[Pages H316-H322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 78, SEC REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 238, COMMODITY END-USER RELIEF
ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 40 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 40

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 78) to improve the consideration by the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits
of its regulations and orders. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
238) to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
to better protect futures customers, to provide end-users
with market certainty, to make basic reforms to ensure
transparency and accountability at the Commission, to help
farmers, ranchers, and end-users manage risks, to help keep
consumer costs low, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-2. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day during the period from
January 16, 2017, through January 20, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time,

[[Page H317]]

within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the
Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the
adjournment.
Sec. 4. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of January 13, 2017, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Washington is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 40, providing for the consideration
of two important pieces of legislation: H.R. 238, the Commodity End-
User Relief Act, and H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.
The rule provides for the consideration of these measures under a
structured rule and makes in order any amendment submitted to the House
Rules Committee, including all five Democratic amendments to H.R. 78,
as well as all eight amendments submitted for H.R. 238, allowing for a
balanced debate on these very substantial issues.
H.R. 238 is essential to the smooth functioning of the American
economy and is long overdue for enactment into law. This important
legislation reauthorizes until 2021 the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, also known as the CFTC, which had its statutory authority
lapse in 2013. The House passed the Commodity End-User Relief Act with
bipartisan support in the 114th Congress, and a similar bill was also
adopted in the 113th Congress, establishing a strong record of
bipartisan support for this measure. Unfortunately, in both instances,
the Senate failed to take up the legislation before the end of its
respective Congress, which is why it is imperative that we pass this
bill through both Chambers and send it to the President's desk.
After the financial crisis of 2008, practically everyone agreed that
changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to
protect families, farmers, small businesses, and our economy, as well
as to prevent another crisis in the future. Like many of my colleagues,
I have concerns with some of the reforms that were instituted in
response to the crisis because they have put overly burdensome
restrictions and regulations on our economy and our business
communities. But like every major, comprehensive law, there are always
unintended consequences that need to be addressed, and H.R. 238 does
exactly that.
For example, the authors of Dodd-Frank argued the law's main purpose
was to reduce systemic risk to our economy. However, I don't think
anyone would argue that farmers who are simply trying to lock in a good
price for their corn or their wheat are a systemic risk to the economy.
Similarly, restaurant chains looking to make sure they have enough
beef, enough pork, or enough potatoes to sell to their customers don't
pose a systemic risk, just as utility companies seeking to ensure that
they have adequate power supplies to meet the needs and demands of
their ratepayers did not cause the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the
current law imposes rules that treat all of these entities as major
risks to our economy, and it imposes overly burdensome capital and
paperwork requirements on them.
Mr. Speaker, critics may claim that this bill undermines consumer
protections. However, this could not be further from the truth.
Title I of the legislation puts in place greater consumer
protections, like requiring brokerage firms to notify investors before
moving funds from one account to another in order to prevent abuses
like those that occurred at MF Global prior to its bankruptcy.
Title II makes reforms to the CFTC and strengthens the cost-benefit
analysis the Commission must perform when considering the impacts of
its rules. Opponents have claimed that requiring cost-benefit analyses
will open up the CFTC to lawsuits. However, H.R. 238 merely gives the
CFTC a standard for writing good rules the first time, which will be a
benefit for all of us.
Title III provides relief to the farmers, the restaurants, the
manufacturers, the utilities, and other entities which rely on a steady
supply of commodities and inherently want to avoid risk but have been
caught up in the unintended consequences of the Dodd-Frank reforms.
These users have a genuine need to use markets to hedge against bad
weather, natural disasters, inflation, price shocks, and other
unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to serve
their customers.
The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 78, the SEC
Regulatory Accountability Act. This legislation replaces guidance
adopted by the SEC in 2012 that currently governs the use of economic
analysis in SEC rulemakings and requires the SEC to identify and assess
the significance of problems prior to regulating. It directs the agency
to conduct a review of existing regulations within 1 year of
enactment--and then every 5 years thereafter--to determine the
sufficiency, the effectiveness, and the burdens associated with their
implementation. Further, H.R. 78 instructs the SEC's Chief Economist to
conduct a cost-benefit analysis on regulations the agency is
promulgating as well as to provide an explanation describing the SEC's
decision-making process, including the implications of not taking the
regulatory action.
Economic analysis is the cornerstone of prudent rulemaking and
entails evaluating the qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits
of proposed regulations as well as potential alternatives in order to
determine the correct action an agency should take. We must ensure
Federal regulators are thoroughly assessing both the need for the
regulation and adequately evaluating its potential consequences--
intended as well as unintended--to prevent small businesses and job
creators from being unnecessarily burdened by onerous Federal
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the
consideration of two bills that will hold Federal agencies and their
rulemaking processes accountable to the American people. Voters sent a
clear message in November that they want a Federal Government that is
smaller, less intrusive, and more discerning in its regulatory actions.
House Republicans created our A Better Way agenda by listening to
Americans about the ideas for our Nation, and the new, unified
Republican government will continue our work to change the status quo
and provide real progress for all Americans. The adoption of this rule
and the passage of the underlying bills is yet another opportunity to
show that we heard this message loud and clear and that we will
reinforce our commitment to restoring the people's voice in our Federal
Government.

I am proud to support the rule providing for the consideration of
these measures, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bills.
I start by, again, mentioning the fact that we have before us, under
this rule, H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, and H.R. 78,
the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. I will talk about them in a
minute.
There are 56 Members of this body who are new Members and who had no
chance to participate in marking up

[[Page H318]]

these bills in their committees of jurisdiction. Sure, I am back and
Mr. Newhouse is back, but 56 people who were in that Congress in
December are not here now, and there are 56 new people.
Again, a regular order process would allow these bills to go through
committee and have ideas and the participation from Democrats and
Republicans, who represent, collectively, tens of millions of people in
this country, in improving these bills. We did not allow it. These
bills just appeared fait accompli in the Rules Committee yesterday.
Here we are on the floor. None of the new Members had a chance in their
committees to offer them.

{time} 1245

In fact, I am not sure where the Republicans are in their process,
but Democrats are still finalizing our committee assignments. We have
some of them, and the rest will be completed shortly.
For Congress to work well, we need to have regular order. And for
regular order to work, we need to make sure that the 56 new Members who
represent tens of millions of people are not disenfranchised in this
process.
Now, getting to the bills. H.R. 238, the Commodities End-User Relief
Act, has been brought to the floor even before the Agriculture
Committee convened or held its organizing meeting. It reauthorizes the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission through 2021. It makes a lot of
changes to internal changes and modifies a number of provisions that
were designed to prevent financial meltdowns.
Additionally, H.R. 238 includes language on issues that the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission has already addressed through
its own efforts. For example, the Commodities Future Trading Commission
has acted on 16 of 22 provisions in titles I and III. Particularly,
many of us are concerned by the cross-border language in the bill,
which would undercut efforts already underway by the Commission to
negotiate an international system of safe and robust derivative rules.
H.R. 238 would actually require the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission to create a rule that would automatically allow U.S. banks
and foreign banks conducting business in the U.S. to do so under the
rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, which can be substantially
different than those of our own, removing the confidence in the
marketplace that is needed for a commodity market to work.
Finally, as you know, Congress passed a number of reforms to enable
regulators to respond quickly to changing markets. The provisions in
title II would weaken the CFTC's ability to respond in a timely and
effective manner.
The financial services industry continues to innovate. It is
important that regulators keep pace and prevent systemic risks, prevent
meltdowns, prevent bailouts. This bill would make it harder to do that.
An example of how the Commission is engaged with and talking about
innovation is how to fully embrace emerging technologies like
blockchain and decentralized distribution ledgers. They are doing that
because many financial firms are focusing on how to incorporate this
technology into their business models. Therefore, it is imperative the
Commission is given the ability to stay involved and understand the
implications of new technology and innovations and is not hamstrung by
this overly prescriptive law.
Now, the Commission does need reauthorization, and I would love the
opportunity to work with my colleagues on the other side to do so. It
should be in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner that gives the agency the
ability it needs to effectively look at incredibly complicated
financial transactions, make sure that consumers and users of
commodities that hedge their risks are not abused in the process. We do
not want to hamstring the agency by unnecessary and counterproductive
requirements as this bill does.
The other bill, H.R. 78, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, also
was brought forward before the Financial Services Committee got
organized. This bill was not even considered by the House last
Congress, and it stalled in the Financial Services Committee. So you
actually have a bill that didn't even clear committee last Congress. I
was complaining about how the 56 Members that are new to this body
didn't have a chance to put their imprint on the first bill. The second
bill didn't even make it through the Financial Services Committee and
didn't even pass the House floor last session. Yet, here it is without
the appropriate committee consideration, depriving new Members
representing tens of millions of Americans--Democratic and Republican--
the ability to improve this bill.
Under the guise of regulation changes, H.R. 78 would actually require
the SEC to conduct enhanced cost-benefit analysis in order to ensure
that benefits of their regulation justify the cost. In effect, the bill
directs the SEC to look at things like market liquidity and small
businesses, which, of course, it already does as part of its economic
analysis. So, again, it is a bill that would bury the SEC in regulatory
paperwork.
H.R. 78's cost-benefit analysis is weighted toward helping large
financial institutions save money. I support reducing costs for
financial institutions. Who wouldn't? But that is not the primary drive
of our regulatory structure. We should put consumers and our systemic
risks first and foremost and, of course, where we can reduce the
unnecessary costs for our financial institutions in the hope that those
would be passed along to those they serve.
I, therefore, oppose both of these bills. I oppose the rule that
limits the opportunity for Members to offer amendments to these two
pieces of legislation. I oppose this process that disenfranchises our
new Members.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, in fact, if I could read from a letter I received this
morning from over two dozen agricultural groups. In one sentence, it
says: ``Thank you in advance for your support of this bill that is so
important to U.S. farmers, ranchers, hedgers and futures customers.''
It is signed, like I said, by over two dozen organizations.
I include in the Record the letter I received this morning, I think,
as did my colleague, Representative Polis, from over two dozen
agricultural groups and associations located throughout the country in
unanimous support of H.R. 238.

January 11, 2017.
Dear Member of the House of Representatives: The
undersigned organizations represent a very broad cross-
section of U.S. production agriculture and agribusiness. We
urge you to cast an affirmative vote on H.R. 238, the
``Commodity End-User Relief Act,'' when it moves to the floor
for consideration.
This legislation contains a number of important provisions
for agricultural and agribusiness hedgers who use futures and
swaps to manage their business and production risks. Some,
but certainly not all, of the bill's important provisions
include:
Sections 101-103--Codify important customer protections to
help prevent another MF Global situation.
Section 104--Provides a permanent solution to the residual
interest problem that would have put more customer funds at
risk--and potentially driven farmers, ranchers and small
hedgers out of futures markets--by forcing pre-margining of
their hedge accounts.
Section 306--Relief from burdensome and technologically
infeasible recordkeeping requirements in commodity markets.
Section 308--Requires the CFTC to conduct a study and issue
a rule before reducing the de minimis threshold for swap
dealer registration in order to make sure that doing so would
not harm market liquidity and end-user access to markets.
Section 311--Confirms the intent of Dodd-Frank that
anticipatory hedging is considered bona fide hedging
activity.
Thank you in advance for your support of this bill that is
so important to U.S. farmers, ranchers, hedgers and futures
customers.
Sincerely,
American Cotton Shippers Association, American Farm Bureau
Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American
Soybean Association, Grain and Feed Association of Illinois,
Kansas Grain and Feed Association, Michigan Agri-Business
Association, Michigan Bean Shippers, National Association of
Wheat Growers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Grain and
Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation,
National Pork Producers Council, National Sorghum Producers,
Nebraska Grain and Feed Association, North American Millers
Association, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, Ohio
AgriBusiness Association, South Dakota Grain and Feed
Association, USA Rice, Wisconsin Agri-Business Association.

[[Page H319]]

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, also, in response to just one of the
points that my colleague brought up, in the first 2 weeks of this 115th
Congress, the Speaker, as well as the chairman of the Rules Committee,
Representative Sessions, has provided opportunity for all Members to
appear before the Rules Committee, has invited all Members to submit
amendments. In fact, I can gladly say and happily say that every
amendment submitted on these two bills has been accepted, if they were
proven to be germane.
In fact, one of the arguments made by my good friend is that the
freshmen have not had an opportunity to weigh in on these two pieces of
legislation. Actually, the young freshman from Maryland had an
amendment brought forward, and it was accepted to bring for
consideration on the floor. So I think the arguments fall hollow that
Members have not had an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway), the good chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule to
provide consideration of H.R. 238, the Commodity End-User Relief Act.
I want to start by thanking Mr. Newhouse, Chairman Sessions, and the
entire Rules Committee for the time and work that they spent preparing
this rule. I appreciate the committee's time, attention, and interest
in the work of the Agriculture Committee.
I am especially gratified by their support of my push to authorize
all of the unauthorized agencies and programs under our committee's
jurisdiction. Last Congress, we came very close, but we fell one agency
short. The Commodities Future Trading Commission ended the year as it
began it, unauthorized.
The Commission, in fact, has not been reauthorized since October
2013. And since that time, the House of Representatives have voted
twice to fix that problem. The most recent effort was in June of 2015.
Tomorrow, if we pass H.R. 238, will be the third time this House has
done its work on this oversight business. Under this rule, we have the
opportunity to pick up where we left off and resume the House's debate
on the Commodity End-User Relief Act.
The text of H.R. 238 is identical to the legislation passed by this
House last Congress, except for four changes:
First, we included a specific annual spending authorization level,
and it is set at the same level as last year's appropriations. This
ensures compliance with the majority leader's floor protocols on both
specific authorization levels and discretionary CutGo.
Next, two sections were removed because they were already signed into
law.
Finally, we removed a section that required the Commission to report
to Congress on the status of a pending Board of Trade registration
application. That application has been approved, so there is no longer
a reason for the Commission to comply with that language.
Other than those four changes, the text of H.R. 238 includes every
word passed by this House last Congress, including amendments offered
by Mr. Gallego to encourage diversity in the Office of the Chief
Economist, as well as Mr. Takai to identify information security
vulnerabilities.
This bill does not just reauthorize the CFTC. It also makes important
process reforms and targeted changes to help Main Street businesses
continue to access the risk management tools that they need to serve
their customers.
Over the past 4\1/2\ years, the House Committee on Agriculture has
held almost two dozen hearings examining the Commission and
investigating the impacts that the Dodd-Frank Act has had on
derivatives markets. What we have found is that some of the rules have
had unintended consequences for farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and
other businesses who use these markets to protect themselves from
uncertainty.
Our witnesses, many of whom were market participants struggling to
comply with burdensome rules and ambiguous portions of underlying
statute, were consistent in their call for relief. To address their
concerns, H.R. 238 makes reforms that fall into three broad categories:
customer protections, commission reforms, and end-user relief.
The Commodity End-User Relief Act does not roll back any of the key
reforms made under Dodd-Frank. What it does, however, is allow Congress
to keep its promise to Main Street America: Main Street did not cause
the financial crisis, so Main Street should not have to pay for it.
They shouldn't have to pay for it with new fees. They shouldn't have to
pay for it in new compliance obligations. They shouldn't have to pay
for it in higher transactions costs. And they shouldn't have to pay for
it in lost opportunities to manage their business risks.
I would like to close by thanking Chairman Austin Scott and Ranking
Member David Scott for doing much of the heavy lifting on the
committee's issues. The two of them got deep into the weeds of
financial reform.
I would also like to thank Mr. Lucas, who is a sponsor emeritus of
this bill. We have been working on this issue since he was chairman,
and much of the bipartisan work he did remains in this bill.
I urge adoption of this rule and support for all the amendments that
were made in order.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
When we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up legislation that would require the President and
Vice President of the United States, their spouses and dependent
children to disclose and divest any personal financial holdings that
could create a conflict of interest by placing them in a blind trust.
This has been standard for previous Presidents, and this legislation
ensures that that precedent continues.
In today's news conference moments ago, President-elect Trump said
that he did not plan to follow with precedent and place his assets in a
blind trust and would continue his direct ownership interest in them.
President-elect Trump has refused to release his tax returns, refused
to resolve conflicts of interest related to his business dealings. The
American people expect the President to do what is best for the country
and not what is best for his business or his pocket.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to
the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the lead
sponsor of the bill that I am proud to cosponsor.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up
the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act.
Mr. Speaker, American families are worried. Over the last month, I
have been flooded with messages from my constituents who are anxious
about the direction of our country.
Never before has our country been forced to ask its incoming
President if he is motivated by service to his country or if he is
motivated by personal enrichment. Never before have we had a President-
elect who will act as both landlord and tenant of a publicly owned
property being used for private profit. Never before have we had the
same people who are running a President's businesses also act as
official advisers and agents. Never has a President-elect owed millions
of dollars of debt to foreign banks.
The next administration will shape how our tax dollars are spent, who
the Federal Government does business with, and the integrity of
America's standing in the global economy.
Every President in modern history has taken voluntary steps to ensure
his financial interests do not conflict with the needs of the American
people. Yet, the current President-elect refuses to place his assets
and his businesses in a blind trust.
The American people are left wondering whether their President-elect
will work in their best interest or to line his own pockets.
Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented. There should be no question about
whether the administration will put the needs of Americans first. There
is

[[Page H320]]

nothing partisan about transparency and accountability that comes with
being the leader of the free world. That is why we should all support
the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act.
This bill strengthens transparency in the Oval Office and guarantees
that the needs of the American people will never compete with or be
beholden to a President's financial interests. This bill ensures that
the President and Vice President's assets are placed in a certified
blind trust.

{time} 1300

The bill also requires Presidential appointees to recuse themselves
from matters involving the President's financial conflicts of interest.
Every President in recent history, from President Johnson to President
Obama, has voluntarily used some form of blind trust or placed their
assets in an investment vehicle over which they had no control. Our
bill simply aligns the President-elect and future Presidents with this
long-held practice.
The American people are counting on our leadership. Every Democrat
and every Republican should want to eliminate uncertainty and promote
transparency and accountability in the executive branch. I ask my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring this
urgently needed legislation to the floor.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, while I applaud the optimism and
enthusiasm of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) about defeating
the previous question, getting back to the debate on the rule, I have
no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself
the balance of my time.
I just want to emphasize how important it is that we defeat the
previous question. There are so many questions that have been raised.
Not only is it in keeping with longstanding precedent for the President
to divest and place their assets in a blind trust, but it is more
important than ever with this President who has a complex web of
assets, nationally and internationally, which are rife with conflicts
of interest for the incoming administration.
I truly hope we can act in a bipartisan way to defeat the previous
question and bring forward Ms. Clark's simple, straightforward bill. It
affects future Presidents, Republican and Democratic, and it is a very
simple, commonsense piece of legislation simply saying that they will
divest and place their assets in a blind trust, something that is
important for both the appearance of propriety as well as for the sake
of propriety.
And yet instead of focusing on legislation to investigate foreign
powers undermining our recent election, instead of focusing on
preventing conflicts of interest for the incoming administration,
instead of focusing on legislation that would create jobs, reduce our
deficit, or improve on health care, instead we have partisan
legislation that hasn't gone through regular order. It has left 56 new
Members representing tens of millions of Americans on the sideline.
The House passed a lot of legislation last Congress. That does not
mean that we should bring every bill directly to the floor and skip the
committee process, because there are 56 new Members who should also
have a chance to put their imprint on legislation. The way the majority
is bringing bills to the floor, it ignores the concerns of the American
public; it ignores pressing issues related to the incoming President.
We have this window of time under the outgoing President to send a
bill to his desk to require disclosure and divestment from the new
President, but that window is rapidly closing. We will only have
President Obama in the White House for another week, so time is running
short.
If we act now and defeat the previous question, hopefully the Senate
will act within a few days, and we can get the bill to President Obama.
But the timeline is very, very short to do this. I do not expect that
Mr. Trump would sign a bill that puts additional requirements on
himself, although he would perhaps change that bill to affect future
Presidents because it needs to be done. It is kind of shocking that we
relied on precedents rather than law in this area.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question
so I can bring forward Ms. Clark's bill as my amendment. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the discussion over the past few
minutes. I believe that this rule and the underlying bills are strong
measures that are important to the future of our country.
This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to
consider and vote on both H.R. 238 and H.R. 78, as well as every
amendment that was submitted to the House Rules Committee, which
reflects the balanced, open, and deliberative process afforded by this
rule.
H.R. 238 is a solid, substantial measure that will address several
critical issues that the CFTC and end user are facing, while also
addressing the CFTC's lapsed reauthorization with reauthorizing the
Commission through 2021. While some opponents have called for an open
rule, this structured rule makes all eight submitted amendments in
order.
Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see complete deregulation of our
financial services industries and our commodities and derivatives
markets. However, it is critical that the regulations put in place are
appropriate for our economy and our users. These rules have to provide
safeguards and prevent systemic risk but should not hinder our entire
economy with one-size-fits-all regulations.
As we have discussed today, the current rules place enormous
compliance and financial burdens on small businesses, on farmers and
ranchers, utilities, and manufacturers. They take these small, risk-
averse entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as
large financial institutions and hedge funds. H.R. 238 will
differentiate and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic
risk--as these entities inherently want to avoid risk--and, thus,
shouldn't be subject to the same rules and requirements as financial
and investment firms that are less risk averse in nature.
The Commodity End-User Relief Act would make much-needed reforms at
the CFTC to strengthen their rulemaking process and add commonsense
consumer protections so these regulations are not a continual burden on
our Nation's farmers and small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 78
under a structured rule and makes all five Democratic amendments in
order. This legislation takes important steps to engrain a stronger
commitment to economic analysis at the SEC, which will facilitate the
promulgation of reasonable rules that do not unduly burden registered
companies or negatively impact job creation. The measure will increase
transparency and oversight, while facilitating additional analysis and
reviews of existing regulations, which should be something that all
Members of this body can support.
As elected Representatives, I believe we must ensure our regulatory
framework is not politicized and that Federal regulators are thoroughly
assessing both the need for the regulation as well as adequately
evaluating its potential consequences. This bill takes important steps
towards achieving all of these goals.
It is important to remember that the financial crisis was not caused
by the farmer who grows the food you eat for dinner, or by the utility
you buy electricity from, or by the people who provide the wood in your
desk or the metal used in your car. I don't know of any reason why we
should continue to treat them as if they were responsible, which is
what the current law does and is what H.R. 238 seeks to correct.
Further, better informing the American people of the true impact of
major regulations does nothing to diminish the ability of regulators to
adequately address illegal or inappropriate activities but, rather,
increases transparency and the efficacy of Federal rules, which is why
passage of H.R. 78 is so critical both to our constituents and to our
economy.
Mr. Speaker, this is a strong rule that provides for open and fair
consideration of these vital pieces of legislation as well as every
amendment that

[[Page H321]]

was submitted to the House Rules Committee. I am proud to speak in
favor of this rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to support House
Resolution 40 and both of the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 40 Offered by Mr. Polls

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
371) to address financial conflicts of interest of the
President and Vice President. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their respective designees. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 371.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on agreeing to the resolution, if ordered;
and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 39.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 168, not voting 34, as follows:

[Roll No. 32]

YEAS--232

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--168

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McEachin

[[Page H322]]

McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--34

Bass
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Brown (MD)
Butterfield
Clay
Clyburn
Curbelo (FL)
Evans
Fudge
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Harris
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
McCollum
Moore
Mullin
Mulvaney
Nadler
Payne
Perlmutter
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Richmond
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Shuster
Watson Coleman
Zinke

{time} 1332

Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. STIVERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:

Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 32.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 170, not voting 31, as follows:

[Roll No. 33]

AYES--233

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Beutler
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--170

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--31

Bass
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Brown (MD)
Butterfield
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Evans
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Green, Al
Harris
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly (IL)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Payne
Perlmutter
Pompeo
Price, Tom (GA)
Richmond
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Watson Coleman
Zinke

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1339

Mr. CUMMINGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________