deal with the irs, benghazi and other issues like that? and chewing gum at the same time is what you need to do when you are the president. these are issues that need to be addressed. he does not want to interfere with that process. he has how many more months left in office, and he wants to make the best use of that time. host: lois capps. , thank you for your time this morning. do not forget, it is 9:00 a.m., the hearing on c-span2 takes place. the house wings -- the house ways and means committee. you can listen to it on c-span radio as well. it has not started yet. for now, we will leave that as we take you to the house of representatives.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day. bless the members of the people's house. help them to think clearly, speak confidently and act courageously in the belief that all noble service is based upon patience, truth and love. may these decisive days through which we are living make them genuine enough to maintain their integrity, great enough to be humble and good enough to keep their faith always regarding public office as a sacred trust. give them the wisdom and the courage to fail not their fellow citizens nor you. may all that is done this day

be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. mr. mcnerney: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, in a hearing before the house armed services committee on april 25, i asked the secretary of the

army, john mchuge, if he could give me an -- mr. hugh, if he could give me the idea for army insulations in the united states. the secretary informed me that he last study was done in 2004 and found the excess capacity was at 20%. he stated that the amount would probably be much higher today, but that he had no way of knowing since congress had prohibited him from using any funds to study the issue further. mr. speaker, i will move an amendment when the national defense authorization act comes to the house floor that will direct the secretary of defense to determine what the current excess capacity is so we will know the potential savings from doing another base realignment and closure commission. i support the administration and their call for another base realignment and closure commission in 2015. every dollar wasted in the defense budget is a dollar that is not spent on defending our nation.

i ask that my colleagues in the house support my amendment when it comes to the floor. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrois -- mr. bare oast: mr. speaker, i stand on behalf of the people in my district giving rise to an unprecedented ba l of distrust -- mr. mr. barrows: this is a totally unacceptable abuse of power and calls on any future decisions made by that agency. trust in the federal government is already at an all-time low. to help regain any of that trust, it's essential that all personnel in this misuse of power be held accountable. we have serious work to do in congress but this takes time and attention away from the work we need to do. i urge my colleagues to investigate this matter swiftly and get on with the work we

have been seer back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of our nation's police officers. this week is police week and i urge all americans to take time and thank the men and women who keep us safe and reflect on the heroes we've lost in the line of duty. mrs. walorski: i am humbled by the devotion of law enforcement in our communities. from tracking down criminals and conducting safety programs for our kids, our safety officials work around the clock, putting themselves in harm's way to keep us safe. at times like these, there are no words that adequately express the gratitude we owe to our law enforcement. to all our police officers, our nation is grateful for your bravery, integrity and indebted to your public service. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, we who serve too often overlook the hard work and dedication of those who serve with us, the members of our staff. mr. israel: i rise to dedicate jack. he's my chief of staff. he departs for new responsibilities. 12 years ago he rose through the ranks. more than almost anyone i know, i have depended on jack in good times and bad, through thick and thin. now with a new baby in his life, he opens up a new chapter in his wife. i wish him and his wife and two kids well. thank you, jack. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday the house passed the 37th piece of legislation that replaces repeals or defunds the government health care takeover bill.

house republicans warned the american people that the legislation's effect would be devastating to patients, to health care providers and small businesses destroying jobs. in recent weeks there's been bipartisan recognition of the failure of the government takeover. senator max baucus said that the implementation would be a train wreck. thousands of new i.r.s. agents who denied free speech will now control health care. the good news is it's still time for repeal. the house has acted in the best interest of american families. it's my hope that the senate will consider our efforts and pass legislation before it's too late. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. congratulations, candice glover, of st. helena island, south carolina, for being the newest queen of "american idol." the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about the large survey telescope. mr. mcnerney: this is an exciting public-private science project that's working in cooperation with the department of energy's office of science and a number of small companies. the idea behind the llst is very simple. take pictures of the entire southern sky and measure everything that moves or changes brightness. after 10 years of operation, the llst will catalog billions of stars, galaxies and other interstellar objects. this database will address the most pressing questions in astronomy, physics, from potentially hazardous asteroids, to the mysteries of dark matter and energy. it will push boundaries of big science and computing. i urge my colleagues in joining me in recognizing the importance oflic-prinive

studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics. support for these projects is critical. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise for the folks in my district being furloughed because of indecision, political gamesmanship and the failure to act in washington. our nation has no greater asset than the folks serving our nation, including those who make up our department of defense, both military and civilian alike. their dedication and service to our nation is unwavering. mr. wittman: unfortunately, those same patriots have lived for months with the uncertainty of the sequester. many of those are making sure that equipment is prepared and ready for our armed forces are

being forced to step away from their lines. even the children of our military families will not be spared. teachers at d.o.d. schools are being furloughed too. the administration had flexibility to make other choices. furloughs is just one of the effects of compounding budget cuts on our nation's military and it affects this nation's military readiness. there are smarter solutions to our nation's budget woes and i voted for replacements for this shortsighted sequester. congress should not sit idly by. let's fix this. mr. speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. student loan debt is a crisis in this country, mr. speaker. more and more students approach me in my district and approach me on facebook about their loan debt. mr. tierney: i want to share

with you why we should provide our parents and families with relief. one says, please, we need you to get to the crux of the student loan debt asap. many end up paying double or triple what they borrowed to go to college. this is an outrage and seems out of sync with the original mission of the student loan program. people want to pay back fairly what they borrowed, but the system actually seems rigged to make at that impossible. earlier this week it was reported that the federal government will earn $51 billion profit from student loan borrowers this year, which exceeds the earnings of the nation's most profitable companies and is roughly equal to the combined net income of the four largest u.s. banks by assets. it's time we start using the federal student loan program as a profit setter for the government. we need to pass legislation that stops the doubling of the student loan interest rate by january 1 and turn our attention to the long-term solution that will help the borrowers and the estimated 31 million americans that have

existing student loan debt. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, it's been two bad weeks for the white house. benghazi cover-ups by the state department officials, massive intrusion of phone records and the i.r.s. after one of the most unbelievable abuses of government power in recent years. after the i.r.s. admitted targeting conservative groups with those messages, it disagrees, the american people were shocked by this politically motivated discrimination. mr. williams: taxpayers deserve to be treated fairly. president obama promised an open and transparent government. yet, these government lies show a complete disregard to the constitution. in fact, the constitution's equal protection clause requires that the government treat all entities in a similar, fair and equal manner. let me be clear, no administration should use the i.r.s. to target its political is the united states of .

america, mr. obama, not one of your european buddies. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. wilson: mr. speaker, it's now been 866 days since i arrived in congress, and the republican leadership has still not allowed a single vote on serious legislation to address our unemployment crisis. that's zero votes to address our nation's most pressing emergency. that's zero votes to address the sequester policies that are making our job crisis immeasurablely worse. yet, yesterday the republican congress to be its 37th vote to repeal the affordable care act. mr. speaker, this was not only a colossal waste of valuable time that could have been spent

focusing on jobs legislation, it's a further step in the wrong direction. by expanding access to health care, the affordable care act gives americans more disposable income, creating more customers for our businesses and in turn more jobs. it's time to bring the american jobs act to the floor. it deserves a vote. investigate benghazi. investigate the a.p. leaks. investigate the i.r.s. but, mr. speaker, don't forget our focus, our crisis, our mantra should be jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> good morning, mr. speaker. mr. sessions: by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 216 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 25, house resolution 216, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may,

pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 1062, to improve the consideration by the securities and exchange commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debatehall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-10. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.

all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member e port, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. . all points of order geps such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the

committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered op the bill, and amendments thereto to final passage withoutg tion exce motion to recommit with or without inct the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from worcester, massachusetts, the gentleman, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. session: thank you, mr. speaker. during consideration all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. sessions: house resolution 216 provides a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 1062. this rule provides for

discussion and opportunities for every single member of the majority and minority to participate in this debate. he we make in order every single germane amendment that was submitted to the rules committee on this issue. mr. speaker, legislation before us today is really quite simple. it is commonsense solution to preventing unnecessary and overly burdensome government regulation, or perhaps an opportunity to understand why the government might be perpetrating a rule that would impact our free enterprise system. it requires the s.e.c. to perform cost benefit analysis efore finalizing any major rule. it also prevents the implementation of the rule if the benefits do not outweigh the costs. throughout this bill the american taxpayer will be protected from needless regulations that would impede

economic growth without providing effective consumer protections. in other words, mr. speaker, we are here to ensure that the s.e.c. provides balance with the rules and regulations that are in a major context when it issues these rules on the marketplace. in january of 2011, president obama signed an executive order directing all nonindependent agencies such as the department of energy, the department of education, and others to abide by the same rules that we are providing for today in h.r. 1062. however, because it is an independent agency the s.e.c. is not required to follow the president's rules. the legislation before us today creates parity, an opportunity for congress to work with an agency and other nonindependent

agencies on a better way for them to promulgate the rules that they do and show a balance in the marketplace just like the president asked other government agencies to do. furthermore, this legislation in no way weakens consumer protections or reduces accountability in the financial services industry. to the contrary, this proposal ensures that regulations issued by the s.e.c. are effective and based upon sound policy. consumers and businesses alike will been fit from a reform -- been fit -- benefit from a reform regulatory process. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the rules committee, my friend, mr.

sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore:. the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, here we go again. another day in the house where we are not focused on jobs. we are not focused on healing our ailing economy. where we are not focused on the needs of the american people. yesterday for the 37th time in 2 1/2 years this house passed a bill overturning the affordable health care act. for the 37th time my republican friends decided to take up time on this house floor supporting a meaningless partisan bill to overturn a law that will dramatically improve the health care of millions of americans and is already helping to lower our deficit. perhaps one day they will wake up from their tea party dream and move on to more important priorities. not only have they wasted time debating a bill that won't be

considered in the senate let alone signed into law, they are willfully ignoring the budget process that they were so stridently defending a few months ago. it's been 55 days since the senate passed its budget resolution. yet the republicans refuse to go to conference to finish their work. this is the same republican party that passed a bill that said members of congress cannot be paid if we don't produce a budget. let me repeat, no budget, no pay. yet the republicans refuse to finish the budget. all this flip-flop flopping is giving me whiplash, mr. speaker. and today we are presented with a bill along with a whopping three amendments made in order. so much for an open process. whatever happened to open rules? so let's take a look at today's bill. it's a bill that would require the securities and exchange commission, the s.e.c., to conduct even more extensive cost benefit analyses than it already does when proposing any rule or

issuing interpretive guidance. cut benefit analysis, that seems like a commonsense idea, one has merit and should be considered by agencies. well, mr. speaker, here's where the devil is in the details. the s.e.c. does cost benefit analyses on these rules and regulations. it is already happening. so what's the real purpose of this bill? is there a problem with the way the s.e.c. is handling these cost benefit analyses? mr. speaker, this bill is really about putting more burdens on the s.e.c. as they are attempting to fulfill their mandates under d.o.d.-frank and do their job to protect -- dodd-frank and do their job to protect investors. this bill places additional burdens on s.e.c. to meet these new requirements, and i would like to point out without providing any additional budget resources. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimate that this bill will cost the s.e.c. $23 million over five years.

and will require the hiring of 20 additional staff. this is while sequestration is causing the federal government to shrink and agencies to furlough staff. in fact, right now sequestration is actually preventing the s.e.c. from hiring any more additional staff. the same additional staff that would be needed to implement this bill if it were ever to become law. i can only presume that the authors of this bill are attempting to bog the s.e.c. down with additional unnecessary and redundant mandates to prevent the s.e.c. from doing its job of protecting investors. this bill actually steered the s.e.c.'s work toward minimizing costs to big businesses and investment banks. that's what this does. how is that protecting the individual investor? for the life of me i cannot understand why the republican leadership wants to undermine the efforts of this agency to protect the individual investor. we are coming out of an historic recession, the worst economic

ryecies since the great depression. a big -- crisis since the great depression. a big reason is the recklessness of investment banks and financial institutions. millions of americans lost money they had put into the stock market and entrust it to banks and financial institutions because of these institution's reckless actions. we are talking about college savings, retirement accounts, and other nest eggs. yet the republican leadership would rather take the side of these reckless financial institutions that brought financial and economic ruin to our nation, our communities, and our families that stand up and fight for the individual investor, the little guy. they would rather fight for wall street than stand up for main street. mr. speaker, that's not the right thing to do. we should pass a budget instead. we should pass the van hollen sequestration replacement bill. we should pass a jobs bill. but we should not be wasting our time on a bill that will punish

individual investors in order to protect big banks. mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying bill. urge my republican friends to sometime soon take up some legislation that's going to help put americans back to work and get our economy back on the right track. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i appreciate my friend, the gentleman who brings up many good points about jobs. job creation. the ability for this congress to be able to effectively hear from the american people about the issues and ideas that are -- that they are facing, come to resolution in this body, work with our friends in the senate, and to get legislation to the president of the united states. i think that that should be and

has been what our goal is about. and it should be our goal also to find common ground. what's interesting is that this piece of legislation that we are handling now actually went to the banking committee, financial services committee, as an agreement we more or less thought that would be a suspension item. in other words, a piece of legislation that there was widespread agreement on that it would be good to put it in the rules as one of a group of pieces of legislation. this would be a good idea to have the s.e.c. to accept this as part of what they do when they issue a rule. now what's happened is it's turned into a larger fight as a result of us wanting to simply make sure that the rules that

apply to other federal agencies also apply to independent agencies. we thought we were doing the right thing to come and work together. now, if we want to talk about, and it's fair, i guess, i assume to do that even though we are trying to talk about this rule today for this, if we want to talk about the budget and things that are presently being evolved, then we need to listen to our democratic friends about the budget. they are not happy because we passed in this house an opportunity to have a budget that in the next 10 years would balance. a balanced budget. the gentleman, paul ryan, the chairman of the budget committee, came up to the rules committee and he spoke about how this president, every single year that barack obama is president, with the help of former speaker, nancy pelosi,

nd the democrats, raised spending, put rules and regulations on the american people that is causing the lowest level of job creation that we have had in over 40 years. a trillion dollar deficit every single year. en with this massive tax increase that was a signing bonus for the president that took place in december, we still are going to run $1 trillion deficit. so what my friends, the democrats, said upstairs in the rules committee, what they are for is raising spending another trillion dollars and raising taxes another trillion dollars. mr. speaker, i do understand there's widespread disagreement. there is widespread disagreement when our friends control ,

want to do the exact same thing in their body to this country. raising spending another trillion dollars. raising taxes another trillion dollars. so, they make a good point. why won't we appoint conferees? speaker pelosi back in 2009 took more than two months to do the exact same thing that they want us to do. what is occurring is that our chairman, paul ryan, is working with their chairman on the agreement of how they would go about doing their job of having a conference on the budget. because you see, when you start so far apart of trying to balance the budget, trying to not put more rules and regulations and taxes on the american people to where they

stand a better chance, not only of taking care of their own families and providing for their children to go to college and to be able to pay for it, and to take care of their lifetime needs when they retire, that requires a basic sense of simply agreeing with what people are trying to do versus having the government come and provide a government-run health care system. having the government provide student loans. having the government take care of people endlessly. and so there's two different visions. one of raising taxes $1 trillion, raising spending $1 trillion, which is what the democrats want to do, versus trying to balance our budget, work our way out of problems, grow our economy.

jobs, job creation and investment, that's what we're trying to do and that's what republicans talked about last month. that's why we came forth with a budget when the senate hadn't even done a budget under democrat leadership for four years. that's why we are leaders in washington, republicans are leaders in the house of representatives. we maintain the control. we follow the order and listen to the american people of trying to make their lives better, not grow a government that will be out of control like an attorney general who upon taking the oath of office then decides when and when he does not want to make decisions and whether he recuses himself. or whether you have an i.r.s. that's out of control and in and making

decisions that are politically based. that's why, madam speaker, we need a government that's smaller, more efficient and does not have time or the inclination to become all things to all people and to tell the american people what they will do and control our lives. that's why we're here today. mr. speaker, i couldn't be happier than to say and today we're on the floor trying to talk about what we thought was an idea that would be accepted by every single person in this body of a great idea. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm a little bit confused. the gentleman from texas says he wants a small government, yet the bill he's proposing we discuss on the floor actually will cost the american taxpayers more. c.b.o. says we need an additional $23 million for this additional bureaucracy that the gentleman has embraced.

we need to hire 23 new plotes, according to c.b.o., to -- employees, according to c.b.o., to meet these new requirements. if you want a smaller government, here we are expanding government. they're expanding government in a way that will hurt the little guy and protect wall street, which is to be expected. just one thing i want to say to make clear, my colleagues, in case anybody needs -- is a little bit confused on the issue of the process. the way the process is supposed to work when it comes to the budget, we pass a budget in the house, senate passes a budget in the budget. then you go to conference and you work out a difference. in congress, you don't get everything you want and we don't get everything we want, especially when it's a divided government as it is right now. compromise is something that has to take place. so i would just take issue with the gentleman when he says the republicans are leaders. republicans aren't leaders. republicans are obstructionists. you're holding everything up. we're doing meaningless sound

bite press release legislation day in and day out, not helping put one more person back to work, not alleviating any of the difficulties that the middle class are dealing with right now. my friends are obstructing everything. they're holding things up. they're delaying the economic recovery. it is unconscionable that we are on the floor doing things that are going nowhere and that are helping no one. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, the ranking member of the committee on financial services, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much . mr. mcgovern, i thank you so very much for aptly describing what is happening on the floor today relative to the s.e.c. , republicans ge have introduced dozens upon dozens of bills to undermine repeal or otherwise dismantle

dodd-frank. and a prime example of that is what they're doing on this whole issue of cost-benefit analysis. we're going to have on the floor today a bill that is going to pile more requirements on top of the s.e.c. for economic analysis. we are going to have a bill that whose real aim is to bog down the s.e.c. so that they won't be able to do their work, so they won't be able to do their rulemaking, so they won't be able to protect investors. this is absolutely unconscionable. i can understand that there's a lot of disagreement with dodd-frank. i can understand that there are those on the opposite side of the aisle who are concerned about protecting the markets and not necessarily the investors, but to come up with the kind of obstruction that we're seeing, not only legislatively, but going so far as to team up with their

friends and go into court as they have done on proxy access and get a ruling against proxy access so that they can basically have this bill come to the floor today where they put requirement on top of requirement costing more money, as mr. mcgovern has said, costing more time and diverting the attention away from the work that the s.e.c. should be doing. i am particularly concerned about the jobs act, the jobs bill. yes, on the jobs bill we have a bipartisan effort, and many democrats joined up with republicans on this bill even though there was some concerns about it so that we can try and see if we can use a new approach to creating jobs, but that's going to get delayed because now they're attacking the s.e.c. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very

much, mr. speaker. you know, i think it's very interesting that they're trying to argue that we're trying to get in the way of the s.e.c., nd yet the s.e.c. in their rules and regulations have put an impact of small business of . .75 trillion mr. speaker, what we're trying to do is apply the same principles and ideas that president obama had to an agency that spends their life , ng rules and regulations and to say that doing their job correctly with a balance is something that we shouldn't require them to do is a silly argument. that's like saying that epublicans and sequestration

and when it was a president obama idea. it is the president's idea. sequestration, he's the one that proposed it. we're the ones that simply took him up on his idea. they're arguing with themselves about the things which are good. again, the president initiated sequestration. we worked with the president as a backstop, there we are. the president issues this same , asking agencies that they include cost-benefit analysis but don't apply it later to someone who spends their life doing rules and regulations. mr. speaker, it's an amazing world that we live in. we thought the chairman of the financial services committee, jeb hensarling, after testimony

, in meetings, in feedback thought the s.e.c. actually agreed with this. we actually put it in something that they shoulding doing on a regular basis. mr. speaker, i have a gentleman on the committee who spent time and heard the testimony and understands that this should be a piece of legislation that we all agree with, because it's common sense. i'd like to yield to the gentleman from north carolina, member of the financial services, six minutes to the gentleman, mr. mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for six minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. chair. this debate has actually -- is actually really bizarre. the president asked for a cost-benefit analysis for independent regulatory agencies in an executive order. it's absolutely bizarre because the chairman of the s.e.c., then mary schapiro, committed in writing to congressman

garrett and i and congressman issa, committed in writing to a cost-benefit analysis. chairman schapiro even in 2011 agreed to a retrospective review of offering and reporting requirements and posting this on a, quote, webpage, seeking input. so the complaints on the other side of the aisle seem absolutely bizarre because we have commitments. what we're trying to do is codify in law what was a process, a former chairman of the s.e.c. committed to. we want to make sure this is not ad hoc, that is goes forward, that it's in the statute and that it's clear. why are we doing this? well, we heard from the other side of the aisle we need to focus on investor protection. there's another part of the s.e.c. which is supposed to foster capital formation.

now, what is capital formation? capital formation is the capacity, the ability of a business to get the moneys they need to grow and employ more people and to offer more products. r more sees to help grow and get this economy moving. i thought that's what we are all about? we hear speech after speech from the president that's what he's all about but we hear from the other side of the aisle that they don't like this approach because they're not focused on that which is unfortunate. the reason why we're putting this in statute is that the s.e.c. too often just puts rules into place without consideration of the costs, and when they do that, their process has never been formalized until the last two years of actually weighing both the costs and benefits of a rule. they simply say they're benefits.

well, we all know, and i hope the other side of the aisle would admit that there is a cost to regulation. now, i would hope they would admit that. now, i'll give you an example. regulation a, which is the ability of small businesses to get capital from the public markets. egulation a in 1998, you had 57 offerings through regulation a. 57 businesses getting money from outside investors. this is for the smaller sized businesses. 2001, you only had one take advantage of this regulation a, to get moneys for their small and medium-sized businesses. well, what happened? the market changed, but the s.e.c., because they were not obligated to, did not review

their rules. they did not update their rules. they did not think about the cost of cutting off capital to small businesses that absolutely desperately need this, mainly because the change of the economy and the impact of the awful dodd-frank act that imposed enormous cost burdens on banks and we have less bank lending so businesses need another opportunity to get money. so what we're putting in place is a five-year review of those rules so the s.e.c. is supposed to weigh both the cost and benefit of these regulations and we can get this economy moving again and capital flowing again. that's what it's all about. that's not a great deal of fuss. but we have folks on the other side of the aisle that simply want to make a fuss about that, which is unfortunate. we need to be focused on capital formation. we need to be focused on making sure we foster regulations and review regulations so we can get this economy moving again.

that's what this is all about. i would say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle who raised the question of the cost of this, what this cost comes from is what the s.e.c. says, right, that it's going to cost us additional money to review these regulations, implicitly saying they have regulations on the books that they don't review, that they don't look back on a regular basis and see if they actually fit the modern marketplace. and we have rules on the books -- that have been on the books for over 80 years. i think it's high time we force the s.e.c. to do something that is responsible, that is right and that even this president has called for and i hope the folks on the other side of the aisle would join us in making sure we have this bill pass on an unanimous basis. with that i'd also encourage us to pass this rule. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, talk about the notion that bill comes to the floor that c.b.o., the nonpartisan congressional budget office says will cost $23 billion, there will be a need for additional employees and there's nothing in this bill that will cover those costs and on top of that my friends who, by the way, who embrace sequestration. it's your -- that's your plan, i would say to my colleague from texas. that's not the president's plan. it was the members of this house led by the majority that voted for it. and everybody who doesn't like it, guess what, you're in charge. fix it. bring something to the floor and fix it. mr. van hollen has an alternative. you won't let us bring it to the floor. don't complain about something that you supported for and you voted for and now you don't want to fix. just one other thing. i want to make it clear to my colleagues. this is not about protecting small businesses. this is about protecting wall street, big banks, being

financial institutions. i get it, you know. that's nothing new coming from the other side of the aisle, but that's what this is about. at this point, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the rules committee, ms. slaughter. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york investigate for five minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding he me the time. with today's legislation the majority is putting the interest of wall street once again before the welfare of the american people. unfortunately the majority's desire to give a helping hand to wall street is nothing new. in addition to today's legislation, the minority -- majority's repeatedly provided favors to a shadowing arm of wall street known as political intelligence industry. over the last few weeks "the new york times," "washington post," and the "wall street journal" have all reported on a surge in stock prices caused by operators in political intelligence industry. on april 1, the political

intelligence consultant sent an email to some investors announcing a pending change in government policy that would benefit health insurance companies. shortly after that email was sent, actually 18 minutes before the stock market closed that day, stocks in three major health insurance companies skyrocketed by hold on, $660 million. in 18 minutes before the close of trading that day. three health industries got investments of $660 million. and that occurred 30 minutes before the government announced its decision. earlier this week we learned that the political intelligence consultant sent a subsequent email boasting to his lobbiest friend, did you see what i did to the stock market in the final 30 minutes of trading? i still want to buy you a drink, end quote.

now, this is exactly the kind of questionable case that i have been fighting for seven years, but my point this morning is the s.e.c. has launched an investigation into this matter. there would be no cost benefit whatever to have the s.e.c. looking into this bill and the stock market that day because of political intelligence so they can look back over ancient laws. there would be no cost benefit having the s.e.c. so tied up with that that they cannot regulate that which they are supposed to regulate and had they done a better job. the recent financial disat ter that cost -- disaster that cost us anfall lot and would have been a great benefit to stop was not caught in time. the political intelligence industry walks the halls of congress every day looking to profit from the public trust. however, there are no

regulations to adhere to any ethical standard of behavior. much before i produced the stock act in 2006, there was suspicious wall street trades to ring immediately prior the senate majority leader announcing an important vote on the legislation. it soon became apparent that nonpublic information regarding legislation had been used to enrich stockholders and the political intelligence industry was at the heart of the case. we had a lonely battle those of us, seven of us, for three terms that co-sponsored the bill. but in 2011, a television program called "60 minutes" did an expose on insider trading by had ss and overnight, we 286 co-sponsors in the house, including 99 republican co-sponsors. as the bill gained popularity i was promised a markup in the financial services committee, ta

pulled out from under the chair. in the senate senator grassley joined our cause and when senator lieberman took it out of the senate bill, senator grassley had an amendment that passed the senate putting political intelligence back into the stock act. however it still had to come back to the house. and miraculously political intelligence was removed once more to benefit wall street, was put on suspension calendar, completely unamendable. i could do nothing about it. it's very painful for me, at least i have been paying attention here, to what i have seen happening since. so i promise you that we will come back again with it, but as i said i'm pleased that the s.e.c. is investigating this most recent case. two days ago i tried to deliver an amendment on this particular bill to see if we could bring political intelligence back, and

helping the s.e.c. build insider trading investigations, but the majority in the rules committee rejected my amendment and we go on today as usual without it. we also go on today with a bill that's never going to go in the senate. as i pointed out yesterday on the 38th try to repeal medicare -- health care bill, that cost us $54 million on that particular bill alone, every time that we have tried to repeal it. $54 billion has been spent to try to repeal medicare. may i have 30 seconds more? mr. mcgovern: yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. slaughter: the cbs said it would cost -- c.b.o. said it would cost $25 million in the house, how many millions of dollars were spent since this bill started, as i said, one house bill we know the senate will never take up, will never become law, and if it should, the president tells us that he will veto them.

over and over and over again. i could be mistaken with one or two things, but to my recollection, best of my recollection, the only thing we have done here this term that actually got some action in both houses as when we changed the f.a.a. under sequestration. and i join my friend, mr. mcgovern, to say what we should have done is do away with sequestration. maybe those who wanted to vote against the health care bill might have had some joy with sequestration and letting patients get cancer treatment. talk about cost benefit? that's a benefit. if we want to work about how much it costs and what we get from it, nothing could prevent better than lift sequestration. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. in order to balance out the time i'm going to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield

two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from massachusetts. i got to say listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle they give revisionist history. they want us all to somehow forget how the recession began and on whose watch. it began under george w. bush. not barack obama. it ended under barack obama. my friends from texas talks about the job loss. that was on george w. bush's watch when we were almost losing 700,000 jobs a month. on average this year we have been creating 208,000 jobs a month, and it would be more but for the republican gutting of public sector investment that's already cost us 600,000 jobs and shaved a full point off unemployment. in other words, unemployment would be one point lower than it is today but for their efforts. they want you to forget the wall street meltdown that required

tarp on their watch, on their watch. and now they decry dodd-frank as if it caused the meltdown. hat it is this boot on the jugular on the poor banking community and investment community on wall street which if removed would unleash activity. the consumer and investor not so much. let's call this bill what it is, a naked attempt to undermine the investor and consumer protections of dodd-frank and tilt the table once again in the favor of wall street at the direct expense of main street investors. this bill would render what should be the s.e.c.'s primary focus investor protection, an ephemeral objective at best. why else would this bill codify some of the best practices of the executive order, but then conveniently omit any assessment of the benefits of investment

protection. they want you to believe the narrative that regulation only involves costs. but regulation also includes benefits to protect investors, to protect homeowners, to protect senior citizens. that's why aarp has expressed concern about this bill. that's why we should defeat the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: what we are trying to do is put in -- it in writing exactly what the gentleman talked about. why are they promulgating the rule? what effects would their rule have? do make sensethey and in a balanced way? that's what we are trying to do here today. makes sense to me. reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let

me just say what i think is going on here basically my republican friends are trying to xpand the bureaucracy. potentially charge american taxpayers $23 million. they are not going to provide the money. so they are going to bog down an agency that's designed to protect investors and consumers. that's the game here. this is about protecting big banks and wall street and financial institutions. it's the same old, same old. this is nothing new for those who have been following the agenda of the house republicans. so, mr. speaker, i'm going to urge we defeat the previous question. if we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.res. 174, representative chris van hollen's resolution telling the speaker to appoint conferees to negotiate a compromised budget agreement with the senate. it has been 55 days since the senate passed a budget. my republican friends made a big

deal about the fact that we shouldn't be paid until the senate has a budget. house passed a budget. senate passed a budget. but my republican friends won't go to conference because they don't believe in compromise. to discuss the importance of the stymied budget negotiations with the senate, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from massachusetts. there's been a lot of talk on the floor this morning about the sequester and the negative impact it's having on the economy. i would remind my colleagues as my friend from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern did, that on four occasions the house democrats have tried to bring to this floor for a vote a bill that would replace the sequester and the disruption -- end the disruption and the job loss that the congressional budget office says is coming with the sequester. and this morning we are going to ask this house to take a simple

vote on another resolution, and i'm going to read it because it's really simple, it says, resolved that it is the sense of the house of representatives that the speaker should follow regular house procedure and immediately request a conference and appoint conferees to negotiate a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution agreement with the united states senate. now, we all stood on this floor and heard our republican colleagues criticize the united states senate for three years because they did not have a budget. guess what? the united states senate passed a budget more than 53 days ago, but now what's happened is the speaker of this house has refused to go to conference to negotiate a final budget. we heard for weeks and weeks the mantra, no budget, no pay. apparently that was a meaningless cry because as of right now there is no federal

budget, and members of the house and senate are still getting paid. did you mean it? or did you not mean it? now, we heard complaints about how the president's budget was late this year. guess what, mr. speaker? we are now way overdue in getting a resolution out of conference committee. if you look at the statute, the law, on the budget, it says the house and senate are supposed to have completed conference action by april 15. we are way overdue, and the only reason we are overdue is because this house and the speaker of this house refuses to point conferees. now, the senate democrats on eight occasions, mr. speaker, have asked for unanimous consent in the senate to go to conference, and they have been blocked over there. it's getting to be a little embarrassing to some of the republican senators, i just want to show you a quote from senator

mccain just the other day, quoting senator mccain, i think it's insane for republicans, who complained for four years about harry reid not having a budget, and now we're not going to agree to conferees. that is beyond comprehension for me. unquote, senator mccain. guess what, mr. speaker? this is getting to be beyond comprehension to the american people. . saying one thing and doing another. here is another republican senator. senator boozman, i think we need to go to conference. senator wicker, i would say by the end of next week, we probably should be ready to go to conference. and on and on. you would think our house republican colleagues would begin to feel a little bit sense of that embarrassment as well given the fact they called for years to get a budget done and now are standing in the way of getting that exact budget

done. in fact, the speaker of this house on multiple occasions have said we should go to conference on the budget, that that's how we resolve things in the regular order. here's what the speaker said on "meet the press," back in march when we were all putting together our budgets. the senate was putting together a budget. the house was putting together the budget, here's what the speaker said. it's time for us to get back to regular order here in congress. when the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill and if we disagree we go to conference to resolve those differences. and the speaker said this on multiple occasions. so i just want to read again from the resolution i'm asking this house to vote on this morning. it says simply, resolved, that it's the sense of the house that the speaker should follow regular house procedure and appoint the conferees that he

hold the country on national television he -- told the country on national television he would do in order we pass a federal budget. not just a house budget, senate budget. those things are meaningless by themselves. you got to get a federal budget. so it turns out that this no budget, no pay thing was really just a kind of wink-wink knowing, hey, the house can pass a budget, senate can pass a budget but it doesn't actually get the job done. so mr. speaker, i ask, let us have a vote to appoint conferees to get on with the nation's business. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. you know, we turned this debate into some really commonsense ideas, and that is that we ought to have a budget which is what republicans have said for years.

i have no doubt in my mind that when chairman ryan, chairman paul ryan of the house budget committee, when he's ready, when he feels like they have worked out an understanding with the chairman -- mr. van hollen: would the gentleman yield on that point? mr. sessions: i would yield. mr. van hollen: you mentioned chairman ryan, and patty murray. senator murray is one of the people just the other day on the senate floor asking for unanimous consent to go to conference, because she and chairman ryan are not in the process of trying to negotiate behind closed doors. we need to do this in the light of day, and she's asked, along with senator reid, now eight times to go to conference. so why delay going to conference? mr. sessions: well, look, i don't deal with senator patty murray very much. i bet you she has an opportunity to call paul ryan if that's what she wants. mr. van hollen: well, she has

and she's said, mr. speaker, she wants to go to conference right away. and that's why we're waiting for the speaker and the house to go to conference. mr. sessions: and when paul ryan and patty murray works out the differences that that can happen. mr. van hollen: i don't understand. you want them to work out a budget behind closed doors? mr. sessions: you know what, i would remind the gentleman, i'm not involved in those conversations, and i do know that this is part of your job as the ranking member. and i respect that and i would be in favor of it because, you see, i, too, want us to have more of a unified budget, a clear understanding, an opportunity for us to understand what we're trying to do. and so regaining my time, i would say to the gentleman and to this body, i have every reason to believe that there can be opportunities for our two bodies to work together.

last point, listen, this no budget, no pay, it worked. it worked, mr. speaker. it was the law. the president actually produced a budget. the house produced a budget. and the senate produced a budget which they have not done for four years. so for four years you didn't hear our friends screaming and yelling about what the senate should do until a good idea took place and that is in essence no work, no budget, no pay. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? because we don't have a budget right now. mr. sessions: you know, we didn't for four years either. we have not had a budget for four years. it is actually not required by law. we operated as two bodies, us, we in the house trying to move forward with a budget that we

did pass and the senate acting like it wasn't important. so, look, i completely agree with the gentleman from maryland. i think we should do it. that's why republicans came up with the process of no budget, no pay. i think we will see very quickly an opportunity for the ideas around this issue to materialize. we'll find out what the differences are, maybe why we haven't done it. that's not what this bill is about today. i'll have the conversations. i'll be able to speak and i tell you, the gentleman, mr. ryan, because i know him well, the gentleman from maryland, should have a chance to keep doing their work because they believe it's part of the process. so i offer nothing but accolades to the gentleman, the young gentleman who is the ranking member of the budget committee, and he knows that.

he knows what kind of a person i am. i would not say it if i didn't believe it. but i did not come prepared today on this bill, because it's not what it's germane about. i will respond to him, as a member of house republican leadership, i will tell you that our speaker is interested in moving this body through. the gentleman from ohio understands how important regular order is, how important doing budgets is, how making share that the american people have a chance to know what we're doing. i mean, we actually read bills before we pass them, mr. speaker. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that this ouse goes to conference. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield for that request? the gentleman does not yield. mr. mcgovern: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. under the rules of the house, would it be possible if the

gentleman yields for that request we could go to onference? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas would have to yield for that. the gentleman from texas did not yield. mr. mcgovern: i mean, i think that -- i think i'd yield to the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend. i thank my friend of the rules committee as well, but the gentleman, the chairman of the rules committee said the process worked, no budget, no pay worked. we don't have a budget right now, and in fact we are now out of compliance with our own law which says that the conference committee should report the budget by april 15. i think we can check our calendars. we know it's way overdue. and the only thing that's stopping us from going to conference right now is the speaker has refused to move forward on this. as i indicated, eight times in the senate the senate majority

leader and patty murray, senator murray, the chairman of the senate budget, have asked to go to conference. they asked unanimous consent to go to conference so we can get on with this right now, as mr. mcgovern suggested, if our republican colleagues would allow us to offer a motion to go to conference by unanimous consent. mr. mcgovern: reclaiming my time. mr. speaker, may i inquire of the gentleman from texas how many more speakers he has? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you for the gentleman for asking. i don't have any additional speakers at this time. mr. mcgovern: i will close, mr. speaker. again, i think what we just witnessed kind of says it all. my republican friends really do not have any intention of going to conference. they do not want to compromise. i think they were hoping maybe the senate wouldn't come up with a budget and they could have a talking point or press release. the senate did come up with a budget and we have a budget here in the house that i strongly disagree with. i think it ruins our economy.

but nonetheless, that's what the majority in this house voted for. ought to go to conference. ought to be able to figure this out. so, mr. speaker, i want to ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment that i will offer that we defeat the previous question. i want to insert the text of the amendment to the rule in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be part of the record. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me just say in closing, you know, another day and another meaningless piece of legislation that is going nowhere. a piece of legislation quite frankly that is geared toward helping big banks and big financial institutions at the expense of investors and small businesses. this is a bill that again i think may make a nice press release for people who want to do big fundraisers. we are not helping the american people. we still have sequestration in place. there are people being furloughed. there are businesses that are

losing contracts. there are people in the public and private sector who are being laid off as a result of this, and this, by the way, sequestration is what my republican friends embraced and voted for, and voted for. and so when anyone comes to the floor and says, we don't really like it, i remind them as much as i hate to admit this, the republicans are in charge of the house. they can bring a remedy to the floor anytime they want to. mr. van hollen has offered on many, many occasions an alternative to get us out of sequestration. but each time he offers it, the republican majority says, no, you don't even have the right to bring it to the floor. you can't even debate it on the nor. that's the answer that we're getting. it's totally unacceptable. so, again, mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so we can get mr. van hollen's resolution made in order so that we can go to conference and do something meaningful. i would also urge a rejection of this bill.

you know, i have to tell you, mr. speaker, i think the american people are getting sick and tired of the majority in this house essentially rooting for this economy's demise so they can gain -- so they can gain some political advantage. i think people are getting tired of it. they're hoping we can come together in the spirit of compromise and get some things done, help put people back to work, help the average working family, help the middle class, help lift those in poverty out of poverty. hoping we will do something serious and meaningful that will make a difference in their lives. we're not doing that. we're not doing that. it's a grave disappointment, i think, to people all over this country, democrats, republicans, independents alike. so, again, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. i urge a no vote on the rule and the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. and i'm delighted to be on the

floor today as we approach this issue about the securities and exchange commission, the s.e.c. , simply that we would codify in the law an understanding they hey would need to as have their large -- as they have a task of addressing large rules and regulations that they have, not every rule and regulation, of putting a cost-benefit analysis in their process. it makes sense. i find it very amazing that our colleagues have taken this to the level that they have of trying to say that we're doing this to be for big banks and against the american people or consumers. that is a far-fetched idea. it is about the rules and regulations that they will talk about it just like government agencies would be required. mr. speaker, in larger sense, here's why we're here today.

here's why republicans are doing what we're doing with the budget, with a jobs bill that was passed by this body, why we are frying to talk about what we would -- trying to talk about what we would do with sequestration, the president's idea. this house has passed numerous times information, our ideas, giving the president the ideas about how we think sequestration should work. a debt limit. we are facing with another debt limit vote here in our future. two weeks ago, the house talked about how that should be handled. that bill was completely mischaracterized, but the reason why we're here is because under barack obama and democrats, our country is having a trillion-dollar deficit every year, and there is not one year in the future

that they can point to where we would balance our budget even for one year. . if you cannot balance your budget, if you cannot control yourself, your spending habits, your appetite to grow government, then it means we are on a trajectory -- look at this, mr. speaker. this is history. this is what lies ahead. this is the demise for our children of america being a great nation. this is why republicans are down here. this is our past. this is our future. ideas cans are here with about balance, structure, working together. e s.e.c. or other agencies working together to the benefit of growing jobs, balance, things

that make sense, instead of a government that's out of control with an i.r.s., with a political agenda, with the department of justice using their powers that they were invested in with the constitution and the bill of rights' understanding of a balance. this reminds me of a prior administration under richard nixon. when he used the i.r.s. and the department of justice to punish his enemies, people he disagreed with, mr. speaker, we are here on a broad range of ideas evidently today that when i woke up i thought it was just about a balanced rule for the s.e.c. for them to apply in their rules and regulations a chance to say cost benefit analysis so that

those that they provide regulations for would understand. and the s.e.c. would understand for their some 175 lawyers and 50 economists who look at the marketplace, let's balance this out. that's what i thought we were here for. instead i learned today we are here to talk about the budget. we are here to talk about sequestration. we are here to talk about a lot embody which all themselves in our country is in trouble. we are in trouble because the president of the united states is for a bigger activist government. for a health care bill that will cause us to lose two million more jobs and will keep small business smaller.

it will harm our future. and so republicans are here simply with common sense and balance today just to talk about the s.e.c. i welcome the chance for my colleagues as they have done today to come to the floor. the gentleman, mr. van hollen, is one of my closest friends on the hill, a man who i work with on a regular basis, and i respect him. his ideas related to moving forward with a conference should be answered, and i anticipate will. i simply became unprepared for that answer today. mr. speaker, as always, i will finish where i started to say republicans are trying to provide leadership. our great speaker, john boehner, does understand regular order and it is important to read bills before you pass them. we believe in coming to the

floor and talking about ideas before problems occur. and that's what we have been doing. that's what the rules committee is about and legislation that we have handled since january has been all about trying to work together to let the american people know we get it, we are going to balance what we do with their needs and desires to make sure that this country remains strong and is ready for its future. because, mr. speaker, i, like you, have children who need our country to be prepared for the future. i yield back my time. mr. speaker, what i would do is i would ask my colleagues to vote yes on the rule. yes on the underlying rule and legislation. i yield back the balance of my time, and i move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time has expired. the question is on ordering the previous question. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those in favor of the request for ordering the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 221. the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. 222, the nays are 181. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this this is a five-minute vote. -- this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 223. the nays are 180. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? a mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material for the record on h.r. 1062, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act of 2013. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 216 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1062. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the thousands is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1062 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to improve the consideration by the securities and exchange commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, the committee is not in order. he chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. the chair would ask all staff to please take their conversations from the floor of the house.

the chair would ask all members to please take their seats and all members and staff to please take their conversations from he floor of the house. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to urge the adoption of h.r. 1062. this is a bill that technically is about something called cost benefit analysis. i know to some that sounds a little bit like ph.d. economics, but, mr. chairman, what it's really about is kitchen table economics. when i go home to the fifth district of texas, when i hear

from my constituents that they are insecure in their jobs, those who are lucky enough to have them, we know that millions of our fellow citizens are unemployed, underemployed and those who are fortunate enough to have jobs wonder will they have them tomorrow. we know again, that we are in the great recession, the nonrecovery recovery, and so the impact of the regulations that are promulgated in washington, d.c., has a huge impact on kitchen table economics, on whether or not our constituents are going to be able to put gas in the car, to take their children to school. whether or not they are going to be able to help an elderly parent with their medical bills. . how are they going to put groceries on the table? it is incumbent upon us, mr. chairman, to make sure that the rule making authority that this body helps grant the executive

branch at least has to take into account how their rule making impacts hardworking american citizens and those who wish to work hard. and so this is a very, very simple bill, mr. chairman. it simply says that the securities and exchange ommission has to adopt cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the advertised benefits of one of their rules is actually measured against the actual cost of what they're doing. this is vitally important, mr. chairman, as you well know. this body had a vote yet -- yesterday to repeal the affordable care act or dare i say the not so affordable care act and i'm curious what would have happened had congress had the benefit of the cost of this ll vote.

what would have happened had we known that the congressional budget office said that we will have 800,000, almost 1 million fewer -- a million fewer jobs because of obamacare? you know, when we took that vote, mr. chairman, all we had were the advertised benefits. but how come we didn't have the congressional budget office report of the cost? that's just one example. almost a million fewer jobs because nobody bothered to conduct cost-benefit analysis. it wasn't required at the time. now, the first claims that we ought to have this. he issued an executive order, number 13563, saying government agencies ought to do it, but then as an administration issues a veto threat on this bill. i find that kind of interesting. so, the president says he wants

to do it, he's just not actually going to do it. the s.e.c. mission, among other things, is to ensure that we help form capital. you cannot have the benefits of capitalism, the free enterprise system, without capital. capital for nation. so it's necessary for -- to ensure that we look at the cost of what we're doing and apparently the s.e.c. historically, again, notwithstanding that they claim they're going to do it, most recently we've had a unanimous decision of the d.c. court, d.c. circuit court of appeals, unanimous decision and the proxy access case that the s.e.c. failed and failed miserably at ensuring cost-benefit analysis, also known as kitchen table economics. how are the cost of their rule making going to impact

hardworking americans? it's time to remedy this, mr. chairman, our constituents demand it. again, i urge the adoption of h.r. 1062 and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: i rise to strongly oppose h.r. 1062. this bill places significant additional requirements for economic analysis by the securities and exchange commission. effectively bringing any effort at rule making to a standstill. let's be clear. the purpose of this legislation -- legislative effort is to stop implementation of the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act dead in its tracks. after losing in congress, the fight against the dodd-frank act moved to the courts. beginning with overturning the

proxy access rules this they adopted under -- rules they adopted under authority by that act. although i agree fully with the s.e.c.'s position, they went with their friends to court and the court found that the s.e.c. did not meet its already significant requirement to conduct an economic analysis. after the proxy access case was overturned, the s.e.c. adopted improved standards for conducting cost-benefit analysis. these procedures were cited by the g.a.o. just last december as having all of the elements of good regulatory analysis. basically what the g.a.o. is saying, we took a look, we studied and they do a good job. nonetheless the bill before us today adds even more requirements. tying up the s.e.c. resources and putting it at even greater risk of litigation for every rule. despite the assurances of my

republican colleagues that they're only applying the terms of an executive order to the s.e.c., that executive order explicitly protects agencies from lawsuits based on their economic annal sills. h.r. 1062 -- analysis. h.r. 1062 has no such protection for the s.e.c. the commission is undertaking a valiant effort to finish the dodd-frank and jobs act rules even in the face of attempts by the majority to restrict their funding. as the s.e.c. attempts to balance capital formation with the need to protect investors, this bill weights the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors. in fact, the words investor protection do not appear anywhere in this bill. even without this bill, we can count on industry lobbyists to sue the s.e.c. any time it sees a weakness in the justification , supporting a rule as they

have in several other cases currently before the courts. and this bill does not apply only to new rules. this is extraordinary, and i want to say this so everybody understands. this bill would require the commission to review every rule making ever issued, even those that have protected our securities markets since the great depression. one year after the adoption of this bill and then again every five years thereafter. as a result, the commission will be forced to divert resources away from other key areas such as enforcement. this comes at a time when house republicans want to hold the s.e.c. funding flat, despite the s.e.c.'s new responsibilities. the increase in the number of participants overseas and the growth of complexity and the size of u.s. securities markets . it is ironic that as house

republicans push this bill forward they are also calling for the s.e.c. to speed up its efforts on jobs act rules. this bill makes it impossible for the s.e.c. to meet the very deadline we adopted just two days ago when we passed h.r. 701. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 1062 and i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hensarling: just to say that, number one, in listening to my colleague, the ranking member, i'm just curious about this concern about litigation burdens. we certainly didn't see it as she and many of her colleagues backed the proxy access rule and how many have refused to support medical liability reform. so i don't understand why the

litigation burden isn't -- concern is not there. in addition, i noticed that the s.e.c. has sought comment in the past on rule making to ensure that there is a retrospective look back, because markets change. at this time, mr. chairman, i would like to yield five minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee on capital markets and g.s.e.'s of the financial services committee, the author of the legislation, mr. garrett of new jersey, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. garrett garrett i thank the gentleman and rise -- mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman and rise in support of this. at a time when new regulation after new regulation is being proposed by this administration, it is critical that we restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure that our nation's small businesses do not continue to drowned drown in a sea of red tape -- drown in a sea of red tape. this subjects the s.e.c. to more robust versions of the president's own order which

requires an out-- and outlines an enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirement as well as requires a review of the existing regulations. the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act will do what? it will enhance the s.e.c.'s existing economic analysis requirements, requiring the commission to first newly identify the nature of the problem that would be creased, before issuing any -- dreesed, before issuing new -- addressed, before issuing any new regulations. recent court decisions have vacated or remanded several of these and pointed out the deficiencies in the commission's use of cost-benefit analysis. for example, recently the f.c.c. inspector general issued a report that expressed several concerns about the quality of their annal sills. it found that none of the rule making examined attempted to quantify either benefits or costs other than informational collection costs. this bill will ensure that the benefits of any rule making

outweigh the cost and that both new and existing regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. the legislation will also require the f.c.c. to assess the cost and benefits to available alternatives, including the alternative, not regulating at all, and to prchhe approach that gives us the best benefits. under the bill the f.c.c. shall evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent, incompatible or duplicative of other federal regulations as well. so, because some rule making has been politicized in the past, the bill then requires that this cost-benefit analysis of which i talked about will be performed by who? the commission's chief economist. so these are commonsense reforms. they are appropriate, especially given the fact that the commission continues to struggle with this issue. for instance, as already pointed out, in the recent unanimous decision of d.c. circuit court of appeals which vacated the commission's proxy access rule, the court stated, quote, the commission acted

arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed once again to adequately assess the economic benefits of a new rule and acted inconsistently and opportunistically. so the bill also includes, besides all this, a section that will provide a clearer postimplementation assessment of new regulations. so that postimplementation cost-benefit analysis can also be done. in addition to the preimplementation. this will be able to better inform the true impact of the mainly rules once they're in place. now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say these new requirements will be too costly and will open the s.e.c. to a flood of additional lawsuits. no, no, no. this could be further from the truth. see, by having these robust standards, the rules will be drafted so that, -- so well, that they will be so thoroughly done, that they will not be struck down by the courts and will not have to wade through additional time and money defending them in court and

then redrafting the rules like the proxy access rule. in the end, this is a commonsense, pragmatic approach to our rule making process that should have been in place all along. and with our economy struggling now, with unemployment above 7.5%, we need to ensure that we're making it easier, not harder, for businesses to begin hiring again. clearly, mr. chairman, a stronger commig commitment to economic annal -- a stronger commitment to economic analysis by the s.e.c. is essential to assure reasonable rules that do not unduly burden registered companies or negatively impact job creation. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from new york for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. >> i strongly oppose this bill because i believe it would in effect cripple the s.e.c. just as it undertakes the immense

task of implementing the essential dodd-frank reform. mrs. maloney: may i remind my colleagues that this country lost $12 trillion according to some estimates, and it happened in part because regulators like the s.e.c. were ill-equipped, underfunded and did too little too slowly. the republican bill comes in the guise of requiring the s.e.c. to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of regulations. but it is really a prescription of paralysis of the s.e.c.'s ability to protect our investors and our markets. there is already a multilayered and highly effective cost-benefit analysis built into the s.e.c. rule making process. just look at the recent d.c. circuit case where the court overturned an s.e.c. proxy access rule and sent a message back to the s.e.c. reminding

them of all the cost-benefit analysis that they are required to do now byaw. and they stated they wl vacate any rule if this is not done. already there is analysis required under the paperwork reduction act, the congressional review act and the regulatory flexibility act and just for the s.e.c. alone, in 1996 we passed the national securities market improvement act, requiring a cost-benefit analysis. what is before us today? a hurdle, let's do more, let's request them to go back to 1933. review every rule. so they cannot do their important work of protecting the american taxpayer and our economy of derivatives fraud,

other fraud, and other abuses to investors. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i'm just warming up. i think my colleagues have a lot to say. it is a prescription -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i urge a no vote. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds to say to my friend from new york, if this regime is so effective, why was there a unanimous decision of the d.c. circuit court of appeals to say it was ineffective? and if it's already on the books, then the worst thing we have done is we are being repetitive. i don't think that's a great sin. mrs. maloney: will the gentleman yield? mr. hen saling: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, the vice chairman of the capital markets subcommittee, mr. hurt. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his leadership on this issue. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong support of the bill

that's being offered by mr. garrett. this is a bill that len sure that s.e.c. will a -- that will ensure that s.e.c. will abide by cost benefit analysis requirements. all agencies but especially the s.e.c. affect the efficiency and success of our main street businesses across virginia's fifth disacross this country. the s.e.c. primarily exists to protect investors, maintain fair and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. this is a critical component of our small business' ability to access the capital they need to grow jobs. if access to capital continues to be constrained by overly burdensome regulations, we will not see the economic growth in the jobs we need in my district and across the united states. while it is critical the s.e.c. be able to promulgate certain rules to implement congressional legislation, it is also critical that congress clearly set forth its legislative prerogatives. as members of congress, we must ensure that the rules that the

s.e.c. adopts are with good purpose and they are not unduly adding more you are burdens on hardworking americans at a time when our economy is struggling. indeed i believe that all federal agencies should be held accountable by the congress to ensure that the cost of the rules they promulgate will not be greater than the benefit of those to the american people. congressional oversight is our constitutional responsibility and i'm proud to support this legislation to ensure that excessive federal regulations are not unnecessarily hindering job creation at a time when the people across virginia's fifth district need jobs the most. i urge passage of this good bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield to the gentlelady from which is wirks representative gwen moore, two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: i thank the gentlelady. let me say that 2013 study estimated that the financial crisis cost the u.s. economy a

total of more than $22 trillion. a crisis brought on by wall street's regulation that aloaned markets to operate unchecked and without accountability. supporters of this bill seek to ignore those lessons and bind the s.e.c. to the my opic vision of deregulation that was completely discredited when it nearly caused a second depression. this bill raises hurdles to regulation, making it impossible to protect investors, even in the presence of fraud. instead, this bill requires the s.e.c. to eliminate accountability for market participants despite the specific risks it imposes. my dear colleagues on the other side, i have heard them wax on and on and on about a cost benefit analysis. this bill promises totally on the cost to market participants and talks nothing, nothing, nothing about the benefits of e regulation in protecting

investors and avoiding civic risks. nothing about prevent another financial meltdown. republicans cost benefits rhetoric on this bill is this bill benefits wall street and costs taxpayers. wall street keeps posting record profits and keep paying record bonuses. i urge my colleagues to support those hurt by the financial crisis and vote against this legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: at this time i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. title one of the jobs act was so important for smaller companies trying to go public because a

lot of regulations come with the process. if more and more of a company's resource vs. to be dedicated to government regulations, the company can't expand and create jobs. that's why we need a balanced approach to legislation -- to regulations. before i make any major decision like every hardworking taxpayer, i use common sense. i evaluate the -- that effect, that decision will have on me, my bank account, my family, and so on. why shouldn't the federal government ask itself those same questions? shouldn't the s.e.c. question if a regulation is good for business? does it help capital formation? will it do more harm than good or vice versa? all we are asking the s.e.c. to do is a simple economic analysis before issuing a potentially expensive regulatory action. i encourage my colleagues to join with me in supporting the s.e.c. regulatory accountability

act. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from minnesota, representative ellison, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: you know, mr. speaker, we hear folks mentioning families pay medical bills and groceries, but wait a minute. didn't the wall street reform crisis of 2008 nearly destroy the american economy? didn't it lead to four million foreclosures, wipe out billions of dollars in home value? did it do all these things? wait, didn't we see wall street bernie madoff rip-off retirees and others, something the s.e.c. has jurisdiction over? so then why, why now are we undermining wall street reform and the ability of the s.e.c. to protect investors? why are we gumming up the works making it so much more difficult

? the ink is barely cry on the bill and they are already deconstructing it. interesting article i would commend all of us to look at, it's called, he who makes the rules. barack obama's biggest second term challenge isn't guns or immigration, it's saving the biggest first term achievements like dodd-frank reform law from being dismembered by lobbyists and conservative jurists in the chadoy byzantine rule making process. the fact is what's going on here we know what the game is. it has nothing to do with groceries or medical bills. it's about wall street's interests in trying to expand even more in the area of bonuses and profitablity which they have so much of already. banks are enjoying their largest profits in history, yet we are considering a bill that would undermine landmark wall street reform. this bill undermines financial security for the american people and the economy. now, lawsuits, i am a firm

believer in the american process of civil redress, but i also know that you can keep the door opened and use strategic lawsuits simply to gum up the works. it's clear that will be the effect of this piece of legislation which is duplicative and which is unnecessary. vote no on h.r. 1062. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pittenger: i rise today in support of h.r. 1062, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. mr. chairman, we are coming out and still in the worst recession recovery since the 1930's. our economic growth is at a meager 2 1/2%, and we can't continue like this. it's all because we have a very burdensome regulatory environment. what we need, mr. chairman, is a reagan recovery. one where they lifted the

burdensome and unnecessary regulations that allow business to grow and create jobs. while one month alone over a million jobs were created. that's why i support the act. it's simple, this requires a cost analysis of new legislation and new requirements for businesses before they are implemented. then post analysis after they have been put in effect. mr. chairman, we had 59 economists at the s.e.c. today, and 1,750 attorneys. all trying to justify their careers with new regulations that they are writing all the time. this has got to change. we need a positive business climate that will bring us out of the bondage of washington micromanagement and allow hardworking americans to create better jobs and find better jobs to support their families and provide for them. thank you, mr. chairman.

i release the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from connecticut, representative himes, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. mr. himes: thank you, madam ranking member, and thank you for your leadership on our side of this committee. mr. chair, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1062, and find it curious that chairman hensarling, a man for whom i have a great deal of respect, framed this legislation in the context of the huge impact that financial regulation is supposedly having on jobs in his district and this country. mr. chairman,-i-r i have read all the economic reports from the federal reserve to economists on the left and right and not one of them says that our economy is recovering slowly because of financial regulation. they talk about the austerity, they talk about the sequester as meaningfully he reducing the number of jobs in this country.

by the way, policies that chairman hensarling's party has supported from moment one. they talk about europe. they talk about housing. they talk about inadequate demand. nobody says that financial regulation is materially impeding our recovery. cure yoice that's on the table. curious also that two days ago this house passes legislation to urge the s.e.c. to speed up, not urge, demand that the s.e.c. speed up its rule writing on the jobs act. today we are here to pass a pressure that would actually slow down the s.e.c. curious, why is that? curious that the other side, my friends on the republican party, have consistently sought to underfund the s.e.c. at the very moment in history where we have dded dramatically to their purview. the derivatives market, mortgage market. they now must regulate and yet in 2011 when they were first to assume these responsibilities, the republicans sought to cut the s.e.c. budget by $300

million. again by what it was ultimately paid for. what is really happening? if i may quote the chairman, what is this really about? none of that makes sense. what this is really about is an ongoing ideological effort to tie the regulatory agencies up by cutting their budgets, by refusing to confirm their leadership, by imposing litigation hurdles and cost benefit analysis ad nauseam, such that they cannot do their job. and if they can't do their job, this country loses jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: at this time i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, the chairman of the financial services and general government appropriations subcommittee, mr. crenshaw. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for the time and thank mr. garrett for bringing this important piece of legislation before the house today.

as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on financial services, my subcommittee has oversight for the budget of the s.e.c. i think members would be interested in knowing that that budget has increased over 200% in the last decade. the s.e.c. this year is asking for a substantial increase, more than most agencies. so i think if that is the case, it's important that the s.e.c. spend the money they receive in the right way. and that they set the right priorities. and it seems to me that if rules and regulations are important and they are necessary, then the cornerstone of that rule making process should be what kind of impact is that going to have on the people in this country? what kind of impact is it going to have? and how much does that cost and what are the benefits? so far the s.e.c. hasn't quite gotten that right. the inspector general has said that. courts have said that.

and all this bill does is simply say to the s.e.c., what we would all agree is common sense. it's not a partisan idea. it's not a democratic idea. republican idea. it just -- the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: an extra 30 seconds. mr. crenshaw: all this bill does is say no, sir as an afterthought but as the -- -- all this bill does is say, not as an afterthought, but that there is a cost benefit analysis done. it's a good bill and you urge its passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from delaware, representative carney, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized for two minutes. mr. carney: thank you, thank you ranking member for your leadership on the efforts to strengthen the s.e.c. and beat back this legislation. as a member of the financial services committee, i had the privilege yesterday of meeting the new s.e.c. chairman.

. i heard her describe her plans to take a tough, a fair and an apolitical approach to regulating the financial sector. she wants to strengthen enforcement. she wants to oversee the markets through wise regulations that keep pace with technology. and she wants to complete the rule making process for dodd-frank and we know how important each of those things are. she certainly has her work cut out for her but it sounds like she knows just what the doctor ordered. unfortunately today's bill threatens to distract chairman white from her efforts to protect investors and to protect our financial system from another cry sills. today's bill -- crisis. today's bill piles needless requirements on -- and bureaucratic burdens on an agency that's already got too much to do and that is underfunded. a critical part of the s.e.c.'s mission is protecting

investors. this bill protects banks from regulation, does nothing for investors. in fact, it could hurt investors in the long-term. chairman white has already committed to issuing rules in a thoughtful way that incorporates rigorous economic analysis. and she told us that yesterday. so the bill's also unnecessary. regulating our financial sector and protecting american investors is a tall task as it is. we should be passing laws that make the s.e.c.'s job easier, not harder. we should be providing the s.e.c. with the resources that it needs to do that job. and that's why i urge my colleagues to oppose today's legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i yield myself one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: i'd like to do a little factual cleanup here,

mr. chairman, on some things that my democratic colleagues have said. and i believe i understood my friend, the gentlelady from wisconsin, to say, nowhere in this bill is the word benefits. well, first i would say, number one, it is a 10-page bill, not a 2,000-page bill. and on the very first page, line 11, you read the word benefits. if you turn to page 2, not page 2,000, page 2, line 3, utilize the chief economist who to assess the cost and benefits. so let me correct that for the record. second of all, we had discussion about the failure of regulation and how somehow this bill might lead to another great recession or financial crisis. i would point out to my friends that it was the failure to understand the cost of fannie

and freddie and the failure to understand the cost of the affordable housing goals that put millions of our fellow citizens into homes that they could not afford to keep. i yield myself another minute. and so maybe, just maybe, had this body and the other body realized the full cost of their folly and how it could not only bring this economy to its knees , that it could cause our fellow citizens to risk their meager life savings on homes they count eye -- they couldn't afford to keep, maybe, maybe had a cost-benefit analysis ben in platt -- been in place at that time, we wouldn't have the suffering that we have today. i would say to my friend from connecticut, he is clearly talking to different economists and different job creators than i have because what i understand from them is that frankly we have trillions of dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines because of dodd-frank. because we have rule making that falls into two categories.

those that create uncertainty and those that create certain harm. last but not least i actually have the numbers from c.b.o. on the budget of the s.e.c. and i think if you examine them carefully, mr. chairman, you will discover that in a little over 10 years this is an agency hose budget has increased 300% . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chairman, i yield to the gentleman from illinois, representative foster, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. foster: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this bill. when my colleagues speak about the burdensome cost of regulations, i would like to remind them of the high cost of deregulation. and inadequately funded regulators that we witnessed in 2008. this bill would increase the operating costs of the s.e.c. without any increase in the agency's budget. just yesterday the chairman of

the s.e.c. warned the financial services committee that this bill would divert resources from enforcing investor protections. and last year former s.e.c. chairman schapiro said that a nearly identical bill would, quote, significantly impede the s.e.c.'s ability to administer the securities laws. i would remind my colleagues that what the failure to administer the security laws and regulate our financial system has cost us, $16 trillion. that's the amount that families in america lost during the financial crisis. that is more than $50,000 for her every -- for every man, woman and child in the united states. during the financial crisis. in the last 18 months of the bush administration, the average american family lost a quarter of its net worth. compare that to the onset of the great depression where families lost only about 12% of their net worth during a five-year period. so by that measure, our last financial crisis was twice as

twice as fast as the onset of the great depression. but the cost of inadequate regulation does not stop there. $1.6 billion, that's the amount that disappeared from customer accounts at m.f. global in 2011. $17 billion, that's the amount that in 2009 bernie madoff was convicted of scamming investors out of. $1 trillion, that's the amount of wealth that disappeared and reappeared in less than 20 minutes during the flash crash in 2010. to put these figures in perspective, let's consider and compare them to bank robberies. every year banks lose $38 million to robberies. yet we spend $24 billion every year on armed guards, vault doors and f.b.i. investigations. so for bank robberies, we spend 600 times more on prevention than on actual losses. just imagine if we applied that same factor of 6 hub to -- 600 to investor losses from securities fraud and market

manipulation. the budget of our regulators would be hundreds of times larger than they are today. and the cynic in me can only conclude that what's really going on here is that the bank robbers just have really crumby lobbyists -- crummy lobbyists. but if we can spend $will -- but if we can spend 600 times, on this? we spend i challenge my colleagues who support this bill to commit to supporting the president's request to increase the s.e.c.'s budget. i remind them again of the high cost of inaction which led to far too many of our constituents losing their homes, their retirement funds and their small businesses a few years ago. by shortchanging the security of our financial markets, my colleagues are endorsing the same result. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i now proudly yield one minute to

the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from texas. mr. chairman, i rise today to support the s.e.c. regulatory and accountability act of 2013. the american economy is hurting and what we need is less government standing in the way of the private sector, not more. this act will bring about some commonsense reforms by requiring the s.e.c. to review existing regulations as well as preventing new and unnecessary ones that would only continue to slow economic growth and hurt businesses and families. with job growth struggling and our already having experienced several years of high unemployment, we've got to make certain that we're doing what we can to ensure that it's

easier not harder for businesses to hire again. and this act will do just that, by first clearly defining the root of a problem before trying to implement perhaps unjust and redundant burdens on america's businesses. this is an appropriate reform bill that should garner bipartisan support. the president's own job council has advocated regulatory reform by focusing on streamlining the current system for permitting projects that can create jobs. that job council understood that regulations involving the federal, state and local level can lead to a tangled web of red tape and cause a bureaucratic nightmare. the current system will only continue to stunt economic growth and this act is a much-needed step in the right direction. i'd like to thank the gentleman from new jersey, chairman garrett, as well as the

chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from texas, on their leadership on this issue. mr. chairman, i strongly support the passage of the bill and i urge my colleagues in the house to do so as well. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from georgia, representative david scott, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you very much and thank you, ranking member waters, for yielding. and, ladies and gentlemen, i rise today to join my colleagues in strong opposition to h.r. 1062, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. unfortunately what we have before us today is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at paralyzing an agency under the guise of an otherwise worthy activity which is cost-benefit analysis. cost-benefit analysis is a good

thing to do but not under the terms of this bill. mr. chairman, i don't think there's anybody in this body who is opposed to an open, honest, thorough analysis on the rule making process. on the contrary, we all agree that it is essential for creating good policy, as i said. however, the regime established in this bill is nothing but. rather the assumption which would be codified into statute by this bill are worded in such a way as to prejudice the outcome of the analysis toward the side of not regulating at all. and nearly -- in nearly every circumstance. and while some in this body may think this is a good thing, ask the americans who were victims of the latest financial meltdown, many of whom are still suffering because of it. ask them what they think. because the s.e.c., mr.

chairman, is currently required to balance protection of investors with the maintenance of effective markets. and efficient markets. this bill will do away with that balance by focusing solely on the cost to the industry and investor choice. nowhere in the bill is investor protection, which is a part of the s.e.c.'s core mission, even mentioned at all. moreover, i think it is crucial to point out that this bill also does nothing to ease the strain of the s.e.c.'s resources. stead it strengthens the problem by slapping the s.e.c. with a new administrative responsibility. all while they are still working furiously to implement dodd-frank and the jobs act. without giving them the resources to accomplish the task. how on earth do my colleagues

who support this bill think that the s.e.c. can produce the type of analysis they're asking for or any analysis at all for that matter without the additional staff? that even the g.b.o. says they will be required to have. the problem is especially acute considering this bill would require going back and studying every rule in effect since the agency was first created, way back in 1934. no other agency in the federal government is saddled with that kind of burden. now, i want to clear up some confusion. between this bill and another cost-benefit battle that we're voting. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from texas. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.

mr. hensarling: georgia when he talks about the incredible burden of a retrospective lookback, i would quote, because considerations of efficiency and competition in capital formation evolve over time, a retrospective analysis of the commission's rules and regulations is fully within the commission's statutory mandate. that comes from the a.b.a. i would also say, i will quote this as well, the safety of workers' retirement savings that are invested into capital markets depend in large part on the commission's rules and regulations for the protection of the investors. to be effective, securities regulations must be continuously updated to address the emergence of new loopholes, abuses, market failures, a.f.l.-c.i.o.'s. mr. chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides? the chair: the gentleman has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: i'll reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i yield to the

gentleman from washington, representative denny heck, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for two minutes. . mr. heck: thank you, mr. chairman. i have a different take on this. i rise to oppose this bill not because it seeks to and would effectively undermine the ability of the s.e.c. to function, although it certainly does that, instead i want to speak to those who are laboring under the impression this is good legislation and are conservatives, because it is not good legislation. it is not rooted in conservative principles. indeed, if red states tend to send more conservatives to this chamber, then they would respect their conservatism by lighting up red, every one of them, when he we get to final passage. conservatives don't pass unnecessary legislation. and yesterday when we had the privilege of having mary jo white, the new chair of the s.e.c. before our committee, she was directly asked, is this

legislation necessary? she was unanimously confirmed. applauded by both sides of the aisle, all philosophies, she said not only is it unnecessary, it's undesirable. conservatives don't enact unfunded mandates on state governments or local governments or on federal agencies. this is a massive unfunded mandate. truly, and finally, true conservatives and a lot of the rest of us seek commonsense regulatory relief. especially for community banks and credit unions. not additional unnecessary, unfunded regulatory activity. you know, mr. chair, we have several regulatory relief bills before our committee. not yet scheduled, not yet heard. congresswoman capito has h.r. 1553 to grant some regulatory relief to community banks and credit unions.

let's vote 1060 down -- 1062 down and get on to the work of those bills and grant real regulatory relief if he we seek to support the s.e.c. in its mission to protect investors and promote fair, orderly, and efficient markets. mr. chair, if you're a true conservative, you're going to vote no on 106 . the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i'd like to yield one minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: i was being lectured on what is defined what a true conservative is by the other side of the aisle, who gave us an over 2,000-page dodd-frank legislation that has in fact stymied the economy despite what the gentleman from connecticut was saying before. it's spending nearly trillions of dollars on the side not being invested, that the unemployment rate hovers at high levels

because of this stagnation in the economy because of the legislation. to the other side of the aisle, to define what a true conservative is. a true conservative would actually read the bill as the other members of the other side of the aisle have not done. those who cannot find simple words that benefit when it's listed multiple times. those who would not find the benefit to investors when it's listed multiple times. a true conservative would understand what they are talking about to the floor, mr. speaker. a true conservative would view what's in the best interests of the economy, the investor, of the job seekers of this country as well. a true conservative would support this legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i would like unanimous consent to enter a number of communications into the record. i have a statement of administration policy from the executive office of the president. i have american federation of abor and americans for

inancial reform, i also have asfcme and i also have california public employees retirement system all in opposition to this bill and asking us to please oppose this bill. the chair: the gentlelady's request will be covered under general leave. ms. waters: mr. speaker and members, a lot has been said in this debate -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. waters: a lot has been said about what this bill is and is not. i'd like to clear a few of the points. first of all before i go into clearing up some of these points, there's been, i guess, some back and forth here about what is and what is not a conservative. and i have always thought that the conservatives fashioned themselves as saving money and reducing bureaucracy rather than creating legislation that costs more money and creates bureaucracy.

i guess today we see that perhaps i was wrong about what i thought a real conservative was. let me go on to talk about the republicans' claiming that they are just codifying the president's executive order for more cost benefit analysis. however, h.r. 1062 goes above and beyond executive order by requiring the s.e.c. to review all of its regulations, even those dating back to the great depression, within one year and then every five years after that. more bureaucracy, more money. while the executive order protects agencies from litigation over their economic analysis, h.r. 1062, would give wall street lobbyists and trade dozens of new avenues to sue the s.e.c. over every rule making. not only do they go into the courts on proxy access, there are two other bills and i understand more that they are planning. it will cost the s.e.c. more money to deal with this litigation and this bureaucracy.

importantly, h.r. 1062 would create confusion for the s.e.c. because the bill requires the s.e.c. to write rules that maximize the benefits even when told otherwise. h.r. 106 is not codifying the executive order but is instead aimed squarely and undermining wall street's cop on the block. in writing the rules, the s.e.c. is required to balance both investor protection and capital formation. one cannot take precedence over the other. i have heard a lot of talk about capital formation here today, but they, in bringing this bill to the floor, are creating more bureaucracy and piling up more burdens and responsibilities so that they impede the ability to do real capital formation. so in addition to easing the ability of small companies to enter the public market, the s.e.c. has done much to make it easier for companies to raise the money they need quietly.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i'm under the impression i have the right to close. so the gentlelady has reserved. i will reserve until she is ready to close. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chairman, how many minutes do i have left? the chair: the gentlelady has six minutes remaining. ms. waters: thank you very much. quote one allow me to of the financial services committee members in a hearing yesterday, because i think it is so important for us to understand that the s.e.c. is our cop on the block. who has the responsibility for protecting investors. let us understand that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle opposed to the

s.e.c. having an adequate budget. they do everything that they can to cut the budget, to deny the resources, but they keep adding on additional responsibilities. recognizing that the s.e.c. has a tremendous load not only do they have all of the work, the cost benefit analysis that they do on everything, but they have the responsibility of rule making for all of dodd-frank, which is the reform legislation that will cause us to eliminate risks and to protect our constituents and the citizens of this country. but let me just say that yesterday during the financial services committee hearing, chairman emeritus spencer bachus said it would be pennywise and found foolish for them not to be a bipartisan agreement for raising the funding or increasing the funding for the s.e.c. and i think that's important to get out there.

they need more resources. and while we have this bill that's costing them more money to simply implement what they would like to do in 1062, they oppose if given additional resources. in addition to that, let's talk about this court action. we mentioned early on that the s.e.c. had been taken to court on proxy access. what are we talking about? we are talking about the fact that the institutional investors, the ones who are responsible for investing the money so that the workers, public workers, the firemen, police, the teachers all can ave adequate retirement. sole our institutional investors wanted very much to ensure that the companies that they are investing in are managing these funds well and they simply wanted the ability to place proxy access into the proxy

materials so that they could nominate directors to the board to make sure that they are overseeing the money for all of our first responders and our employees. well, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle teamed up with wall street and they went to court, and they made this big case, and it was right here in washington, d.c. in the district court. they got an opinion, a ruling. so the s.e.c. went back and it said basically to everybody, all of its employees, what have you, let's do even more. and on top of them not only saying let's do more, and instructing the employees to do more, then they come with this bill, want put more on top of that. this is not, this is not about those people that mr. hensarling referred to around the kitchen table talking about jobs. this is about protecting wall street. this is about tying up the s.e.c. this is about making sure the s.e.c. is noable to carry out

its responsibilities. this, again, is about putting us all at risk. this is about not being about the investors but about the markets. this again is about protecting those who really need no protection. those who place us at risk to begin with. those who not only place us at risk, but would do it again if we allow them to do it. i don't know why, why would we -- my friends on the opposite side of the aisle would be opposed to something like proxy access and then lined up in the courts again with other litigation, litigation that's going to take away precious dollars from the s.e.c. that they need to protect us, to protect the investors. but, no, they come to this floor and they simply describe this bill in ways that it really is not. this is dangerous. it is ir1307bs.

-- it is irresponsible. it is not something that the people of this country would expect or the people they sent to congress to represent them. this is again, we'll say it over and over again as it has been said by so many who have come here to testify today on this side of the aisle, this is about protecting wall street. this is about protecting those who simply want to find ways to keep the s.e.c. from stopping them in their rule making, from doing things that will be harmful to the american public. and so, mr. chairman, and members, i say to you we should all stop and think about this. and for all those who are listening, all the members on both sides of the aisle, we should think about our responsibility here today and understand what this bill is all about and vote no. a resounding no on this bill. let us make sure that people are not saying a few years from now,

oh, i'm sorry. i made a mistake. i should not have tied the hands of the s.e.c. i should have been more careful. i should not have listened to what was being today by the very people who caused us the problem in the first place. i think if our members stop and listen and they pay attention that they are going to oppose this bill. even some on the opposite side of the aisle. and i think some of them know this. they know that they are being asked to support something that may not be in the best interest of their constituents, but they might want to go along with the leadership, but it's not time to go along with the leadership. it's time to be independent. it's time to look at the facts and vote no on this bill. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 10 1/2 minutes remaining.

mr. hensarling: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'll alert my colleagues i do not i tend to take it all. mr. chairman, i find it somewhat interesting that the great amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth that we have heard on this house floor for a very simple bill that weighs in at frankly less than 10 pages, that simply requires a government going to decide is there to be a cost to our economy? is there going to be a loss of jobs as they pass a rule? and overturn their rules. it just says before you make a rule, you really got to think about kitchen table economics. you got to take a look and understand how will this

ultimately impact hardworking americans who are struggling to pay their health care bills, struggling to put gas in the economictank, who have insecurity, do to this economy. . i've heard a lot of furor here. i must admit i'm particularly entertained by those who care to lecture me on what it means to be a conservative. maybe i'm not the world's expert, but there was a time in my career, my fellow colleagues elected me the chairman of the conservative caucus of the house known as the republican study committee, and, mr. chairman, i have a certificate in my office that i proudly display from the americans for democratic action where they say, congressman hensarlings a zero percent liberal rating. so i will certainly agree with my friends that apparently i don't know much about

liberalism. but i do think i do know a few things about conservativism. so i'll come up with an informal agreement. we'll let you be the experts on what it means to be a liberal and you're very good at it, to the best of my knowledge. i will retain the expertise on how one votes conservative. the next thing i would say, mr. chairman, is how fascinating it is to have so many of my colleagues say that this bill on the one hand is unnecessary but on the other it's burdensome. on the one hand it's redundant, on the other hand it will stop the s.e.c. in its tracks. you know, mr. chairman, i just don't think you can quite have it both ways. and i notice when some can't argue the merits of a question, they tend to come up with question one's motivation and we've got the usually wall street boogeymen to come in here. but what i want to know about is why, why would we not want

to know, as some of have estimated, that the rule promulgated by the s.e.c. potentially could cost 1.1 million jobs in our nation? and yet my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say, sshh. no, no, no, we don't want this information. we don't want it out. just like we didn't want out the information that obamacare could cost us a million jobs, and we see it every day, we get the headlines. people can't afford their health care, their premiums have gone up. people are getting laid off. people have full-time d jobs are -- people at full-time jobs are going to part-time. people don't want to cross the 50-person threshold. that's just obamacare. but, sshh, we don't want to know how this is going to pact hardworking americans

who have economic insecurity, millions who do not have jobs. i mean, i'm somewhat perplexed, mr. chairman. how such a simple bill, says all you got to do is look. we're not imposing our numbers on them. we're just saying, you got to look at the cost of what you do. it's what families do. it's what job creators do. and frankly it's what the administration claimed they wanted to do. it's what the s.e.c. claimed they wanted to do. how many of my democratic colleagues, with their words say yes, but very soon with their voting card are going to say no? no, we shouldn't know the cost of rule making. no we, -- no, we just want to know what the bureaucrats say the benefits are. but, you know, if people lose their jobs, well, we just

aren't going to -- we don't want to know that ahead of time. maybe we'll learn about it afterwards, maybe we'll try to clean up the pieces, the shattered lives, the people who lost their jobs. you know, mr. chairman, this isn't -- this is a false dichotomy set up by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. the question is not between regulation and deregulation. the question is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. and smart regulation requires the rule makers to understand the cost of their rules to the average hardworking american family. that's smart regulation. dumb regulation is burying your head in the sand and saying, no, we don't want to know. and if we're so concerned about the burden on the s.e.c., if we're so concerned about the litigation burden, and if we're so concerned about the work burden and the rule burden,

where's this same concern for the job creators of america? where's that concern? you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator, which is what so many of the different titles of dodd-frank do. so at the end of the day, mr. chairman, this is as simple and as common sense as it could be. if you're going to pass a rule and you're going to tell us about the benefits, you got to let us know what the costs are. to the economy, to hardworking american families. it's common sense. we should adopt it. we should adopt it today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-10. that amendment in the nature of

considered as to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 113-60. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand of the ivision of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-60. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-60 offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 216, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: i believe that exsive government regulations are -- excessive government regulations are a significant barrier to private sector job growth. and the creation of those jobs. house republicans have made job creation a priority. and as a result we must work to ensure that the federal government reviews new regulations to ensure that their proposed benefits outweigh any potential economic harm. my amendment today is simple. it requires the s.e.c. to include an assessment of anticipated jobs gained or lost as a result of implementation of any major rule. and to specify whether those jobs will come from the public or private sector. mr. chairman, according to a study released by the small

business administration in 2010, federal regulations cost small businesses $1.75 trillion every year to comply. that is money which could be used by american companies to hire new employees or to reinvest in their own business. h.r. 1062 ensures that the federal government does not necessarily burden -- does not unnecessarily burden american companies with cumbersome regulations by guaranteeing that those regulations are appropriate and necessary. my amendment adds to this review process by making sure we have a more comprehensive understanding of the economic impacts a regulation creates. i believe that the amendment offered today serves to strengthen the underlying legislation by insisting that the s.e.c. begins to focus on job creation and specifically enabling the private sector int

families, job creation and small business across america. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i support the underlying bill and legislation that the gentleman from new jersey brings to the floor today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. sessions: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? ms. waters: mr. chair, i claim time in opposition to the amendment although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i claim time in opposition to the amendment although i do not oppose the amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment add as requirement that the s.e.c. -- adds a requirement that the s.e.c. analyze the number of jobs created or lost as a

result of a new rule or order, while differentiating between public and private sector jobs. although this amendment is not by itself problematic, it layers one more requirement onto a bill already bursting with onerous cost-benefit requirements. and while counting the jobs created or lost because of a particular regulation is a noble goal, we have to view this goal in the context of the overall bill, which tips the scales levly -- heavily in favor of industry over investors. including the pension plans for millions of americans. the criteria by which the s.e.c. would need to engage in cost-benefit analysis under h.r. 1062 would have the commission make all decisions on the basis of whether the rules impose the least burden on market participants. in fact, nowhere in the bill are the words investor protection used, despite the fact that a central mission of the securities and exchange commission is to protect investors. let's be clear. h.r. 1062 is essentially a

solution in search of a problem. the ill is not about s.e.c.'s cost-benefit analysis. the commission has done that by adopting a new sed insurgent of guidelines to -- new set of guidelines. instead, this bill is about making it easier for industry groups to overturn s.e.c. regulations in the courts. after the 2008 financial crisis, the public spoke and they demanded that congress stand up and legislate rules of the road to prevent another crisis. so we took action to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market, improve the corporate governance, implement the rule to stop commercial banks from gambling with depositor money, and reform the credit ratings agency that slapped a.a.a. ratings onto toxic securities.

having lost that battle here in congress, the industry, with the help of some of my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, is now waging a new quiet battle to have these regulations thrown out in court. h.r. 1062 abets that goal by making it significantly easier for the industry to win in court. and this is a key difference from the president's expect tifpk order on cost-benefit -- executive order on cost-benefit analysis whose requirements can't be used for the basis of litigation. again, this amendment is harmless, but it amends what is a deeply problematic bill. so i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 2. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. hurt: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-60 offered by mr. hurt of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 16, the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1062, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act, introduced by my friend, chairman scott garrett. his bill is an important step forward to ensure the s.e.c. abides by the president's executive order and also enhances the s.e.c.'s existing cost-benefit analysis requirements. my amendment assures that rules adopted by the -- pcaob and other national securities associates under the purview of the s.e.c. have the same

requirements as the s.e.c. itself and requires the s.e.c. to attest that these associates are in compliance with its own economic assessment standards. these sboordnant organizations can develop -- subordinate organizations can develop same rules. as rules put forth by these regulations generally go through a final s.e.c. rule making process, they should be subject also to that same cost-benefit analysis. as we saw of the s.e.c.'s proxy access rule that was thrown out by the d.c. federal court for lack of proper assessment of the rule's economic cost, not only is this practice good government but it's common sense. in light of reports that the s.e.c. is considering discretionary rule makings that would impose additional unnecessary costs, resulting in little or no benefit, and being of questionable constitutionality, we must ensure that the s.e.c. and the associations under its purview abide by sound economic annal sills.

nearing double digit unemployment in my district, we must ensure that our regulations are making it easier for our businesses to access the capital they need to create the jobs in our communities. i thank chairman garrett for his work on this important issue, and i urge support for my amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i claim time in opposition to the amendment. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: mr. chairman, this amendment doubles down on all of the problems raised by h.r. 1062 by sbrose imposing the cost-benefit analysis as the underlying bill imposes on the s.e.c. beyond the problems caused by h.r. 1062, this amendment would

further put individual citizens and taxpayers at risk by tying the hands of the msrb, which is ntrusted with regulating dealers of municipal securities, including city-bound issuanceys. an act protected state and local governments and to regulate for the pictures time in history the individuals that provide municipalities with financial advice. we had good reason to expand the mission and responsibilities of the msrb under dodd-frank. like many borrowers who were sold exotic mortgages based on the representation made by mortgage brokers in the leadup to the financial crisis, we saw that many municipalities entered into complex financial instruments that they didn't fully understand. at the same time, we saw that many financial advisors to municipalities were involved in paying to play, scandals and recommended unsuitable

investments, particular low to small communities. the result -- particularly to small communities, the result, substantial costs to taxpayers in communities across the country. the most high-profile example is the case of jefferson county, alabama, which entered into the largest municipality ankruptcy in history after a simple deal ended with the county going broke over faulty interest rate derivatives. this amendment would make it much more difficult for the msrb to regulate the financial entities selling these derivatives, products to our small counties, cities and towns. but that's just one example. the amendment would impose similar onerous requirements on the financial industry regulatory authority, the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers and the public accounting oversight board, which regulates the auditing interesting. again, this amendment double

downs on what is already a harmful bill, by extending the same onerous requirements on self-regulatory organizations. i see no reason why the congress would want to further tip the scales in favor of wall street over main street. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. hurt: i am ready to close and reserve my right to do so. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: i yield the balance of miami to the gentleman from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me clear the air on what important thing. we know that there is a value for cost-benefit analysis. what we're saying is this is the wrong approach because they are not after cost-benefit analysis. they are after tying the hands

of the securities and exchange commission to lessen the regulations. we have a bill, mr. speaker, which is a bipartisan bill by myself along with representative conaway from texas, a republican, that is a more thoughtful, more direct and beneficial way of cost-benefit analysis, because we do not have in that bill this very convoluting, confineding requirement of what we call -- confinding requirement of what we call look back. the telling point about mr. garrett's bill is that he requires that the s.e.c. look back at every single rule for 1934. t 80 years since there is no federal agency that has even nearly that kind of

burden, and on top of that does not allocate one dime for any needed staff. it is indeed a burden. so the point i want to make is that we understand when he says, ok, let's make sure that we have a cost and a benefit of what they're doing, yeah, we go along with that, but my bill, along with representative conaway, we digested this bill. we have passed this bill, our bill, which has a more reasonable cost-benefit analysis out of the agriculture committee and will be before this house that has a better approach. so we're not opposed to this cost-benefit analysis, but we are opposed to this measure which is designed to tie the

hands of the s.e.c. them and mandating that they look at every record, every rule all the way back to 1934. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. hurt: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. hurt: mr. chairman, i'd say a couple of things in chosing. first, what this bill is not is a bill that does anything to amend or change the mandate of the s.e.c. we know what those mandates are. they are to ensure fair markets, efficient markets. they are to facilitate capital formation, and finally investor protection. and they are all in design to work together. and this bill does nothing to change that mandate. in fact, the bill, if you look at it, talks about cost and benefit analysis repeatedly throughout the entire bill. and i would suggest to you that investor protection includes

liquid markets, formation of capital. if we want to protect investors, obviously we need to have healthy markets, and that's what this bill ensures by requiring the s.e.c. to conduct the most simple routine cost-benefit analysis, something that the president, by the way, has offered up and required of most federal agencies that are affected by his executive order. this simply makes them a part of that. in addition, s.e.c. chairman stated earlier that that was what her belief should be for e s.e.c. in conducting these cost-benefit analysises. this codifies, as is our responsibility as members of congress, to do just that. with that in mind, i ask this body adopt our amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from virginia. all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. waters: i request a recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-60. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-60 offered by ms. carolyn ma maloney ms. care lynn f -- mrs. carolyn maloney of new york. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 216, the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. mrs. maloney: i respect mr. garrett's leadership but i must respectfully and strongly disagree with him on this issue before us today. it seems clear that the intended effect of the republican bill is to cripple the s.e.c. just as it undertakes the very tough and important job of implementing the badly needed reforms we passed in dodd-frank. and may i remind my colleagues that we passed dodd-frank in response to the worst financial crisis in our lifetime, one in which we were at one point losing 700,000 jobs a month and by some estimates the loss was well over $12 trillion. my amendment strikes the underlying bill and puts a sense of congress in its place.

my amendment contains findings that very clearly lay out the cost-benefit analysis process that the s.e.c. already has to go through in proposing or adopting a rule. what this bill would do now, the republican bill, is handcuff the s.e.c. commissioners with unnecessary red tape so that the commission would be unable to protect investors effectively. despite what the other side of the aisle is saying, there is already a multilaird and effective cost -- multilayered and effective cost-benefit analysis built into the rulemaking process. the s.e.c. is already required by law to do cost-benefit analysis under the paperwork reduction act and the congressional review act and the regulatory flexibility act and for the s.e.c., specifically, under the

national security market improvement act of 1996. in fact, just last year the g.a.o. issued a report praising the s.e.c.'s guidance on cost-benefit analysis saying, and i quote, the basic elements of good regulatory economic analysis, end quote, and in evaluating a recent proposal on swaps regulation, the co-chairman of the financial i vices department called, quote, the s.e.c. contains the most detailed attempt at an economic analysis of the effect of the rules that i have seen from any agency, end quote. but under this republican bill, the s.e.c. would have to divert its limited budget resources away from enforcement or examining the impact of worldwide derivatives market only to duplicate things it is already doing. this bill also says that every five years the s.e.c. is

required to do a cost-benefit analysis of every regulation it has ever issued on any subject going back some 80 years, back to day one in 1933. and it would have to magically do all of this without one additional red cent of additional funding to cover the costs of it. if we want to highlight anything, we should be highlighting the extensive process that exists and the judicial scrutiny that it includes, which is what my amendment does. the state admission of the s.e.c. is to protect investors, not give more red tape. maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation. let's help them do that, not just make them jump through unnecessary, costly and

duplicative hoops. the underlying bill, the republican bill is a prescription for paralysis of the s.e.c.'s ability to protect investors. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and i maintain the balance of my time and i reserve it. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. garrett: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garrett: thanks. so first of all, i appreciate the gentlelady's offer of an amendment here. i appreciate the fact that the lady and i have often worked together on legislation in the past, in our respective committee, but on this one i humbly disagree. as she says, the amendment before us basically guts the bill and simply sets forth a sense of congress. two points. one on policy and one on

practicality here. on policy, if this is what the gentlelady thinks this is the way to go on this underlying legislation, as the ranking member of the subcommittee and a member of the full committee, she had every opportunity in the world to come before the committee at the time and put this before us at which time we could have had a full and complete debate on it. had we done so, we probably would have pointed out to her two things. one, she makes reference to the d.c. circuit courts of opinion on line 14 through 18 of her case, would the d.c. circuit court said that the s.e.c. is doing a good job, that they had the authority to do so and nothing necessary is going forward, but if she read the opinion that's not what they said. the d.c. court stated, and i quote, the s.e.c., the commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed, note this, once again. this is not the only time but once again to adequately assess the economic effects of the new rule and, again, inconsistently

and opportunistically frame cost benefits of the rule. so the citation she gives to the d.c. circuit court does not support her position but undermines her position. d.c. circuit basically supports our position that they failed to do what they need to do and that is why we have the legislation before you today. and when she talks about red tape and unnecessary, well, that's not what the afl-cio says, and that's not what the american bar association says. you know, the s.e.c. did look at the issue of doing a retrospective look at this. they did so back over a year and a half ago, back in september of 2011, and asked for input and what did the afl-cio say about that? quote, to be effective, security regulations must be continuously updated to address the emergency of new loopholes, abuses and market failures.e a.

bar association, also chimed in saying about the retrospective analysis which is what the s.e.c. could have been doing, should have been doing, didn't do and that is what our bill will require them to do. i appreciate the gentlelady's efforts in this area but i would recommend a no vote on her amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. mr. maloney: mali would -- malmalmal -- mrs. maloney: i would like to point out to my colleague thalt ir-- that the court underlines the point i'm making in my amendment. it says clearly there is a cost-benefit analysis that are required by the s.e.c. and made clear that there is a judicial review, not only the analysis that's required but you can always appeal to the court. i yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished ranking member, maxine waters from the great state of california.

the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman and members, i'd like to thank the gentlelady from new york for bringing this amendment forward today. as a matter of fact, the opposite side should thank her too because she's given them an opportunity to back out of this awful bill, that would be harmful and is ill-informed and to get on with just saying that her resolution would make good sense. so, i'm eager to support this amendment from the gentlelady from new york. the amendment strikes all bill text and replaces it with a sense of congress, reiterating all the economic analysis requirements already imposed on the s.e.c. specifically current law requires the s.e.c. to conduct economic analysis pursuant to the paperwork reduction act, the congressional review act, the regulatory flexibility act, as well as additional cost-benefit analysis for the national security markets improvement act. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. all time is expired. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentlelady from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mrs. maloney: on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentlelady equests the yeas and nays. it is not the yeas and nays. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i hereby request the yeas and nays. a record vote, i should say. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york will e postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 113-60 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. hurt of virginia and amendment number 3 by mrs. maloney of new york. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the

first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-60 by the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-60 offered by mr. hurt of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 163. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3, printed in house report 113-60, by the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, printed in house report number 113-16. offered by mrs. carolyn b. maloney of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 165. the nays are 233.

the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1062 and pursuant to house resolution 216, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the

committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is there a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to improve the consideration of finding securities and exchange commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and rders. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are asked to please take their conversations from the floor. members and their staff will

please thick their seats -- will please take their seats. the chair would ask that members would please take their conversations from the floor. those members remaining in the chamber would please take their seats. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. waters: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the hill? ms. waters: in its current form i am. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. waters of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 1062 to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following -- >> mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? hearing none.

pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of the motion. the gentlelady will suspend. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: this is the final to the bill which would not kill the bill or sd it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. this motion ensures the ability of the s.e.c. to continue to protect investors and enforce security laws. i want to emphasize this motion does not stop the bill but it does flag the very important ways in which we need to let the s.e.c. act. the motion would ensure that the s.e.c. can protect investors and enforce the securities laws in two specific areas. first, the motion would ensure that this bill does not reduce the ability of the s.e.c. to protect the pension plans of our

firefighters and police and the people on whom we rely as our first responders. as well as the pension plans of teachers and other retirees against fraudulent and deceptive practices. protecting investors is a core element of the s.e.c.'s mission and one that we ignore at our peril. this bill is -- this week is police officers week. do we really want to honor our men and women in service by stripping them of protections for their hard-earned won earnings? >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california deserves to be heard. the gentlelady will continue. ms. waters: these protections become ever more crucial as we rely increasingly on the securities markets for our retirement savings. cond, the motion to recommit

focuses on protecting investors by ensuring that the s.e.c. can protect against the takeover of american firms by foreign companies, particularly chinese companies, that are using such mergers to access the investor funds in our capital markets without going through the s.e.c. registration process. the s.e.c. has had numerous enforcement actions against such companies which purchase a small company and merge it with the larger, often fraudulent foreign companies. it has worked hard to protect the savings of hardworking americans. including union pension holders and other pensioners from being disadvantaged by these chinese firms that don't play by the same rules. both of these areas highlight the importance of s.e.c. actions to protect investors, particularly those preparing for retirement. with americans increasingly

dependent on the securities markets to protect their retirement savings, it is more critical than ever to ensure that we preserve the ability of the s.e.c. to act. just yesterday we heard from the s.e.c.'s new chairwoman, mary jo white. when we asked her about this bill she said she found it he very troubling. i don't imagine that a former prosecutor who took on the terrorists is easily troubled. indeed, she said that she had already needed at least 45 new economists to meet the need for an expanded economic analysis under the s.e.c. standards. that she couldn't hire them due to the sequester. this is troubling indeed. rather than helping the s.e.c. to do its job better, we are cutting its budget and throwing up new roadblocks like this bill. it is a mistake.

i urge my colleagues to support this motion. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. garrett: i rise in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i will be brief. and i will simply address both the process and the policy briefly. on the process i appreciate the gentlelady bringing this amendment here to the floor today, but as she knows we are in committee for multiple hours hearing various amendments on the underlying legislation, and she had every opportunity to bring it before the entire committee at that time and we could have had a full and complete debate and actual vote in the committee at that time. i ask her the reason why she didn't go through regular order. more specifically to the merits of the underlying bill and the amendment. if there could be anything simpler or easier than what we are trying to do in the . derlying bill, h.r. 1062

mr. speaker, all we are asking the s.e.c. to do is this, identify a problem first before you do a regulation, and then once you consider a regulation, consider all the alternatives out there, not just the initial one that comes forward, and then once you pass that regulation, the next year and years after that, go back and reconsider them and make sure that they are being done effectively and they were the most efficient regulations for the economy. that's the underlying legislation, that's why i encourage my members to support the underlying bill. . two provisions. protection, efficient markets. perhaps to the point here, one of the most important, inventor protection. it's the single mom out there who is trying to raise a young girl and trying to put her into

college and have money to do so. it's the couple that is trying to buy their first home. it's our dads, moms, grandparents, pensioners to make sure their money is secure and the markets are running efficiently. and to the point here with your amendment, specifically, yes, it's the cop on beat, it's the fireman, it's the unioner who wants to make sure he's investing his time and efforts in the community and his investments are taken care of in an efficient operation on the markets on wall street and in the markets as well. that's what this bill does. all of them are taken care of in the underlying legislation. your amendment basically says we don't care as far as making sure the most efficient rules are concerned when it comes to the firefighter or the pensioners or the teachers. i know e on this -- how to get it. if we want to honor the firefighters, if we want to

honor the police officers, if we want to honor the teachers and the pension funds, vote no on this m.t.r. and yes on the final passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. withourevious question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motio those in favor say aye. those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california requests a recorded vote. those in favor of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the final bill, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179. the nays are 217. the motion is not adopted. the question is on final passage. those in favor say aye. all those opposed will say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california requests a recorded vote. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the nays are 161. he bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain

requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i rise this afternoon to honor juan manuel, owner of miami's first spanish language book seller, which will sadly be closing after his retirement in june. having fled castro's totalitarian grip, he was eager to rescue the essential works of the cuban culture. he sought to tell the story of the cuban exile experience and that is how in 1965 he founded the publishing and subsidiary. since then, this company has been dedicated to the distribution and publication of books from hispanic and cuban authors, including my father.

i thank him for playing a major role in illustrating the road traveled by our cuban exiled community through the more than 1,600 published titles, while giving readers a deeper understanding of cuban and latin america's culture, history, politics, and literature. we will miss this great cultural leader. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i implore my colleagues to address the global climate process. a recrept academic study found that 97% of scientists agree that human activity is mainly responsible for climate change. that same study concluded that the public has been misled into in king that a difference

thinking between scientists on this, but 97% of scientists agree that this is a problem. how much longer will science de and their deniers spread misinformation about the facts and dangers of climate change? the fact that we are now -- we have more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than at any time in the past three million years. as a member of the state climate caucus, i urge all of my colleagues to recognize the danger from climate change and to come together and address this problem asap. e don't have much time to -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i have the pleasure of rising today to congratulate low

country native and st. helena island's cone candice glofere on winning the title "american idol." she's a graduate of buford high school. mr. sanford: i think that her story ultimately is inspirational because what she does she teaches and reminds every one of us on the importance of this simple notion of trying, trying, and trying yet again. because it was in fact on her third attempt that she actually made it. and it made all the difference. i was there for a hero's welcome a couple weeks ago in buford, south carolina, and i can only imagine the welcome she will now receive. she was in one of three. she won it this week. her career's one that started at oaks true holiness church back home at the age of 4 where she was singing literally to the lord. it was only the beginning and as south carolina's new congressman from the first congressional district, i speak for many who could not be more proud of her for indeed the way she reminds every one of us of the

importance of trying, trying, and trying yet again. congratulations, candice. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to share my grave concern about the keystone x.l. pipeline and h.r. 3, the northern route approval act which unfortunately passed through committee this past week. and allowed accelerated building of this pipeline and gives certain advantages to a foreign country, canada, against our citizens that otherwise would have rights in the court. the world's most foremost climatologist was one of the first scientists to warn of the dangers of burning carbon fuel. he's likened the building and use of the keystone x.l. pipeline the lighting of the fuse to the biggest bomb on the planet. nothing left. dr. hanson warned the completion of the x.l. pipeline will reinforce our dependence on

fossil by furthering our dependence on fossil fuels, we only push earth farther and farther to the point of no return. just last week the highest ranking of carbon in our atmosphere ever was reported in hawaii. 400 points. this portends even a hotter summer than the ones we've ever faced on this planet. building a pipe lin that carries the dirtiest of oils from canada to mexico on the way to china is the opposite of addressing climate change in america. next week i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 3 in the interest of preserving our earth for generations to come. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, for too long congress has kicked the can down the road and avoided putting forward a long-term plan

for college affordability. yesterday the house education committee took a strong step forward by strengthening our student loan programs and passing h.r. 1911, the smarter solutions for students act. absent congressional action, interest rates of student loans will double from 3.4 to .8% on july 1. this bill prevents us from -- ends an annual debate with congress on how to set the rates for student loans. a process that's served neither the students or taxpayers. h.r. 1911 builds on a proposal put forward by president obama in his fiscal year 2014 budget request, which would move to a market-based interest rate. the bill would allow students to take advantage of low interest rates, but also protect them with reasonable rate caps. mr. speaker, i encourage my colleagues to join in support of this bill. this will offer students the lowest possible costs for higher education. and ensure the solvency of these important programs. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the lady is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to place in the congressional record the names of six phenomenal women who have positively influenced the lives of the people of my hometown, west palm beach, florida. sherry brooks, renee kessler, and eileen silver, dynamic educators who have devoted their lives to the future of the youth of our community. sherry hymen, the exceptional lawyer who has helped shape our county's physical environment. mona reef, a courageous crusader for women's health and reproductive rights. and young san, a brilliant architect whose projects bring joy to thousands of visitors

each year. best yet, these phenomenal women have beautiful hearts and remarkable children. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor lenore chief ken brings could he, the fire chief -- brikcoe the fire chief and term for president as association of fire chiefs comes to an end this august. it's a well-earned rest after serving seven years and traveling across the state of north carolina and the united states representing more than 1,500 fire chiefs and 45,000 firefighters in north carolina. the chief has been the fire chief for the city of lenore since 2004 and has worked in fire service for over 35 years.

during that time, his main focus has been improving training and education for firefighters in north carolina. he will continue to serve on the board of directors as the past president of the north carolina association of fire chiefs, and today we honor his years of service and express our appreciation for his continued commitment to north carolina firefighters. we are grateful to chief briscoe and his fellow firefighters across north carolina for his bravery and selfless dedication in protecting our communities in the face of danger. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new mexico seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. grisham: mr. speaker instead of taking steps to create jobs and he grow the economy, republicans yesterday voted to repeal the affordable care act

for the 37th time. the affordable care act is working. and its benefits are being felled throughout the country, especially in my home state. almost 525,000 new mexicans now have access to free preventive services such as mammograms, flu shots, and colonoscopy screenings. almost 19,000 seniors have benefited from lower prescription drugs. and over 26,000 young adults in new mexico can stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. so why in the world would we want to hurt seniors, women, and young people by repealing the affordable care act? let's not forget, the affordable care act is a job creator. the medicaid expansion alone will create 6,000 to 8,000 jobs in new mexico and pump more than $5 billion into our economy over the next six years. mr. speaker, let's stop trying to repeal the affordable care act and let's get back to work on behalf of the american

people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i stand before you today to address a mounting health crisis. on behalf of nearly 26 million americans and 532,000 kentuckians who suffer from diabetes. this disease kills more americans each year than breast cancer and aids combined. and costs our nation more than $200 billion in health care expenses each year. tragically every 17 seconds someone is diagnosed with diabetes, and current estimates project that by 2050 as many as one in three americans will suffer from diabetes. we cannot sit idly by and accept the likelihood of this bleak

future. diabetes can be devastating, but it can be managed. like most chronic diseases, diabetes can be attributed to poor behaviors such as lack of physical activity, poor nutritional choice, and other risky behaviors. mr. barr: by not only changing our behaviors but improving access to education, proper diabetes care, and continued funding for research to find a cure, we can truly make a positive, sustained change in the quality of life for millions of americans. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. cummings of maryland for today, mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona for today, and mr. john lewis of georgia for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton, is recognized for 60 minutes as designee of the minority leader. --tgage minority i ms. norton: i thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor to discuss a bill addressed only to my district, the district of lumbia, which will come to a hearing in the judiciary subcommittee chaired by chairman trent franks of the subcommittee on the , next thursday. but point of fact, over the last month there have been two such bills introduced in the house, bills that can only fairly be characterized as

abuse of power. they're both directed against , my own jurisdiction district. one would appear to be a federal matter. that bill would make permanent the hyde amendment, which annually passes this house every year barring the use of federal fands for -- funds for abortion. wherever you stand on abortion, at the very least, that is a federal matter. an he very same bill is outrageous abuse. the bill seeks to do the same for the district of columbia, barring permanently the use of local funds, funds raised by

local taxpayers for abortions for low-income women. local funds are similarly used in districts across the united states because, after all, they are local funds. this bill, for purposes of the ll makes d.c. -- redefines the nation's capital, which was ven home rule in 1973 as a free-standing federal agency for purposes of abortion. imagine having your district defined as a federal agency so that the congress can make ideological points by overturning, overturning local legislation at will. yet, this is still america.

.hat bill is h.r. 946 as to the district of columbia, it simply an expanded way to interfere with a local jurisdiction. i must say that i think that bill as the other bill i will discuss does point to the nkruptcy of the republican agenda in the 213th congress -- 112th congress. -- 113th congress. nd yet this bill essentially does what has done anyway every year with respect to abortion. it hasn't come to the floor yet, and indeed very few bills have come to the floor.

sometimes the house has a rule one day and the bill the next day when there was plenty of time on both days because it doesn't have any agenda and it has to stretch out what few bills it has to make it look like there's something the house is doing. well, you know, that's the house's business. when it deals with the district i represent, a district of 600,000 american citizens who you can bet your life are going to demand and always demand to be treated as full american citizens because that is exactly what we are. so we will never accept riding over our rights, our local rights and our constitutional rights in order to satisfy the agenda of this member of congress or that member of congress who is making a point

for special interest groups or or others. now, the bill that i want to rimarily discuss, h.r. 1797, goes beyond the usual way in which the congress, or at least the republican congress, seeks to interfere with the rights of the people of the district of columbia. what they do generally is to take advantage of the fact that the district's own local taxpayer-raised funds have to come here essentially to be checked off and signed off and they don't ever look at the budget. how could they? they don't know anything about a local jurisdiction's budget, but they do use it to attach their own ideological strifes and the usual one has to do with abortion. ll, h.r. 1797 uses the

district of columbia in yet a new way and a new abuse because it goes beyond the low-income women whom the district cannot end its own local funds on abortion for poor women. instead, h.r. 1797 goes out after every woman in the district of columbia because that bill essentially would make abortions in the district columbia after 20 weeks illegal. now, don't talk to me about the constitutional point. i'll get to that in a minute. to is a bill that seeks regulate pregnancy and abortion

a local matter with respect to nly one jurisdiction, and it's a matter that usual involves a matter of principle. people who are pro-life, as they call themselves, have my respect. but this circumstance is the only example where i have seen them try to apply the principle only to one jurisdiction leaving everybody else in the united states unavailed of the so-called principle. if abortion should be denied after 20 weeks, as a matter of principle, then surely that principle should apply throughout the united states. there's a reason why it doesn't, and i will assure you

i'll get to that. but first i want to thank chairman trent franks for ermitting me the courtesy of testifying next thursday at the hearing on this bill that ffects only my district. he had two bills last year. this bill is the same bill that came to the floor and was defeated last year, and he had another to permanently disallow local funds to be used to fund abortions for poor women. on both of those, i was denied the right, the courtesy of testifying, which is traditionally always granted to members even though bills don't usually involve only one jurisdiction.

great s bill is of concern not only to me but there's going to be a press conference next year indicating how the bill is viewed by women ll over the united states and, of course, a vehicle to get to the reproductive rights of women across the country. it's fatally flawed in at least three obvious ways. first, there is discriminatory treatment of the district of columbia by banning abortions after 20 weeks only in the district of columbia, as i've indicated. if it's a principle, then it's a principle that anyone would want to apply nationwide. but it's not applied nationwide in this bill because the district is the one jurisdiction over which

ess has a modicum of control, because until the district becomes a state, the congress can step in, but, of course, the home rule act contemplates that in a democracy they would never step in unless there was an abuse of federal power by the district of columbia. this is on the contrary, an buse of federal power by the congress of the united states were this to pass. so first it discriminates by picking out the district among all the district in the united states. secondly, it violates unabashedly roe vs. wade which allows abortion until viability

as determined by a physician. , all d all of its cases of the precedence that follow it make it clear that viability cannot be determined by statute . roe vs. wade 40 years ago guaranteed the right of an abortion as a constitutional right. so you can expect this is a matter that would be ultimately challenged. but the reason that the district is the vehicle used here is that the special -- -- s obviously want obviously don't have the guts to bring a bill to the house floor that would apply to everybody, so they choose the bullying way, the easy way.

if you can get the congress to vote with respect to one jurisdiction because the congress is federal. and of course the bill violates the home rule act itself, because while the home rule act acknowledges the ultimate jurisdiction of the congress, it clearly in its terms contemplates that the legislative power will go to the council of the district of olumbia. there is no principled reason here to violate that local anctity. so here we have gone from the usual attack on low-income women by denying the city its authority to spend its own taxpayer-raised funds as it

sees fit to an attack on every woman of childbearing age, every such family in the district of columbia. the bill goes further. t criminalizes abortion by making a physician subject to imprisonment for up to two years for abiding by roe vs. wade and engaging in an abortion. and then the bill has a truly bizarre section which gives new meaning to the word extreme. it allows any current or former health provider who has ever treated a woman, and it doesn't say when that provider might have have treated the woman, perhaps as a child, but allows any former health provider to obtain an injunction to stop

the abortion. right to privacy is left over here. the right to an abortion under roe vs. wade. this is a new low in extreme provisions that we've seen in the congress from my republican colleagues. . the very idea of even introducing a bill that would deny the constitutional rights of one jurisdiction is an outrage in and of itself. sure, bills are introduced on this floor all the time that are on their face unconstitutional, but it takes a great deal of bullying determination to pick out one jurisdiction,