SEC Regulatory Accountability Act

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. This bill would require the SEC to do an absurd amount of time-consuming, duplicative cost-benefit analysis before they can even propose a rule. This is the fourth time, Mr. Chairman, that we are voting on this partisan bill because the previous three times the bill has been rejected by the Senate and President Obama has strongly opposed it.

But let's be clear about what this bill is not about. It is not about ensuring that the SEC conducts a cost-benefit analysis on the rules. If that were the case, then no legislation would be necessary. The SEC is already required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and has already adopted internal guidance on economic analysis that mirrors the exact requirements of this bill before us today. So the problem is not that the SEC doesn't currently conduct cost-benefit analyses or that it does it poorly; the real goal of this bill is simply to give the industry more chances to sue the SEC on cost-benefit grounds when it issues rules the industry does not like. That is essentially the only thing that would change if this bill were signed into law.

The SEC's cost-benefit analysis would be the same, but the industry would have more opportunities to sue the SEC over alleged flaws in the cost-benefit analysis. And the threat of a lawsuit would force the SEC to divert even more of its scarce resources to cost-benefit analysis, which would delay the key reforms and undermine the SEC's ability to protect investors--their core mission.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, as they have in three previous votes before this body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I enter into the Record the following letters of opposition to H.R. 78 signed by the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, and the Council of Institutional Investors. These institutions represent various groups such as investors, consumers, public pension plans, labor unions, and communities of color.

Consumer Federation

of America,

January 10, 2017.

Vote NO on H.R. 78, the ``SEC Regulatory Accountability Act''--Bill Would Paralyze the Agency's Ability to Protect Investors and Promote

Market Integrity

Dear Representative: This week the House is expected to

vote on H.R. 78, the ``SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.''

The bill imposes burdensome new rulemaking requirements that

would prevent the agency from responding in a timely manner

either to emerging threats in the marketplace or to industry

requests for guidance or legal interpretations. As such, it

threatens to undermine the stability and integrity essential

to healthy capital markets, with harmful consequences for

investors, capital formation, and the overall economy. I am

writing on behalf of the Consumer Federation of America to

urge you to vote no when the bill is brought to the floor for

a vote.

The bill is being promoted as a measure to enhance cost-

benefit analysis at the Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC). And, in that regard, certain of the bill's

requirements are relatively benign, such as the requirements

that the agency discuss the nature and scope of the problem

it is intending to solve when it engages in rulemaking,

carefully analyze available alternatives, and consider the

costs of the various alternatives as well as their relative

effectiveness in determining on a course of action. But these

are things the SEC already does, having learned the painful

lesson that failure to do so can result in its rules' being

overturned in court. Indeed, both the Government

Accountability Office and the SEC's Office of

the Inspector General have in recent years praised the agency

for the extent and quality of its cost-benefit analysis.

Other of the bill's provisions are far more harmful. The

following are among the most serious problems with this

legislation:

It requires the agency to adopt, not the most cost-

effective regulatory approach, but the least burdensome

approach. As such, it prioritizes minimizing regulatory costs

over promoting regulatory effectiveness.

The bill requires the agency to consider a number of

specific factors in assessing regulations, including their

effect on efficiency, competition, and capital formation as

well as investor choice, market liquidity, and small

business. Not included are any specific requirement to assess

their impact on investor protection or market integrity,

stability, and transparency.

If the Conunission fails to address concerns raised by

``industry groups'' related to costs and benefits, it must

explain its reasons. There is no comparable requirement to

explain any decision not to address investor concerns.

It imposes these burdensome new requirements, not just on

regulations, but also on agency orders, interpretations, and

other statements of general applicability ``that the agency

intends to have the force and effect of law.'' Firms seeking

a timely response from the agency staff on issues important

to their business are likely to face significant delays if

the legislation is enacted.

It requires the agency to engage in a constant

retrospective review of all its regulations every five years,

regardless of whether there is any cause for concern with a

particular regulation. Since the bill doesn't include any new

funding authorization to provide for this review, and

Congress has been highly reluctant to provide funding

increases commensurate with the agency's workload, the

inevitable result is that the agency will be forced to take

resources away from other more important regulatory

priorities to fund this generally meaningless exercise.

While a reasonable and balanced analysis of costs and

benefits can promote effective rulemaking, this legislation

goes far beyond what is reasonable or balanced. It would tie

the SEC in procedural knots, keep its focus on an endless

review of existing rules rather than emerging issues, provide

endless grounds for legal challenge, causing a serious drain

on agency resources, and undermine the agency's focus on its

central mission of protecting investors and promoting market

integrity and stability. Indeed, the bill would exacerbate

rather than ameliorate the most serious short-comings in the

agency's current regulatory process--its inability to

complete rulemakings regarding pressing issues in a timely

manner.

For these reasons, we urge you to vote ``No'' when H.R. 78,

the ``SEC Regulatory Accountability Act,'' is brought to the

floor for a vote. The only ``accountability'' this

legislation promotes, is the SEC's accountability to the

firms it is supposed to regulate rather than the investors it

is supposed to protect.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Roper,

Director of Investor Protection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Al GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I am absolutely amazed this legislation has progressed to this point. This is not a panacea. This is not legislation that will prevent some harm being done to mom-and-pops. This is about Wall Street. This is about multimillion-dollar corporations. It is not unusual here for those who would benefit from the use of those who live on Main Street, they would benefit from it by saying that the bill is for Main Street when in fact it is for Wall Street.

This bill should properly be labeled the bill that the SEC rulings would come under stagnation, litigation, and decimation as a result of, because the way the bill is worded, there will be much litigation, and that litigation will tie the SEC up in court for many years. That will create the stagnation

which will cause the SEC to be ineffective; and, as a result, the SEC, in terms of its rulemaking, will be decimated.

Let's talk for a moment about a cost-benefit analysis. That is a very simple formula that can be used if you want to refinance your home and you want to get a different interest rate over a different period of time. All of the numbers associated with it are quantifiable. But if you want to do cost-benefit analysis in terms of fraud prevention, the prevention of fraud is not quantifiable; it is not knowable.

Bernie Madoff made off with approximately $64 billion, and in so doing, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the United States of America, the American people. If we had a regulation in place to prevent that fraud that Bernie Madoff perpetrated, there would be no way of knowing that he would have perpetrated the $64 billion fraud. You can't quantify legislation that prevents the fraud.

If we had legislation in place to prevent the downturn in 2008, that would have prevented the 327s, the 228s, the teaser rates that coincided with prepayment penalties, the no-doc loans. If we had regulations in place to prevent it, then we would never have known the harm it would have caused the economy.

That is what this bill will do. It will put the SEC in a position such that it cannot produce the rules to prevent the fraud that we can never measure. It is not knowable how much fraud will be prevented by the rules that the SEC promotes and produces.

This legislation also does not allow the SEC to move at the speed of innovation. Innovation moves quickly. The SEC has to be able to produce rules to match the speed of innovation. This is why it was difficult to do something about what was happening to the economy leading up to 2008. We didn't have the speed necessary, and now we are going to put a further burden on the SEC such that the SEC won't be able to respond to these new products that are coming on the market. And make no mistake, they will come on the market.

The stock market crash of 1929 was something that rules and regulations could have prevented. They were not there. They put them in place. Glass-Steagall was one of them. It took 66 years, but they got Glass-Steagall. I don't know how long it is going to take them, but they intend to get Dodd-Frank. This is the first step in the direction of making Dodd-Frank impotent.

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

I would like to share with my colleagues and the American public how American organizations that work day in and day out to fight to protect investors, consumers, minorities, workers, and pension plans view this bill.

The director of investor protection of the Consumer Federation of America states: ``This legislation goes far beyond what is reasonable or balanced and, indeed, the bill would exacerbate, rather than end the most serious shortcomings in the agency's current regulatory process, its inability to complete rulemaking regarding pressing issues in a timely manner.''

The general counsel of Council of Institutional Investors stated: ``We believe the provisions of H.R. 78 would unnecessarily impede the ability of the SEC to issue proposals in furtherance of its mission, its mission to protect investors.''

Finally, the Americans for Financial Reform stated: ``This legislation is transparently an effort to paralyze the SEC and to empower Wall Street lawyers to overturn its decisions and sue and not to improve its analysis or decisionmaking process.''

I urge my colleagues to heed these warnings and to really hear what these representatives of the public are saying; and I urge them to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

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

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

My Republican colleagues, regrettably, want to impose cost-benefit analysis that tilts towards industry costs because they know something that they don't want the American people to know. An impartial cost- benefit analysis of Wall Street reform rules would inevitably demonstrate how wildly beneficial such rules are to the U.S. economy and to the lives of everyday Americans.

Earlier this week, the bipartisan think tank, Third Way, found that Dodd-Frank's bank capital rules will add $351 billion--as in B, billion--to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years. This report presents a cost-benefit analysis that shows that, while lending becomes slightly more expensive when banks are required to maintain higher capital levels, the benefits of mitigating another financial crisis greatly exceed any costs. This report is one of many which Republicans intentionally ignore.

Reducing the likelihood of another financial crisis does not come without cost, but the costs are worth it. Let us not forget the widespread human suffering that has been felt across this Nation because of the financial crisis. The 2008 financial crisis destroyed 8.7 million American jobs, wiped out $2.8 trillion in retirement savings of ordinary Americans, and led to the foreclosure, the loss--15 million Americans lost their homes due to financial mismanagement in this country.

If those aren't significant costs for policymakers to consider, then what else is?

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

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

I want to point out that with Dodd-Frank and the reforms that the Democrats put in place, our economy bounded back faster and stronger than all of Europe. And I must say that one of the areas that we need to work on, where we are falling behind in our economy, is exports. We need to support exports.

Despite all the talk that we hear from Republicans about enacting policies that support jobs and job creation, and the slew of tweets from the President-elect discouraging American companies from moving U.S. jobs overseas--and I support his efforts to stop our companies from going overseas--one proven job creator has remained on the sidelines, and that is the U.S. Export-Import Bank. This Bank has played a critical role in opening up international markets to U.S. exporters, which, in turn, helps create and preserve jobs here in America.

The export-import banks of our competitors are supported by those countries five times more than what we do here in America. In fact, the ability of the Export-Import Bank to even operate, even though it makes money and has succeeded in building up American exports, has been hamstrung by the leadership of my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

In recognition of the Bank's success and supporting U.S. jobs over the past 80 years, in December of 2015 the House and the Senate voted with overwhelming majorities to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Despite this broad support, the Bank has remained hamstrung because, with three empty seats on its five-member board, the Bank lacks the quorum it needs in order to approve transactions over $10 million.

Although President Obama nominated two individuals to serve on the Ex-Im's bipartisan board, the Senate Republican leadership refused to consider them, and Ex-Im's board remains without a quorum. They can not approve these exports. I think it is a national scandal.

Indeed, it has been more than 18 months since the Export-Import Bank's board was last able to consider transactions, which has limited its ability to ensure U.S. workers and businesses of all sizes are able to compete around the world for contracts, as well as support jobs for the many small businesses that contribute to the supply chains for these high-value exports.

In fact, the bank currently has 50 transactions in its pipeline valued at nearly $40 billion, which, if approved, would support more than 100,000 American high-skill and high-wage jobs. I intend to bring this to the attention of the President-elect.

So, as we talk today about how these Republican bills will create American jobs, I think it is important that we look at the GOP's full record on job creation or, might I say in this case, job prevention. As their record shows, Republican leaders have been all too willing to let U.S. jobs slip away to our foreign competitors.

Until Congress restores Ex-Im to full functionality, U.S. companies selling expensive capital goods such as aircraft, locomotives, nuclear reactors, and turbines will remain at a unique competitive disadvantage because their foreign competitors all enjoy ample financing from their home-country export credit agencies--enough to easily knock U.S. companies out of the competition. This is unfair.

We cannot compete and win in the global economy unless we support our businesses. We will lose global market share in key sectors such as the satellite industry, aerospace, and telecommunications. We will lose tens of thousands of jobs as some of the biggest U.S. exports suffer declining overseas sales, and, eventually, some of

these companies would be forced to move jobs to where export credit is still available. We have seen this reported in the news daily where they are moving to our competitors.

So, in short, we need to support the Export-Import Bank. We need to not hamstring the SEC by requiring it to have unnecessary, time- consuming, duplicative rules that are already in place and that allow people to sue them more easily.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care, as President-elect Trump does, about job creation to be opposed to this bill.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 40 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 40, providing for the consideration of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 238, the Commodity End- User Relief Act, and H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

The rule provides for the consideration of these measures under a structured rule and makes in order any amendment submitted to the House Rules Committee, including all five Democratic amendments to H.R. 78, as well as all eight amendments submitted for H.R. 238, allowing for a balanced debate on these very substantial issues.

H.R. 238 is essential to the smooth functioning of the American economy and is long overdue for enactment into law. This important legislation reauthorizes until 2021 the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, also known as the CFTC, which had its statutory authority lapse in 2013. The House passed the Commodity End-User Relief Act with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress, and a similar bill was also adopted in the 113th Congress, establishing a strong record of bipartisan support for this measure. Unfortunately, in both instances, the Senate failed to take up the legislation before the end of its respective Congress, which is why it is imperative that we pass this bill through both Chambers and send it to the President's desk.

After the financial crisis of 2008, practically everyone agreed that changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to protect families, farmers, small businesses, and our economy, as well as to prevent another crisis in the future. Like many of my colleagues, I have concerns with some of the reforms that were instituted in response to the crisis because they have put overly burdensome restrictions and regulations on our economy and our business communities. But like every major, comprehensive law, there are always unintended consequences that need to be addressed, and H.R. 238 does exactly that.

For example, the authors of Dodd-Frank argued the law's main purpose was to reduce systemic risk to our economy. However, I don't think anyone would argue that farmers who are simply trying to lock in a good price for their corn or their wheat are a systemic risk to the economy. Similarly, restaurant chains looking to make sure they have enough beef, enough pork, or enough potatoes to sell to their customers don't pose a systemic risk, just as utility companies seeking to ensure that they have adequate power supplies to meet the needs and demands of their ratepayers did not cause the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the current law imposes rules that treat all of these entities as major risks to our economy, and it imposes overly burdensome capital and paperwork requirements on them.

Mr. Speaker, critics may claim that this bill undermines consumer protections. However, this could not be further from the truth.

Title I of the legislation puts in place greater consumer protections, like requiring brokerage firms to notify investors before moving funds from one account to another in order to prevent abuses like those that occurred at MF Global prior to its bankruptcy.

Title II makes reforms to the CFTC and strengthens the cost-benefit analysis the Commission must perform when considering the impacts of its rules. Opponents have claimed that requiring cost-benefit analyses will open up the CFTC to lawsuits. However, H.R. 238 merely gives the CFTC a standard for writing good rules the first time, which will be a benefit for all of us.

Title III provides relief to the farmers, the restaurants, the manufacturers, the utilities, and other entities which rely on a steady supply of commodities and inherently want to avoid risk but have been caught up in the unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank reforms. These users have a genuine need to use markets to hedge against bad weather, natural disasters, inflation, price shocks, and other unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to serve their customers.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. This legislation replaces guidance adopted by the SEC in 2012 that currently governs the use of economic analysis in SEC rulemakings and requires the SEC to identify and assess the significance of problems prior to regulating. It directs the agency to conduct a review of existing regulations within 1 year of enactment--and then every 5 years thereafter--to determine the sufficiency, the effectiveness, and the burdens associated with their implementation. Further, H.R. 78 instructs the SEC's Chief Economist to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on regulations the agency is promulgating as well as to provide an explanation describing the SEC's decision-making process, including the implications of not taking the regulatory action.

Economic analysis is the cornerstone of prudent rulemaking and entails evaluating the qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits of proposed regulations as well as potential alternatives in order to determine the correct action an agency should take. We must ensure Federal regulators are thoroughly assessing both the need for the regulation and adequately evaluating its potential consequences-- intended as well as unintended--to prevent small businesses and job creators from being unnecessarily burdened by onerous Federal regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the consideration of two bills that will hold Federal agencies and their rulemaking processes accountable to the American people. Voters sent a clear message in November that they want a Federal Government that is smaller, less intrusive, and more discerning in its regulatory actions. House Republicans created our A Better Way agenda by listening to Americans about the ideas for our Nation, and the new, unified Republican government will continue our work to change the status quo and provide real progress for all Americans. The adoption of this rule and the passage of the underlying bills is yet another opportunity to show that we heard this message loud and clear and that we will reinforce our commitment to restoring the people's voice in our Federal Government.

I am proud to support the rule providing for the consideration of these measures, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills.

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

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

First of all, in fact, if I could read from a letter I received this morning from over two dozen agricultural groups. In one sentence, it says: ``Thank you in advance for your support of this bill that is so important to U.S. farmers, ranchers, hedgers and futures customers.'' It is signed, like I said, by over two dozen organizations.

I include in the Record the letter I received this morning, I think, as did my colleague, Representative Polis, from over two dozen agricultural groups and associations located throughout the country in unanimous support of H.R. 238.

January 11, 2017.

Dear Member of the House of Representatives: The

undersigned organizations represent a very broad cross-

section of U.S. production agriculture and agribusiness. We

urge you to cast an affirmative vote on H.R. 238, the

``Commodity End-User Relief Act,'' when it moves to the floor

for consideration.

This legislation contains a number of important provisions

for agricultural and agribusiness hedgers who use futures and

swaps to manage their business and production risks. Some,

but certainly not all, of the bill's important provisions

include:

Sections 101-103--Codify important customer protections to

help prevent another MF Global situation.

Section 104--Provides a permanent solution to the residual

interest problem that would have put more customer funds at

risk--and potentially driven farmers, ranchers and small

hedgers out of futures markets--by forcing pre-margining of

their hedge accounts.

Section 306--Relief from burdensome and technologically

infeasible recordkeeping requirements in commodity markets.

Section 308--Requires the CFTC to conduct a study and issue

a rule before reducing the de minimis threshold for swap

dealer registration in order to make sure that doing so would

not harm market liquidity and end-user access to markets.

Section 311--Confirms the intent of Dodd-Frank that

anticipatory hedging is considered bona fide hedging

activity.

Thank you in advance for your support of this bill that is

so important to U.S. farmers, ranchers, hedgers and futures

customers.

Sincerely,

American Cotton Shippers Association, American Farm Bureau

Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American

Soybean Association, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois,

Kansas Grain and Feed Association, Michigan Agri-Business

Association, Michigan Bean Shippers, National Association of

Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association,

National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council.

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Grain and

Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation,

National Pork Producers Council, National Sorghum Producers,

Nebraska Grain and Feed Association, North American Millers

Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, Ohio

AgriBusiness Association, South Dakota Grain and Feed

Association, USA Rice, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association.

Mr. Speaker, also, in response to just one of the points that my colleague brought up, in the first 2 weeks of this 115th Congress, the Speaker, as well as the chairman of the Rules Committee, Representative Sessions, has provided opportunity for all Members to appear before the Rules Committee, has invited all Members to submit amendments. In fact, I can gladly say and happily say that every amendment submitted on these two bills has been accepted, if they were proven to be germane.

In fact, one of the arguments made by my good friend is that the freshmen have not had an opportunity to weigh in on these two pieces of legislation. Actually, the young freshman from Maryland had an amendment brought forward, and it was accepted to bring for consideration on the floor. So I think the arguments fall hollow that Members have not had an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the good chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, while I applaud the optimism and enthusiasm of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) about defeating the previous question, getting back to the debate on the rule, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the discussion over the past few minutes. I believe that this rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to the future of our country.

This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to consider and vote on both H.R. 238 and H.R. 78, as well as every amendment that was submitted to the House Rules Committee, which reflects the balanced, open, and deliberative process afforded by this rule.

H.R. 238 is a solid, substantial measure that will address several critical issues that the CFTC and end user are facing, while also addressing the CFTC's lapsed reauthorization with reauthorizing the Commission through 2021. While some opponents have called for an open rule, this structured rule makes all eight submitted amendments in order.

Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see complete deregulation of our financial services industries and our commodities and derivatives markets. However, it is critical that the regulations put in place are appropriate for our economy and our users. These rules have to provide safeguards and prevent systemic risk but should not hinder our entire economy with one-size-fits-all regulations.

As we have discussed today, the current rules place enormous compliance and financial burdens on small businesses, on farmers and ranchers, utilities, and manufacturers. They take these small, risk- averse entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as large financial institutions and hedge funds. H.R. 238 will differentiate and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic risk--as these entities inherently want to avoid risk--and, thus, shouldn't be subject to the same rules and requirements as financial and investment firms that are less risk averse in nature.

The Commodity End-User Relief Act would make much-needed reforms at the CFTC to strengthen their rulemaking process and add commonsense consumer protections so these regulations are not a continual burden on our Nation's farmers and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 78 under a structured rule and makes all five Democratic amendments in order. This legislation takes important steps to engrain a stronger commitment to economic analysis at the SEC, which will facilitate the promulgation of reasonable rules that do not unduly burden registered companies or negatively impact job creation. The measure will increase transparency and oversight, while facilitating additional analysis and reviews of existing regulations, which should be something that all Members of this body can support.

As elected Representatives, I believe we must ensure our regulatory framework is not politicized and that Federal regulators are thoroughly assessing both the need for the regulation as well as adequately evaluating its potential consequences. This bill takes important steps towards achieving all of these goals.

It is important to remember that the financial crisis was not caused by the farmer who grows the food you eat for dinner, or by the utility you buy electricity from, or by the people who provide the wood in your desk or the metal used in your car. I don't know of any reason why we should continue to treat them as if they were responsible, which is what the current law does and is what H.R. 238 seeks to correct.

Further, better informing the American people of the true impact of major regulations does nothing to diminish the ability of regulators to adequately address illegal or inappropriate activities but, rather, increases transparency and the efficacy of Federal rules, which is why passage of H.R. 78 is so critical both to our constituents and to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, this is a strong rule that provides for open and fair consideration of these vital pieces of legislation as well as every amendment that

was submitted to the House Rules Committee. I am proud to speak in favor of this rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 40 and both of the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, which would improve and strengthen the SEC's rulemaking process by requiring more rigorous economic analysis.

What exactly does that mean?

Well, an economic analysis is quite simple, frankly. It is a systemic approach to determine the optimum use of scarce resources involving comparison of two or more alternatives to achieve a specific objective under the given assumptions and constraints. That is a whole lot of words and jumbo. But what we need to do is make a comparison, what is going to be the benefit.

Economic analysis takes into account the opportunity costs of resources employed and attempts to measure, in monetary terms, the private and social costs and benefits of a project to a community, an economy, or to an individual.

In its simplest terms, the SEC would have to determine the costs and benefits of proposed regulations, as well as potential alternatives to determine a best direction forward, basically ensuring that the SEC is thoroughly assessing both the need for the regulation and adequately evaluating the potential consequences, both intended and unintended, and is there a benefit.

Mr. Chairman, requiring economic analysis by Federal regulators is not a partisan issue. In fact, both President Clinton and President Obama issued executive orders requiring regulators to ensure that their rules were maximizing and achieving a net benefit.

H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, would ensure consistent and effective application of the SEC's economic analysis guidance by building on the bipartisan effort to strengthen economic analysis requirements, as well as require a retrospective review of existing regulations for independent agencies like the SEC.

Specifically, the bill would enhance the SEC's existing economic analysis requirements by requiring the Commission to first clearly identify the nature of the problem that would be addressed before issuing a new regulation--too often, we are just shooting at a target that we don't even know is actually a target--and to prohibit the SEC from issuing a rule when it cannot make ``a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs of the regulation.''

Additionally, H.R. 78 would require the SEC to assess the costs and the benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not issuing a regulation, and choose the approach that would maximize the net benefit. The SEC must also evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent or incompatible or duplicative of other Federal regulations.

In testimony before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises last year, former SEC Commissioner Dan Gallagher noted that the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act would ``promote and improve economic analysis at the SEC and make the agency even more accountable to the investing public.'' He further testified that this bill ``will help ensure the economic analysis conducted by economists is firmly entrenched in every rulemaking the SEC conducts under the Federal securities laws.''

Mr. Chair, I commend the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) for introducing this important piece of legislation, which will equip the SEC with the necessary tools to ensure that all future SEC regulations will meet these standards with the ultimate goal of achieving the SEC's statutory mission of protecting investors and facilitating capital formation.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, despite the personal attacks happening on the floor here, I am glad to see that we are making real progress. Apparently, we are making an impact here.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the whip of our Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren), the vice chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to what is the balance of the time remaining on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the balance of the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I do not intend to yield to the gentlewoman from New York, even though I struggle to understand how the Export-Import Bank had anything to do with what we are talking about here today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

I would just like to point out to those watching on TV the earlier Democrat-sponsored hot air portion of the bill today.

You heard about the Export-Import Bank. You heard about Bernie Madoff. You heard about the Dodd-Frank Act being the only answer to an economic crisis that was caused by a housing crisis which, by the way, the Dodd-Frank Act did nothing about. By the way, on the Bernie Madoff situation, the SEC ignored a whistleblower for 10 years.

This bill has nothing to do with fraud, and it is not about a trial of the effectiveness or lack thereof of the SEC today. This is about a commonsense notion that we ought to actually identify the target that these rules are trying to hit and then find out if it is the right target and analyze that.

What you see on the other side of the aisle is the philosophy that more is better: the more regulation that the SEC has, the more paperwork, a bigger budget with more employees. We are not sure what their effectiveness is, and we are not sure what exactly they are trying to achieve here, but all we can tell you is that more is better. Damn the costs; it doesn't matter.

That is, obviously, not the intent that we have on this side of the aisle. We are trying to make sure that the

proper protection of the investors is there. We are trying to make sure that the three parts of the SEC's mandate, of which one of those is capital formation and creating a robust atmosphere, are actually happening.

I urge passage of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that we are not paid by the word that is put into the Federal Register. I think, once again, you are hearing this example of more is better. It doesn't matter what the words say, just let's have more of them.

We already have the SEC Chairman and the Commissioners covered by both governmentwide ethics laws and regulations as well as SEC supplemental ethics regulations which apply to all SEC employees. For example, they cannot participate personally and substantially in any matter that would have direct or predictable effect on his or her financial interests or imputed financial interests in the future, as required under the code.

Also, unless they are specifically authorized by the SEC's ethics counsel, they should recuse from any matter in which he or she has a ``covered relationship.'' Well, what is a covered relationship? Well, a covered relationship includes former employees, clients, and even a spouse's employer. Further, the SEC employees must report their financial holdings to the SEC's ethics counsel; and this requirement goes beyond, frankly, the governmentwide reporting requirement.

Finally, the SEC Chairman or a Commissioner must not engage in any other business, employment, or vocation while in office; nor may he or she ever use the power of their office to influence their name to promote the business interests of others, as required by law.

As such, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will wrap up here by simply saying that the bill before us today is intending to clarify--or have the SEC, I should say, clarify what the goal and objective is of their proposed rule. Let's find out what they are trying to do, and then, more importantly, find out if it is actually effective.

There might be a rule in place already somewhere else. The other side is trying to strike that provision. They are trying to say: No. No. It doesn't matter what the other hand of government is saying. We are going to just add more and more regulation added on.

We need to have a clear understanding of what the objective is, what the target is, and whether it is an effective rule to get to that point. I just would encourage my colleagues to oppose the Waters-Green amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment and support its immediate passage. I want to thank the sponsor for working with us to draft the language that is consistent with the SEC's tripartite mission to: number one, protect investors; number two, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and, number three, facilitate capital formation.

I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just find it a bit ironic that the other side is not interested in doing this cost-benefit analysis which is in the underlying bill here because it is too burdensome. But what do they want to do? They want to add more paperwork and more burden in their amendments.

Despite what you have heard, the SEC is not a systemic risk regulator; and even the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank, noted at the time when the FSOC was reviewing asset managers for systemic designations, he recognized that these are not entities that pose a systemic risk to the financial system. And while the SEC does not regulate systemic risk, I am afraid that this amendment could be potentially politically misinterpreted and applied to a number of capital market participants and activities which they, frankly, have no business regulating. So it would lead to the same fire, aim, ready kind of situation rulemaking that we have seen from the current administration that hinders growth and that capital market formation that we have just talked about in the last amendment.

The bill before us will ensure that future SEC rulemakings are prudently proposed and adopted to achieve the maximum net benefit, and that is what we are really talking about here today. While I support the underlying bill, I will have to oppose this amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

This has nothing to do with Bernie Madoff since the whistleblower approached the SEC and the SEC, using its dollars, was not able to stop him.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Working together on the Financial Services Committee, we know that there are actuarial tables and analyze risk all the time. You are able to analyze fraud.

You are able to analyze that risk.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining balance of the time.

At this point I am ready to close and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to all of my colleagues and to the American people that currently the SEC is under a court order to clarify how exactly they are doing their rulemaking. And there is a staff-level rule letter.

With this underlying bill, we are trying to codify that. We are trying to make sure, not just with a letter, but by law, that they do what they are being ordered to do. And I will remind all of my colleagues and those of you out watching us, the Securities and Exchange Commission has a mission that has three parts.

The first part is to protect investors. Nothing in this bill weakens there. Nothing in this bill takes anything away from that. We, in fact, underscore that.

The second mission that it has is to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets. Emphasis again, fair, orderly, and efficient markets. What we are seeing is inefficiency that is being built into the marketplace right now, and we are here to clarify that. Let's find out, as the SEC is preparing a rule, what the goal and objective is and what is going to be the impact on it. Yes, cost is part of that, and we are able to look at that.

The third thing the SEC intended to do is to facilitate capital formation.

Why is that important and what exactly does that mean?

It means making sure that there is enough money around so that companies, big, medium, and small, are able to go in there and get the cash and the credit that they need to go and expand and do the job that they are trying to do, which is, by the way, employ all of us in America.

We have talked a lot about the underlying bill and not so much about the particular amendment that we have before us, but I do continue to oppose the amendment and encourage the passage of the underlying bill.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bills.

I start by, again, mentioning the fact that we have before us, under this rule, H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, and H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. I will talk about them in a minute.

There are 56 Members of this body who are new Members and who had no chance to participate in marking up

these bills in their committees of jurisdiction. Sure, I am back and Mr. Newhouse is back, but 56 people who were in that Congress in December are not here now, and there are 56 new people.

Again, a regular order process would allow these bills to go through committee and have ideas and the participation from Democrats and Republicans, who represent, collectively, tens of millions of people in this country, in improving these bills. We did not allow it. These bills just appeared fait accompli in the Rules Committee yesterday. Here we are on the floor. None of the new Members had a chance in their committees to offer them.

In fact, I am not sure where the Republicans are in their process, but Democrats are still finalizing our committee assignments. We have some of them, and the rest will be completed shortly.

For Congress to work well, we need to have regular order. And for regular order to work, we need to make sure that the 56 new Members who represent tens of millions of people are not disenfranchised in this process.

Now, getting to the bills. H.R. 238, the Commodities End-User Relief Act, has been brought to the floor even before the Agriculture Committee convened or held its organizing meeting. It reauthorizes the Commodities Futures Trading Commission through 2021. It makes a lot of changes to internal changes and modifies a number of provisions that were designed to prevent financial meltdowns.

Additionally, H.R. 238 includes language on issues that the Commodities Futures Trading Commission has already addressed through its own efforts. For example, the Commodities Future Trading Commission has acted on 16 of 22 provisions in titles I and III. Particularly, many of us are concerned by the cross-border language in the bill, which would undercut efforts already underway by the Commission to negotiate an international system of safe and robust derivative rules.

H.R. 238 would actually require the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to create a rule that would automatically allow U.S. banks and foreign banks conducting business in the U.S. to do so under the rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, which can be substantially different than those of our own, removing the confidence in the marketplace that is needed for a commodity market to work.

Finally, as you know, Congress passed a number of reforms to enable regulators to respond quickly to changing markets. The provisions in title II would weaken the CFTC's ability to respond in a timely and effective manner.

The financial services industry continues to innovate. It is important that regulators keep pace and prevent systemic risks, prevent meltdowns, prevent bailouts. This bill would make it harder to do that.

An example of how the Commission is engaged with and talking about innovation is how to fully embrace emerging technologies like blockchain and decentralized distribution ledgers. They are doing that because many financial firms are focusing on how to incorporate this technology into their business models. Therefore, it is imperative the Commission is given the ability to stay involved and understand the implications of new technology and innovations and is not hamstrung by this overly prescriptive law.

Now, the Commission does need reauthorization, and I would love the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side to do so. It should be in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner that gives the agency the ability it needs to effectively look at incredibly complicated financial transactions, make sure that consumers and users of commodities that hedge their risks are not abused in the process. We do not want to hamstring the agency by unnecessary and counterproductive requirements as this bill does.

The other bill, H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, also was brought forward before the Financial Services Committee got organized. This bill was not even considered by the House last Congress, and it stalled in the Financial Services Committee. So you actually have a bill that didn't even clear committee last Congress. I was complaining about how the 56 Members that are new to this body didn't have a chance to put their imprint on the first bill. The second bill didn't even make it through the Financial Services Committee and didn't even pass the House floor last session. Yet, here it is without the appropriate committee consideration, depriving new Members representing tens of millions of Americans--Democratic and Republican-- the ability to improve this bill.

Under the guise of regulation changes, H.R. 78 would actually require the SEC to conduct enhanced cost-benefit analysis in order to ensure that benefits of their regulation justify the cost. In effect, the bill directs the SEC to look at things like market liquidity and small businesses, which, of course, it already does as part of its economic analysis. So, again, it is a bill that would bury the SEC in regulatory paperwork.

H.R. 78's cost-benefit analysis is weighted toward helping large financial institutions save money. I support reducing costs for financial institutions. Who wouldn't? But that is not the primary drive of our regulatory structure. We should put consumers and our systemic risks first and foremost and, of course, where we can reduce the unnecessary costs for our financial institutions in the hope that those would be passed along to those they serve.

I, therefore, oppose both of these bills. I oppose the rule that limits the opportunity for Members to offer amendments to these two pieces of legislation. I oppose this process that disenfranchises our new Members.

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

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

When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would require the President and Vice President of the United States, their spouses and dependent children to disclose and divest any personal financial holdings that could create a conflict of interest by placing them in a blind trust. This has been standard for previous Presidents, and this legislation ensures that that precedent continues.

In today's news conference moments ago, President-elect Trump said that he did not plan to follow with precedent and place his assets in a blind trust and would continue his direct ownership interest in them. President-elect Trump has refused to release his tax returns, refused to resolve conflicts of interest related to his business dealings. The American people expect the President to do what is best for the country and not what is best for his business or his pocket.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the lead sponsor of the bill that I am proud to cosponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to emphasize how important it is that we defeat the previous question. There are so many questions that have been raised. Not only is it in keeping with longstanding precedent for the President to divest and place their assets in a blind trust, but it is more important than ever with this President who has a complex web of assets, nationally and internationally, which are rife with conflicts of interest for the incoming administration.

I truly hope we can act in a bipartisan way to defeat the previous question and bring forward Ms. Clark's simple, straightforward bill. It affects future Presidents, Republican and Democratic, and it is a very simple, commonsense piece of legislation simply saying that they will divest and place their assets in a blind trust, something that is important for both the appearance of propriety as well as for the sake of propriety.

And yet instead of focusing on legislation to investigate foreign powers undermining our recent election, instead of focusing on preventing conflicts of interest for the incoming administration, instead of focusing on legislation that would create jobs, reduce our deficit, or improve on health care, instead we have partisan legislation that hasn't gone through regular order. It has left 56 new Members representing tens of millions of Americans on the sideline.

The House passed a lot of legislation last Congress. That does not mean that we should bring every bill directly to the floor and skip the committee process, because there are 56 new Members who should also have a chance to put their imprint on legislation. The way the majority is bringing bills to the floor, it ignores the concerns of the American public; it ignores pressing issues related to the incoming President.

We have this window of time under the outgoing President to send a bill to his desk to require disclosure and divestment from the new President, but that window is rapidly closing. We will only have President Obama in the White House for another week, so time is running short.

If we act now and defeat the previous question, hopefully the Senate will act within a few days, and we can get the bill to President Obama. But the timeline is very, very short to do this. I do not expect that Mr. Trump would sign a bill that puts additional requirements on himself, although he would perhaps change that bill to affect future Presidents because it needs to be done. It is kind of shocking that we relied on precedents rather than law in this area.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so I can bring forward Ms. Clark's bill as my amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

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.