but i don't have any problem with the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 7, printed in part b of house report 115-3. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lucas: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7, printed in part b of house report number 115-3, offered by mr. lucas of oklahoma. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 40, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in sport of the lucas amount h.r. 238. this amendment works to provide

much needed relief and certainty for american companies by clarifying how the internal risk producing transactions amongst the businesses and affiliatesed are regulated. many businesses of all types and sizes in our country use derivatives to manage the risk they face within their daily operations. enter affiliate swaps are a common used and effective internal risk management tool these businesses rely upon. unfortunately, - riff tiffs reforms implemented under dodd-frank failed to distinguish the difference between inner affiliate transactions and transactions executed between unaffiliated third parties. such internal transactions ensure firms to centralize their risk management activities between affiliate counter parties parties and do not create additional counter party exposure outside a corporate group. this amendment, therefore, clarifies that inner affiliate swaps are not subject to the same regulatory requirements as

extern at market facing swaps between third parties. in addition, this amendment is consistent with the cftc's attempts to provide similar relief through rule exceptions and no action letters. while such actions by the cftc have provided relief, they do not provide a workable, clear, predictable set of regulations that market participants can effectively operate under. this amendment will keep in place appropriate regulatory reforms and provide much needed regulatory and legal certainty for u.s. companies. please join me in supporting this needed reform. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. waters: i yield to myself as much time as i may consume. thank you very much, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to my friend, mr. lucas' amendment. this amendment rejects the

bipartisan compromise negotiated over four years to strike the right balance regarding interaffiliate swaps. indeed, democrats like ms. moore and republicans like mr. stivers carefully negotiated a way to balance the needs of operating companies like airlines and refineries. this amendment, however, would exempt swaps between affiliates, including megabanks like goldman sachs and j.p. morgan from the mandatory margin. clearing trade execution capital and every other protection under title 7 of the dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection act of 2010. while we generally agree that swaps between affiliate corporate entities do not pose a systemic threat, we're deeply

troubled about this desire to undermine all swaps rules and harm our economy. during testimony on a similar version of this amendment, the cftc's former chairman, stated that such an exemption would provide a big loophole around our derivatives rules that it would, and i quote, blow a hole in dodd-frank, end quote. specifically the amendment exempts affiliate swaps no matter where the affiliates reside. so an affiliate could reside in a foreign jurisdiction that lacks any swaps regulation and share its risk with the u.s. affiliate, but our regulators would be prohibited from imposing any safeguards. such an initial margin or capital requirement.

why should we pass such a self-inflicted wound? so with that i would urge all members to vote no on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time? yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lucas: i yield myself whatever time i have remaining. the chair: the gentleman has three minutes. mr. lucas: simply to note to my colleagues the goal of this amendment is to allow business entities to efficiently manage their risk. if that risk is managed internally, where it is no threat to third parties, then they should have the ability to do it in the most efficient fashion. as i noted in my earlier comments, cftc has provided similar relief, rule exceptions, and no action letters. what we're trying to do here is clarify this situation. and as far as the -- one of the previous chairmen's of the cftc, while a very enthusiastic

regulator, i would note that i and many participants down through the years have disagreed with his interpretations on several things. with that i have the greatest of respect for my colleague over there, this is a sincere difference of opinion, and i believe that i would yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the full committee, mr. conaway. mr. conaway: i support the gentleman's amendment and i would point out at the end of his amendment is any evasion requirement which would require the cftc to watch for the kinds of things the gentlelady from california was worried about and which foreign markets might be involved and other things. there are -- structured in here amendment protections to avoid a crafty interaffiliate circumstance that she was concerned about. ith that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. yet sont amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. nd the amendment is agreed to.

it's now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report 115-3. for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? mrs. hartzler: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report number 115-3, offered by mrs. hartzler of missouri. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 40, the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. hartzler, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment to bring certainty to farmers, agriculture cooperatives, and grain elevators across missouri and the country that are having problems complying with burdensome reporting requirements at the cftc. dodd-frank never intended to regulate end users like independent grain elevators who work on behalf of missouri farmers who help manage their price risk. my amendment works to correct

this oversight and provide a stable environment for all players in the industry. my amendment is simple, it would require the commission to address three outstanding concerns to the ownership and control reports rule, better known as the o.c.r. rule. before the commission can begin enforcement, which by the way, the cftc is not enforcing presently. this industry currently is operating under a no action relief letter, meaning the o.c.r. rule has not been enforced due to the inability of the industry to meet the stringent requirements of the cftc regulations. that could change and the problem needs to be addressed. specifically my amendment does three things. first, it increases the threshold from 50 to 300 contracts per day per commodity for those market participants that need to comply with this rule. this will exempt low volume entities like grain elevators and small agriculture cooperatives from the reporting requirements designed with large trading firms and major players in these markets. even with the new threshold

established by my amendment, the cftc will still gather ownership and control information on the major players and mid side traders. second, my amendment removes a small but very burdensome portion of the long list of reporting requirements under the final o.c.r. rule. my amendment removes the natural person controller requirements which require farm cooperatives and grain elevators to report specifically personally identifiable information on individual employees. the cftc has never required such granular information from many of my constituent businesses and such requirements are making futures commission merchants less willing to work with small and medium-sized industries in the countryside. even with the small changes made by my amendment, the cftc will still be properly equipped to track ownership and account control data across the market. and finally, this amendment would require the cftc to ensure that current regulation does not

conflict with current foreign privacy laws. having a large open liquid market is important to managing risk and operating on an international basis is a valuable aspect of a commodity market. the cftc should be responsible for dealing with other governments on privacy concerns. it's inappropriate to push that amendment on to the firms and customers it regulates. this amendment is supported by a wide range of industry and farmers groups and i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to provide relief from the regulatory burdens of this rule on small cooperatives, grain elevators, and farmers from merely hedging their legitimate market risk and serving their customers' interest. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the baffle her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. peterson: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. peterson: mr. chairman, this amendment contains several troubling drafting, some people call them errors or, i guess,

questions. it prevents the cftc from enforcing noncompliance with final rule. that includes more forms than were targeted. when we did the -- our part of the dodd-frank bill, one of the things that i thought was really not controversial was that we were going to try to find out once and for all who owned all of these swaps, who was on what side of positions. this is what caused the problem in the first place with the financial meltdown. when lehman brothers went down, we had a lot of them go broke, it created this big panic. a.i.g. didn't know if they could offer their -- cover their swaps or not. these firms that were trading didn't know who held what, what was going on. and that was the underlying problem. what we're trying to do is get some understanding of where everybody was in this market. when we were doing the bill, we made it very clear, i put in the

legislation, that end users were not covered. that shouldn't have been an issue. so the problem with this amendment it looks like it's going to include more than just that. i guess again this is the final example in this bill of a process moving too quickly and lack of regular order and then finally, it contains a section on foreign privacy laws that could result in the agency seeing a reduced scope of market in their surveillance activities that may not be the intention. again, without the chance to consider this provision in regular order, we're not sure and concerns that some people have remain unaddressed. this could have been resolved during the process. it hasn't been. and in the present form i oppose the amendment, i yield back.

the chair: does the gentleman reserve or yield back? the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from missouri. mrs. hartzler: i yield myself whatever time is left. the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes. mrs. hartzler: i remind our colleagues this rule right now is under a no action relief letter because it isn't working. that's what this amendment does is fix this problem. i believe this amendment is very important. it makes a few commonsense changes to the o.c.r. rule that will provide regulatory relief. farmers, agriculture cooperatives, and grain elevators while allowing the cftc to accurately regulate the futures strifment i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from missouri. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. conaway: i don't believe

here are any other amendments. the chair: does the gentleman have a motion to rise? mr. conaway: yes, mr. speaker. the chair: the question sont motion the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 238 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. 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. 238 and has come to no resolution thereon.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? hens mr. speaker, i -- hens mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill h.r. 78, to improve the consideration by the securities and exchange commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and s. er the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 40 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. 78. the chair appoints the gentleman from california, mr.

mcclintock, to preside over the ommittee of the whole. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 40 -- the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 78 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 rders. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlelady 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, i rise today in support of h.r. 8, the s.e.c. regulatory

accountability act, and i want to thank chairwoman wagner for leading this bill in the house. this bill is about cost-benefit analysis. that may sound like ph.d. economics but it's really about kitchen table economics. because, mr. chairman, it's truly about whether we are going to have a stronger economy, one that creates good-paying jobs so that parents can afford the raise their children today and these same children can have a brighter future tomorrow. it's about making sure we have an accountable government that expands personal opportunity, not government bureaucracy. mr. chairman, i think we all know that small businesses are truly america's job engine. they create nearly 2/3 of all new jobs in our economy. so our economy works better for all when small businesses can focus on creating jobs and serving their customers rather

than navigating needless government red tape. unfortunately, for america's small businesses, bureaucratic red tape has no better friend than the obama administration. it has issued more than 4,400 final regulations with an astronomical cost to all of us of $1 trillion. just since the election of november 8, the obama administration has cynically issued 145 midnight regulations with a cost of more than $21 billion. now, for anyone who believes that this doesn't hurt our small businesses, they need to listen to their constituents because i certainly listen to mine. i heard from a small business owner named chris back in my district who wrote me, quote, we've seen wave after wave of federal regulations affect our ability to grow. the costs associated with additional reporting, auditing and compliance are massive. the money spent is significant and it costs jobs and potential

jobs. mr. chairman, he's exactly right. the true cost of washington red tape cannot just be measured in dollars. the true cost includes the jobs not created, the small businesses not started and the dreams of our children not fulfilled. ill-advised laws like the dodd-frank act empowered unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to callously hand down crushing regulations without adequately considering what impact those regulations have on jobs. as one former s.e.c. commissioner testified before the financial services committee that i have the honor of chairing, these washington elites have forgotten the key to sensible regulation. quote, the most regulatory solution should be the one that imposes the least burden on society while maximizing potential benefits, even if that means choosing not to regulate at all.

although the securities and exchange commission is one of the few washington agencies that engage in at least some base level of economic analysis, putting this requirement into law is definitely preferable to current agency procedures. after all, the s.e.c.'s recent interest in economic analysis came only on the heels of numerous federal courts throwing out some of its regulations because the commission failed to adequately take into account, again, the true cost and benefits of its rules. passing this bill will erase any doubt that securities and exchange commission must conduct sound economic analysis. it must consider the impact of their rules on our jobs and our family budgets. that's what cost-benefit analysis is all about. now, mr. chairman, we may hear today from the usual suspects, the opponents of this bill, that somehow this is meant to hinder the rulemaking process

and encourage litigation against the s.e.c. you will hear these same people say, once again, that this is somehow dangerous. well, mr. chairman, what is dangerous is being ignorant of the impact of proposed regulations will have on our economy and the american people's wall etc. before they get implemented. -- wallets before they get implemented. that is what's dangerous. presidents, frankly, of both parties seem to agree. even presidents clinton and obama directed independent agencies to engage in essentially exactly the same procedures that h.r. 78 would make into law. such irony, mr. chairman, that now some democrats will come to the floor today opposing codifying into law clinton and obama policy. again, the irony of it all. i urge all members to join me in supporting this bill because we must hold washington accountable to the american

people. we must build a stronger, healthier economy so struggling americans can get back to work and achieve financial independence. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. i yield : mr. chair, myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: thank you very much. mr. chairman, just as i oppose the bill before us today in the previous three congresses, i rise in opposition to it now. republicans have crafted h.r. 78 to tie the hands of the securities and exchange commission. it is the s.e.c., and prevent it from entering into new rules to protect market investors. the bill will allow the trump administration to easily repeal important dodd-frank rules by tilting the s.e.c.'s decisions

toward what is best for industry and worse what enriches the president-elect and his cronies. but before i discuss h.r. 78, i think it is important to point out that 14 members of the financial services committee as well as the millions of americans they represent are being denied the opportunity to discuss this bill through hearings and markups. we are barely into the second week of this congress and the republican leadership is completely ignoring regular order. despite speaker ryan's declaration less than a week ago of a return to regular order, by skipping the committee process to bring this bill to the floor, but this is par for the course. in the other chamber, senate republican leadership is

similarly jamming donald trump's conflicted nominees through the confirmation process even before the f.b.i. has completed background checks. and with barely 10 days until his inauguration, donald trump has already given up on, and i quote, draining the swamp, quote-unquote, and broken his promise to hold wall street accountable by nominating wall street insiders to nearly every key economic and regulatory post. let me turn back to the problems with h.r. 78. during the past four congresses, republicans have sought to increase the cost ben hit requirements related -- cost benefit requirements related to s.e.c. rulemaking even though the commission is already subject to stringent economic analysis for which it

is held accountable. current law requires the s.e.c. to conduct the same economic analysis required of all agencies under the paperwork reduction act, the congressional review act, and the regulatory flexibility act. unlike other financial regulators, the s.e.c. has additional statutory requirements to study how its rules affect market efficiency, competition and capital formation. additionally, in 2012, the s.e.c. voluntarily issued internal guidance on economic analysis for rulemakings that closely followed executive order 12866. since adopting this guidance, the s.e.c. has dramatically expanded its economic analysis

capabilities, including by increasing the staff and the budget of its economic division by more than 300% over the last five years. in any other reality, the s.e.c. would be held up as a model of effective economic analysis. when asked by republicans in congress to review the s.e.c.'s analysis, the inspector general concluded, and i quote, we determine that the s.e.c.'s use of its current guidance has been effective in incorporating analysis into the rulemaking process, end of quote. h.r. 78, however, goes much, much further radically directing the s.e.c. to no longer be concerned with the protection of investors. in fact, the only references to

investors -- only reference to investors anywhere in the bill is a provision requiring the s.e.c. consider the impact its rules will have on, quote, investor choice, quote-unquote. the american public knows full well that investor choice is a code for industry wanting to offer a menu of predatory products such as subprime toxic mortgages or retirement products that are designed to bankrupt low and middle-income americans and line the pockets of wall street executives. further suggestions that the bill is only codifying the cost benefit executive orders are false as the bill owe mitts one key provision -- omits one key provision from those orders, the prohibition of private rights of action. simply, the right to sue. as a result, h.r. 78 provides

industry with endless avenues o sue the s.e.c. and thereby pressure on the regulator to adopt rules it wants and repeal everything else. what's worse, the bill is the first signal to wall street that the s.e.c. is leaving, leaving the enforcement business. h.r. 78 provides no new funding for the s.e.c. to address the substantial analytic and potential litigation responsibilities the bill would create even though the congressional budget office estimates that the analytical workload alone would cost $27 million. and let's not fool ourselves that republicans are going to increase s.e.c.'s funding. that's at the top of their agenda, kill s.e.c. by taking

away the funding that they need to be the cops on the block. members of congress just finished debating a bill that caps the s.e.c.'s sister agency, the commodity futures trading commission, at a woefully inadequate funding level for the next five years, denying the cftc hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to adequately police the swaps market. and further, donald trump has nominated a life-long defender of wall street to lead the s.e.c., which i can only assume means that trump's s.e.c. will eagerly pillage the commission's overworked enforcement staff to help pay for the republicans' planned repeal of dodd-frank. president-elect trump takes office next week beginning what is the most conflicted

administration in u.s. history. i urge my colleagues to join me , investor and consumer advocates, public pension plans, civil rights groups, labor unions and supporters of financial reform in opposing h.r. 78 to ensure that the actions of trump's s.e.c. are in the interests of americans' economic stability and not in russia's or wall street's interests. i am amazed that the republicans can be so blatant, so noncaring to come with us at this time with a bill that would basically take our cop on e block, the s.e.c., and literally obliterate it. i am absolutely amazed they have the nerve and the gol to try to in face of everything

that we already know about what they have done to strip it of its appropriate funding but now with all of the debate and the concern about trump and russia and everything that's going on, they would come here with this bill today and try to pull this off. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i am very pleased now to yield four minutes to the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner, the author of the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act and the chairman of our oversight and investigation subcommittee. four minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for four minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank chairman hensarling, the gentleman from texas, for his leadership on this issue and on so many regulatory reform issues that we'll be addressing this week and in the future. mr. speaker, i'm proud to sponsor and bring to the floor h.r. 78, the s.e.c. regulatory

accountability act. this legislation fits perfectly with the theme of the week here in the house to advance key regulatory reform ideas as a outgoing pace from the administration. for the past eight years the amount of regulatory burden that has been placed on americans and small businesses has been crushing. outgoing administration. in 2015, federal regulation cost almost $1.9 trillion. that is nearly $15,000 per household in a hidden compliance tax. the obama administration issued over 600 economically significant rules which are those that have an economic impact of over $100 million. as a result of this wave of regulations, we have been part of the slowest economic recovery in our lifetime. we now have an opportunity to enact policy that ensures smart

regulation going forward so that we're doing things in the best and most efficient way. the people have spoken, mr. speaker. business as usual in washington is over and it is time to do things differently. there is, indeed, a better way. this legislation is really about what everyday americans do when they are making major life decisions in weighing the costs and benefits, the pros and the cons. whether it's buying a car, buying a home, deciding whether to take out a loan to go to school. everyone must consider the core economic factors when making important li decisions. the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act places statutory requirements on the s.e.c. when issuing rule making that ensures that first they identify the problem that regulation is trying to address. second, they weigh the cost and

benefits to ensure that the benefits justify costs of compliance. and thirdly, they identify and assess whether there are any available alternatives to rule making. additionally, this bill contains a provision that requires the s.e.c. to review its existing regulations every five years at the minimum to determine whether any such regulations are outdated, ineffective, or excessively burdensome, as well as requiring the s.e.c. to modify, streamline, repeal, or even expand regulations based on that review. as a regulator of our capital markets, the s.e.c. has an immeasurable influence on our economy and the ability of small business and entrepreneurs to be able to access capital in order to innovate grow, and most of all create jobs. i strongly believe that this legislation is nonpartisan and

common sense. and what our government regulators should have been doing in the first place. the american people deserve a break from the irresponsible regulation they have grown accustomed to over the past eight years. there is a better way. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense piece of legislation and urge passage of it through the house. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri yields. the j texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, a new member of the financial services committee, mr. gonzalez. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. gonzalez: mr. chairman, i support the regular review of regulations to ensure that they are still relevant to our ever-changing economy. unfortunately, the retrospective review requirement in h.r. 78 is counterproductive and places heavy administrative burdens on the security and exchange commission. an already overburdened and underfunded regulator.

specifically, it requires the commission to review all of its rules within one year of enactment and to constantly review its rules every five years thereafter regardless of whether there is any cause of concern with a particular regulation. i find this appalling. that means the commission will have to go back to 1934, 1934 and review every single rule, every one the industry likes and rules that have made our capital markets the envy of the world. today the s.e.c. has a number of formal and informal processes for intelligently identifying rules for review. for example, the regulatory flexibility act requires the s.e.c. to conduct a 10-year retrospective rule review and the paperwork reduction act requires periodic reviews of information collection burdens. under the regulatory flexibility act, the s.e.c. publishes a plan to look at rules and have a

significant economic impact on smaller businesses, inviting public comment on the rules, including how it could be amended to reduce the impact. many small businesses within my district and certainly around the country. in addition, the s.e.c. has been conducting several broad-based reviews of rules on its own accord related to issu, disclosure, equity market structure, and even the definition of what an acreditor investor is. as an already cash strapped agency, the s.e.c. tasked with such an onerous retrospective rule review required by h.r. 78 would be forc to divert already scarce resources from other important tasks, including policing the markets for fraud and stopping bad actors before they can drain the life savings of investors and many retirees in my district and around the contry. this is our seniors we're talking about. looking at the bill as a whole, it appears that this is the

point of legislation. rathe than have the s.e.c. focus on its mission to protect investors and sport many small businesses, h.r. 78 focuses on the burden of the financial industry and repealing those rules. i oppose this bill and yield back the balance of my time. ank you very much. the chair: the gentleman from tex, mr. gonzalez, yields. the gentlelady from california reserves. the chair recnizes gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr.uizenga, the chairman of our capital markets subcommittee. the chair: t gentleman from michigan is recoized for three minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today support of h.r. 78, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act which would improve and strengthen the s.e.c.'s rule making process by requiring more rigorous economic analysis. what exactly does that mean? well, an economic analysis is

quite simple, frank. it's a systematic approach to determine the opt at this mum use of scarce resources involving comparison of two or more alternatives to achieve a specific objective under the given assumptions and constraints. that's a whole lot of work and dumbble. what we need to do is make a comparison. what is going tonight benefit? economic analysis takes into account the opportunity costs of resources employed and attempts to measure in monetary terms the private and social costs and benefits of a project to a community, economy, or individual. in its simplest terms the.e.c. would have to determine the cost and benefits of proposed regulations as well as potential alternatives to determine the best direction forward. basically ensuring tt the s.e.c. is thoroughly assessing both the need for the regulation and adequately evaluating the potential consequences, bh intended and unintended, and is there a ben knit? mr. speaker, requiring economic -- benefit.

mr. speaker, requiring this by regulators is not a partisan issue. both presidents clinton and president obama issued executive orders requiring regulators to ensure that their rules were maximizing and achieving a net benefit. h.r. 78, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act, would ensure consistent and effective application of the s.e.c.'s economic analysis, guidance, by building on the bipartisan effort to strengthen economic analysis requirements as well as require a retrospective review of existing regulations for independent agencies like the s.e.c. specifically, the bill would enhance the s.e.c.'s existing economic analysis requirements by requiring the commission to first clearly identify the nature of the problem that would be addressed before issuing a new regulation. too often we're just shooting at a target we don't even know is actually a target. and to prohibit the s.e.c. from issuing a rule when it cannot, quote, make a reasoned determination that benefits the

intended regulation justifying the costs of the regulation, end quote. additionally, h.r. 78 would require the s.e.c. to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative onot issuing a regulation, and choose the approach that would maximize the benefit. the s.e.c. must also evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent or incombatible or duplicative ofther federal regulations. in testimony before the capital markets subcommittee last year, former s.e.c. commissioner noted that the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act would, quote, promote and improve economic analysis at the s.e.c. and make the agency even more accountable to the investing public, end quote. he further testified that this bill, quote, will help ensure the economic analysis conducted by economists is firmly entrenched in every rule making the s.e.c. conducts under a federal securities laws.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 additional seconds. mr. huizenga: i commend the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. wagner, for introducing this important piece of legislation which will better equip the s.e.c. with the necessary tools to ensure all future s.e.c. regulations will meet these standards with the goal of achieving the mission of protecting investors and facilitating capital formation. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. chairman. h.r. 78 nt out how built their decisionmaking process towards wall street. irst, let's go back and review everything that the president elect -- president-elect said about wall street and then we can understand exactly what is

being done here. in august, 2015, president-elect trump told cbs, and i quote, the hedge fund guys didn't build this country. these are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky, they make a fortune. they pay no tax. it's ridiculous, ok. unquote. another quote, in january, 2016, trump told iowans, quote, i'm not going to let wall street get away with murder. wall street has caused tremendous problems for us. i repeat, he said, wall street has caused tremendous problems for us. in february of 2016, trump said, i know those guys at goldman sachs. they have total control over hillary clinton. in july of 2016, trump tweeted, quote, hillary will never reform

wall street. she's owned by wall street, unquote. he also told iowans, quote, i don't care about the wall street guys. i'm not taking any of their money. now trump has totally betrayed his promise to drain the swamp. he's appointed goldman sachs bankers to the treasury and the national economic council. and his pick to head the securitieand exchange commission is a lawyer whose career has been based upon defending wall street, including goldman sachs. this legislation today is part and parcel to that betrayal. this is how you do it. cost benefit analysis, you can attach this to any and all monetary and financial services legislation. you can attack it where -- attach it wherever you would like and thus cause the delays,

cause the undermining of legislation, put the s.e.c. in the position where it has to defend in court, costing them more money that they don't have because they are denied adequate funding. this is what this is all about. how do we get our wall street friends and cronies back into the business of -- because dodd-franc began to deal with them and to reverse some of what had been happening for far too long. and so now they come with this attack and they talk about cost benefit analysis. ladies and gentlemen, it this is what they are going to use to ride their way back into making sure that they give the protection and the advantages to all of their friends on wall street. mr. trump was not about draining the swamp. he's about making sure there's a swamp digging it deeper and

wider. i reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate that. despite the personal attacks happening on the floor here i'm glad to see that we are making real progress. mr. huizenga: and apparently making an impact here. -- so at i'd like to with that i would like to recognize the gentleman from new york for a minute and a half, mr. king, and with that i yield him that time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1.5 minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 78, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. if passed the s.e.c. will be required to follow president obama's executive order that requires a thorough

cost-benefit analysis of new rules and a comprehensive review of existing regulations. under current law, the s.e.c. must consider the affect of its rules on, quote, efficiency competition and capital formation, end of quote, and weighing costs and benefits is absolutely necessary to meet this analysis. cost-benefit analysis is not a new idea. agencies have done this kind of analysis for over 30 years. in fact, it's a bipartisan idea. in 1981 president reagan issued a executive order requiring cabinet level agencies engaging in cost-benefit analysis and president clinton expanded with another executive order in 1993. unfortunately, independent agencies are not subject to executive orders, and those regulated by the s.e.c. have suffered as a result. from 2005 to 2012, s.e.c. regulations are overturned consistently by the courts for unjustified costs. while the s.e.c. has taken steps to improve its rulemaking process, h.r. 78 will ensure

that future rules maximize economic benefits and companies not face unnecessary hurdles when they assess our capital markets. democrats and republicans often do not agree on policy, bu i hope we can agree on the need for a fair, transparent and informed process. i thank my distinguished colleague for introducing this vital legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizeshe gentlelady from california. ms. waters: mr. chairman, i ask that mrs. maloney control the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. malachi richardson -- mrs.aloney: i thank the gentlelady for yielding time to me. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 78, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. this bill would require the s.e.c. to do an absurd amount

timeonsuming, duplicative costenefit analysis before thecan even propose a rule. this is the fourth time, mr. chairman, that we are voting on this partisan bill, because the previous three times the bill has been rejected by the senate and president obama has strongly opposed it. but let's be clear about what this bill is not about. it is not about ensuring that the s.e.c. conducts a cost-benefit analysis on the rules. if that were the case, then no legislation would be necessary. the s.e.c. is already required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and haslready adopted internal guidance on economic analysis that mirrors

the exact requirements of this bilbefore us today. so the problem is not that the s.e.c. doesn't currently conduct cost-befit analysis or that it does it poorly. threal goal, the real goal of this bill is simply to give the industry mo chanceso sue the s.e.c. on cost benefit grounds when it issues rules the industry does not like. that is essentially the only thing that would ange if this bill were signed into law. the s.e.c.'s cost-benefit analysis would be the same, but the industry would have me opportunities to sue the s.e.c. over alleged flaws in the cost-benefit analysis. and the threat of a lawsuit would force the s.e.c. to

divert more of its scarce resoces to cost-benefit analysis which would delay the key reforms and undermine the s.e.c.'s ability to protect investors, their core mission. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill as they have in three previous votes before this body, and i balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: i thank you, mr. chairman. with this i would like to take great pleasure in recognizing the whip of our financial services committee, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, for two minutes. i yield two minutes to him. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hill: i thank the gentleman from michigan for the time. today i rise in support of h.r. 78, the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act, and one can cut the hyperbole on the other side of the aisle with a knife today as we're out here -- we're not here gutting enforcement. we are not talking about

exceptionally benefiting wall street operators. what we're talking about is enhancing the s.e.c.'s cost benefit process. the commission's made many positive strides towards its economic analysis in the past now years. this bill will enhance its efforts in ranking and providing resources to the rules that will in fact provide investor protection, in fact provide efficient competitive u.s. markets. too many of their resources have been deviated on wild goose hunts related to the dodd-frank mandates. during this same time we have experienced a sharp decline in initial public offerings and public companies generally, and largely in my view, as a result of the regulatory burden and the costs associated with being a public company. this should be a concern to every member of this body. this bill would make the s.e.c.'s rulemaking process more accountable by enhancing its cost-benefit analysis requirements and importantly would require the commission to

revisit its rules after implementation to assure they're actually achieving their intended purposes. this rule does away with the notion that congressional mandates are exempts from cost-benefit analysis and requires the commission to evaluate these rules as well. a good thing. congress doesn't always get it right. in addition to identifying other alternatives which might include no rule at all. in short, using common sense. requiring this sort of more robust economic analysis will also help the s.e.c. set priorities. chair white's testified before our committee in the past congress. they have 50 front burners. they can't decide what their most important agenda item is. well, let's fix that, mr. speaker, by passing this bill. mr. huizenga: i yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. mr. hill: because this bill will focus attention where

ttention is needed, and h.r. 78, along with the halos act that we passed in the house on tuesday, will help ensure the s.e.c. regulations do not unnecessarily impede consumer and business access to capital. i thank the chairman for the time. i appreciate mrs. wagner for her work on this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas yields. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letters of opposition to h.r. 78, the consumer federation of america, americans for financial reform, the california state teachers retirement fund and the council of institutional investors. these institutions represent various groups such as investors, consumers, public pension plans, labor unions and communities of color.

the chair: the gentlelady's requests will be considered under general leave. mrs. maloney: thank you. i yield four minutes to my good friend and distinguished colleague from the great state of texas, a member of the financial services committee, congressman green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you, mr. chair. i thank the member for yielding , and i am absolutely amazed that this legislation has progressed to this point. this is not a panacea. this is not legislation that will prevent some harm being done to mom and pops. this is about wall street. this is about multimillion-dollar corporations. it is not unusual here for those who would benefit from the use of those who live on

main street. they would benefit from it by saying that bill is for main street when in fact it is for wall street. this bill should properly be the bill that s.e.c. rulings would come under stagnation, litigation and dess amation as a result -- decimation as a result of. because the way the bill is worded, there will be much litigation, and that litigation will tie the s.e.c. up in court for many years. that will create the stagnation that will cause the s.e.c. to be ineffective and as a result, the s.e.c. in terms of its rulemaking will be decimated. let's talk for a minute about a cost-benefit analysis. that's a very simple formula that can be used if you want to refinance your home and you

want to get a different interest rate over a different period of time. all of the numbers associated with it are quantifyable, but if you want to do -- quantifiable, but if you want to do cost-benefit analysis in terms of fraud prevention, the prevention of fraud is not quantifiable. it is not knowable. bernie madoff made off with proximately $64 billion, and in so doing, he perpetrated one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the government of the united states of america, the american people. if we had a regulation in place to prevent that fraud that bernie madoff perpetrated, there would be no way of knowing that he would have perpetrated the $64 billion fraud. you can't quantify legislation that prevents the fraud. if we had regulation in place to prevent the downturn in 2008

that would have prevented the 327's, the 228's, the teaser rates that coincided with prepayment penalties, the no doc loans, if we had regulations to prevent it then we never would have known the harm it would have caused the economy. that's what this bill will do, it will put the s.e.c. in position so that it cannot produce the rules to prevent the fraud that we can never measure. it is not knowable how much fraud will be prevented by the rules that s.e.c. promotes and produces. this legislation also does not allow the s.e.c. to move at the speed of innovation. innovation moves quickly. the s.e.c. has to be able to produce rules to match the speed of innovation. this is why it was difficult to do something about what was happening to the economy leading up to 2008. we didn't have the speed

necessary, and now we're going to put a further burden on the s.e.c. so that the s.e.c. won't be able to respond to these new products that are coming on the market. and make no mistake, they will come on the market. the stock market crash of 1929 was something that rules and regulations could have prevented. they were not there. they put them in place. glass-steagall was one of them. it took 66 but they got glass-steagall. i don't know how long it will take them but they intend to get dodd-frank. this is the first step in the direction of making dodd-frank impotent. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: i thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i'd like to recognize the vice chairman of the capital markets committee, the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren, i would like to yield to him three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr.

chairman. i rise today to speak in support of the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. i'd like to thank ann wagner for champing this important legislation. those of us who were in congress last year will remember the leadership of scott garrett and ensuring our financial regulators, especially the s.e.c., make use of robust cost-benefit analysis while imposing rules on businesses and the american people. that's why this bill was reported from the financial services committee with a bipartisan support in the 114th congress and has consistently received votes from both sides of the aisle in the past. . policymaking can be tough. there are always dozens of pros and cons that need to be considered. every good idea, even those with the best of intentions, likely have minor drawbacks. however, the idea of ensuring benefits exceeding the costs should not be a partisan one. we are simply saying that our government's policies should do more good than harm. you might be surprised to hear that the s.e.c.'s inspector general has issued a report

expressing several concerns about the quality of the s.e.c.'s economic analysis. it found none of the rulemaking it examined attempted to quantify either benefits or costs other than information selection costs. however, our job creators and investors know the scope of the potential cost is far broader than this. and that's exactly what the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act does. it strengthens the cost-benefit analysis requirements at a key regulator overseeing our financial markets. while the s.e.c. has some policies put forth by its staff, this bill would strengthen those requirements and ensure that they are codified so that we can be certain future generations benefit from prudent rulemaking. it will also be subject to the s.e.c. to -- executive orders number 1, 2, 8, 6, -- 123866 and 13533 issued by presidents clinton and obama. oddly enough, some have even made the argument that rules promulgated by the s.e.c. should

not be subt to cost-benefit analysis -- subject to cost-benefit analysis if they are mandated by congress. i don't know where they got -- got this idea but it's a chilling remind that are congress must do more to ensure that the s.e.c. avoids politically motivated rulemaking that disregards the foundations of sound policy. in testimony before the committee last year, dan gallagher, a former republican s.e.c. commissioner, noted the c.e.o. pay ratio disclosure rule as a prime example of agency lawyers taking advantage of loopholes in the cost-benefit analysis rules and impotesing -- imposing significant burdens on public companies. this could become a slippery slope if not stopped by congress. we have an opportunity today to protect our capital markets, investors and job creators by ensuring that the s.e.c. is doing less harm than good. i would urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of sound policymaking criteria and support mrs. wagner's important legislation. i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to share with you and my colleagues and the american public how american organizations, which work day in and day out to fight to protect investors, consumers, minorities, workers and pension plans, view this bill. the director of investor protection of the consumer federation of america states, and i quote, this legislation goes far beyond what is reasonable or balanced. and indeed the bill would exacerbate rather than end the most serious shortcomings in the agency's current regulatory process. its inability to complete rulemaking regarding pressing issues in a timely manner, end quote.

the general counsel of counsel of institutional investors stated, and i quote, we believe the provisions of h.r. 78 would unnecessarily impede the ability of the s.e.c. to issue proposals in furtherance of its mission. its mission to protect investors, end quote. and finally, the americans for financial reform stated, and i quote, this legislation is transparently an effort to paralyze the s.e.c. and to empower wall street lawyers to overturn its decisions and not to improve its analysis or decision making process, end quote. i urge my colleagues to heed these warnings and to really hear what these representatives f the public are saying.

and i urge and i urge them to vote no on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chair. may i inquire as to what is the balance of the time remaining on each side? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 10 1/4 minutes. the gentlelady from new york has 6 1/2 minutes. mr. huizenga: all right. thank you, mr. chairman. with that i would like to recognize the gentleman from florida, sorry, the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my good friend from michigan, mr. huizenga. i rise today in support of my good friend from missouri, mrs. wagner's, legislation. h.r. 78. the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act. the american people have grown tired of unaccountable and unelected washington bureaucrats bringing forward burdensome regulations without fully

considering the effect on families in our districts. this simple and straightforward legislation would enact a statutory requirement for the s.e.c. to outline enhanced economic analysis requirements for any new regulations before they can be enacted. it also requires a review of existing regulations to determine if they are undulyy burdensome or duplicative. unaccount nlt -- accountability. the outcome of burdensome regulations that lack a thorough vetting can have an untold effect across our entire economy. court cases, government accountability office reports, and the s.e.c.'s own office of inspector general have raised important questions and recommended improvements to various components of the s.e.c.'s economic analysis and its rulemaking. this legislation will go further by prohibiting the s.e.c. from issuing a rule when it cannot make a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs of the regulation. logic and reason. in closing, i support this good government, commonsense legislation introduced by

chairman wagner. the s.e.c. regulatory account blingt act will take an mportant step. and on the families in our congressional districts and across i the -- and across the country. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: thank you, mr. chairman. my republican colleagues regrettably want to impose cost-benefit analysis that tilts towards industry costs, because they know something that they don't want the american people to know. an impartial cost-benefit analysis of wall street reform rules would inevitably demonstrate how wildly beneficial such rules are to the u.s. economy and to the lives of everyday americans. earlier this week, the bipartisan think tank, third way, found that dodd-frank's

bank capital rules will add $351 billion, as in b, billion, to the u.s. economy. over the next 10 years. this report presents a cost-benefit analysis that shows that while lending becomes slightly more expensive when banks are required to maintain higher capital levels, the benefits of mitigating another financial crisis greatly exceed any costs. this report is one of many which republicans intentionally ignore . reducing the likelihood of another financial crisis does not come without costs, but the costs are worth it. let us not forget the widespread human suffering that has been felt across this nation because of the financial crisis.

the 2008 financial crisis stroyed 8.7 million american jobs. ped out $2.8 trillion from retirement savings of ordinary americans and led to the oreclosure, the loss of 15 million american homes due to financial mismanagement in this country. if those aren't significant costs for policymakers to consider, then what else is? i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i am pleased to welcome the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee, mr. royce, for -- who i'd like to yield a minute and a half. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr.

chairman. this has been an issue in europe, it has been an issue in the united states. i would like to make the point that with respect to looking at economic analysis and making certain that it is bipartisan, i think there is a way a to make certain it is objective and as i look at the underlying text and then look at the amendment that we are accepting, we should reflect on this. we're going to have the s.e.c. here look at both the protection of investors and the effects to ensure competition and efficiency. so i would explain to the members that adding that into what i already thought was retty exacting rules here in , rms of an objective analysis

should really succeed in our attempt here. nd what is the attempt in this regulatory accountability act? to make sure that the u.s. capital markets are unmatched in terms of their size, their depth, their resiliency and transparency. and this regulatory accountability act gives the commission the opportunity to ensure that its rules and regulations, past and present, each of those are worth pursuing when measured against their economic costs. growing access to capital, protecting investors, preserving the world's strongest capital markets, are not mutually exclusive objectives here. mr. huizenga: i yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds. mr. royce: here's what i'd like to point out. the european union clearly recognizes this conundrum right now. they're launching a call for evidence to investigate the unintended consequences created by their regulated -- regulatory

framework, because they're searching for balance in this oo to make sure that they have retrospective examination. it's prudent and frankly, as the effectiveness of regulation is measured by outcomes rather than volume in a situation like this, it drives us toward efficiency in the markets. so thank you very much. but did i want to make it clear that that amendment was being added -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from new york. mrs. maloney: i want to point out that with dodd-frank and the reforms that the democrats put in place, our economy bounded back faster and stronger than all of europe. i must say that one of the areas that we need to work on, where we're falling behind in our economy, is exports. we need to support exports. and despite all the talk that we

hear from republicans about enacting policies that support jobs and job creation and the slough of tweets from the president-elect discouraging american companies from moving u.s. jobs overseas, and i support his efforts to stop our companies from going overseas, but one proven job creator has remained on the sidelines and that is the u.s. export-import bank. and this bank has played a critical role in opening up international markets to u.s. exporters. which in turn helps create and preserve jobs here in america. and the export-import banks of our competitors are supported by those countries five times more than what we do here in america. in fact, the ability of the export-import bank to even operate, even though it makes money and has succeeded in building up american exports,

has been hamstrung by the leadership of my good friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle. in recognition of the bank's success in supporting u.s. jobs over the past 80 years, in december of 2015 the house and the senate voted with overwhelming majorities to re-authorize the export-import bank. despite this broad support, the bank has remained hamstrung because with three empty seats on its five-member board, the bank lacks the quorum it needs in order to approve transactions over $10 million. although president obama nominated two individuals to serve on the ex-im's bipartisan board, the senate republican leadership refused to consider them. and ex-im's board remains without a quorum. they cannot approve these exports. i think it's a national scabble. indeed, it -- scandal. indeed, it has been more than 18 months since the export-import

bank's board was last able to consider transactions and which has limited its ability to ensure u.s. workers and businesses of all sizes are able to compete around the world for contracts, as well as support jobs for the many small businesses that contribute to the supply chains for these high-value exports. in fact, the bank currently has 50 transactions in its pipeline valued at nearly $40 billion, which if approved would support more than 100,000 american high-skill and high-wage jobs and i intend to bring this to the attention of the president-elect. . as with talk this will reate american jobs, we look at the g.o.p.'s record of job creation or in this case, job prevention. republican leaders have been all too willing to let u.s. jobs slip away to our foreign

competitors. until congress restores ex-im to full functionality, selling aircraft, nuclear reactors, will remain at a unique competitive disadvantage because their foreign competitors enjoy a.m. will financing from their home country, enough to knock u.s. companies out of the competition. this is unfair. we cannot compete and win in the global economy unless we support our businesses. we will lose global market share in key sectors, such as aerospace, telecommunications and will lose tens of thousands of jobs to some of the biggest u.s. exports. and eventually some of these companies would be forced to move jobs to where export credit

is still available. and we have seen this reported in the news daily, where they are moving to our competitors. in short, we need to support the export-import bank. we need not hamstring the s.e.c. by requiring it to have unnecessary, time consuming, duplicative rules that are already in place and allows people to sue them more easily. i reserve. and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to care as president-elect does about job creation. mr. huizenga: may i inquire as to the balance? the chair: the gentleman has seven minutes. the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman, i do not intend to yield to the gentlelady from new york even though i struggle to understand how the export-import bank had anything to do with

what we are talking about here today. i would like to recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. tipton: s.e.c. regulatory accountability act asks the s.e.c. to have regulatory requirements by promoting economic analysis requirements during the regulatory process, this bill ensures that it is data driveren and not done on an ad hoc basis of expanding regulations has on businesses and the economy. it is a mistake for regulators overseeing the capital markets to promulgate regulations without fully considering the costs and benefits as well as all of the available regulatory alternatives. this bill takes commonsense approach of requiring the s.e.c.

to evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent of other federal regulations. when our businesses are being overwhelmed by compliance regulations, more time and resources, it is crucial the regulators need to ensure that they are nonduplicative. it is important to note that this legislation does not limit the s.e.c.'s rulemaking authority in any capacity. the bill strengthens the s.e.c.'s existing cost been fit related requirements to ensure that the calculations can be regulated. to vote against this bill i shows a misunderstanding of the financial system and the regulatory process. this legislation is a vote of confidence and with the appropriate tools and the data driven approach, regulatory agencies can create safety and soundness that does not unduly burden our economy. i lend my support to this bill

and encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense measure. i thank the the gentlewoman from missouri. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: at this time, i have the great pleasure in welcoming the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk and yield two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. loudermilk: i thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding this time to me. americans time and time again over the last eight years that our economy is in the slowest recovery since world war ii? why? bureaucrats push out hundreds of burdensome regulations on to american families who are struggling just to get by. the onslaught of this administration has proven to

shut down jobs and stifle our economic growth. it's time to make good on our promise to make a brighter future for americans and begin to turn this nation around. this is what the american expect us to know what is in a bill before we vote on it. most agencies are required to conduct a cost benefit analysis before finalizing it but this isn't always the case for the s.e.c. while they are subject to cost benefit requirements while a new regulation could have an impact, they are exempt to identify alternative policies. i rise in support of the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act because it will have to follow its own core principles of disclosure that it forces upon itself. this bill would require the s.e.c. to disclose the cost and benefits of each proposed regulation to the public.

we must not allow agencies to be a road block to job creation without considering the impact. this bill requires the s.e.c. to identify the nature of the issue before establishing a new regulation. mr. chairman, our economy cannot flourish without healthy capital markets. we must hold regulatory agencies to strict standards just as they do to businesses across this nation. this bill takes steps towards achieving these goals and i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: i would like to a new member. mr. budd. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. budd: the debate over financial regulation is not just about more versus less. it's also about the idea that

financial liberty and personal liberty are connected. and they have been for most of history. this goes back to the middle ages when the widespread use of a bill of exchange basically, a check, made it much more difficult for government to wrongly take people's wealth. that development was one of the first building blocks of limited government. now today, we see a similar principle at work in global capital. like the bill of exchange placing gold or silver out of the reach of government, the economy allows capital to flow away from harsh regulation. countries that get it right are the ones that win. there are a number of statistics that suggest we are getting the shortened of the stick in this arena. we are losing our financial competitiveness. for example, nearly 10% of foreign companies left the new york stock exchange, almost double the historic average. the united states from 2010 to 2016 slipped from sixth to 11th

in the index of economic freedom. while this problem has a number of causes, the securities and exchange commission, the regulatory accountability act will help improve our economic competitiveness by requiring that the s.e.c. put its regulations through a strong cost benefit analysis and to review regulations that are just plain outdated. i urge a yes vote and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from michigan has 1.5 minutes remaining. mr. huizenga: i'm prepared to close, mr. chairman. i appreciate this. and i would like to point out to those of you watching out on tv, the hot air portion of the bill today, you heard about the export-import bank, you heard about bernie madoff and dodd-frank act being the only answer to an economic crisis which caused the housing crisis. the s.e.c., by the way on the

bernie madoff situation, the s.e.c. ignored a whistleblower for 10 years, but this bill has nothing to do with fraud and nothing about a trial of the effectiveness or lack thereof of the s.e.c. today, but about commonsense notion that we ought to actually identify the target that these rules are trying to hit and then find out if it's the right target and analyze that. what you see on the other side of the aisle is the philosophy that more is better. more the regulation that the s.e.c. is, more paperwork and bigger budget with more employees, we're not sure of their effectiveness or what they are trying to achieve here, but all we can tell you is more is better, damn the cost. that is not the intent we have on this side of the aisle. we are trying to make sure the proper protection of the

investors is there. we are trying to make sure that the three parts of the s.e.c.'s mandate of which one of those is capital formation and creating a robust atmosphere is actually happening. and with that, i urge the passage of the bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part a of house report 115-3. 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 specified in the time of the report equally divided by the proponent and opponent and shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 115-3. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. green: i rise as the designee of the honorable maxine waters. i desire to present the waters' amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 115-3 offered by mr. al green of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 40, the gentleman from texas, mr. al green and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think it appropriate to point out what the style of this bill is. the words on the actual bill say. because there seems to be some confusion with my colleagues on

the other side as to whether or not this is a mom and pop bill. the bill itself says to improve, this is a bill to improve the consideration by the securities and exchange commission of the osts and benefits of its regulating and orders. the securities and exchange commission deals with wall street. deals with mega businesses. this is not about a mom and pop store. this is not about the small business in the neighborhood. his is about mega businesses desiring to have access to markets without the regulations necessary to protect investors. this bill, if it passes, will place the s.e.c. in a mission impossible position, because it

will be impossible for the s.e.c. to do what it needs to do to promote regulations that will prevent fraud. either litigation will stop them r they won't be able to be define and quantify the benefits associated with regulations that can prevent fraud. a good example has been presented but some things bear repeating. if we had produced regulations that would have prevented bernie madoff from robbing the country of $64 billion, we wouldn't have known it and couldn't have quantified it because it wasn't nobel. this puts the s.e.c. in a position in a position that is not noticeable. now having said that, the waters' amendment would allow us to curtail some of the conflits

of interests that can take place by persons who will come from some entity that works with persons on wall street or when they leave, go to an entity that works with wall steet. our regulators ought not be able to take their rules and regulations to companies and businesses that will impact wall street after they leave or impact their businesses once they are on wall street. . this amendment would cause the s.e.c. to identify, analyze and address potential conflicts of interest in its proposed rules. and it would go on to make sure that persons who work for the s.e.c. do not create conflicts of interest. we live in a world where it's not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. it doesn't look right for these

wall street types, the persons from goldman sachs and related industries, who will come to wall street, take jobs and promote rules that benefit their former employers, nor does it look right for them to produce rules that will benefit employers that they will go to when they leave wall street. that's what this amendment will present, it is simple, it is not complicated, and it deals with conflicts of interest. i think this amendment ought to be supported and i will reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. and i feel compelled to point out to my colleagues that we are not paid by the word that is put into the federal registry. i think once again you're hearing this example of more is

better. it doesn't matter what the words say, just let's have more of them. we are ready -- we already have the s.e.c. chairman and the commissioners covered by both government-wide ethics laws and regulations, as well as s.e.c. supplemental ethics regulations, which apply to all s.e.c. employees. for example, they cannot participate personally and substantially in any matter that would have direct or predictable effect on his or her financial interests or financial interests in the future. as required under the code. also, unless they are specifically authorized to buy the s.e.c.'s ethics council, they should recuse from any manner in which he or she has a, quote, covered relationship. well, what's a covered relationship? a covered relationship is -- includes former employees, clients and even a spouse's employer. further, the s.e.c. employees must report their financial holdings to the s.e.c.'s ethics

council and this requirement goes beyond, frankly, the government-wide reporting requirement. so, finally, the s.e.c. chairman or a commissioner must not engage in any other business, employment or vocation while in office. nor may he or she ever use the power of their office to influence their name, to promote the business interests of others as required by law. as such, i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: thank you. how much time do i have, mr. chairman? the chair: the gentleman has one minute. mr. green: thank you. let me say this in my one minute. it appears that the other side believes that nothing is better. because that's what this bill would cause the s.e.c. to produce. nothing. it would stagnate the s.e.c. it would place the s.e.c. in litigation. it would literally decimate the

s.e.c. because you cannot uantify bills or regulations that will prevent fraud. you can't quantify it. i've given you the example. i know the public is listening. you need to weigh in on this, members of the public. because this is not about mom and pops, it's about megacorporations. this legislation that ms. waters offers at least will deal with conflicts of interest beyond the person who happens to work with the s.e.c., which is what has been addressed. it would deal with conflicts of interest as they relate to the businesses that they will go to or the businesses that they've left. i yield. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. simply simply here by saying that the bill before us today is intending to clarify or have the s.e.c., i should say,

clarify what their goal and objective is of their proposed rule. let's find out what they're trying to do and then, more importantly, find out if it's actually effective. there might be a rule in place already somewhere else. the other side is trying to strike that provision. they're trying to say, no, no, it doesn't matter what the other hand of government's saying, we're going to just add more and more regulation added on. we need to have a clearer understanding of what the objective is, what the target is and whether it's an effective rule to get to that point. with that i just would encourage my colleagues to oppose the waters-green amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: 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 noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. green: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman asks

for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 115-3. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 115-3 offered by ms. velazquez of new york. ms. velazquez: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: without objection. house res.lusion 40, the gentlewoman from -- by house resolution 40, the gentlewoman from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. velazquez: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: jolt is -- the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. it will help ensure the s.e.c.

will fulfill one of its core mission functions, protecting investors. as members of congress, we must never forget the lessons of the financial crisis and the great recession. americans lost $14 trillion, suffering sharp declines in retirement savings, pension funds and overall wealth. this was due in part to being pushed into abstract and sophisticated financial products and securities that they knew little or nothing about. i was here in 2008, mr. chairman. i listened to the people. i heard their stories. unfortunately for many of them, the financial crisis and the great recession caused deep and lasting harm. many may never recover. i proudly supported the dodd-frank act and believe the s.e.c. has implemented many

regulations that will guard against another financial crisis and help preserve the financial future of american families for generations to come. for these reasons, i am concerned the regulatory reviews required by the underlying bill do not properly account for investor protections. to that end, my amendment ensures the s.e.c. does more than just consider how a proposal or a proposed regulation will impact businesses. it expressly instructs the s.e.c. to waive the safeguards of investors when changing a rule or regulation. my amendment instructs the s.e.c. to continue focusing on investor protection, not only when drafting new rules, but also when reviewing existing regulations. let me be clear. it is vitally important that this language be included to

ensure investors do not take a -- investors' needs do not take a back seat to industry concerns. we must never go back to the days leading up to the crisis, mr. chairman. by simply instructing the s.e.c. to take into account investor protections when reviewing and considering new or existing regulations, my amendment helps ensure the safeguards we put in place on the dodd-frank act are preserved. this will mean retirement savings and household wealth are more secure and we are not once again risking deep and lasting harm to our economy and financial markets. for these reasons, i urge the adoption of my amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to this amendment, though i am not opposed. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr.

chairman. we are prepared to accept the amendment and support its immediate passage. i want to thank the sponsor for working with us to draft the language that is consistent with the s.e.c.'s mission to, number one, protect investors, number two, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, and three, facilitate capital formation. i would like to ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment and the underlying bill and, with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. velazquez: i yield myself as much time as i may consume, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman and mr. hensarling for working with me on this important amendment and i urge members to vote yes, which is a vote to protect average, ordinary american investors. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. 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 in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in art a of house report 115-3. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. green: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part a of house report 115-3 offered by mr. al green of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 40, the gentleman from texas, mr. green, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you, mr. chair. mr. chair, this amendment would clude from this bill regulations that would promote financial stability and prevent or reduce systemic risk. i have indicated previously that we are concerned about the

bill's unintended consequences. i don't think that my colleagues are doing this with malice aforethought. but the unintended consequences of stagnating the s.e.c. to the point that it cannot produce regulations that will prevent fraud, no where in the bill does it exempt regulation that will prevent fraud. i believe that this will help us , because the bill needs to allow the s.e.c. the ability to move at the speed of innovation. these products are coming on the market. the best way for the s.e.c. to be able to react to them would have the s.e.c. to rulemaking authority at the same speed of the innovation. i hope that we won't allow the

s.e.c. to be bogged down with a cost-benefit analysis that is impossible to produce. and that when produced will produce litigation. again, i think this is a reasoned, thoughtful amendment and i trust that it will be adopted. i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i just find it a bit ironic, mr. chairman, that the other side is not interested in doing this cost-benefit analysis, which is in the underlying bill here, because it's too burdensome. but what do they want to do? they want to add more paperwork and more burden. in their amendments. so despite what you've heard, the s.e.c. is not a systemic risk regulator. and even former chairmen of the

financial services committee -- chairman of the financial services committee, barney frank, noted at the time when the fsoc was reviewing asset managers for systemic designations, he recognized that these are not entities that pose a systemic risk to the financial system, and while the s.e.c. does not regulate systemic risk, i am afraid that this amendment could be potentially politically misinterpreted and applied to a number of capital market participants and activities which they frankly have no business in regulating. so it would lead to the same fire, aim, ready kind of situation rule making that we have seen from the current administration that behinders growth and that capital market formation that we just talked about in the last amendment. the bill before us will ensure that future s.e.c. rulemakings are prudently proposed and adopted to achieve the maximum set of benefit and that's what we are really talking about here today. while i support the underlying bill, i will have to oppose this

amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. green: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would remind my friend across the aisle that the volcker rule does deal with systemic risk. i would remind him that the s.e.c. does play a role in regulating systemic risk. now, having said that, let's just talk again, and i would engage in a colloquy with you, and use my time, explain to me, a , how you would quantify regulation designed to prevent fraud such as the fraud perpetrated by madoff. how would you quantify it? dollars and cents. because that's what you're all about. how do you quantify at that? mr. huizenga: this has nothing to do with berne yee madoff. mr. green: reclaiming my time,

mr. chairman, you are trying to divert us from the actual problem, which is regulations that can prevent fraud. how do you propose to quantify in dollars and cents regulations that will prevent fraud when the fraud that can be perpetrated is not noticeable? i yield. mr. huizenga: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and working together on the financial services committee, there are tables where we analyze risk all the time. mr. green: i reclaim my time. there is no way for anyone to have known what bernie madoff was doing. you are imposing a mission impossible upon the s.e.c. there is a real question that has to be answered today or in some point in the future, does congress regulate wall street or does wall street regulate congress? this is a serious question

because this is what this kind of regulation gives us the image of being a part of. wall street wants this. this benefits wall street. it doesn't benefit mom and pop or main street, but benefits mega corporations. and you can couch the language in any clever way that you want. in the final analysis this is all about mega corporations being able to do things that would prevent -- that would not be in the best interest of investors. investors who are listening to this, you ought to be concerned. this impacts you. if this legislation passes, your opportunity to participate in wall street with regulations that are going to be perpetrated upon you similar to what madoff perpetrated, will not be possible. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. the members are urged to address their comments to the chair. mr. huizenga: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from michigan has 3 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from texas has 30 seconds. mr. huizenga: at this point, i'll reserve and ready to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. green: in closing, let me say this. people who are viewing this at home should become very much concerned about the direction we are headed in. this is a new congress. and here we are currently trying emasculate in a position that it cannot protect investors by requiring it to know the unnoticeable and the rule you are putting in place to prevent fraud has a quantifiable amount that you can produce so you can

measure that against the cost of producing a rule. mr. chairman, this amendment that i propose would benefit the s.e.c. and investors. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: i would like to point out to my colleagues and the american people that currently the s.e.c. is under a court order how they are doing their rulemaking and there is a staff level rule letter. with this underlying bill, we are trying to codify that and make sure not just with a letter but by law they do what they are being ordered to do. and i'll remind my colleagues and for those of you watching us, the securities and exchange commission has three parts. first part is to protect investors. nothing in this bill weakens this or takes anything away from

that. we underscore that. the other thing, the second mission is to maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets, emphasis again, fair, orderly and efficient markets. what we are seeing is inefficiency that is being built into the marketplace right now and we are here to clarify that. s.e.c. is out as the preparing the rule what is the objective and the impact. and yes, cost is part of that. and we are able to look at. and the third thing is to facilitate capital formation. what exactly does it mean? making sure there is enough money around so that companies, big, medium and small are able to go in there and get the cash and the credit that they need to go and expand and do the job that they are trying to do, which is, by the way, employ all of us in america. so with that, we talked a lot

about the underlying bill and not so much about the particular amendment that we have before us. but i do continue to oppose the amendment and encourage the passage of the underlying bill. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his 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 noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. green: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed. the committee will rise to receive a message. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed s. 84 to provide exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as secretary of defense within seven years of release of active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the armed forces, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the committee will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part a 1, house report 115-3. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. desaulnier; i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 much d by mr. desean iowa california. he chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier; i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. desaulnier; i rise in support of this amendment to the s.e.c. regulatory accountability act in the spirit with cooperation that it's most important that the integrity of the s.e.c. for the investor community and entire u.s. population, indeed for the economic benefit of the united states that integrity and transparency is paramount. this amendment strengthens the bill i believe on behalf of the american investor by reaffirming

transparency as a core principle of efficient markets and places public service ahead of personal gain. by requiring the head of the s.e.c. and immediate family members to divest themselves of all securities connected to the financial institutions regulated by the agency, we reinforce investor confidence that it is driven by market forces and not the portfolio of the chair. the power and stability of the u.s. markets relies on the fundamental belief that the system is transparent and fair. anything that causes investors to question the integrity of the u.s. markets including lack of information or opaqueness of information, will necessarily hurt our markets and make capital formation more difficult. the s.e.c. plays a critical role in providing transparency, requiring the s.e.c. chairperson cut financial ties that the

s.e.c. oversees which is a commonsense provision. i hope my colleagues agree and ts public service ahead of profession and personal gain. i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: i rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huizenga: again, i think we are stumbling across the fact that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe that we are paid by the word put into the federal registry here. the s.e.c. is already covered by both government-wide ethics laws and regulations as well as s.e.c. supplemental ethics regulations which applies to s.e.c. employees including the chair. perhaps my colleague isn't aware of it.

the chairman cannot participate in a matter that would have a direct effect and would invite the sponsor to review the code. the s.e.c. supplemental regulations prohibit employees, including the chair from holding any security in a directly regulated entity that they must pre-clear all purchases and sales of securities. the chairman or commissioner must not engage in any other business, employment or vocation while in office nor may she ever used the power of her office at the influence of her name to promote the business interests of others. and the amendment does not seem to address what i believe the congressman's description is intended to address, it is the federal reserve not the s.e.c. that regulates the too big to fail. the s.e.c. does not regulate financial institutions and

defines the term as financial institution and the definition includes a bank, foreign bank and savings institution and since the s.e. cremplet does not regulate that and requires them to divest of zero entities. notwithstanding the important discrepancy here and i ask my colleagues to oppose and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier; i respect the tutorial. but i think this amendment complements protects the investments and with that, i would yield to the the gentlewoman from from wisconsin as much time as she would consume. he chair: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized. ms. moore: i appreciate you bringing forth this amendment.

disclosures investment are becoming more important in this administration coming up. the conflicts that we know about and the conflicts that we suspect exist with president-elect trump and his nominees have become a tremendous source of concern as not only do they undermine the faith and fairness of u.s. financial markets as has been pointed out but quite frankly they have become a matter of national security concern. the amendments -- the amendment that was rejected by representative waters and this amendment, together restore confidence that the u.s. financial system is not being manipulated for the gain of a few government officials. and i urge all my colleagues to support and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier; i reserve, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: at this time, i'm

prepared to close and would reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. desaulnier; i would would really, with all due respect, as intended, a commonsense amendment and complements rather than add onto the existing requirements to protect investors and i think this house would want to see the markets work fitly and the integrity of those markets and the investors is strengthened. transparency in this case with the acknowledgement that there are other existing regulations and the belief that this amendment complements those, i would ask the house to support and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. huizenga: i would point out again that this amendment does not hit the target. s.e.c. does not regulate financial institutions, 15 u.s.c. code defines the term

financial institutions and that definition includes a bank, a foreign bank and a savings association. so the s.e.c. does not regulate any of the entities that are described in this. and in addition to that, the securities and exchange commission chair, chairwoman in this instance who will be resigning soon is covered under government-wide ethics rules and laws. the s.e.c. has additional s.e.c. specific rules that are in place and this amendment would do absolutely nothing to support or diminish those because it doesn't address any situation that they have. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.