Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump promised American voters he would drain the swamp of special interests in Washington. Instead, he is swimming in it.

He has filled his administration with billionaires, Wall Street operatives, special interest lobbyists, lawyers, and consultants who are drafting policies for the very industries they came from, and he refuses to release the White House visitor log so we have no idea what special interest lobbyists he is meeting with.

Trump has refused to release his tax returns or divest his business interests.

Can you believe the State Department posted a blog advertising his exclusive Mar-a-Lago resort? Since becoming President, he increased the fees for that resort from $100,000 to $200,000.

He has both close allies, Cabinet appointees, and other appointees with questionable ties to Putin and Russia.

His swamp is getting bigger and bigger.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act, is legislation that certainly shows that sometimes we can get together and we can support a good idea. This act is such a thing. It shows how well we can work together to craft bipartisan solutions that support our Nation's innovators and the jobs that they create.

Last Congress, Mr. McHenry came to me with a problem: Sophisticated angel investors who fund promising startup businesses want to pool their money together, but the law effectively caps them at 100 investors per fund. If more than 100 people want to invest, the fund is forced to exclude some of them from the deal to avoid registration and regulation as an ``investment company'' under the securities laws. That means investors willing to commit capital are being turned away and startups are losing out on important early-stage funding.

Because of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and Mr. Patrick McHenry working together, working out any concerns that had been identified on either side of the aisle, we now, today, have a piece of legislation, a bill, that would narrowly increase the investor limitation from 100 to 250 persons for certain venture capital funds, provided that the fund does not have more than $10 million in total investor capital.

This type of fund structure is used today by AngelList, an angel investing platform that connects investors meeting certain income and asset thresholds with one another so they can pool their money into special-purpose funds which then invest them in a particular startup company. Importantly, both the companies and the investors benefit from this structure.

Compared with making hundreds of smaller direct investments, a company, for example, only has as a single point of contact, the angel fund advised by a fiduciary, rather than hundreds of investors who must all individually approve corporate actions such as mergers and acquisitions and expanding ownership.

Investors also like this structure because they can delegate monitoring the startups they invest in to the investment adviser to the fund. Such monitoring may be significant, considering that investors, recognizing that most early-stage companies fail, typically diversify their investments among 30 to 80 companies.

H.R. 1219 reasonably promotes this fund structure for startup investments by providing a narrowly tailored exemption for certain venture capital funds which must invest at least 80 percent of their funds in small businesses. Under the bill, the venture capital funds must have no more than 250 investors and no more than $10 million in investor capital, ensuring that they are small enough that investors are able to monitor and manage their investments.

The bill's limits also ensure that we aren't creating a loophole for other investment companies, like mutual funds, to avoid regulation; nor are we providing relief to other private funds, like hedge funds or private equity funds, that have very little restriction and investor protection.

Mr. Speaker, too often Congress seeks to help small businesses by repealing sensible guardrails and rules of the road with little to no thought of the impact on investors or market integrity. This is a mistake since it is investors that provide the money necessary for small businesses to grow. If investors don't trust the markets to operate fairly, they will decline to invest or raise costs on the very businesses we want to help. H.R. 1219 is different and reflects a measured, bipartisan approach to promoting our Nation's startups and the investors who take a chance on them.

I thank Mr. McHenry and Ms. Velazquez for their leadership on this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have received tremendous support for this legislation, and we are extremely hopeful that we will be able to come together on both sides of the aisle and continue to give support to our small businesses. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of those in the Congress of the United States--a lot of Members, rather--who talk about supporting small businesses, but we don't often see real legislation that can do that. This is such legislation, and I cannot thank Ms. Velazquez and Mr. McHenry enough for the way that they have worked on this legislation together.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record some of the letters of support that we have received from the Center for American Entrepreneurship, the Internet Association, TechNet, Angel Capital Association, and AngelList.

Center for

American Entrepreneurship,

April 25, 2016.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters: On

behalf of the Center for American Entrepreneurship, I write

today to express our strong support for legislation offered

by Rep. Patrick McHenry: H.R. 4854, the ``Supporting

America's Innovators Act of 2016,'' and H.R. 4855, the ``Fix

Crowdfunding Act of 2016.'' Both bills will significantly

enhance American entrepreneurs' access to the capital they

need to launch and grow new businesses and, in doing so,

accelerate economic growth and job creation.

CAE is a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization whose

mission is to engage policymakers in Washington and across

the nation regarding the critical importance of entrepreneurs

and start-ups to innovation, economic growth, and job

creation, and to pursue a comprehensive policy agenda

intended to significantly enhance the circumstances for new

business formation, survival, and growth.

As you may know, recent research has demonstrated that

start-ups are disproportionately responsible for the

innovations that drive economic growth and account for

virtually all net new job creation. Alarmingly, recent

research has also demonstrated that, despite impressive

strength in certain cities around the country, rates of new

business formation in America have been declining for 30

years, and the decline is occurring in all 50 states, in all

but a handful of the 360 metro areas examined, and across a

broad range of industry sectors, including high-technology.

Given the importance of thriving entrepreneurship to

innovation, economic growth, and job creation, such

circumstances amount to nothing less than a national

emergency.

When asked or surveyed, entrepreneurs across the country

report that access to sufficient capital on affordable terms

remains among their principal challenges. The legalization of

crowdfunding by way of the Jumpstart Our Business Start-ups

(JOBS) Act in 2012 was a major step forward in meaningfully

enhancing innovators' access to investment capital. But

further reforms are necessary to realize the Act's full

potential to promote entrepreneurship, growth, greater

opportunity, and job creation.

H.R. 4854, the ``Supporting America's Innovators Act''

would amend an exemption

under the Investment Company Act of 1940 by increasing the

investor limitation from 100 to 500 persons for qualifying

venture capital funds that purchase no more than $10 million

in securities in any one issuer, adjusted for inflation.

Lifting the current arbitrary cap would not only increase

entrepreneurs' access to additional investors, but will

protect investors through a greater diversification of risk.

H.R. 4855, the ``Fix Crowdfunding Act'' would amend the

crowdfunding aspects of the JOBS Act in a number of important

ways:

Raising the annual issuance amount from $1 million to $5

million;

Exempting the beneficial owners of crowdfunding securities

from counting towards the Exchange Act 12(g) requirement

triggering public reporting;

Exempting special purpose vehicles (SPVs) created for the

purpose of investing in a single issuer of crowdfunding

securities from registration as investment companies under

the Investment Company Act, and permitting SPVs considered as

``venture capital funds'' to offer crowdfunding securities;

Revising the investment cap so that investors earning

$100,000 or less may invest up to 5 percent of their annual

income or net worth, and investors earning more than $100,000

to invest up to 10 percent of their annual income or net

worth;

Defining the requirements for a crowdfunding intermediary

to disqualify an issuer when the intermediary, through a

background check or other means, determines that the issuer

knowingly made untrue statements or omissions related to

material facts, or engaged in fraud;

Defining a crowdfunding intermediary's potential liability

to include only instances when the intermediary knowingly

makes untrue statements or omissions related to material

facts or knowingly engages in fraud;

Permitting an issuer to ``test the waters'' by soliciting

non-binding commitments of interest from potential investors

without filing information with the SEC, provided that no

funds are accepted by the issuer and any material changes

that occur between the solicitation and the offer are

highlighted to potential investors; and,

Providing a 5-year grace period for portals to make a good-

faith effort to comply with all crowdfunding rules, and

prohibits the SEC from bringing any enforcement actions

during that period.

Both bills help strike a more appropriate balance between

the twin priorities of capital formation and investor

protection. In doing so, these reforms significantly enhance

the prospects for new business formation, survival, and

growth at a time when faster economic growth is necessary to

address challenges such as underemployment, stagnant middle-

class wages, the income and wealth gaps, and alarmingly high

levels of poverty and dependence.

CAE commends you for your leadership to promote American

entrepreneurship and innovation and greatly appreciates your

thoughtful consideration of the reforms in H.R. 4854 and H.R.

4855. We look forward to continuing to work with you, the

bills' sponsors, and the Committee's distinguished members on

behalf of American entrepreneurs and start-ups.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Litan,

Chairman, Center for American

Entrepreneurship.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that, for the first time this Congress, committee Republicans have brought to the House floor a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Oftentimes, the opposite side of the aisle on our committee take a partisan approach to legislation and sometimes do not express a lot of interest in the views of the opposite side of the aisle or the millions of Americans whom they represent. However, in contrast, this bill before us today is the product of thoughtful, bipartisan compromise and will help startup companies and their investors equally. Madam Speaker, this is how laws should be made.

Indeed, last Congress, Mr. McHenry and I worked together to promote liquidity in the secondary market for startup company stock by creating a clearer path for startup investors to resell their stock. The result of our bipartisan efforts was the Reforming Access for Investments in Startup Enterprises Act, which became law in 2015, along with seven other bipartisan, financial services bills included in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.

Going forward, I hope that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will remember what we can achieve when we work together. So, again, I thank both Mr. McHenry for reaching across the aisle and Ms. Velazquez for working with me on H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017. I urge all of my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes.''

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Raskin for organizing this time, for helping to keep this Congress focused on this extraordinary chain of events that is taking place in our country, and for drawing attention to what should be a credible investigation about the ties between this President and Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin.

Why is this President so focused on complimenting Putin?

Why has he wrapped his arms around him?

Why has he said he is a great President?

Why does he refuse to even talk about the fact that Putin has invaded Crimea?

Why does he refuse to understand what is being said when Putin is charged to be a killer and all of the deaths that are taking place from opponents of his, from people who criticize him?

Well, I think the more we learn about the connections that this President and his allies have, the more these questions are going to become very serious, and it is going to lead us to have to make some big decisions about whether or not this President is fit to lead the United States of America.

I have been deeply concerned about these issues for months. President Trump, throughout his campaign and since his election, has chosen to surround himself with people who have close ties with Russia.

When our intelligence agencies announced their conclusion that Russia interfered in our elections, I called for an investigation focusing on the possibility of collusion between Trump's ``Kremlin Klan,'' that I have dubbed them, and the Russian Government. I introduced H. Con. Res. 15, urging Congress to investigate the possibility of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Investigations should focus on the Kremlin Klan.

Let's talk about some of those allies and folks who are aligned with Trump and with Russia:

Michael Flynn, who was fired from the NSC after lying about discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak.

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. AP reports Manafort signed a $10 million contract in 2006, with Russian billionaire and Putin ally Oleg Deripaska, to advance Putin's interest in the United States. The New York Times also reports Manafort tried to hide $750,000 in payments from a pro-Russian party in Ukraine.

Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, is a consultant to and investor in the Kremlin state-run gas company, Gazprom, and has a direct financial interest in ending American sanctions against the company. He recently revealed that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, during the 2016 RNC.

And then there is Roger Stone, who has worked in Ukraine. Stone announced, in a speech last summer, that he had spoken to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Stone also disclosed to the press that he had been exchanging messages with Guccifer 2.0, the Russian hacker that hacked the DNC last summer.

And then-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.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signed a multibillion-dollar agreement with Russia in 2011, on behalf of Exxon, for an oil drilling project in the Arctic and is focused on lifting the sanctions.

The New York Times reported that, prior to his resignation, Mike Flynn was delivered a proposal outlining a way for President Trump to lift the Russian sanctions and broker a deal between Russia and Ukraine that also included the public smearing of Ukraine's current President Poroshenko. The deal is being pushed by his opposition in Ukraine. Although Mike Flynn is gone, the proposal remains, along with those pushing it.

Then there is Michael Cohen, the President's personal lawyer, who was involved in developing the document, and who delivered the document.

Then there is Felix H. Sater, a business associate and a former criminal who served time, who reportedly had ties with the Mafia, who helped Mr. Trump scout deals in Russia.

And then there is Andriy Artemenko, a Ukrainian lawmaker trying to rise in a political opposition movement, shaped in part by Mr. Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

And of course, there is our Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was forced to recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 Presidential campaign, after it was revealed that he met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak on two separate occasions during the campaign cycle, information which he failed to disclose during his confirmation hearings. Kislyak is the same Ambassador with whom Mike Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions, and, by the way, he lied about it.

It has now been revealed that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak met with the following Trump associates: Carter Page, Jeff Sessions, Mike Flynn, and Jared Kushner, in December 2016, in Trump Tower, during the transition. None of these meetings were made public and were only discovered after the press released reports.

Before the press reporting on the meetings above, the Trump administration had repeatedly denied its campaign had contact and communication with Russian officials. The press has noted that the meetings are not unusual but that public concern is heightened because they have all lied about or failed to disclose the meetings.

Deutsche Bank was ordered to pay more than $600 million in fines, including a $425 million fine to New York's Department of Financial Services and a $204 million fine to the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority for failing to have adequate money laundering controls in place to prevent a group of corrupt traders from improperly and secretly transferring more than $10 billion out of Russia. Press reports indicate that the Department of Justice is investigating this matter. Deutsche Bank is Trump's largest lender, lending his companies an estimated $360 million.

As to oil and gas, President Trump signed last month a bill striking section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act which required Big Oil companies to disclose the money they pay to foreign governments to drill on their lands. Striking section 1504 will allow Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil to conduct secretive dealings with corrupt parties, such as Vladimir Putin and Russia.

The White House attempted to enlist the FBI, the CIA Director Pompeo, and top Republicans on the House and Senate intel committees to help push back against The New York Times reporting on Trump's ties to Russia.

There is Devin Nunes--I don't need to talk about him. He issued a joint statement with Adam Schiff, a joint statement in January announcing that the scope of their investigation would include links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns.

FBI Director James Comey announced on March 20, during testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, that the FBI is investigating whether members of President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Devin Nunes announced to the press that members of Trump's transition team were under incidental surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies

after the election and briefed President Trump on March 22. However, he did not brief Adam Schiff or other House Intelligence Committee members, and he never revealed his source. Devin Nunes has clearly compromised the investigation and can no longer be trusted to lead it.

In conclusion, Congress must create a comprehensive, independent, bipartisan commission to expose the full truth of Trump's ties to Russia. I believe that, once we have fully investigated Trump's Kremlin Klan, we will find that there was collusion between President Trump and Russia to violate the integrity of our elections.

At that point, the Republicans in Congress will have no choice but to put country ahead of party. I say impeach Donald Trump.

I thank you so much, as we witness what attempts to be a coverup now about all of this.

I would like very much to thank my friend and colleague from California, Congressman John Garamendi, for the time, and I commend him for organizing this Special Order on Alzheimer's disease. It is fitting and appropriate that we would be holding this Special Order hour this evening prior to the National Alzheimer's Dinner, which will take place tonight.

The National Alzheimer's Dinner is an annual event, organized by the Alzheimer's Association, that brings together staff, policymakers, advocates, and families impacted by Alzheimer's disease from across the country.

As the co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer's Disease, I know how devastating this disease can be for patients, families, and caregivers. I am proud to lead the task force along with my co-chair, Congressman Chris Smith.

Alzheimer's is a tragic disease affecting millions of Americans and has reached crisis proportions. There is no effective treatment, no means of prevention, and no method for slowing the progression of the disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that is the CDC, 5 million Americans were living with Alzheimer's disease in the year 2013. This number is expected to almost triple to 14 million by the year 2050.

Alzheimer's is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. In 2017, the direct cost of care for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias is expected to hit $259 billion, with 67 percent of those costs paid for by Medicare or Medicaid.

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias will increase exponentially as

the baby boom generation ages. At the current rate, the cost of Alzheimer's will reach $1.1 trillion in 2050. We must act now to change the trajectory of this disease.

The national plan to address Alzheimer's disease calls for a cure or an effective treatment for Alzheimer's by the year 2025. Reaching this goal will require a significant increase in Federal funding for Alzheimer's research.

Fortunately, Alzheimer's research did receive a substantial increase in Federal funding in fiscal year 2016. Congress allocated $936 million for Alzheimer's research at NIH in funding year 2016, an increase of $350 million over the 2015 level. But that is still far less than what is needed to confront the challenges we face.

In March of last year, I wrote a letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting an additional $500 million increase in funding for Alzheimer's research, for a total appropriation of almost $1.5 billion in funding year 2017. The letter was signed by a bipartisan group of 74 Members of Congress, including myself, co-chair Chris Smith, and one of the greatest advocates on behalf of Alzheimer's patients not only in the Congress of the United States, but even before he came here, Congressman Garamendi.

Last summer, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its version of the funding year 2017 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill and provided a $400 million increase in funding for Alzheimer's research at NIH, for a total appropriation of $1.39 billion in funding year 2017.

Meanwhile, the House Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations Subcommittee passed this bill for funding year 2017 on June 17. The House bill provided a $300 million increase in Alzheimer's research.

Unfortunately, Congress still has not finished its work on funding the year 2017 budget, so we don't know how much funding Alzheimer's research or any other program, for that matter, will receive this year.

At the same time, Congress has already begun consideration of year 2018 funding levels. I am once again circulating a letter to the House Appropriations Committee leaders requesting robust funding for Alzheimer's research.

This year my letter requests a $414 million increase in funding for Alzheimer's research in fiscal year 2018 above the level included in the funding year 2017 Senate bill. That would be a total appropriation of more than $1.8 billion for Alzheimer's research in funding year 2018.

Although this letter just started circulating, more than 25 Members of Congress have already signed this letter, of course led by Co-Chairs Chris Smith and Congressman Garamendi and myself.

I am also circulating a letter to House Committee on Appropriations leaders in support of a program to address the problem of wandering among Alzheimer's patients. This program helps local communities and law enforcement officials quickly find persons with Alzheimer's disease who wander away from their homes and reunite them with their families.

The majority of American Alzheimer's patients live at home under the care of family and friends. According to the Alzheimer's Association, more than 60 percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander away from home. Wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather conditions, traffic hazards, and individuals who prey on seniors.

Let me just continue my remarks by thanking all of the Members of Congress who are signing letters, who are focused on this, who understand what is going on. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for their leadership and all the work that they have done educating the Members and helping to give exposure to what we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time that I have been allotted here this evening, joining with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to answer the question that was posed to us by this President. I rise to answer President Trump's question to the Black community.

Now, all throughout his campaign, President Trump declared that Black people all across this country just live in hell and fear each day, and we may be shot on the street. He basically said that we have nothing, our education is no good, on and on and on. Then he went on to say that only he can solve the challenges African Americans face.

Unfortunately, this kind of talk is typical of this President: boasting, bragging, and making promises. This President will say anything and promise anything, of course, with no intention of living up to his promises. One should not believe anything he has to say.

As a matter of fact, the African-American community understands very well when these kinds of empty promises are made. As a matter of fact, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the presidents of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities organized, put together, a proposal, and they went to meet with the President at the White House.

They didn't even have an opportunity to present the proposal. They were just ushered around in a photo op, and that was all that happened, without any real conversation, without any proposals being produced. They were treated in a disrespectful way.

This, basically, is what I have decided we can expect from the President. His budget and policy priorities reveal his true intentions and what so many of us already know about this President. He really doesn't care about the issues facing the African-American community, and he doesn't care to learn about those issues or advance any meaningful legislation to provide jobs and economic opportunities for our Nation's most vulnerable communities.

If you take a look at Trump's HUD budget, you find a $6 billion reduction. He wants to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program, which supports our cities and various urban renewal projects. He wants to eliminate the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This President wants to eliminate the Choice Neighborhoods program. He wants to eliminate the homeownership program and on and on and on.

Just last week, this President tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act. If that unconscionable bill had passed, 14 million people would have lost insurance coverage next year, and the American people would have seen billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts.

Trump's empty promises do not end with the budget. He has also filled his Cabinet with millionaires and billionaires who don't have a clue about the challenges facing the African-American community.

Trump's Treasury Secretary was known as the ``Foreclosure King,'' who profited off the backs of vulnerable homeowners during the 2008 recession.

Trump's Education Secretary knows nothing about public education, did not attend public schools. Her children didn't attend public schools. She was not chosen to repair public education; she was chosen to break it.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who lied under oath before the Senate, opposed the Violence Against Women Act. He has taken hardline positions against our efforts to reform the criminal justice system, which disproportionately incarcerates African Americans. Of course, we knew about his background and his history and what he is known for, and that is discrimination, disrespect for African Americans.

Mr. Speaker, my position against this President and his administration is clear: I oppose this President. I do not honor this President. I do not respect this President. He has disrespected the office and offended so many people across this country and around the world with his disgusting and indecent rhetoric against women, the Black community, Muslims, immigrants, and disabled Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the African-American community who will lose under this President. It is everyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire that stand to lose under this administration. I will continue to oppose him and fight him every step of the way.

While I am talking about where he has put his priorities--and, of course, I think the budget really does reflect your priorities--he has reduced the education budget by 13 percent, or $9 billion less than last year; a $168 billion increase for charter schools, 50 percent above current levels.

Let's take a look at labor. It reduces the budget by 21 percent, a $2.5 billion decrease from last year. Health and Human Services, decreased funding by $15 billion, the lowest in 20 years.

It reduces funding for the National Institutes of Health by 19 percent. For the Environmental Protection Agency, it reduces the budget from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion. Housing and Urban Development, again, reducing the budget by just about $6 billion, or 13.2 percent.

He claims he cares about small businesses. He reduces the SBA budget by 5 percent, or $43.2 billion less than last year. It goes on and on and on.

Homeland Security, increases the budget by only 6.8 percent, to $44 billion, even though he claims he cares a lot about the security of this country.

What am I saying? I am simply saying that African Americans have struggled and fought, historically. Many African Americans have paid a huge price fighting for justice and equality in this country and have died for it. I don't have to call the names of Martin Luther King and all the others. We have paid a price. We have fought.

But guess what? Despite the fact that America has not always been there for us, we have always been there for America. We have fought in America's wars. We have suffered discrimination. We have suffered isolation and undermining. But we stand up for America, oftentimes when others who think they are more patriotic--who say they are more patriotic--do not.

When we fight against this President and we point out how dangerous he is for this society and for this country, we are fighting for democracy. We are fighting for America. We are saying to those who say they are patriotic but they turn a blind eye to the destruction that he is about to cause this country: You are not nearly as patriotic as we are.

We not only have fought in America's wars, have stood up for America, have been there whenever this country was threatened in any way, we say now that this country is threatened with a President who does not belong there, a President who does not understand how this government works, a President who goes down to Mar-a-Lago every weekend and plays golf. He is not huddling with Members of Congress and trying to figure out how to form a consensus. Rather, he thought he could come in here and run roughshod over everybody. But that is how he works, that is how he acts.

He is not good for America. African Americans know this. The Black Caucus understands this. And for those members of the Black Caucus representing our leadership who went to meet with him, they have laid out to him all of this, what our care and concerns are all about. But in the final analysis, we really don't expect anything from him. My mission and my goal is to make sure that he does not remain President of the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Plaskett for yielding to me.

H.R. 1009 would empower Trump's White House to block all of the independent financial agencies' proposed actions to protect our economy. And, worse, the bill empowers President Trump's advisers to influence monetary policy, including interest rates that affect America's mortgages, credit cards and IRAs.

Independent agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, would have to first receive the okay from Trump's administration, packed with Wall Street insiders, before they could protect the American public. For example, the administration could block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent proposal to stop payday lender debt traps. These agencies would be directed to write rules favorable to industry, subjecting individuals once again to predatory practices.

I am so deeply troubled that H.R. 1009 gives the Trump administration a say in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions. The importance of Fed independence is well established and results in objective, nonpolitical policymaking, and a high degree of credibility with financial markets.

However, today's bill threatens the integrity of these decisions. Given that the Fed's actions can move stock markets by hundreds of points, we should absolutely reject the Trump White House and Republicans' desire to use the Fed for partisan gain.

An administration that believes bad polls are ``fake news,'' goes to great lengths to inflate the number of attendees at the inauguration, and misrepresents the Nation's debt level should not be allowed to meddle with the interest rate decisions or marketplace guardrails critical to our economy's health.

I urge Members to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 66, which is just a continuation of the House Republicans' attack on working families and their retirement security.

H.J. Res. 66 would dismantle the Department of Labor rule allowing for State-based retirement savings programs. This does nothing more than make it harder for this country's roughly 40 million private sector workers who do not have a way to save for retirement directly out of their regular paycheck.

Under the current Department of Labor rule, State administered retirement programs can allow employees, who do not have access to a workplace savings plan, to establish an IRA through a payroll deduction. In my State of California, we have the California Secure Choice retirement savings program through which the State is working to provide a savings option to roughly 6.8 million low- to middle-income workers.

Last Congress, House Republicans unanimously voted to undermine another Department of Labor rule designed to protect retirement security for working families. In that case, the rule ensured that workers receive retirement investment advice that is in their best interest, referred to as the ``fiduciary rule.'' Now congressional Republicans want to prevent workers from participating in voluntary savings programs.

The Department of Labor rule that the Republicans are now seeking to roll back provides clarity for States and employers so that California, and the several other States that have already enacted similar plans, can provide a simple savings tool for millions of working families.

Mr. Speaker, I just don't understand the arguments that are being made against the average working person who would like to have retirement savings. I don't know who is going to benefit if we do away with their ability to have a savings plan, even if they don't have one under the job that they work on. Who benefits? Is it Wall Street again? What is happening here, and why is it that we have H.J. Res. 66?

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to 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. Speaker, I am referring to H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban so that green card holders like Bessar Yousif, a refugee from Iraq on his way home after getting engaged in Kurdistan, won't get detained in LAX.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this budget, which is designed to repeal--not replace--ObamaCare.

I am adamant about this because of what I have witnessed all of my life. I am going to share with you--and some of you may have never heard of these things--that I have watched people die from preventable diseases.

I have watched, over the years, from the time I was a child, where people had home remedies. They didn't have any prescription drugs.

I watched as my great-grandmother was in pain, in tears, because of arthritis and rheumatism. We had to rub her down with something called liniment.

I have watched men get up and try to go to work with pneumonia. They tried to heal pneumonia with what was known as hot toddies.

I have watched as children have died. Little children used to walk around with little bags around their neck with something in it called asfidity that was supposed to protect them from harm. They had pneumonia. They had colds. That is all they had. They didn't have a doctor. They died from preventable diseases.

Now we have 20 million more people who are insured under this healthcare plan. This is a healthcare plan for all Americans.

The Republicans will tell you that, yes, they are going to give you something better, but they have been saying this for 8 years. They have been after what is known as ObamaCare for 8 years. Why don't they have a remedy? Why don't they have a plan? Why don't they have anything?

They didn't have anything when they started to attack ObamaCare, they don't have anything today, and they are not going to have anything better than the ACA.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 238, a bill that would hamstring the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to protect our Nation's farmers, manufacturers, municipalities, and retirees. Indeed, the agency has weighty responsibility to oversee our commodity, futures, and swaps markets to ensure that they are not only fair to market participants, but also that they are protected from manipulation, fraud, and abuse.

Such misconduct in these markets can impact everything from the price of oil, natural gas, and bread, to the interest rates on mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and student loans.

As we saw in the financial crisis, fraud and abuse in the swaps markets can lead to systemic risks. Recall that credit default swaps, made famous by AIG, fueled the crisis, bankrupted millions of homeowners, and cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. To prevent that from happening again, Congress, in the Dodd-Frank Act, gave the CFTC new authority over the swaps market and required it to adopt reforms which, thanks to its hard work, are largely in place.

But rather than applaud the work of the CFTC and provide it with funds it needs to do its job, Republicans continue to seek to undermine its regulatory authority, impose new procedural hurdles, and ultimately thwart its ability to protect the American people.

For example, H.R. 238 would impose onerous burdens and introduce new litigation risks by requiring the CFTC to conduct what is known as cost-benefit analysis slanted toward the industry, tying the CFTC's hands and setting up roadblocks to prevent them from doing their job and protect investors. This is a tactic used by opponents of financial reform to prevent, delay, weaken, and now under a Trump administration, repeal any rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act.

This bill also would make it harder for the CFTC to police the overseas derivatives operations of megabanks like Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Bank of America, even though the risk may still be borne by U.S. taxpayers. It also creates an unreasonable and hard-to-overturn presumption that the regulations of the largest eight foreign swaps markets are equivalent to U.S. regulation, allowing global megabanks to opt out of CFTC regulation.

H.R. 238 is simply a bad bill, but not leaving well-enough alone, Republicans are attempting to make it worse through multiple amendments. Troublingly, the Lucas amendment would create loopholes in our swaps regime by exempting trades between affiliates. Therefore, such trades would not have to comply with certain reporting, clearing, or initial margin requirements, creating a dangerous blind spot in the markets. What is more, the amendment is in direct contravention to already-provided, targeted relief, including the inter-affiliate clearing exemption that Congress passed in a bipartisan fashion in the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which contained numerous safeguards to ensure appropriate CFTC oversight.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing that and other harmful amendments, and oppose H.R. 238.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my friend Mr. Lucas' amendment. This amendment rejects the bipartisan compromise negotiated over 4 years to strike the right balance regarding interaffiliate swaps. Indeed, Democrats like Ms. Moore and Republicans like Mr. Stivers carefully negotiated a way to balance the needs of operating companies like airlines and refineries. This amendment, however, would exempt swaps between affiliates, including megabanks like Goldman Sachs and J.P.Morgan, from the mandatory margin, clearing, trade execution, capital, and every other protection under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

While we generally agree that swaps between affiliated corporate entities do not pose a systemic threat, we are deeply troubled about this desire to undermine all swaps rules and harm our economy.

During testimony on a similar version of this amendment, the CFTC's former chairman, Gary Gensler, stated that such an exemption would provide a big loophole around our derivatives rules and that it would ``blow a hole in Dodd-Frank.''

Specifically, the amendment exempts affiliate swaps no matter where the affiliate resides. So, an affiliate could reside in a foreign jurisdiction that lacks any swaps regulation and share its risks with a U.S. affiliate, but our regulators would be prohibited from imposing any safeguards such as initial margin or capital requirements. Why would we pass such a self-inflicted wound?

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, just as I opposed the bill before us today in the previous three Congresses, I rise in opposition to it now. Republicans have crafted H.R. 78 to tie the hands of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, and to prevent it from issuing new rules to address market failures and protect investors. At the same time, the bill would enable the Trump administration to easily repeal important Dodd-Frank rules by tilting the SEC's decisions toward what is best for industry and, worse, what enriches the President-elect and his cronies.

Before I discuss H.R. 78, I think it is important to point out that 14 members of the Financial Services Committee, as well as the millions of Americans they represent, are being denied the opportunity to discuss this bill through hearings and markups. We are barely into the second week of this Congress and the Republican leadership is completely ignoring regular order--despite Speaker Ryan's declaration less than a week ago of a return to regular order--by skipping the committee process to bring this bill to the floor; but this is par for the course.

In the other Chamber, Senate Republican leadership is similarly jamming Donald Trump's conflicted nominees through the confirmation process even before the FBI has completed background checks. And with barely 10 days until his inauguration, Donald Trump has already given up on ``draining the swamp'' and has broken his promise to hold Wall Street accountable by nominating Wall Street insiders to nearly every key economic and regulatory post.

Let me turn back to the problems with H.R. 78.

During the past four Congresses, Republicans have sought to increase the cost-benefit requirements that are related to SEC rulemakings even though the Commission is already subject to stringent economic analysis for which it is held accountable. Current law requires the SEC to conduct the same economic analysis that is required of all agencies under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Unlike other financial regulators, the SEC has additional statutory requirements to study how its rules affect market efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

Additionally, in 2012, the SEC voluntarily issued internal guidance on economic analysis for rulemakings that closely follow Executive Order No. 12866. Since adopting this guidance, the SEC has dramatically expanded its economic analysis capabilities, including by increasing the staff and the budget of its economics division by more than 300 percent over the last 5 years. In any other reality, the SEC would be held up as a model of effective economic analysis.

When asked by Republicans in Congress to review the SEC's analysis, the inspector general concluded:

We determined that the SEC's use of its current guidance

has been effective in incorporating economic analysis into

the rulemaking process.

H.R. 78, however, goes much, much further in radically directing the SEC to no longer be concerned with the protection of investors. In fact, the only reference to investors anywhere in the bill is in a provision requiring the SEC to consider the impact these rules will have on ``investor choice.''

The American public knows full well that ``investor choice'' is a code for industry's wanting to offer a menu of predatory products, such as subprime--toxic--mortgages or retirement products that are designed to bankrupt low- and middle-income Americans and line the pockets of Wall Street executives. Further suggestions that the bill is only codifying the cost-benefit executive orders are false as the bill omits one key provision from those orders: the prohibition of private rights of action, which is simply the right to sue.

As a result, H.R. 78 provides industry with endless avenues to sue the SEC and, thereby, puts pressure on the regulator to adopt the rules it wants and to repeal everything else. What is worse, the bill is the first signal to Wall Street that the SEC is leaving the enforcement business. H.R. 78 provides no new funding for the SEC to address the substantial, analytic, and potential litigation responsibilities the bill would create even though the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the analytical workload alone would cost $27 million.

Let's not fool ourselves that Republicans are going to increase the SEC's funding. That is at the top of their agenda--kill the SEC by taking away the funding that they need to be the cops on the block.

Members of Congress just finished debating a bill that caps the SEC's sister agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, at a woefully inadequate funding level for the next 5 years, denying the CFTC the hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to adequately police the swaps markets.

Further, Donald Trump has nominated a lifelong defender of Wall Street's to lead the SEC, which I can only assume means that Trump's SEC will equally pillage the Commission's overworked enforcement staff to help pay for the Republicans' planned repeal of Dodd-Frank.

As President-elect Trump takes office next week, beginning what is the most conflicted administration in U.S. history, I urge my colleagues to join me, investor and consumer advocates, public pension plans, civil rights groups, labor unions, and supporters of financial reform in opposing H.R. 78 to ensure that the actions of Trump's SEC are in the interest of America's economic stability and not in Russia's or Wall Street's interests.

I am amazed that the Republicans can be so blatant, so noncaring to come to us at this time with a bill that would basically take our cop on the block, the SEC, and literally obliterate it. I am absolutely amazed that they have the nerve and the gall to try this in face of everything that we already know about what they have done to strip it of its appropriate funding. But now with all of the debate and the concern about Trump and Russia and everything that is going on, they would come here with this bill today and try to pull this off.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a new member of the Financial Services Committee.

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

Let me point out how H.R. 78 tilts their decisionmaking process toward Wall Street. First, let's go back and review everything the President-elect said about Wall Street, and then we can understand exactly what is being done here.

In August 2015, President-elect Trump told CBS: ``The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It's ridiculous, okay?''

In January 2016, Trump told Iowans: ``I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.''

I repeat, he said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.''

In February of 2016, Trump said: ``I know the guys at Goldman Sachs, they have total control over Hillary Clinton.''

In July of 2016, Trump tweeted: ``Hillary will never reform Wall Street. She is owned by Wall Street.''

He also told Iowans: ``I don't care about the Wall Street guys. I'm not taking any of their money.''

Now, Trump has totally betrayed his promise to drain the swamp. He has appointed Goldman Sachs bankers to the Treasury and the National Economic Council, and his pick to head the Securities and Exchange Commission is a lawyer whose career has been based upon defending Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs. This legislation today is part and parcel to that betrayal.

This is how you do it: cost-benefit analysis, you can attach this to any and all monetary and financial services legislation. You can attach it wherever you would like and, thus, cause the delays, cause the undermining of legislation, put the SEC in the position where it has to defend in court, costing them more money that they don't have because they have denied them adequate funding.

This is what this is all about. How do we get our Wall Street friends and cronies back into the business, because Dodd-Frank began to deal with them and to reverse some of what had been happening for far too long. Now they come with this attack and they talk about cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Chairman, this is what they are going to use to ride their way back into making

sure that they give the protection and the advantages to all of their friends on Wall Street.

Mr. Trump was not about draining the swamp. He is about making sure that there is a swamp, digging it deeper and wider.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker.

Yes, sir. I seek recognition to get an explanation of what happened on C-SPAN today.

Did this House have anything to do with it?

I would like to explain that today while I spoke on the House floor on H.R. 78----

Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker, today while I spoke on the House floor on H.R. 78, the state-owned Russian channel called ``Russia Today'' suddenly interrupted my speech, and C-SPAN coverage was replaced with Russian programming.

Can the Chair please explain the proper rules for coverage of House floor proceedings? How did this happen?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request an investigation of this incident because it does not seem to be coincidental. I was speaking about the SEC, and I was speaking about President-elect Trump and how he could influence the SEC and his relationship with Russia when I was interrupted.

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an investigation by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an investigation by the House.

I thank the Chair. I have made it known. I have asked for the investigation. If there is no assistance from the House, I would appreciate allowing other kinds of cooperation.

I must say this, Mr. Speaker, if we were sitting in on the House and if we were streaming, then the House would know what to do since they investigated our past actions when we were trying to bring attention to gun violence in this country. So I don't really accept the fact that the House has no role in this and that it should not be participating in it.

The House participates when it wants to, and I am asking the House to participate and investigate in this the same way you did when you decided that somehow it was improper for us to stream from the House on this issue.

No, I don't yield back.