand from our own perspective our own desire to have a government that serves our citizens and that other nations want to have a government that serves their citizens. That is what this particular bill and the regulation that flows from it were all about. It was section 504 of Dodd-Frank, the resource extraction rule, that was passed now 7 years ago.

It took quite a while to get the regulation into place. The first version came out in 2012, after a tremendous amount of consultation was struck down in court because it was challenged by one of the companies that did not want to have transparency in international payments. Then folks went to work again and produced a rule that went into effect this last year. Unfortunately, we are about to strike that down.

I was thinking about how one of the champions for this was Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana. I was so impressed by his thoughtfulness when I came to the Senate. He had been here quite a while, and he worked to really understand issues, and he worked to solve problems. He didn't work to obstruct an administration because it was of a different party. He didn't work to sabotage the work of this body because one party or the other was in the majority. He worked to solve problems. He had really a deep understanding of the challenges in the world.

He could see this from his considerable experience. He was on foreign relations for a very long time, and he served as its chair. He knew from his own work in that committee, from his own studies, from his own travels, and his own conversations--overseas conversations with foreign governments and conversations with our State Department and our Defense Department--that we had a significant issue in which contracts with large companies are used to defeat government of, by, and for the people in nations around the world. He wanted to do something about it. He had partnerships, and Members of our own body who are still serving here today were deeply involved in this.

It was a tremendous provision, but the American Petroleum Institute wasn't happy about it because it has worked really well for oil companies to not disclose and to make deals with ruling dictators and ruling families or ruling governing groups, whether they be in a so- called elected form or unelected form.

Well, finally, last year the rule was completed in June. They crafted a rule that, for the most part, made various stakeholders happy and it won broad international support. Dozens of other countries--including Canada, Norway, and countries of the European Union--followed American leadership. They adopted similar laws. So our particular law made it clear that if a company was listed on our stock exchange--on any of our exchanges--and it made a significant payment--$100,000 or more--it had to disclose that payment. That wasn't just U.S. companies. It wouldn't just have been U.S. companies. It was any company listed on our exchange, no matter where it was based. Other companies followed suit. So companies based in other countries were affected. So, basically, it was a vision that in short order took over the entire world, with developed countries coming together and saying that we are going to stop this process that destroys governments for the people in so much of the world.

It isn't just kind of a theoretical question of some liberal vision of how governments work. We are talking about the difference between the decisions of dictators to stash billions of dollars overseas or build health care clinics. We are talking about the difference between dictators buying hundreds of the world's most expensive sports cars or developing an education system in their countries. We are talking about the fundamental quality of life for millions and millions of people around the world. This provision, this resource extraction rule, went in an enormous direction in terms of making the world a better place. Shouldn't that be what we are about?

This challenge of foreign contracts with money diverted into the pockets of the dictators and the ruling class--the money that should go to the development of the country--is particularly a problem in resource rich countries with weak institutions. They have weak courts. They have weak investigative branches to find corruption. They have courts that essentially exorcise the ability to try people for which there is evidence, who should be charged and should be convicted. So the same corruption that affects the decisions that are made protects those who make those decisions. This means that if you have someone who grows up in this country and says: We have hundreds of billions of dollars of resources and nothing to show for it; so let's change that system; let's change that system and enable the people of this country to benefit from schools and health care and transportation; let's develop our nation, they are stymied by this complex web of undisclosed corruption. So that is what this bill is all about, and that is what this rule stemming from the section of the bill is all about.

Let's take, for example, a poster child for this resource curse. In many countries, it is known as the oil curse. Oil is a particularly prominent case. But the Democratic Republic of the Congo has not just some oil but a lot of minerals. It is a significant producer of the world's cobalt, diamonds, tin, gold, and other minerals. This problem of a corrupt dictator goes way back to decades ago. His name was well known around the world: Mobutu Sese Seko. He ruled from 1965 to 1997, so 32 years, three decades. It is estimated that he diverted from the country $4 billion to $15 billion. That is a lot of roads being built in a poor country. That is a lot of food for people who are near starvation. That is a lot of public school education. That is a lot of health care clinics. So one very rich man was stashing money in Swiss bank accounts rather than that money going to the government to do fundamental responsibilities for the people. The country has an estimated $24 trillion in mineral deposits. When we think about that, the $4 billion to $15 billion doesn't sound like very much.

Often, the way it works is these corrupt payments enable companies to get contracts far below cost, which is not a good thing, obviously, for these impoverished nations, to be essentially giving away their money because they are being bribed to do so.

So that is extremely disturbing to me, this particular issue being done here late in the evening, with very few of my colleagues here-- mostly colleagues who are trying to fight this rule. Those who are supporting the multilateral corporations, the multinational corporations that don't like to have disclosure, they are not here to talk about how this is damaging the lives of millions of people in the poorest countries around the world. Maybe we need to have a rule in the Senate that if you are going to damage the lives of millions of people, you have to actually be here to hear the debate.

This debate is limited to just 10 hours, 5 hours on either side. If one side gives back their time, it is just 5 hours. There are not a whole lot of conversations. Maybe we could limit the conversation to 20 minutes a person or 10 minutes a person so we get a lot of voices in.

Before we go about the process of destroying the lives of millions of people all around the world, maybe, instead of just listening to the lobbyists for a multinational bank in your office, you should be here on the floor to have a conversation about the damage you are contemplating doing. Maybe then we would have an actual debate here in the U.S. Senate--a place that used to be a place where people did come and listen to each other debate issues. Perhaps there are good arguments to the contrary that I haven't heard because my colleagues aren't here presenting them. And maybe out of that mutual exchange, we would find a path to do something other than using this crude and destructive tool to strike down this very important provision.

There are three groups who benefit from this disclosure rule. The first group who benefits is the investors in a company who want to invest in companies that have responsible practices. The disclosure gives them the ability to have that information.

The second group who benefits is consumers who want to buy products from companies that engage in responsible practices, and disclosure enables them to do that.

The third group, though, really is the most important group, and that is a group of citizens in the country who are being corrupted by these payments because when they hear that a company has a contract and has paid X amount of billion dollars for that contract, then the newspapers of that country and the citizens of that country can try to get additional information: Did you take the percentage of that that was supposed to go to the regional government and actually get it disbursed to the regional government? Did you take the percentage of that that was supposed to go to the local city or province and did it get there? They can start to see that there is this lump of money that is supposed to be serving the citizens, and they can ask questions about how it serves the citizens. What bank account did it go into--so they can follow the money and track the money. But they have no ability to do that if these payments are hidden. That is what this is about.

So it is about investors who want to do the right thing, consumers who want to use their marketing and purchasing power to do the right thing, but it is really about the citizens of that country not having their resources diverted when they desperately need the fundamental things, such as transportation and education and health care.

Well, Senator Lugar said recently that if we allow this rule to be repealed, it would be ``a real tragedy for democracy and human rights.''

I agreed with Senator Lugar when he said, ``It is hard to believe that this would be such a high priority right now.'' We have a lot of issues in the world that we are challenged by, including security issues. We have a lot of nominations to address and debate. Why is it such a high priority at this moment to tear down a provision that improves the quality of life for millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world? Why is it so important at this moment to tear down a law that reduces corruption in governments around the world? Why is it so important right now to destroy this provision that helps create an opportunity for ``we the people,'' a government that we profess to believe in?

It is well known that the CEO of ExxonMobil traveled to Washington to personally lobby Senator Lugar on this section. He wanted this provision scrapped, and that individual is now our Secretary of State. That certainly disturbs me, that the day after he became Secretary of State, the provision he lobbied for as an oil executive is being accomplished here on the floor.

Because of his testimony in committee, there was some hope that he would stand up and fight for the fundamental visions of our country, the fundamental values and principles of our country, and if so, he would be sending out information right now saying: Stop what you are doing because I know how this works around the world and how it destroys ``we the people'' governments, and we shouldn't be doing it; that is, we should keep the provision we have right now.

Nigeria is another nation that has had a resource curse or oil curse. Last year, a deal was struck between ExxonMobil and the Nigerian Government--or it came under investigation last year by that country's anti-corruption and law enforcement agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. The investigation surrounds a 2009 agreement where an Exxon subsidiary and the Nigerian Government agreed to renew a 40- percent share in three new oil licenses. Exxon reached a deal to pay $600 million for those licenses, and it built a powerplant at a cost of $900 million, so it made a $1.5 billion investment. So a $1.5 billion investment--that sounds like a pretty high sum for a contract.

However, an outside group who was investigating corruption found that the Nigerian Government had valued those contracts at $2.15 billion--in other words, $1 billion more than what Exxon was paying. Furthermore, they found that wasn't just in theory because another bidder offered $3.75 billion, and that is more than twice what Exxon paid. But the Exxon deal was chosen.

Isn't there some sense that something is wrong when a government rejects a payment that is $2.25 billion more than the offer that was accepted? That is what happens with corrupt payments between powerful companies and dictators. That is what destroys government of, by, and for the people around the world.

It is estimated that over time--that is, since 1960, so after the last 57 years--$400 billion of Nigerian oil revenues have disappeared due to corruption--$400 billion disappeared. What would $400 billion do to improve the lives of Nigerians?

That is why transparency in these payments is so important. It affects impoverished people all over the world. We can have all of our aid programs, we can have our Food for Peace Program, we can have our Millennium Corporation, but this type of deal does so much more damage than all the good we do through our programs that we budget for and put money into.

If we enable, if we promote corruption around the world, we do enormous damage. That is why a bipartisan group of Senators, including Dick Lugar leading it, took this on.

How about Equatorial Guinea. It is one of Sub-Saharan Africa's largest oil producers, and it, like many other oil countries, has the oil curse. President Obiang has been in power since he ousted his uncle in a military coup in 1979 and declared himself President for life. Let's just say what he is: He is a dictator. His government has been known to detain arbitrarily and torture critics, to disregard elections. It has been prosecuted for using oil profits for financial gain of the President's family. The result is, although this country is one of the wealthiest African nations per capita, the majority of the Nation's citizens survive on less than $2 a day. Let me clarify that. It is one of the richest African nations per capita, but a large percent of the citizens survive on less than $2 a day because President Obiang and his extended network--his extended corrupt network--are stealing the resources of the country, and they are doing it often through contracts with oil companies like Exxon, which happens to be a major partner in exploiting the resources of Equatorial Guinea.

Less than half of Equatorial Guinea has access to clean drinking water, a fundamental need and a fundamental factor in health. Twenty percent--that is one out of every five children--die before reaching the age of 5. This is because of the corruption that is facilitated by undisclosed sums, reinforcing a dictator--a dictator whose family owns fleets of fancy sports cars, luxury yachts, private jets, massive properties in Europe, massive properties in Brazil, and properties right here in the United States. But one-fifth of the children die before age 5. That is why this is so important.

Let me conclude by saying that what we are doing here tonight in putting this forward with no real debate because my colleagues are not here--a few colleagues are here to give speeches like I am giving to say ``Stop, this is wrong,'' but our colleagues are not here to hear us. What is happening tonight is an enormous travesty. It is an enormous blight on the United States, which led the world in taking on this problem and now is abandoning not just that leadership but is abandoning the principle. The world is worse off for it.

I hope that my colleagues will somehow come to an inspiration or a revelation, that those who are not here listening to this will come to an understanding that something is wrong with this and will oppose this effort to repeal this very important provision. But I know that the heavy hand of corporate lobbying is behind the fact that this is on the floor tonight, and I am not optimistic. That saddens me a great deal.

Let us strive to have a process that honors the importance of the issues before us. This short debate, with virtually no one present, does not honor it and does enormous damage, and it is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be with you this afternoon. I have a series of other speakers who will be joining me later in the hour from the Progressive Caucus, as we discuss some of the key events of the week from our perspective.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all the Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I love magic, and I bet a lot of people out there watching today love magic, too. Ever since I was a kid, I loved the cup tricks, the card tricks, and the rabbit coming out of the hat. When I was in college, I even used to entertain at elementary school birthday parties, helping to pay my way through college.

The key move in magic, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is the sleight of hand. I looked up the definition of ``sleight of hand'' in the Merriam- Webster Dictionary, which defines it as a cleverly executed deception.

A sleight of hand is also sometimes called a prestidigitation, quick fingers, or legerete de la main, which is the French phrase for ``lightness of hand.'' It is defined as the set of closely related techniques used by a stage magician to manipulate the perceptions of the audience.

Sleight of hand depends on the use of psychology, careful stage misdirection, constant blabbering, and strategic confusion to distract the audience.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has been masterfully deploying sleight of hand ever since his inauguration. With his nonstop tweeting and his incessant mad antics, the President distracts us from the real action, which is what is happening here in Congress. We are witnessing a magic trick on the world's largest stage, the auditorium of American democracy. And we, the people, are the captive, bedazzled, and totally distracted audience of the President. The tweets are a massive sleight of hand distracting us from the serious destruction of public policy and law that is taking place right here in Congress.

I want to say, at the outset, I prefer to think of this as a magic trick because the alternative that the President simply can't control himself is almost too horrific to contemplate.

The Constitution does have a way of dealing with that problem, too, and you can find it in the 25th Amendment.

Today, we are going to assume that all of this is a magic show. I used to coach kids' soccer. And when I coached soccer, I would always tell the kids: Don't bunch. Keep your eye on the ball. Stay in your lane and pass the ball.

Without fail, the youngest kids who are just starting out, they all chase the ball. They move around the field in a big clump, a big mob. And I would say: Don't follow the mob that is following the ball. Go to where the ball is going to be going.

When they are young, they don't know how to do it.

I think that advice applies here as well to America, to the body politic. Don't follow the mob that is following the ball. Let's not be distracted full time by all the tomfoolery and tweetfoolery.

There are important and dangerous things happening right here in Congress right now. While the President is tweeting insults and fake news and inflating his slender college victory and the size of his inaugural crowd and making fun of Meryl Streep and chatting about Nordstrom's department store and talking about how he is going to make Mexico pay for his wall and so on, what is taking place in Congress is the systematic dismantling of the regulatory apparatus that the American public depends on for clean air, clean water, safe food, a decent environment, and control of criminality in the country.

The fundamental political action that we must be paying attention to now is the dismantling of the regulatory apparatus of the Federal Government, which is happening every day right here in the Halls of Congress. This is the apparatus that protects our food, our air, our water, our health care, our financial system, the ability of people to invest safely on Wall Street, occupational safety and health for our workers. All of this is being attacked in terrifying and often invisible ways.

Behind the scenes, while the wizard of odd convenes a dinner in Mar- a-Lago where he entertains a national security crisis discussion in full view of other diners who begin to tweet out and Facebook out what they are seeing happen, while all of that is happening, Congress is rolling back environmental protections to protect streams, rivers, and drinking water from pollution. They are savaging the rules that restrict the volume of greenhouse gas emissions that are leaked into the atmosphere, destabilizing our climate system. Check out H.J. Res. 38 and 36.

While the distractor in chief whines about leaks, while his whole campaign was based on leaks of emails that were captured by Russian agents working to get him elected, in Congress, they are rolling back financial regulations which ensure that workers have retirement savings options, H.J. Res. 66, and which protect consumers from excessive financial risks, H.R. 78.

They have also targeted and rolled back labor regulations that promote safe and healthy workplaces and fair employment practices, H.J. Res. 37.

Amazingly, while President Trump's National Security Adviser, General Flynn, was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had been colluding with Russians to lift the sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia, here in Congress, we are passing joint resolutions to rescind anticorruption regulations that required oil and gas companies to report monetary payments that they made to foreign governments, H.J. Res. 41.

So Trump tweets about leaks, while his administration is one vast leak to the Russians. And here, Members of the GOP are working to throw an invisibility and secrecy cloak over corporate payments being made to foreign governments and corporations.

While the world is distracted by all of the sleight of hand, this Congress is passing bills to give government back to giant corporations and special interests that care not for the common good but simply for their own bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, as a freshman, I have been here for only 8 weeks. I have to tell you that I am disappointed that I have not voted on a single bill in the House Judiciary Committee that has had so much as a hearing. Yes, I want to repeat that. We have voted on five bills since I got here and not one of them has had a hearing.

Now, I come from the Maryland State Senate where I proudly served for 10 years as a State senator. When we had a bill coming up, no bill could be brought to the floor without a hearing first, and anybody who wanted to come testify on the bill could come testify on it. Now, that is not practicable here in the U.S. Congress. However, we could at least have experts relating to the bill and people who are affected by the bill come in and testify, but we haven't done that in the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, we voted on a series of bills which, to my mind, dramatically curtail the public interest.

Yesterday, we voted on a bill to dismantle, essentially to put into a stifling straightjacket, the class-action mechanism that has been used over the decades to vindicate the interest of people who are victims of sex discrimination, victims of race discrimination, victims of toxic torts, victims of asbestos poisoning. We voted basically to trash class action yesterday without even so much as a bill.

Now, on some of the other bills, it was said to me: Well, there were hearings in prior Congresses. One Member said: We had a hearing on that back in 2012.

This is 2017, 5 years later. But on this particular bill that I am talking about, nobody even heard the bill. There was no hearing on it. It was simply brought up for a vote. That is irresponsible legislation. That is not real democracy when you don't even have a hearing and people who are affected by the legislation don't have the opportunity to come and talk about it.

Now, they are not having hearings because they think--and they are probably right--we're not paying attention. What are we paying attention to? We are paying attention to the magician. We are paying attention to the wizard of odd. We are paying attention to the tweets instead.

The good news is that the audience is starting to wise up. The whole country is waking up to the profound dangers of the administration's financial and political entanglements with Russia, with the Russian corporate and governmental elite.

Just this week, the National Security Adviser, Mr. Flynn, resigned after reports came out about his communications with the Russian Ambassador while President Obama was still in office, communications dealing with the lifting of sanctions on Russia, communications that General Flynn lied about and was forced from office because of it. He misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about his conversations with the diplomat, which was being monitored and recorded by the intelligence community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, let's think about this for a moment. As a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Flynn was no innocent about the world of spy versus spy. He must have known that his telephone call with the Russian Ambassador was being monitored and recorded. If he really wanted to go rogue and operate on his own without the permission and the license of President Trump, he never would have allowed that telephone conversation to be recorded. But he did allow it to be recorded. He made the call with presumable full knowledge that other people in the intelligence community would be listening in on it, which leads me to the inescapable, logical conclusion that Flynn knew that, in making that call, he enjoyed the full support of the one person above him who could remove him from his job, the President of the United States.

Now, do I know that? No, I don't know it. I surmise it. How are we going to know whether or not this is true? How do we get to the bottom of the Russian connection in the campaign? How do we get to the bottom of the Russian connection in the Trump administration?

We need to have a full, complete, independent investigation by experts, like the 9/11 Commission, which gets to the bottom of this profound danger, this dagger pointed at the throat of American democracy.

Mr. Speaker, everybody loves magic, I think. Everybody loves the enchantment of being fooled, of being distracted, of being diverted. That is why people go to magic shows. It is diverting. It is amusing. It is fun.

Everybody loves a great magician, too. None was greater in our history than the great Houdini, who dazzled the world with his extraordinary optical illusions and effects, his amazing ability to simulate telepathy and telekinesis.

Houdini also had a very strong ethical and professional code about being a magician. He never revealed a trick. More importantly, he never tried to fool people in order to defraud them. He never tried to fool people in order to humiliate them. He never tried to fool people in order to take away their rights. He never tried to fool people in order to demoralize and crush them or to strip them of their freedom. He never tried to fool people in order to victimize them.

Indeed, in the 1920s, Mr. Houdini channeled all of his magnificent energy away from doing his magic shows and instead put it into the separate but related task of exposing psychics, mediums, con men, charlatans, and practitioners of the occult and the dark arts who did take advantage of people's good will, who did take advantage of people's impressionability to defraud them, to take their money, their belongings, and to distract them from the real world, and to undermine the moral and ethical principles that should govern human behavior and must govern social life.

Although Houdini is no longer with us, he has great heirs today in socially responsible magicians like the Amazing Randi and Penn & Teller.

Already millions of Americans themselves--millions of us in the audience--have woken up to the fact that we have been pulled into an irrational and dangerous fantasy world, an echo chamber of malignant narcissism, cruelty, and paranoia.

It is time for all of us to stop being distracted, to stop being bedazzled, and pay attention to the real game, which is, one, trying to get America to join with Vladimir Putin, a dictator and an autocrat who said that the single greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in order to create an international league of dictators, demagogues, and despots to violate human rights and crush liberal democracy; and, two, to dismantle at home the public regulatory infrastructure which protects our land, our air, our water, our climate, our liberties, our freedoms, our equal rights, and our capacity to function as the greatest democracy on Earth and to function as an efficient and effective government meeting the needs of the people.

The magicians out there--there aren't many--but you have a special obligation to help us blow the whistle, and you are doing it. But it is really the American people--it is all of us who must stand up.

The Constitution talks about three branches of government. Article I is Congress. Article II is the executive. Article III is the judiciary. Let's call Congress the first branch.

But when you think about it, what is even more important than the Congress is the trunk, the roots of democracy. Everything grows up from the people. The branches are out there, but Congress works for the people. The President works for Congress and the people. The Supreme Court and the judiciary work for the people.

It is time for the people to dissolve the spells that have been cast over the country, to say this is a democracy. We operate by the Constitution and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my good friend, the Assistant Democratic Leader.

Honoring Voorhees College and Denmark Technical College

Mr. Speaker, we should be joined momentarily by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee. I want to close out, though, my own thoughts by responding to something I have been hearing over the last week here in the Halls of Congress.

Now that it is clear from our intelligence agencies, 16 of them, including the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and so on, that Vladimir Putin had a deliberate campaign of espionage, cyber sabotage, propaganda, and fake news to undermine American democracy in the 2016 election, and now that it is clear that there were high-level contacts between Trump associates and officials of the Russian Government, it is no longer being denied by anybody on either side of the aisle. What I have started to hear is, well, sure, they tried to hack our election, and, sure, they leaked thousands of emails, and, sure, they changed the dynamics of the campaign and what people were talking about in the campaign, but there is no proof that they stuffed any ballot boxes or they hacked into the computers. And that is true; we don't know that they stuffed any ballot boxes or hacked into computers, and we will have to see if anything comes out about that when we finally get to do a real comprehensive investigation. But, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we should be terrified and appalled and outraged that they were allowed to go as far as they did.

How many people in this body would accept a foreign entity coming into our congressional districts and spending millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars against us, hacking into our computers, releasing our emails, and completely changing the dynamics of the campaign?

So when I hear from colleagues that, well, yes, they distorted the campaign, they hacked into the campaign, but they didn't steal the election, I think that they are making a distinction with no difference at all. If you derail the campaign, you kidnap the campaign, you hijack the campaign, you have altered the outcome of the election, especially one in which your opponent gets 2.9 million votes more than you did, especially in an election where you were able to torture out only the slenderest of electoral college victories in three States by 70,000 votes.

So I simply reject the constant claim that I am hearing from colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that we don't need to worry about Russian subversion of the 2016 election because it only affected the campaign; it didn't necessarily affect the election outcome. To influence the campaign is to influence the election outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I am seeing Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is not here, so I yield back the balance of my time.