[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 96 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5508-H5513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4413, CUSTOMER PROTECTION AND END
USER RELIEF ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 629 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 629
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. 4413) 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
amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
113-47. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings), 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 629 provides for a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4413. This rule makes in
order eight amendments which provide the opportunity for Members of the
minority and the majority to participate in this debate.
The legislation before us today reauthorizes the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, known as the CFTC,
[[Page H5509]]
through fiscal year 2018, and makes important reforms to promote market
stability and to protect end users from unnecessary regulations. Most
of all, Mr. Speaker, we are here because we want to learn from the
past, be prepared for the future, and to allow this organization to
adapt as it needs to to produce better decisions and better outcomes in
the future, and that is why Republicans are here today. This bipartisan
bill out of the Agriculture Committee does exactly that.
Over the past 20 years, financial services companies have started to
employ financial derivatives--historically used by farmers, ranchers,
and utility co-ops to manage risk--as new types of investment vehicles.
They are a part of the day-to-day life of millions of people across
this country that help us to not only get better prices, but to be able
to hedge against the uncertainty.
Today, the derivatives marketplace represents trillions of dollars'
worth of futures contracts, swaps, and other similar financial
instruments. In response to the incredible growth of the derivatives
market, the CFTC has promulgated rules and regulations designed to
promote fairness and stability throughout the economy directly in
relationship to this activity.
Unfortunately, regulations have been written so broadly and with such
inconsistency that many end users--such as farmers, ranchers,
manufacturers, and municipal utility companies that rely on these
contracts for the delivery of critical grain and natural gas--are
forced to comply with rules intended for sophisticated investment firms
rather than the instruments on which they rely and use for their own
trading and commodity work. Such blind enforcement of the law is not
fair nor efficient and unnecessarily punishes small businesses that are
trying to effectively manage their risk.
Simply put, as a direct result of the CFTC's regulations, American
families are paying more for everything from a box of cereal to a new
dishwasher to their monthly energy bills. In recognition of this fact,
H.R. 4413 exempts end users from these regulations to restore fairness,
to promote American companies, and to give them flexibility that they
need to run their day-to-day operations and to protect consumers from
unnecessary price increases.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has been well understood by the Agriculture
Committee on a bipartisan basis. All the way to the top on both sides
of the committee, there is an agreement about how to move forward with
effectiveness, with efficiency, and to allow those end users to be able
to have the market strategies available to them to hedge their own
risk, and to understand the things that are in their own natural best
interest, and that is stability of prices, a marketplace that they
understand, and, perhaps more importantly, one which keeps American
jobs in America and, secondly, that allows Americans to be able to
invest in America, from American-made products to American-made users.
What we are here to do today is to bring this commonsense piece of
legislation to the floor on behalf of a bipartisan large group of
members. It is common sense, it is pro-business, it promotes
appropriate regulation of our Nation's derivatives market, it is well
thought through. What this will allow is this House to be able to get
on record, put themselves to where they can then go to a conference to
meet with the Senate, if they believe it is the right thing to do, and
move forward to make the CFTC even better than what it is today based
upon the history and based upon where it wants to go.
{time} 1245
The discussion we had at the Rules Committee was, on a bipartisan
basis, very uplifting. I believe the effort that we are going to bring
together with that legislation means that we can vote not only ``yes,''
but have confidence that we have made better the things which we touch
today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding the customary 30 minutes.
I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 4413, the Customer
Protection and End User Relief Act, which reauthorizes through 2018 the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Mr. Speaker, the CFTC plays a critical role in protecting market
participants and our Nation's economy from fraud, manipulation, abusive
practices, and systemic risk related to derivatives, both futures and
swaps, as well as in fostering transparent, open, competitive, and
financially sound markets.
However, H.R. 4413 contains several harmful provisions that impede
the CFTC's ability to enforce existing derivatives rules and roll back
meaningful reforms in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.
Specifically, title II of this bill carves out the CFTC from the
Administrative Procedure Act process for establishing regulations,
which represents the most longstanding and broadly applicable
requirements for Federal rulemaking and was written to bring regularity
and predictability to agency decisionmaking.
Furthermore, section 203 of the legislation imposes burdensome cost-
benefit requirements that likely serve only to prevent, delay, or
weaken any rules that implement Dodd-Frank.
Current law already requires the CFTC and other agencies to conduct
economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Congressional Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
In addition, the CFTC is also bound by the Commodity Exchange Act to
consider the protection of market participants and the public; the
efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures
markets; price discovery; sound risk management practices; and other
public interest considerations, under the supervision of the courts.
The redundant cost-benefit requirements contained in H.R. 4413 will
not only hamper the appropriate consideration and promulgation of new
rules, but expose the CFTC to greater industry litigation.
Finally, H.R. 4413 threatens American taxpayers by deregulating
foreign derivatives transactions. Under section 722(d) of Dodd-Frank,
the CFTC is authorized to oversee derivatives transactions that ``have
a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on,
commerce of the United States.''
Section 359 of this bill exempts overseas derivatives transactions
from regulation, creating a loophole in our system of regulatory
oversight that could be gamed by large multinational swaps dealers.
Just 6 years ago, derivatives trading related to the activities of
the corporate structure AIG and Lehman Brothers nearly brought down our
economy and cost every American household more than $50,000.
I related last night in the Rules Committee that we were there--Ms.
Slaughter and I and the chairman, Mr. Sessions--all of us--when Mr.
Paulsen and Mr. Bernanke brought to us the notion on three or four
paragraphs and two pages that this Nation was about to go bust.
It is clear that derivatives transactions outside of the United
States pose real risks to United States financial institutions, yet
instead of strengthening the CFTC's ability to effectively regulate
derivatives transactions involving the foreign operation of U.S. banks,
H.R. 4413 presumes that they will be governed by foreign rules,
disregarding whether those foreign rules are adequate or if the trades
will import risk back to the United States.
Moreover, this presumption can only be overturned after the CFTC and
the Securities and Exchange Commission go to considerable procedural
lengths to make a joint determination that a foreign host country's
regulations are not broadly equivalent to United States regulations.
The futures and swaps markets are essential to our economy and the
way that businesses and investors manage risk, particularly for
farmers, hospitals, manufacturers, and certain utilities industries.
While I share my colleagues' concern regarding issues affecting many
of
[[Page H5510]]
these end users, I believe that this legislation falls short of the
goals of comprehensive Wall Street reform and ensuring that derivatives
transactions do not contribute to another global economic crisis.
I also said last yesterday, in the Rules Committee, that I predict
that if this measure were to become law, we could reasonably expect
that we would have the same kind of financial crisis that we did 6
years ago.
Instead of creating new, heavy administrative burdens, we should
further empower the CFTC to be able to carry out its responsibilities,
including those under Dodd-Frank.
Just last week, House Republicans proposed to dangerously underfund
the CFTC at 22 percent below the President's request, with an
appropriation that will likely lead to either agencywide closures or
employee layoffs. This would make the already underfunded CFTC less
effective at protecting consumers, end users, and investors.
Additionally, because this bill retroactively reverses rules that
have already gone into effect and many of those that are in the
pipeline, it increases uncertainty and costs to businesses and end
users that will unnecessarily have the rules of the game changed on
them.
I simply don't understand this logic. Reducing the CFTC's ability to
effectively oversee these financial activities only increases the
likelihood that we will find ourselves in another potentially
disastrous situation.
Additionally, I would also like to take this opportunity to point out
that several of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee share
these concerns.
It was also pointed out by my colleague that this came out
unanimously from the Agriculture Committee. It did in fact do so, but
in the Rules Committee, we had the prerogative, if we so chose, to
allow the Financial Services Committee to be able to make presentations
that I believe--and in a bipartisan way--other Members, particularly
those of the Financial Services Committee, believe should be a part of
this discussion today. However, this rule cuts them out of the debate.
In fact, H.R. 4413 rehashes several earlier bills that Financial
Services Committee members have previously voiced concern over,
including H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act; and H.R.
1003, to improve consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.
The administration has also come out in opposition to the bill. We
can't continue with more of the same failed partisan practices and
effect a different outcome.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida
bringing up a few of the ideas and assertions that I believe that he
thinks are frailties in the bill, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
What I would like to do, if I can, is let him know that we had a full
hearing yesterday and enabled our members time to read and understand
and hear these ideas. We were assured yesterday by the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member that this is a good process. We are
not trying to do an end run around anybody.
Mr. Speaker, there is something that is well established, known as
the Administrative Procedure Act. This is an opportunity for agencies
to interact with each other through an agreement, whereby they consult
with each other and provide information and procedurally be able to
walk through who is doing what and how things might be done.
I don't think it means they always have to have consent. I don't
think it means they always have to have agreement, but there is a
process that goes on.
I would refer the gentleman to section 211 of the bill on page 18.
Section 211 says quite clearly--no ambiguity here--that everything in
this act is meant to comply with and give guidance to the
Administrative Procedure Act, which means that there is nothing in here
that says that the CFTC does not share its information, understand its
rulings, work with the FTC, work with the SEC, work with anyone about
those rules that they are going to promulgate.
As a matter of fact, it says that the CFTC does have the ability to
do that, and instead of them making their own rules and regulations
without working through the Administrative Procedure Act would be a
mistake. It is authorized here in law.
Further, if one goes back to a later section, page 47 of the bill,
section 359, for the Members of Congress that are sitting in their
offices and interested in this and want to know, this bipartisan bill
by two senior Members--by the way, a former chairman and the current
chairman today--says, ``Section 359. Cross-border regulation of
derivatives transactions.''
That means that, in a world market, we want to make sure that
Japanese, Russian, Indian, German, whatever the marketplace holds for a
commodity that we are talking about in particular, this would mean
that, as the bill says:
Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this
act, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission shall jointly issue
rules setting forth the application of United States swaps
requirements for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Commodity Exchange Act related to cross-border swaps and
security-based swaps transactions involving U.S. persons or
non-U.S. persons.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to do the right thing. This is not about
causing some market crash or failure. This comes from the Agriculture
Committee, on a bipartisan basis, making sure that, in section 211 and
section 359, they very effectively address exactly what we are being
told we didn't do.
{time} 1300
We are trying to have this government know what the right hand and
the left hand are doing, not the reverse, and I believe it is simply
not a true statement to say that we are not trying to accomplish this.
Look, we don't all have to agree on this, but on a bipartisan basis--
unanimous out of the Agriculture Committee--they thought they did a
pretty good product. I think they did a pretty good product, and my job
is to come defend us on the floor. So, when somebody says you did
something wrong, I say, ``Read the bill.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the chairman, my
good friend, that good intentions don't always manifest themselves in a
positive way. I am sure before we had the recession that there were
good intentions. My prediction is that, without appropriate regulation,
we can reasonably expect that these same kinds of recessive measures
might come into play. I recognize my good friend, the chairman, has his
script together when it comes to something bipartisan coming out of the
Agriculture Committee, but I also know that this is an end run around
the Financial Services Committee, which also has germane interests in
the particular legislation at hand.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my very good friend and the
ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, how quickly we forget what got us into the economic mess
in the first place.
I was here 6 short years ago when the recklessness on Wall Street
triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and
cost millions of hardworking Americans their jobs and their homes.
Since then, Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have enacted
reforms, known commonly as Dodd-Frank, to stop the worst of these
abuses with the aim of preventing another economic meltdown. Obviously,
since that time, copious American dollars have been spent, and legions
of lobbyists have come in, to try to undo Dodd-Frank. This is the first
of other bills that we will get that will do away with regulation.
Unfortunately, the authorization passed out of the Rules Committee last
night is a backdoor attempt to undo some of the crucial reforms and is
a precursor to another financial crisis.
Why wouldn't the Rules Committee give equal debate time to the
Financial Services Committee, which has real jurisdiction over what we
are doing here today? Why would they disallow that?
[[Page H5511]]
It is because they didn't want anybody to hear it. If the Agriculture
Committee were unanimous, I don't know what its reason was, but many
Democrats and, certainly, those of us on the Rules Committee and others
who are going to be here today want to be solidly in the ``no'' column
because, if what we fear will happen happens, we want the country to
know that somebody tried to stop it as there are crucial reforms that
we talk about in this bill which are going to handcuff and obstruct the
law enforcement officials who are charged with overseeing the markets
and enforcing the regulations on Wall Street.
When we found out 6 years ago, I was a member of the leadership then
and was chair of the Rules Committee. We got a message on Saturday
afternoon. It was three paragraphs, which Mr. Hastings did a wonderful
job of explaining, from Secretary Paulson and the head of the Fed, Mr.
Bernanke. It was very short and quite succinct. Basically, if we did
not provide them--the Treasury and the Fed--with $800 billion by
Tuesday--and this was Saturday--the financial services in the United
States would be defunct. We would be finished.
This was pretty frightening because all we knew is that fancy things
were going on on Wall Street and that mortgages were being chopped up
and sold in pieces. I think they unloaded a lot of it onto Germany's
Deutsche Bank. We not only affected our economy, but we affected other
parts of the world. It was a disaster--people lost houses that they had
spent their lives trying to get; children were displaced from their
homes and from their schools; people were without their jobs--simply
because they were playing tricks, passing paper back and forth to each
other, and there was not strong enough regulation in this country for
the people who did the oversight to even know what was going on.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2
minutes.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. This was one of the most awful things that we had ever
gone through. We watched what happened to our neighbors and to those in
other parts of this country where people were literally forced out onto
the streets because of what Wall Street had done, not because of
anything they had done. People who had paid their mortgages faithfully
every single month suddenly found out that those mortgages were
worthless, that their mortgages were more expensive to them at that
time than their houses were worth on the market.
Why in the world would we have any attempt here to undo any of that?
Those lobbyists and all of that money made their statements pretty
clear.
On our side, we are trying to hold up the other side. We want to
speak for those people who lost their jobs. We want to speak for those
people who lost their homes. We want to say to the small businesses
that had no access to capital and went under that we are trying to
protect your interests here.
Whatever happens, we know we don't have the votes--you have got them.
We do know that this is a majority that hates regulation whether it is
clean air or clean water. Whatever it is, get rid of it. Then you come
back down here to Wall Street and know the effect that it has had. We
haven't completely recovered from that recession. God knows we have not
passed any legislation in the House of Representatives to create jobs
or to make it any better. We do everything that we can just to benefit
those people who have the money. We all know how this movie ends. If it
moves forward as written, we are sowing the seeds for future disaster
in this country.
Last night, at the Rules Committee, we called for a ``no'' vote, and
we said specifically what we were doing. We wanted to be on record on
our side as trying to protect the American public and their futures so
that they have some confidence again in what they are doing. We would
love it if banks would again stop passing paper back and forth to each
other and would make loans and get people back to work. We, of course,
were not able to do that as 2-9, I believe, was the vote. We will see
what happens when this comes to the floor, as it certainly will. We
just simply, as I said, want to make sure because, the last time this
came up, we didn't have the opportunity to speak. We are a solid
``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I really do appreciate the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking
member of the Rules Committee, for coming down and taking her very
important time.
I would, with great respect, remind her and my colleagues who are
listening that the Agriculture Committee has jurisdiction over the
CFTC, not the Financial Services Committee, which is why we are here
doing this bill today.
I want to just say to the gentleman and the gentlewoman that, if they
are unable to give time during the debate or now to their Democrat
colleagues they would choose, I am sure they could come talk to us and
ask for time, but I don't see anybody lined up here to come down and
argue the point, because this is a bipartisan bill, because this is a
commonsense bill, because this makes sense that we are trying to avoid
problems by getting this administration and the commissions that are
spoken about here to work together, to use the benefit of the knowledge
of the past. This is not about deregulating or doing away with
something or defunding somebody. That is just not the case.
The case is section 211 and section 359. The entire bill has been
well vetted and well understood on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Collin
Peterson, the ranking member, came with the chairman, Mr. Lucas from
Oklahoma. They sat there very succinctly and said they were going to
work together. They were asking us to consider working together. We
have had lots of bills, lots of appropriators. Just the other day,
Armed Services, on a bipartisan basis, brought us their bill. I am sure
there will be people who will fight that also. They will say that those
darned Republicans just want to ruin this country, that they want to go
back to the other ages.
Mr. Speaker, not true.
In fact, work that is done on our Appropriations Committee and work
that is done, as an example, on the Agriculture Committee is done
together to try and address the problems of their constituencies.
They're the people who live in rural America--people who get up early,
who go to bed late, who care about this country--who do the things
that, I think, are all American, in my mind, including having their
sons and daughters join our military and they are helping each other--
good neighbors--and looking out for each other. That is what we are
doing. That is what this is. This isn't to have a debating group about
things that are wrong. It is about things that can be done right.
I would just say that, if the Democratic manager is unwilling to
yield his time to Ms. Waters, who is the gentlewoman who came up from
Financial Services, she ought to ask a Republican if he will yield
time, and it wouldn't surprise me if he would.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my
good friend that we have no further speakers and that I am prepared to
close at this time if he is.
In closing, what has transpired here is interesting. The Agriculture
Committee had finished its product, and then it came yesterday to add
provisions that in the final analysis are dealing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Then my friend, the chairman, would argue that
it is an agriculture bill. Clearly, it is smack-dab in the lane of
Financial Services, and they were excluded. Yes, Ms. Waters did come to
the Rules Committee last night, and there is no requirement that she be
here now, but what we could have done--we keep saying ``last night,''
but it was late yesterday evening--is to let the Financial Services
people participate in this debate--but no. What we have are the two
people, the chairman and ranking member, who are given time with
reference to this matter, and the Financial Services Committee is shut
out of this debate. That is just plain wrong, and I believe most people
know that.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4413 creates significant loopholes for derivatives
by hamstringing the CFTC, and it undermines comprehensive financial
reform.
Six years after the Great Recession, families are still struggling in
this
[[Page H5512]]
country. As of last week, 3 million Americans have lost their emergency
unemployment insurance since it expired in December 2013. I want to
repeat that: 3 million Americans have lost their emergency unemployment
insurance since it expired in December 2013.
After my friends finish their reconstitution of their leadership this
afternoon, I would hope that their new then leadership would come down
here and put something on the floor that would allow us at least to
have a vote, up or down, as to whether or not people should receive
unemployment compensation.
Other things that have expired, along with unemployment compensation
that expired in December, are the tax extender provisions, which help
individual families and small businesses invest. In the coming months--
real soon--Congress is going to be faced with even more pressing
challenges as our Nation's highway trust fund is expected to go 0.0--
bankrupt--and the authorizations for Federal surface transportation
projects will also expire. The Export-Import Bank and the Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act are set to expire. The House still has eight
appropriations bills left to pass, and with each passing day of
inaction on these items, we come closer to another economic crisis.
Republicans and Democrats must come together to prevent this from
happening as well as to move our Nation forward on comprehensive
immigration and tax reform, raising the minimum wage, protecting voter
rights, and securing equal pay.
{time} 1315
Let me go back through that. Securing equal pay, protecting voter
rights.
I am personally tired of the suppression and oppression measures with
reference to voting in this country. Why in the world would we want
less people to vote than, under the circumstances, people that should
be participating in this great democracy of ours?
And yet we have States, including my own, circumventing the process
of voting, restoring, if you will, age-old problems having to do with
voting rights.
How about raising the minimum wage?
Put something down here on the floor and stand up and vote for it or
against it. But don't come in here and have everybody believe that you
are moving this country forward.
I predict for you what is going to happen: 28 more days, 27 more
days, are going to go through the rest of this process. There is going
to be further obstruction from the majority in this particular House of
Representatives, and then we will go out and we will have an election,
and the American people will speak again to those of us that are in the
House of Representatives.
Most of us are likely to be back here, and we will be right back here
in what is referred to as a ``lame duck session,'' and we will hold
that lame duck session, pass some kind of an omnibus bill, and be off
into the sunset for the 2016 election.
Enough already. Stop pretending, and have people know that we are
confronted with real problems in this country, and it is this
institution that has a responsibility to attend to them.
The reauthorization of CFTC is both important and necessary. However,
H.R. 4413 includes provisions that put the safety and the stability of
the United States financial system at risk. Therefore, I urge a ``no''
vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman, my dear friend from Florida, for not only
attending the meetings, Rules Committee meetings, that were directly
related to this subject. It took some time yesterday. He was offered an
opportunity and took us up on asking questions.
But I will tell you, not all of Denmark is rotten, Mr. Speaker. Not
all of Denmark is rotten.
We are here today to put a bill on the floor to reauthorize the CFTC.
We are not here for housing bills. We are not here for Wall Street
bills. We are not here for all the problems of voter regulations. We
are not here for all the problems of the world.
I am for world peace too, by the way. But that is not what we are
here to do today.
What we are here to do is to reauthorize the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, CFTC, through a bill that was worked through by the
Agriculture Committee, on a bipartisan basis, where they bring people
together and actually listen to ideas. And certain sections in here may
have been written by a Republican, certain may have been written by a
Democrat, but there was agreement that they saw the same direction.
What did we do?
We made sure we empowered, by recognizing the role of what we are
reauthorizing for the CFTC, and gave them what we believe are the
proper statutes and direction, which is what the Congress of the United
States is supposed to be doing, giving direction, working in
consultation, and we have done this over and over and over.
By the way, this is not a 3,000-page bill. This bill was read by
Members of Congress before we passed it.
Section 211, right here, we want people to work together. We would
like to ask this administration to please work together.
Oh, by the way, we included the Federal courts in here also, and we
said, a person adversely affected by a rule of the commission
promulgated under this act may obtain the review of this rule in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
So we included the court system in here. We went through a process to
make sure that we were dealing properly with a bipartisan answer to the
past and to make us better for the future.
Oh, did we include other countries to where we want others in the
world marketplace to know what we are doing? Yes, we did. Section 359,
cross-border regulations of derivatives.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to do the right thing. We don't debate
every day every bill. We do debate lots of bills. We are trying to do
the right thing. We are trying to work together. We are even trying to
give enough time.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on my side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Twelve and one-half minutes. My guess is that the
gentleman from Florida had at least 12\1/2\ minutes. That is 24 minutes
that we had available where, if there are other Members of the body
that would wish to come down and participate in this debate, they can
do just that.
I have not had anybody seek time. So I think the arguments are fair,
but I think that they hold less water than what some assume.
What we are trying to do here today, the Republican majority, is to
bring bills forward through regular order, through committees, where we
know what we are doing, and we try and get things--try to get things
done together. In this case, a successful rain dance has a lot to do
with timing.
Well, the timing is right here today, Mr. Speaker, and we are right
here on the floor with a bill. I see very little in terms of content
where people want to come down and beat up the product. And the reason
why is because this product is kind of like an American farm product--
it is really pretty good. It really is a product of hard work, getting
up early, going to bed late, being honest about it, trying to make
things as efficient as they can.
So I am going to stand behind this product today. I am going to stand
behind this product because I think they did a good job.
I will tell you that I think that our young chairman, Frank Lucas, is
a great young leader. He is doing great things, and that is why I can
say I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule, ``yes'' on the
underlying legislation, and I can say with some 10 minutes left in time
given me, and some time, about the same that was given to my Democrat
colleague, I am going to yield back the balance of my time because I
believe that the job we did was worthy and the product will show
itself.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
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.
[[Page H5513]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________