[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 3, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3773-H3781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2289, COMMODITY END-USER RELIEF ACT
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 288
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. 2289) 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-
[[Page H3774]]
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 section 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. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Agriculture now printed in the bill, 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 114-18. 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.
Sec. 2. The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time
before 5 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 2015, file privileged
reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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
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 Washington?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, H. Res. 288, providing for the consideration of a very
important piece of legislation, H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User
Relief Act.
The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2289 under a
structured rule and makes five amendments in order--two Democrat and
two Republican, as well as one bipartisan amendment--allowing for a
balanced debate on these important issues.
H.R. 2289 is essential to the smooth functioning of the American
economy and is long overdue for an enactment into law. This important
legislation will reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
also known as the CFTC, which had its statutory authority lapse in
September of 2013.
The House passed, with strong bipartisan support, a very similar
version of this legislation on June 24 of last year. Unfortunately, the
Senate failed to take up the House-passed bill despite its strong
bipartisan support in the House, leading us to reconsider this
legislation again today.
After the financial crisis of 2008, almost everyone agreed that
changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to
protect our economy and 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 this financial calamity because they have put
overly burdensome restrictions on our business communities.
However, it is important to note that this legislation keeps intact
the overarching reforms made in title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Every
witness who appeared in front of the Agriculture Committee was
supportive of the clearing, margining, and execution requirements that
are the heart of title VII; yet, like every major comprehensive law--
and this was very comprehensive--there are always unintended
consequences that need to be addressed, and H.R. 2289 does just that.
For example, the authors of Dodd-Frank would likely argue the law's
main purpose is to reduce systemic risk to the 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 for their wheat, are a systemic
risk to our economy.
It is just as restaurant chains that are looking to make sure they
have enough beef or pork or potatoes to sell to their patrons also do
not pose a systemic risk. Utility companies that are seeking to ensure
that they have enough power to meet the needs and demands of their
customers did not cause the financial crisis.
Unfortunately, though, 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 this bill undermines consumer
protections. However, this could not be further from the truth. Title I
of H.R. 2289 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.
It would also require firms that become undercapitalized to
immediately report to regulators and work with them to restore adequate
capital and financial security. These title I provisions are
commonsense reforms that will protect consumers.
Title II would make reforms to the CFTC itself, such as strengthening
the cost-benefit analysis the CFTC must perform when considering the
impacts of its rules and appointing a chief economist to assist with
compiling and analyzing financial data.
Critics may claim that requiring cost-benefit analyses will open up
the CFTC to lawsuits, which could be costly. However, such critics also
ignore the endless cycle of the proposal and reproposals of rules that
are rushed, poorly conceived, and unworkable.
This work requires the CFTC to waste staff time and Commission funds
to redraft rules or to provide workarounds for impacted parties. This
requirement merely gives the CFTC a standard for writing good rules the
first time that will benefit our economy and the users.
Title II would also require the CFTC to take steps to invest in IT to
protect sensitive market data against cyber attacks, a very real issue
given the recent breaches we have seen at the IRS and at various
national retailers. Most importantly, this section reauthorizes the
CFTC until 2019, which has been operating without our authorization, to
spend money for a year and a half.
Title III now gets to the heart of what I mentioned earlier,
providing relief to the end users or the farmers, the restaurants, the
manufacturers, the utilities, and other entities that rely on a steady
supply of commodities that have been caught up in the unintended
consequences of Dodd-Frank's 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. These entities inherently want to avoid risk and,
thus, shouldn't be subjected to the same requirements as financial and
investment entities.
Mr. Speaker, title III of H.R. 2289 makes significant reforms to aid
these end users, such as preventing utility companies from being
inappropriately classified as ``financial entities'' and being treated
like banks under the law.
It exempts end users who are not otherwise regulated by the CFTC from
having to keep records of every email, phone call, fax, or letter with
regard to every trade, a huge recordkeeping burden. It would prevent
nonbank swap dealers from having to hold more capital than banks do,
which would put them at an unfair disadvantage in the market.
[[Page H3775]]
Additionally, this section would allow end users operating in rarely
traded markets not to have to disclose trade data, which can be a
serious disadvantage if they must publicly show all of their trading
partners what they are buying and selling.
Title III would also require the CFTC to determine if the rules for
foreign swaps are equivalent to U.S. rules and create a workable system
of substituted compliance for market participants whose activity
crosses multiple jurisdictions. This would ensure that businesses which
trade internationally do not have to comply with two sets of divergent
rules.
Mr. Speaker, the most important thing to remember about H.R. 2289 is
that the farmer who grows the food that you eat for dinner did not
cause the financial crisis, neither did the people you buy your
electricity from or the people who provided the wood for your desk or
the metal used in your car. I do not know of any reason we should
continue to treat them as if they did, which is what the current law
does, and it is what H.R. 2289 is seeking to correct.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the
consideration of important legislation that will help grow our economy.
I support its adoption, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule
and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse)
for the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
underlying legislation.
Since my friends on the other side of the aisle have assumed the
majority, they have made it their mission to undermine the Dodd-Frank
Act and hamstring the ability of our regulators to put in place strong
rules to prevent another financial crisis, and this legislation is no
exception.
H.R. 2289 reauthorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
through 2019 while making substantial changes to the CFTC's internal
operations and rolling back key Dodd-Frank provisions intended to
strengthen our financial regulatory framework.
I have specific concerns with the new cost-benefit requirements
imposed in title II of the legislation. The CFTC already conducts cost-
benefit analyses on its rulemakings, and this provision could
significantly slow down the rulemaking process while also creating
openings that will put the CFTC at the risk of increased litigation.
Title II of H.R. 2289 also proposes several unnecessary changes to
the Commission's internal operations that can make it more difficult to
manage the agency.
According to CFTC Chairman Massad, the provisions contained in title
II could weaken the Commission's ability to respond in a timely and
effective manner. For example, if these measures were currently in
place, it would have made it more difficult for the agency to
positively respond over the past 10 months to concerns raised by market
participants. Also included in this bill are substantial changes to
rulemakings taking place at the Commission under the Dodd-Frank Act.
I am particularly concerned by the cross-border language contained in
the bill, which will undercut the efforts already underway by the
Commission to negotiate on an international system of safe and robust
derivative rules that are necessary to apply to the global derivatives
market.
H.R. 2289 requires the CFTC to create a rule that will automatically
allow U.S. banks and foreign banks conducting business in the U.S. to
do so under the rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, all of which
are currently more lenient than our own. We have seen this kind of race
to the bottom before, and we all know how it ends.
Worse yet, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation hamstrings an agency
that is already woefully underfunded. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the CFTC will need 30 additional personnel annually to
handle the increased workload imposed by both the new cost-benefit
analysis requirements and the mandated cross-border rule contained in
this legislation.
Will my friends on the other side of the aisle provide the necessary
funding increases to the CFTC to carry out these requirements? I doubt
it.
Dodd-Frank significantly expanded the CFTC's role in overseeing our
financial markets, and they have already completed over 80 percent of
their required rulemakings, the best rate of any financial regulator.
They have done so despite the fact that Congress has not done its part
to provide the agency with the resources it needs to police these
incredibly complex markets, populated by highly sophisticated and
extremely powerful entities.
Remember AIG, the insurer brought down by derivatives trades that the
CFTC is now policing? If that memory is fuzzy, I am sure you will
remember the funds we provided to bail AIG out, which came to a total
of $67.8 billion. That would be enough to fund the CFTC at the level
requested in the President's budget for over 200 years.
The Commission needs a reauthorization, but it certainly doesn't need
one saddled with changes that will hamstring its internal operations,
prolong its rulemakings through an inflexible cost-benefit analysis
requirement that opens it up to litigation risk, and force it to allow
a race to the bottom on international rules governing a global market.
I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and the
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to make one comment in response to those of my
colleague from Massachusetts in considering the underfunding of CFTC.
In the last 5 years, through the reductions of Federal spending and
the efforts that have been going on, I think anyone would be hard-
pressed to find another agency that has received an almost 50 percent
increase in its budget over that period of time.
I will just point out that, certainly, they have received a lot of
new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank, but also a large increase in
their available resources.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Conaway), the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to provide
for the consideration of H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act.
I want to start by thanking Chairman Sessions and the entire Rules
Committee for their time and work in preparing this rule. Yesterday's
hearing was spirited but fair, and they have produced a rule that
reflects the tremendous work the Agriculture Committee has put in on
this issue.
Over the past few years, the Agriculture Committee has heard from
dozens of witnesses at over 10 hearings. These witnesses, many of whom
are market participants struggling to comply with the needlessly
burdensome rules and ambiguous portions of the underlying statute, have
been consistent in their call to action. To address their concerns,
H.R. 2289 makes targeted reforms that fall into three broad categories:
customer protections, Commission reforms, and end-user relief.
Title I of the bill protects customers and the margin funds they
deposit at their FCMs by codifying critical changes made in the wake of
the collapses and bankruptcies of MF Global and Peregrine Financial.
Title II makes meaningful reforms to the operations of the Commission
to improve the agency's deliberative process. In doing so, it also
requires the Commission to conduct more robust cost-benefit analyses to
help get future rulemakings right the first time and to avoid the
endless cycle of reproposing and delaying unworkable rules.
{time} 1245
While the CFTC is already required to consider costs and benefits of
the rules it proposes, this rule attempts to legitimize that practice,
a practice that has been called into question. The current practice has
been called into question by the Commission's own inspector general,
who reported the agency seemed to view the process as more of a legal
one than an economic one.
Finally, title III of the bill fixes real problems faced by end users
who rely on derivatives markets to manage
[[Page H3776]]
their risks. When it is more costly for those who need these markets to
use them, it discourages the exact kind of prudent risk management
activities Congress intended to protect with the end user exemption in
Dodd-Frank.
Accordingly, the bill provides relief to agricultural and commercial
market participants struggling to comply with overreaching and costly
recordkeeping requirements and allows utility companies to continue
using contracts that allow for a change in the volume of the commodity
delivered without the worry of needlessly complying with the swaps
regulations.
H.R. 2289 will preserve end users' ability to hedge against
anticipated business risk by providing a more workable definition of
bona fide hedging. The bill also addresses serious concerns regarding
the lack of harmony and clarity in global derivatives regulation by
requiring the CFTC to publish a rule addressing how the U.S. swaps
requirements apply to transactions occurring outside the United States
and with non-U.S. persons.
To be clear, H.R. 2289 makes these meaningful improvements for market
participants without undermining the basic goals of title VII of Dodd-
Frank, the Holy Grail, to bring clearing, reporting, and electronic
execution requirements to swaps transactions.
In closing, I would like to thank the members of the Committee on
Agriculture who have worked hard, including Mr. Newhouse, to advance
this important legislation. I am especially appreciative of Mr. Lucas,
who worked on reauthorization last year, which was our starting point
for this year, as well as some of our newest members. I also owe
particular thanks to Mr. Austin Scott and Mr. David Scott, the chairman
and ranking member of the subcommittee, respectively, that oversees the
CFTC. Both of these gentlemen have joined me as original sponsors and
have held a series of hearings on reauthorization.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. CONAWAY. They did outstanding work helming a new subcommittee
focused on these issues, and I look forward to their diligent oversight
work throughout the rest of the Congress.
Similar to the CFTC reauthorization bill passed by the House with
overwhelming bipartisan support last year, the Commodity End-User
Relief Act is comprised of narrowly targeted changes to the Commodity
Exchange Act. The committee has again put together a bill that earned
the bipartisan support of our members because we brought the right
relief to the right people.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule and support
for the underlying act.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleague from Washington
State with regard to the funding of the CFTC that the agency has never
received the funding that it has requested, and that is just a fact.
Here we are imposing new requirements, new mandates. CBO, as I
mentioned in my opening, estimates that the CFTC will need an
additional 30 personnel annually to handle the increased workload
imposed by the new cost-benefit analysis requirements of the mandated
cross-border rule contained in the provisions in this bill, and so we
are asking an agency that has never been properly funded to even do
more and not provide it with the proper funding. I don't think that is
a smart way to move forward when it comes to an issue so important.
I also want to point out to my colleagues that they should have
received a letter from the Consumer Federation of America strongly
opposing this bill. Let me just read you the first paragraph. It says:
We are writing on behalf of the Consumer Federation of
America to ask you to oppose H.R. 2289, which the House is
expected to vote on this month. This legislation would
hamstring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from
effectively overseeing and regulating commodities and
derivatives markets, leaving consumers exposed to fraud,
manipulation, and abusive practices, and putting the safety
and stability of the U.S. financial system at risk. The
language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in
last year's CFTC reauthorization bill, which the Obama
administration strongly opposed because it undermined the
efficient functioning of the CFTC and offered no solution to
address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. We
urge you to resist this relentless attack on the CFTC by
voting against this misguided and harmful legislation.
I would tell my colleagues who are observing this debate that each
one of them received a copy of this letter from the Consumer Federation
of America strongly opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include the statement for the Record.
Consumer Federation of America,
June 2, 2015.
Re Oppose H.R. 2289
Dear Representative: We are writing on behalf of the
Consumer Federation of America (CFA) to ask you to oppose
``The Commodity End User Relief Act'' (H.R. 2289), which the
House is expected to vote on this month. This legislation
would hamstring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) from effectively overseeing and regulating commodities
and derivatives markets, leaving consumers exposed to fraud,
manipulation, and abusive practices, and putting the safety
and stability of the U.S. financial system at risk. The
language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in
last year's CFTC reauthorization bill, which the Obama
Administration strongly opposed because it undermined the
efficient functioning of the CFTC and offered no solution to
address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. We
urge you to resist this relentless attack on the CFTC by
voting against this misguided and harmful legislation.
First, this bill would impose an assortment of new, onerous
cost-benefit analysis requirements on the CFTC which are
likely to delay and obstruct agency action. Under the
Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC already has a statutory
mandate to evaluate the costs and benefits of its actions in
light of numerous considerations, including the protection of
market participants and the public, efficiency,
competitiveness, financial integrity, price discovery, and
sound risk management practices. This bill would add seven
new considerations for the CFTC to undertake. Included in the
new economic analysis regime is a requirement for the
Commission to assess available alternatives to direct
regulation and to determine whether, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those alternatives to
direct regulation maximize the net benefits. The practical
effect is a further tilting of the regulatory process in
favor of adopting an approach that best benefits industry
rather than the public.
Essentially, if this bill is adopted, the CFTC will be
required to undertake an in-depth, burdensome economic
analysis for each regulation it proposes and compare its
proposal to every conceivable alternative. Such a framework
likely will create insurmountable barriers that cripple the
agency from putting forth rule proposals and finalizing them
in a timely manner so as to effectively protect market
participants and the overall economy. In addition, the CFTC
would be required to evaluate the cost to the Commission of
implementing the proposed action, including providing a
methodology for quantifying the costs. While this provision
is clumsily worded, it appears that the practical effect of
requiring the CFTC to consider costs to itself and its staff
will be to paradoxically add time and costs to the cost side
of the equation, thereby hindering rulemaking. It is also
disturbing that this legislation would require the CFTC to
undertake exhaustive cost-benefit analyses without providing
the agency with the necessary resources to fulfill those
obligations.
The new cost-benefit analysis requirements also are likely
to result in increasing opportunities to thwart CFTC
regulations through legal challenges. The practical effect of
the new heightened requirements will be that any time an
industry participant objects to new rules, it will have
several new bases for a lawsuit, and it will seek to defeat
those rules by claiming that the agency did not undertake a
proper economic analysis by considering, and then disposing
of, all the possible theoretical alternatives. It is
reasonable to believe that armed with such strong ammunition,
industry-supported lawsuits seeking to dismantle any new
regulations will be successful, a problem again made worse by
the agency's lack of funding to effectively defend against
such suits.
This legislation also subverts the CFTC's authority to
regulate foreign derivatives activities that have a direct
and significant effect on U.S. commerce. As our nation has
learned painfully and repeatedly from the collapses of Long
Term Capital Management, AIG, and Lehman Bros., and from the
JPMorgan London Whale trading debacle, even when derivatives
contracts are booked through a foreign subsidiary of a U.S.
financial institution, the risks of those derivatives often
flow back to the United States, threatening the U.S. economy
and potentially putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for any
resulting losses. That is why Dodd-Frank gave the CFTC broad
authority to regulate overseas derivatives when they put our
national economic interests in peril.
Pursuant to that cross-border framework, the CFTC allows a
foreign host country's regulations to substitute for U.S.
regulations only after the CFTC has made a finding that the
foreign host country's regulations are comparable to U.S.
rules. However, this bill
[[Page H3777]]
would create a presumption that each of the eight foreign
jurisdictions with the largest swaps markets automatically
have swaps rules that are considered to be comparable to and
as comprehensive as U.S. swaps requirements. The bill makes
this determination despite the fact that the CFTC has found
only six jurisdictions to be comparable for certain entity-
level requirements, and has declined to make comparability
determinations for transaction-level requirements for
jurisdictions other than the European Union and Japan.
Switching the presumption will subjugate the CFTC's authority
and expertise on the matter. Furthermore, combining the
reversed presumption and overwhelming cost-benefit analysis
requirements could mean that the CFTC is effectively thwarted
from applying the appropriate regulatory safeguards to
certain foreign derivatives transactions. As a result, the
CFTC's ability to protect the U.S. economy from the dangers
resulting from foreign derivatives transactions could be
impaired.
Derivatives markets affect the U.S. economy in profound
ways, and the risks that derivatives pose to the U.S. economy
are well-known. The Dodd-Frank Act brought meaningful reforms
to increase transparency and accountability in the
derivatives markets and provided the CFTC the necessary
authority to properly oversee and regulate the market.
However, this legislation would put those reforms at risk and
hamper the CFTC's ability to adequately protect consumers,
market participants, and the U.S. economy. We cannot afford
to suffer the grave consequences of another derivatives-laced
financial crisis, but this legislation makes it more likely
that we will. Accordingly, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2289.
Sincerely,
Micah Hauptman,
Financial Services Counsel.
Barbara Roper,
Director of Investor Protection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
David Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commodity
Exchanges, Energy, and Credit of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say
that, as the gentleman just mentioned, I do serve as the ranking member
of the jurisdictional committee on commodities and futures and trading
that the CFTC comes under. I say that only to say that I have been in
the vineyards on this issue and have been struggling with it and
working on it over many, many years.
The whole derivatives and commodities and futures markets have
changed dramatically. We have had a downfall in our economy because of
a lot of activity that was wrong going on on Wall Street and in our
financial community, out of which we are now emerging.
Mr. Speaker, what is urgent here is the fact that we cannot delay any
longer. It is very important for people to understand that no
legislation is perfect. I am the first one to say that. This is a glass
that looks to be half empty or maybe half full. I look at it as half
full.
I look at it as an urgent, urgent issue. We have got to get end-user
relief. That is the major component of this reauthorization for the
CFTC because it is the end users--our manufacturers, our farmers, those
who produce the products, those who had nothing to do with the downfall
of Wall Street, why should they be consistently held to the same
intrinsic regulations and rules that our financial institutions have?
We have got to have those financial institutions under strong
regulation, but it is important that we move, and it is important meat
of this bill that we give end-user relief.
Now, I share Mr. McGovern's concerns about the financial situation,
but let me just assure everyone, this is a reauthorization piece of
legislation. It is not a funding mechanism. That is in the bosom, in
the hands of the Committee on Appropriations; and nobody, absolutely
nobody, has been a stronger champion, more consistent about getting the
CFTC the funding they need. I bring it up all the time. I will still be
a champion, but this isn't the bill in which to address that.
The other point is this, Mr. Chairman, once we get the funding out of
the way. We talked about the cost-benefit analysis in this. We worked
on it. This bill received bipartisan support in the last session. Mr.
McGovern brings up a very good point about possible litigation. We
address that by adding a Democratic amendment by Ms. DelBene that
addresses that issue to make sure that there is no litigation.
As far as the cost-benefit analysis is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is
important that we put the same sort of cost-benefit analysis into this
agency that the Obama administration has in every one of their
executive agencies. Furthermore, it is not a mandate; it is an
assessment. It is saying to assess the efficiencies, make sure we do
it, and it does not put a requirement that any decision on the cost-
benefit analysis outweighs one another as a requirement for them to
make a decision.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill, and we need to do it
quickly because, in section 300 of this bill--I think it is section
323--we address a crucial issue. The European Union is eating our
lunch. All across the world, we are losing our stature as the leading
financial industry and system in the world. That affects every ounce of
our security. We are number one in the world, and it is about time we
stand up and ensure that by making sure that we address the European
Union's harsh discrimination against our financial institutions abroad.
This is particularly true when it comes to our clearinghouses, the
standards that they are using.
Now, Mr. Speaker, yes, we are dealing with eight foreign countries,
but they must have similar regimes, what we call equivalency. Now, why
is that important, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. It is important because it is the CFTC
that must determine if another nation, one of the eight top foreign
nations, has an equivalency of a strong regulatory regime as does the
United States, then certainly we can do business under their regime,
but as long as we don't pass this legislation, the CFTC doesn't have
that.
Finally, on all the cross-border situations, we need a definition of
what a U.S. person is, and we need to give some backbone to our CFTC
Commission to say: Look, why should the United States have to treat a
foreign entity in a manner and with the respect that that foreign
nation does not treat our industry?
Mr. Speaker, this country, the United States, is losing a tremendous
amount of our prestige and our leadership on the world stage, and
nowhere is that being pronounced more than in our financial system
because for 3 years we have had this laid on the table. I urge a
positive vote for this rule.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentleman
from Georgia for his many years of hard work on this very complicated
issue. As you can see, he understands it well and understands the
importance of passing this reauthorization legislation. I just want to
thank him for his comments and hard work.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the
esteemed former chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying
bill, H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act. This bipartisan
bill is the result of a series of hearings in which the Committee on
Agriculture heard from stakeholders that do business with the CFTC as
well as every CFTC Commissioner.
As chairman of the committee last year, I began the process of CFTC
reauthorization, which resulted in the House-passed bipartisan bill,
and I laud our committee chairman, Mr. Conaway, for his efforts in
tackling the same subject and coming to the full House with another
bipartisan CFTC reauthorization that passed the committee by a voice
vote.
A chief selling point of this bill is its commitment to good
governance reforms at the CFTC to increase transparency and efficiency.
First, the bill closely follows an executive order by President Obama
to improve the cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission prior
to promulgating rules. In addition, the bill would improve this
oversight of Commissioners over activities which are outside the normal
rulemaking process that still impact many futures market participants.
Many of these activities, such as policy statements, guidance, and
interpretation rules released by CFTC, would also be subject to public
comment under the provisions of the bill when they have
[[Page H3778]]
the force of law. Furthermore, H.R. 2289 establishes an office of the
chief economist at the CFTC to provide objective economic data and
analysis.
The committee also heard from end users during this process and
included several provisions to provide relief to those end users, such
as a more workable definition of bona fide hedging and relief from
burdensome recordkeeping rules for many businesses.
The CFTC has gone unauthorized since 2013, and it is time many CFTC
activities were reformed by Congress. This rule will make possible the
underlying bill that will improve the CFTC in many important ways. I
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
{time} 1300
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to be clear on one thing. Yes, this is an authorization
bill. It is not an appropriations bill. But the issue of funding for
the CFTC is relevant in the discussion of this authorization bill
because we are essentially proposing that we give additional
responsibilities or require additional actions from the CFTC with no
guarantee that we are going to provide the resources for them to do
their job. We haven't provided them the adequate resources to do what
they have been expected to do from the very beginning.
I also want to say that most end user relief in this bill is not
objectionable, but the CFTC is already addressing them through
rulemaking. A better way to address these concerns than in statute
would be more flexibility for them to do rulemaking, which can be
adjusted.
In addition to end user provisions, this bill also contains all the
problems that we have already identified with regard to cost benefit
and cross border. So there are some significant issues here.
The DelBene amendment was mentioned earlier. I want to make it clear
that that does not prevent litigation. It just restates the standard of
review from the Administrative Procedure Act abuse of discretion.
I will also point out to my colleagues that the cost-benefit analysis
is mandated by section 202.
So, again, I would feel better about all of this if we addressed the
funding shortfall in the CFTC. We are not doing that. And I don't
expect that this majority is going to work with us on that.
I also will insert in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that was sent
to all Members of the House from Americans for Financial Reform
strongly opposing H.R. 2289. Let me just read the opening paragraph:
``On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to
express our opposition to H.R. 2289. . . . This legislation would have
a severe negative impact on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
and its ability to police commodity and derivatives markets. The new
restrictions it places on the CFTC would require additional years of
bureaucratic red tape prior to agency action, would enable numerous
industry lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate
statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly oversee
markets crucial to the financial system.''
Americans for Financial Reform,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial
Reform, we are writing to express our opposition to HR 2289,
``The Commodity End User Relief Act.'' This legislation would
have a severe negative impact on the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (CFTC) and its ability to police commodity
and derivatives markets. The new restrictions it places on
the CFTC would require additional years of bureaucratic red
tape prior to agency action, would enable numerous industry
lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate
statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly
oversee markets crucial to the financial system.
At the same time, this legislation includes no provisions
that address the CFTC's most fundamental problem--the lack of
resources to accomplish its mission. Due to the agency's
massive new responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act for
hundreds of trillions of dollars in previously unregulated
derivatives markets, as well as the growth of traditional
commodity markets, the size of CFTC-regulated markets has
increased roughly 15-fold over the last decade. But the
agency's funding lags far behind. As CFTC chair Tim Massad
recently stated:
``The CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill our new
responsibilities as well as all the responsibilities it had--
and still has--prior to the passage of Dodd Frank in a way
that most Americans would expect. Our staff, for example, is
no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010. .
. . Simply stated, without additional resources, our markets
cannot be as well supervised; participants and their
customers cannot be as well protected; market transparency
and efficiency cannot be as fully achieved.''
While the CFTC's funding is appropriated, the agency
authorization process is an appropriate mechanism for
introducing mechanisms that would supplement appropriations
with some form of agency self-funding. Such self-funding
mechanisms are used by all other financial regulatory
agencies and have been endorsed for the CFTC by every
administration going back to the Reagan Administration,
including the Bush and Obama Administrations.
Instead of addressing the pressing problem of funding, HR
2289 would instead load down the CFTC with additional
mandates that would drain resources and act as a roadblock to
necessary oversight and enforcement. Section 202 of HR 2289
would more than double the number of cost benefit analyses
the agency must perform prior to taking any action. The CFTC
already has a statutory requirement to consider the costs and
benefits of its actions, and to evaluate these costs and
benefits as applied to a number of significant
considerations, including market efficiency, price discovery,
and protection of the public.
However, Section 202 would massively expand this
requirement. The section would enormously expand the number
of different factors the CFTC must evaluate in any
rulemaking, order, or guidance. It would also change the
standard of evaluation from consideration of costs and
benefits to a much more extensive and burdensome ``reasoned
determination'' of costs and benefits. The section includes a
particularly sweeping mandate that would require the agency
to assess whether an action ``maximizes net benefits''
compared to all possible regulatory alternatives. This
requirement alone, which seems to require comparison of any
actual regulation to a potentially vast number of theoretical
alternatives, could be read to require dozens of additional
agency analyses.
Some of this language does replicate cost-benefit
instructions from the Office of Management and Budget that
already applies to agencies within the executive branch,
although not to independent financial regulatory agencies
like the CFTC. However, a crucial difference is that HR 2289
would add this language in statute, meaning that each and
every additional instruction regarding cost-benefit analysis
could become grounds for a Wall Street lawsuit against a CFTC
rule. These extensive new cost-benefit requirements amount to
a playbook for industry interests to tie up regulations in
endless litigation, delays, and red tape. With critical
rulemakings such as position limits to control commodity
price manipulation still incomplete almost five years after
they were passed, the addition of major new barriers to
action would be dramatic movement in the wrong direction.
Section 314 of the legislation would also greatly weaken
the authority of the CFTC to properly regulate derivatives
transactions booked in foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks,
even when such transactions have a direct and significant
connection to the U.S. economy. We need only look at the
example of J.P. Morgan's ``London Whale'' transactions, or
the London derivatives transactions of AIG Financial Products
which resulted in the largest bailout in U.S. history, to see
that derivatives transactions conducted through nominally
overseas entities can have a profound impact on the U.S.
economy. Over half of Wall Street derivatives transactions
are currently booked in nominally foreign subsidiaries, and
even more could be transacted in this way if there was an
incentive to do so to avoid regulation.
Section 314 would force the CFTC to perform burdensome
``determinations'' in order to regulate foreign subsidiary
transactions. Its discretion in performing these assessments
would be limited in numerous ways by the legislation. To take
just one example, the agency would be banned from considering
the actual physical location of personnel doing swaps trading
in determining whether a transaction was conducted inside the
United States for the purposes of applying U.S. law. It
defies common sense to impose such extraordinary restrictions
on the discretion of a regulatory agency charged with
oversight of the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market.
HR 2289 also includes many additional changes. Some of
them, such as amendments to indemnification requirements for
swaps data repositories, are reasonable. However, others
create significant statutory loopholes that could permit
evasion of derivatives regulations by large banks. For
example, Section 301 of the legislation permits large
financial institutions affiliated with commercial entities to
take advantage of exemptions from key Dodd-Frank risk
controls that were intended to apply only to commercial end
users. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has
stated that the language included in Section 301 ``could
potentially allow large banks to trade swaps with other large
banks and not be subject to the clearing or exchange trading
requirements as long as one of the banks had a nonfinancial
affiliate.''
Some of the other problematic parts of the bill expand the
definition of ``commercial end user'' to include financial
entities (Section 306), create sweeping exemptions from
[[Page H3779]]
CFTC oversight for broad classes of complex financial
instruments (Section 309), weaken Commission authority to
require swap dealers to raise equity capital to back up their
trades (Section 311), permit marketing of complex
institutional commodity pools to retail investors (Section
312), and weaken limits on commodity market speculation
(Section 313). All of these sections appear significantly
overbroad and could enable evasion of appropriate regulatory
oversight.
In general, the ``end user'' changes in this bill fail to
recognize the very substantial administrative exemptions
provided to end users by the CFTC. The CFTC has already
exempted end users from numerous Dodd-Frank regulations in
areas targeted by this bill. By acting through administrative
processes the agency has maintained appropriate safeguards as
well as the ability to act if market participants use
exemptions to evade important risk controls. In contrast,
many of the provisions in HR 2289 would provide sweeping
statutory exemptions that lack appropriate controls on risk
and could easily become dangerous loopholes.
But even before considering these issues, the major new
restrictions on the agency created by the cost-benefit and
cross-border provisions of this bill create overwhelming
reasons to reject this legislation as currently written. So
long as those provisions are a part of this legislation,
supporting appropriate derivatives regulation requires
opposing this bill.
We urge you to vote against HR 2289 and preserve the CFTC's
capacity to properly regulate crucial futures and derivatives
markets. For more information please contact AFR's Policy
Director, Marcus Stanley at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform.
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I would urge all my colleagues to look in their
mail for the letter from the Americans for Financial Reform strongly
opposed to this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the good gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
this resolution and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2289, the
Commodity End-User Relief Act.
As chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges,
Energy, and Credit, I want to thank our chairman, Mr. Conaway, for his
strong leadership and for making this reauthorization process a
productive one through the full Ag Committee.
I also want to thank my colleague from Georgia and the ranking member
of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee, Mr. David
Scott. He has been a tremendous partner throughout this effort, and we
certainly continue to work well together. I thank him for that.
Derivatives markets exist to meet the risk management needs of
farmers, ranchers, utilities, manufacturers, and other end users. To be
clear, these hedging activities directly benefit the American citizen
by helping to keep consumer costs low and reducing the risk of
manufacturing in the United States.
The ability of producers and end users to use the derivatives markets
to hedge risk has a direct impact on the cost of living in my district,
Georgia's Eighth Congressional District, and every other district
around the country. It is essential that we have strong markets that
our farmers, ranchers, and end users can utilize to meet their needs
effectively.
Earlier this year, our subcommittee held three very productive
hearings that built upon the work done in the past two Congresses on
this reauthorization effort. In many hours of testimony we heard
diverse perspectives from end users, market participants, and
regulators that were instrumental in drafting this legislation. Their
testimony included outlooks on the unintentional impacts that the
market reforms enacted following the 2008 financial crisis were having
on the end user community.
Despite congressional attempts to exempt end users from some of the
more costly and cumbersome mandates, end users continue to face
unnecessary regulatory burdens and uncertainty. With this legislation
we have the opportunity to erase that.
H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, seeks to clarify
congressional intent, minimize regulatory burdens, and most
importantly, preserve the ability for those necessary risk management
markets to serve those who need them.
I believe we have met these objectives of ensuring that our
regulatory framework protects the integrity of our markets while not
limiting the ability of end users to access these tools to conduct
their business.
I am proud to support both this resolution and the underlying
legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to join me in so
doing.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the
Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2289 and just read a little
bit of it so that my colleagues understand how strongly the
administration is opposed to this:
``The administration strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 2289
because it undermines the efficient functioning of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission . . . by imposing a number of organizational
and procedural changes that would undercut efforts taken by the CFTC
over the last year to address end user concerns.
``H.R. 2289 also offers no solution to address the persistent
inadequacy of the agency's funding. The CFTC is one of only two Federal
financial regulators funded through annual discretionary
appropriations, and the funding that Congress has provided for it over
the past 5 years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity
of the Nation's financial markets.
``The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the ability of the
CFTC to operate effectively, thereby threatening the financial security
of the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky,
irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession.''
The statement concludes, Mr. Speaker:
``If the President were presented with H.R. 2289, his senior advisers
would recommend that he veto the bill.''
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2289--Commodity End-User Relief Act
(Rep. Conaway, R-TX, June 2, 2015)
The Administration is firmly committed to strengthening the
Nation's financial system through the implementation of key
reforms to safeguard derivatives markets and ensure a
stronger and fairer financial system for investors and
consumers. The full benefit to the Nation's citizens and the
economy cannot be realized unless the entities charged with
establishing and enforcing the rules of the road have the
resources to do so.
The Administration strongly opposes the passage of H.R.
2289 because it undermines the efficient functioning of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by imposing a
number of organizational and procedural changes and would
undercut efforts taken by the CFTC over the last year to
address end-user concerns. H.R. 2289 also offers no solution
to address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding.
The CFTC is one of only two Federal financial regulators
funded through annual discretionary appropriations, and the
funding the Congress has provided for it over the past five
years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity
of the Nation's financial markets. The changes proposed in
H.R. 2289 would hinder the ability of the CFTC to operate
effectively, thereby threatening the financial security of
the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky,
irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession.
Prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act, the derivatives markets were largely
unregulated. Losses connected to derivatives rippled through
that hidden network, playing a central role in the financial
crisis. Wall Street Reform resulted in significant expansion
of the CFTC's responsibilities, establishing a framework for
standardized over-the-counter derivatives to be traded on
regulated platforms and centrally cleared, and for data to be
reported to repositories to increase transparency and price
discovery. The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the
CFTC's progress in successfully implementing these critical
responsibilities and would unnecessarily disrupt the
effective management and operation of the agency without
providing the more robust and reliable funding that the
agency needs.
In order to respond quickly to market events and market
participants, the CFTC needs funding commensurate with its
evolving oversight framework. The Administration looks
forward to working with the Congress to authorize fee funding
for the CFTC as proposed in the FY 2016 Budget request, a
shift that would directly reduce the deficit. User fees were
first proposed in the President's Budget by the Reagan
Administration more than 30 years ago and have been supported
by every Democratic and Republican Administration since that
time. Fee funding would shift CFTC costs from the general
taxpayer to the primary beneficiaries of the CFTC's oversight
in a manner that maintains the efficiency, competitiveness,
and financial integrity of the Nation's futures, options, and
swaps markets, and supports market access for smaller market
participants hedging or mitigating commercial or agricultural
risk.
If the President were presented with H.R. 2289, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
[[Page H3780]]
Mr. McGOVERN. I think that basically says it all.
While I respect the intentions of my colleagues who drafted this
bill, I think it is a deeply flawed bill, and it creates hurdles for
the CFTC that will not be fully funded and will cause all kinds of
problems.
I think we ought to make sure that the CFTC can do its job. I don't
want a repeat of the financial crisis that resulted in the Great
Recession. And I think the American people don't want a repeat of that.
I get very worried when I see this Congress chipping away at Dodd-
Frank and the provisions in Dodd-Frank that get us back to what got us
into this mess to begin with. I think we can do a lot better.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on
the underlying bill.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just say I appreciate the good discussion here today over the
past hour. People on both side of the aisles have made very good
comments, very good points.
As it relates to the last comment from Mr. McGovern that talked about
chipping away at Dodd-Frank, everything we're doing around here is
fine-tuning and improving what has been passed in Congresses--
legislation, laws on the books that need improvement--and I see that as
what we are doing here today.
So I appreciate very much the comments. And although we may have some
differences, I believe that this rule and the underlying bill are very
strong measures that are important to the future of our country.
This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to
debate and vote on the bill and numerous amendments, which I would note
are divided evenly between Democratic and Republican Members of this
Chamber. It reflects the balanced deliberation that this rule will
provide. This rule will provide for a smooth and deliberative process
for sending this bill over to the Senate for their consideration.
H.R. 2289 is a solid and substantial measure that will address
several critical issues that the CFTC and end users are facing.
Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see the complete deregulation of our
financial services industry and our commodities and derivative markets.
And I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts.
However, it is critical that the regulations put in place are
appropriate for our economy and as well for the users.
These rules have to provide safeguards and prevent systemic risk but
cannot catch our entire economy in a one-size-fits-all regulation.
As we have discussed here today, the current rules place enormous
paperwork and financial burdens on small businesses. And that cannot go
unstated. Our small businesses, ranchers, utilities, and manufacturers
all face these financial burdens. They take these small, risk-averse
entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as large
financial institutions and hedge funds. H.R. 2289 will differentiate
and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic risk and
should not have been lumped into these rules in the first place.
The underlying bill would also make much-needed reforms in the CFTC
to strengthen their rulemaking process and add commonsense consumer
protections.
Overall, this is a strong rule that provides for consideration of
this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support House
Resolution 288 and the underlying bill.
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 (Mr. Loudermilk). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 182, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 274]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--182
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
[[Page H3781]]
NOT VOTING--7
Adams
Boyle, Brendan F.
Forbes
Jackson Lee
Kaptur
McMorris Rodgers
Roe (TN)
{time} 1340
Messrs. FARENTHOLD, HANNA, McCLINTOCK, and WEBSTER of Florida changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________