[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H848-H859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 71, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 41) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule 
submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to 
``Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers'', and ask for 
its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 71, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 41

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission relating to ``Disclosure of Payments by Resource 
     Extraction Issuers'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 49359 (July 
     27, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and submit extraneous materials on the joint resolution under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 41, 
introduced by the gentleman from Michigan, (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored 
Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services.
  This resolution disapproves a burdensome and controversial Securities 
and Exchange Commission rule that places an unfair burden on American 
public companies that is not applied to many of their foreign 
competitors.
  Virtually every day we hear from many Americans about how this 
economy is just not working for them. It is just not working for 
working Americans like Keith from Dallas in my district who wrote me: 
``I am 53. I have a grown son who lives with me. It seems like the cost 
of everything keeps going up, yet wages do not keep pace.''
  The economic opportunities of Keith and millions of Americans like 
him are not helped by top-down, politically driven regulations that 
give many foreign companies an advantage over American public 
companies.
  That is exactly what this Securities and Exchange Commission 
regulation that we are talking about today does. It forces American 
public companies to disclose inexpensive proprietary information that 
can actually be obtained by their foreign competitors, including state-
owned companies in China and Russia. This is just one regulation out of 
thousands and thousands that are burdening our companies, our job 
creators, and are costing our households, by one estimate, over $14,000 
a year, Mr. Speaker.
  Even though this is a Securities and Exchange rule, section 1504 of 
Dodd-Frank has nothing to do with investor protection nor anything else 
we were told the Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to do. As the acting 
chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission has said, this rule 
``neither reforms Wall Street nor provides consumer protection and it 
is wholly unrelated, and largely contrary, to the Commission's core 
mission.''
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the SEC estimates that ongoing compliance 
costs for this rule could reach as high as $591 million per year. It is 
just an outrage, Mr. Speaker. That is $591 million every year that 
could better be used to hire thousands more Americans in an industry 
where the average pay is 50 percent higher than the U.S. average. 
Literally we could be talking about 10,000 jobs on the line for this 
ill-advised rule. This is significant, given that millions of 
Americans, like Keith from my district, have not seen their wages 
increase while our economy has been stymied under the Obama 
administration.
  Now, for those who claim that somehow by rolling back this rule, that 
this undermines anticorruption efforts, let me remind everyone that Mr. 
Huizenga's resolution, that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which 
the SEC and the Department of Justice administer, already makes it 
illegal to pay former government officials when it comes to winning or 
maintaining business opportunities.

[[Page H849]]

  To further prove the point, Mr. Speaker, just this year the SEC has 
brought enforcement actions or settled four separate cases for 
violations of this anticorruption law. So even without this SEC rule, 
fraud will still be fraud, corruption will still be corruption, and 
both will still be illegal. The SEC and the Department of Justice will 
still have the authority to vigorously pursue those who break the law 
and hold them accountable, as they well should. So no one, Mr. Speaker, 
should fall for this false argument of our opponents.
  Let's also remember that this joint resolution does not repeal 
section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. I wish it did, but it doesn't. Rather, it 
vacates a flawed SEC rule that mimics a previous rule that was already 
struck down by a U.S. District Court. It is a rule that by the SEC's 
own estimates has taken 51 employees over 20,000 hours to promulgate, 
defend, and repromulgate. Fifty-one employees, 20,000 hours that could 
have been directed at rooting out Ponzi schemes, that could have been 
used to promote capital formation or make our capital markets more 
efficient.

                              {time}  1515

  Furthermore, this rule still goes far beyond the statute passed by 
Congress and mandates public specialized disclosures that cost more and 
more, and is more burdensome than the law requires.
  So, Mr. Speaker, for those who religiously defend the Dodd-Frank law, 
they should be in vigorous support of what Mr. Huizenga brings to the 
floor today because the rule flies in the face of the Dodd-Frank Act. 
So when an agency exceeds its statutory authority, it is no longer 
regulating, Mr. Speaker, it is legislating. And all of us, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, should be able to agree that when the executive 
branch acts in such a manner, Congress has a duty, a duty under article 
I of the Constitution, to check this executive overreach.
  As such, this House should wholeheartedly support Mr. Huizenga's 
resolution. It simply tells the SEC to go back to the drawing board, 
comply with the Dodd-Frank Act, and come up with a better role that 
will not put American public companies at an unfair disadvantage and 
cost us jobs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  H.J. Res. 41 would roll back the SEC's rule that implemented an 
important congressional mandate in Dodd-Frank requiring oil, gas, and 
mining companies to publicly disclose payments made to foreign 
governments for access to their natural resources.
  That rule helps fight corruption in the extractive industries sector, 
provides investors with crucial information on their investments, and 
enables citizens to demand greater accountability from their 
governments for spending that serves the public interest. It also helps 
to diminish the political instability in resource-rich countries, which 
is not only a threat to investment but also to our own national 
security.
  Specifically, the disclosure rule enables shareholders to make better 
informed assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate 
reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they 
invest.
  In addition, opening the extractive industries to greater public 
scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in resource-
rich countries, which are often underdeveloped countries that are 
politically unstable, rife with corruption, with a history of civil 
conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.
  Moreover, the SEC's rule is a reasonable disclosure and places no 
limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to, how much, or 
what for. After 5 years of robust debate and input, the final rule 
accommodated a number of industry concerns, providing companies with a 
generous 4-year phase-in period and a case-by-case exemption process 
for companies that face implementation challenges. The SEC also allowed 
companies to comply with the disclosure by using a report prepared for 
other substantially similar disclosure regimes, which include regimes 
in the European Union and Canada.
  Nevertheless, Republicans continue to claim that the SEC's rule is 
harmful and puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage to 
their foreign competitors.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to their own set of opinions, 
but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I suppose these 
are alternative facts.
  The truth is that U.S. companies are not the only ones required to 
make these disclosures. Many foreign companies must report under the 
U.S. rules, including a number of state-owned oil companies, such as 
China's PetroChina and Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras.
  Also, after the SEC issued its initial rule in 2012, the rest of the 
world followed our lead, establishing a global standard for the public 
disclosure of extractive payments companies make to governments.
  A wave of transparency laws have been adopted in foreign markets that 
mirror the U.S. law. This includes legislation in the European Union, 
Norway, and Canada, which are all now in force. These laws cover the 
vast majority of oil, gas, and mining companies that compete with U.S. 
firms.
  Now, leading global oil companies like BP, Shell, and Total, as well 
as Russia's state-owned companies--Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil--are 
entering their second year of reporting under EU rules without any 
negative impact.
  So contrary to Republican claims, U.S. and foreign companies already 
compete on a more level playing field here and abroad. Therefore, 
rolling back the SEC's disclosure rule would directly undermine the 
interests of extractive companies in having a level playing field.
  Worse, once the rule is nullified by this resolution, the SEC would 
not be able to put another rule in place that is substantially similar. 
This would create different reporting regimes directly contravening 
what companies have requested from the SEC. And, the SEC final rule 
accommodated industry concerns by including a generous phase-in period. 
U.S.-listed companies are not required to report until 2019. The rule 
also provides for case-by-case exemptions if covered companies face any 
implementation issues.
  Therefore, the rule does not put U.S. companies at a competitive 
disadvantage, nor does it impose an unreasonable compliance burden.
  I would also point out to my Republican colleagues the importance of 
the SEC's disclosure rule in protecting U.S. national security and 
energy security interests.
  Specifically, it helps protect U.S. national security interests by 
helping prevent the corruption, secrecy, and government abuse that has 
catalyzed conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in 
Africa, the Middle East, and beyond.
  As ISIS demonstrated, nonstate actors can benefit from trading 
natural resources in order to finance their operations. Project-level 
disclosures in the rule will make hiding imports from nonstate actors 
more difficult, thereby limiting their ability to finance themselves 
with natural resource revenues.
  Corruption and mismanagement of oil revenues destabilizes regions and 
leads to conflict. And, resource-rich countries like Venezuela, Iraq, 
and Angola are considered to be among the top ten countries perceived 
to be the most corrupt according to Transparency International.

  In addition, transparency of Russian companies and its extractive 
industry is critical. The SEC's rule would create transparency of Exxon 
and other company payments to the Russian Government. Gazprom, Rosneft, 
and Lukoil are already disclosing under the U.K. rules, and BP has 
already reported payments to the Russian Government. The SEC's 
disclosure rule will make a crucial contribution as Russian citizens 
seek to follow the money received by their government.
  A vote to roll back the SEC's resource extraction disclosures would 
be a vote to abandon U.S. leadership in the fight against global 
corruption.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 41.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chairman of our Capital Markets 
Subcommittee and the author of H.J. Res. 41.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act was 
like

[[Page H850]]

many other provisions that were ultimately included in the sprawling 
law. They had absolutely no relationship to the underlying cause of the 
financial and housing crisis.
  However, some have used the financial crisis to hijack Federal 
securities law in order to push a socially motivated agenda. 
Specifically, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires companies 
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission to annually 
report payments such as taxes, royalties, fees, production 
entitlements, and those types of things made to a foreign or the U.S. 
Federal government relating to the commercial development of minerals, 
oils, and natural gas.
  Companies subject to section 1504 must report the type and total 
amounts of these payments made for each project, as well as the type 
and total amounts of payments made to each government. These payments 
cover, as I said, taxes and other things that are really business 
expenses.
  While this may be a laudable goal, using Federal securities law and 
the SEC to enforce social issues is inconsistent with the SEC's core 
mission and completely inappropriate. Just to remind everyone, the 
SEC's mission by law is to: One, protect investors; two, maintain fair, 
orderly, and efficient markets; and three, facilitate capital 
formation. I would liken what they are doing by having the SEC put this 
rule in place sort of like requiring your police department to be in 
charge of road repair, too. It is just not their expertise.
  The SEC recognized this fact and stated that section 1504 ``appears 
designed primarily to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives,'' not 
investor protection or capital formation. Notwithstanding the merits of 
the underlying policy goals, conducting American foreign policy is not 
what Congress created the SEC to do. In fact, just moments ago, the 
U.S. Senate confirmed Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State, and I 
would suggest that we let him direct our foreign policy. With all due 
respect to the commissioners and the SEC staff, none of them are really 
foreign policy experts.
  As we debate this resolution, let's be clear on what this isn't 
about. Some have tried to argue that a vote to vacate this provision is 
a vote for corruption somehow. This couldn't be further from the truth. 
Now, I understand and sympathize with the sense and the feeling of this 
that this rule makes supporters feel better about themselves, but it 
does not solve the real world issues. This foreign rule that has been 
brought up is really like comparing apples and oranges with the foreign 
rules versus this particular rule. And if we allow them to rewrite this 
particular rule, we might actually mirror what the EU and what other 
foreign governments are doing.
  Despite the claims to the contrary, H.J. Res. 41 does nothing to 
undermine the ability of the SEC and the Justice Department to police 
against foreign corruption. In fact, both of these agencies still have, 
at their disposal, Federal laws, including the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. And even without this SEC extraction rule in effect, 
fraud will still be fraud and corruption will still be corruption. Both 
will still be illegal activities that should be punished to the fullest 
extent of the law.
  Voting for this resolution is a vote to right the ship. This is a 
vote to reset the regulatory process. Congress needs to send this 
flawed regulation back to the SEC drawing board and instruct the SEC to 
get the provision right by promulgating an appropriate rule under 
section 1504.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets on the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding to me, and for her leadership in so many 
areas, including her leadership on this joint resolution.
  I rise today in strong opposition to the resolution, which would 
repeal an SEC anticorruption rule. I fail to understand why anyone in 
this body would want to repeal something that helps us fight 
corruption.
  The SEC rule would require companies registered in the United States 
to disclose the payments that they make to foreign governments for the 
development of oil, natural gas, or other minerals.
  Unfortunately, there is a long and very sad history of corruption 
where Big Oil or mining companies strike deals with foreign governments 
to extract their natural resources. Too often, the money from the oil 
or mining company ended up going to pay bribes to corrupt politicians 
and not to benefit the ordinary citizens of the country.
  The SEC rule is intended to bring some basic transparency to these 
deals--that is all we are talking about, transparency--by requiring 
U.S. companies to disclose the payments they make to foreign 
governments--who the payments went to, how much they paid, who in the 
government got the money that should be going to the people.

                              {time}  1530

  It tells the people and the country where this natural resources 
money is going. This is just common sense, and it is outrageous and 
unbelievable to me that anyone would oppose simple transparency rules 
that combat corruption.
  I have been a long-time supporter of this rule. I spoke in favor of 
it during the Dodd-Frank debate, and I sent a letter to the SEC urging 
them to finalize this rule as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter, on which I was 
joined by roughly 58 of my colleagues.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 2014.
     Re Implementation of Section 1504.

     Hon. Mary Jo White,
     Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chair White: We are aware that the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission (SEC) recently announced its anticipated 
     agenda for the next ten-month period, and that the agenda 
     includes a proposal to initiate rulemaking for Section 1504 
     of the Dodd-Frank Act by March 2015.
       While we are pleased that the SEC plans to begin focusing 
     its attention on this important provision, which mandates 
     revenue transparency in the extractive industries, we believe 
     that the rulemaking for section 1504 should be on a swifter, 
     more definite time line. We strongly urge you, therefore, to 
     issue a proposed rule for public comment no later than the 
     end of this year.
       The initial rule issued by the SEC on August 22, 2012 
     adhered closely to the intent of the law, and we applaud the 
     SEC for its forceful legal defense of the rule. In light of 
     the District Court's July 2013 decision, which vacated the 
     rule on procedural grounds but did not foreclose any 
     regulatory options, we believe the Commission should issue a 
     revised rule that is equally strong. The existing rulemaking 
     record should provide the necessary basis to swiftly schedule 
     a new rulemaking and to reissue a rule mandating public 
     disclosure by company and by project with no exemptions. 
     Anything less would undermine the intended purpose and 
     benefits of Section 1504 for investors, companies, 
     governments and their citizens.
       We would note that after the SEC issued its rule in 2012, 
     the rest of the world followed our lead, establishing as a 
     global norm the public disclosure of oil and mineral payments 
     by company and by project with no exemptions. The European 
     Union and Norway passed disclosure laws modeled on the 
     Commission's August 2012 rule. The Canadian government has 
     committed to adopt the same requirements and plans to have 
     legislation passed by April 2015 and regulations in place 
     that summer. Several globally important oil and mining 
     companies also support payment transparency at the project-
     level, citing significant business benefits, while others 
     have begun voluntarily disclosing detailed payment 
     information.
       And in March, the United States was accepted as a candidate 
     country in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, 
     which is a global effort designed to increase accountability 
     and openness in these industries, and specifically requires 
     project-level reporting in line with the standard set by 
     Section 1504 and its sister legislation in Europe.
       The implementation of Section 1504 is critical. Resource 
     revenue transparency allows shareholders to make better-
     informed assessments of risks and opportunity costs, threats 
     to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the 
     companies in which they invest. It is no surprise, then, that 
     investors with assets worth over $5.6 trillion recently 
     called on the SEC to quickly reissue a strong rule to align 
     with transparency rules in other markets.

[[Page H851]]

       Public reporting of extractive payments is also fundamental 
     to improving governance, curbing corruption, improving 
     revenue management, and allowing citizens to demand greater 
     accountability from their governments for spending that 
     serves the public interest. This, in turn, can help create 
     more stable and democratic governments, as well as more 
     stable business environments, which contribute to the 
     advancement of U.S. national security interests.
       Since its passage, Congress has continued to support the 
     strong implementation of Section 1504 rules. Last year, 
     legislation to implement an agreement between the U.S. and 
     Mexico to develop oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico 
     (HR 1613) was significantly delayed when the House version of 
     the bill included a waiver from Section 1504 requirements.
       The White House strongly objected to the House bill 
     precisely because of the waiver, and issued a Statement of 
     Administration Policy calling the exemption unnecessary and 
     claiming it would directly and negatively impact U.S. efforts 
     to increase transparency and accountability in the oil, gas, 
     and minerals sectors. Congress ultimately passed a version of 
     the bill that did not include the Section 1504 waiver.
       Importantly, the final legislation was supported by the 
     same industry groups and lawmakers who initially alleged that 
     Section 1504 would create conflicts of law and put American 
     companies at a competitive disadvantage.
       The court decision, along with data and analysis from the 
     previous rulemaking process, has provided the Commission with 
     a road map to develop a revised rule requiring public 
     disclosure at the project level with no exemptions. We 
     strongly urge you to prioritize setting out a swift and fixed 
     timeline for the implementation of section 1504, including 
     the release of a proposed rule for public comment no later 
     than the end of 2014.
           Sincerely,
       Maxine Waters, Member of Congress; Peter A. DeFazio, Member 
     of Congress; Carolyn B. Maloney, Member of Congress; Henry A. 
     Waxman, Member of Congress; Gregory W. Meeks, Member of 
     Congress; Eliot L. Engel, Member of Congress; Nita M. Lowey, 
     Member of Congress; Jose E. Serrano, Member of Congress; Brad 
     Sherman, Member of Congress; Wm. Lacy Clay, Member of 
     Congress;
       George Miller, Member of Congress; John Yarmuth, Member of 
     Congress; Marcy Kaptur, Member of Congress; Carolyn McCarthy, 
     Member of Congress; Allyson Y. Schwartz, Member of Congress; 
     Keith Ellison, Member of Congress; Louise McIntosh Slaughter, 
     Member of Congress; John Conyers, Jr., Member of Congress; 
     Rosa L. DeLauro, Member of Congress; Michael E. Capuano, 
     Member of Congress; Gwen Moore, Member of Congress; Karen 
     Bass, Member of Congress;
       Mark Pocan, Member of Congress; Raul M. Grijalva, Member of 
     Congress; Earl Blumenauer, Member of Congress; Alan S. 
     Lowenthal, Member of Congress; Rush Holt, Member of Congress; 
     Jared Huffman, Member of Congress; James P. Moran, Member of 
     Congress; James P. McGovern, Member of Congress; Lois Capps, 
     Member of Congress; Sam Farr, Member of Congress; William R. 
     Keating, Member of Congress; Carol Shea-Porter, Member of 
     Congress;
       Katherine Clark, Member of Congress; Barbara Lee, Member of 
     Congress; Betty McCollum, Member of Congress; Peter Welch, 
     Member of Congress; Janice D. Schakowsky, Member of Congress; 
     Jim McDermott, Member of Congress; Andre Carson, Member of 
     Congress; Adam B. Schiff, Member of Congress; Paul Tonko, 
     Member of Congress; Bill Foster, Member of Congress; Anna G. 
     Eshoo, Member of Congress; Eleanor Holmes Norton, Member of 
     Congress;
       John B. Larson, Member of Congress; Matthew A. Cartwright, 
     Member of Congress; Jerrold Nadler, Member of Congress; 
     Charles B. Rangel, Member of Congress; Henry C. ``Hank'' 
     Johnson, Jr., Member of Congress; Susan A. Davis, Member of 
     Congress; Adam Smith, Member of Congress; Theodore E. Deutch, 
     Member of Congress; Michael M. Honda, Member of Congress; Ann 
     McLane Kuster, Member of Congress; Michael H. Michaud, Member 
     of Congress; Zoe Lofgren, Member of Congress.

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, let's also be clear 
about what the SEC's rules do not do. They do not place any 
restrictions on who companies can pay money to. It doesn't restrict how 
much money they can pay or what they can pay for. It doesn't stop 
corruption; it just simply says you have to report it so that the 
people in the country--and everyone--knows what is going on.
  In fact, there was bipartisan support for this rule. The amendment to 
Dodd-Frank that required this rule was known as the Cardin-Lugar 
amendment because it was cosponsored by Republican Senator Dick Lugar. 
Senator Lugar was a long-time chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, so he understood the negative impact that these corrupt 
deals could have on developing countries.
  The only reason--and I repeat, the only reason--to vote for this 
resolution is to help corrupt governments steal money from their 
people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am going to 
repeat this phrase since people were knocking me out of order.
  The absolute only reason they should vote for this--and I want to 
warn those on both sides of the aisle--is to help corrupt governments 
steal money from their people; so I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
  Now, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
pointed out that the foreign and corrupt rule will take care of this, 
but the foreign and corrupt rule only covers bribery. It doesn't cover 
unjust enrichment. It doesn't cover governments stealing from 
themselves.
  Use of the Congressional Review Act to strike the rule would prohibit 
the Commission from promulgating any rule that is ``substantially 
similar'' to that rule, effectively preventing it from ever fulfilling 
its statutory mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act, contrary to the will of 
Congress.
  I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the sub-chairman of our Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee.
  Mrs. WAGNER. I thank Chairman Hensarling for the time.
  I thank my colleague, Mr. Huizenga, the chair of the Capital Markets 
and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee, for his leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor the SEC disclosure rule for 
resource extraction, which is an important tool for Congress to use in 
disapproving excessive red tape brought by Washington bureaucrats.
  The previous administration placed crushing regulatory burdens on the 
American people. In 2015 alone, Federal regulations cost almost $1.9 
trillion--nearly $15,000 per American family. This particular SEC 
regulation, which was issued by the Obama administration, regarding 
resource extraction disclosures will make it more expensive for our 
public companies that are involved with energy production to be 
competitive overseas with foreign state-owned companies.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution of disapproval. 
The SEC has estimated that ongoing compliance costs for this rule could 
reach as high as $591 million annually and fully admit that it has the 
potential to divert capital away from other productive opportunities, 
like growing a business and creating jobs.
  Securities law should not be used to advance foreign policy 
objectives, particularly when the compliance cost of implementing those 
objectives is so expensive--with no added benefit of investor 
protection.
  While this rule had already been vacated before the U.S. District 
Court of D.C. in 2013, I am happy that, through this resolution of 
disapproval, Congress--we the people--can now weigh in as well on this 
harmful rule. I urge the passage of this resolution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial 
Services Committee and of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
  Mr. FOSTER. I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41 and in support of 
the SEC rule requiring resource extraction companies to disclose 
payments to governments.
  Historically, payment for resources is a huge source of corruption in 
developing countries, which, for most of us, is morally abhorrent; but 
what I want to talk about is the competitive advantage that we gain 
when we embrace the principles of the democratic rule of law, 
transparency, and morality that our financial system depends upon. We 
passed Dodd-Frank to strengthen our financial system in a time of 
crisis but also to make it more transparent and effective for American 
consumers and investors.
  Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to publish a rule 
requiring issuers to disclose the types and amounts of payments for 
each project and to each government annually. The provision improved 
disclosures made to financial regulators and to investors.

[[Page H852]]

  Private and public institutional investors--representing trillions of 
dollars invested on behalf of American families--voiced support to the 
SEC in favor of the rule. There are two main reasons for this support 
from institutional investors:
  First, all investors want to be able to review payments to all 
governments, to assess the exposure the issuer may have to corruption 
risk. The SEC has jurisdiction over compliance with the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act, and investors need to know whether fines for potentially 
corrupt payments could be levied against firms in which they are 
considering investing.
  Investors should always have the right to know material information 
about the firms, and systemic noncompliance with the law is always 
material. It should not take an event of noncompliance that has 
been uncovered by the regulators to inform investors when simple 
transparency requirements, like the annual reporting of payments, can 
alert them to the risk.

  Secondly, some investors may simply want to stay away from 
investments in firms that make payments to certain governments. Many 
resource-rich nations in the developing world lack a democratic rule of 
law and are often governed by oppressive regimes that exploit their 
land and environment, extracting resources for their rulers' financial 
gain at the expense of their citizens. Investors have the right to know 
this information because they own the company and may feel a moral 
responsibility for its action.
  For these two reasons, extractive payments are information crucial to 
an investor's analysis of an issuer's securities.
  The United States equity markets are the most efficient in the world 
because we have strong disclosure laws and strong enforcement at the 
SEC. The disclosure of payments made to foreign governments is a 
relevant factor in valuing securities and is crucial to avoiding 
asymmetries in information, which can and will be exploited. These 
disclosures actually enable the market to police an issuer by punishing 
excessive payments to questionable governments with a devaluation of 
its equities.
  In short, there are three market-based reasons to disclose payments 
to foreign governments:
  First, these disclosures promote market integrity; second, they 
provide investors with crucial information for valuing securities; 
third, they enable investors to make ethical values-based decisions on 
where they allocate their resources--a right that we should be 
enhancing rather than eroding.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 41.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Monetary Policy and Trade 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires 
the Securities and Exchange Commission--an agency not charged with the 
responsibility of carrying out American foreign policy--to promulgate a 
resource extraction issuer disclosure rule. That regulation, which is 
the subject of today's resolution, requires publicly traded U.S. firms 
to disclose payments that they make to governments for the commercial 
development of oil, natural gas, or mineral resources.
  The intent of the rule, as my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle point out, is to allow local populations to see how much revenue 
is generated by their natural resources; but, in practice, if fully 
implemented, this rule will have a very negative impact on Americans 
and on the people it is purported to help.
  First, the rule puts American firms at a severe competitive 
disadvantage, and we have talked about this before. Because section 
1504 applies only to companies that are listed on U.S. exchanges, it 
forces them to disclose payments in detail in a way that would put them 
at a competitive disadvantage to non-U.S. companies, like those located 
in China. The SEC estimates that the initial cost of compliance for 
U.S. firms could be as high as $700 million and that the ongoing costs 
could be as large as $591 million annually. That is $591 million that 
American businesses could be putting to better and more productive use, 
like in creating jobs and investing in their workers. The SEC, itself, 
admitted that compliance costs would result in diverting capital away 
from other productive opportunities.
  In addition, these disclosures will include sensitive commercial 
proprietary information and trade secrets that foreign state-owned 
competitors can use against American firms, and 50 percent of the firms 
that are likely to be obligated to comply with this rule are smaller 
reporting companies. While larger firms can more easily adjust their 
financial reporting systems in order to collect the required data or 
can even alter their business models to make the rule less burdensome, 
the smaller firms that will be forced to comply with this rule will 
have a very difficult time. This will lead to a consolidation in the 
industry, to a reduction in competition, and to higher prices for 
American consumers.
  These projects are often carried out in countries with underdeveloped 
economies. As a result, they provide much-desired work for local 
populations, and they help improve the standard of living in the area, 
lifting many people out of poverty. This rule will stifle economic 
development in areas that need it most, potentially limiting the 
ability of these regions to thrive.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is not about investor protection. 
Instead, it is going to undermine capital formation, and it is going to 
hurt smaller firms, and it is going to hurt jobs in this country. The 
Securities and Exchange Commission, as it admits itself, is not in a 
position to conduct American foreign policy. Let's leave this to the 
State Department, and let's focus on SEC rules that are core to its 
mission: investor protection and capital formation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade on the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this legislation 
that seeks to overturn carefully crafted SEC anticorruption rules for 
extractive industries.
  Section 1504 requires that gas and oil companies that are listed on 
U.S. exchanges to disclose payments made to foreign governments. 
Congress mandated these rules in Dodd-Frank, and it was a bicameral 
decision. It was thoughtful and bipartisan. There were multiple 
hearings in both Chambers and a conference report.
  These Dodd-Frank rules were the first of their kind, and they have 
become the model for 30 other industrialized countries' own rules. 
These rules have been so necessary because of the so-called resource 
curse, in which we have seen countries--particularly Africa--that have 
lots of resources, but there is widespread poverty because of the 
corruption of these extractive industries. Surprisingly, these 
companies have implemented them, and they are currently complying with 
them globally.
  Now, we have heard a whole lot of whining and, quite frankly, lying 
about how these regulations have cost us jobs; but, certainly, the 
Obama economy has created a lot of prosperity. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 
investor advocates at asset management companies and civil society 
groups that are fighting corruption and instability support these 
rules. We should be supporting them. In fact, companies that have $10 
trillion under management say that these disclosures help them manage 
risk.

                              {time}  1545

  Now, I am not going to go into a long-winded explanation of the ills 
and issues related to illicit payments related to extractive industries 
to foreign governments. We know about them. I guess that we are 
appalled by this vote, but I guess it's the beginning that we are going 
to be appalled for the next 1,500 days.
  It shouldn't be surprising, Mr. Speaker, that the friend and ally of 
Russian leader Vladimir Putin--and now President Trump's nominee for 
Secretary of State--Rex Tillerson lobbied against this very rule when 
he was at Exxon. Specifically, he said it would hurt their Russian 
operations. Transparency will hurt ExxonMobil's Russian operations.

[[Page H853]]

  So the question has just got to be asked, Mr. Speaker: What does that 
mean?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, just the implication that transparency is 
going to hurt Putin's Russia is prima facie proof that we need these 
rules.
  What payments to Putin does Rex Tillerson not want shareholders and 
the American people to see?
  Today, we should be demanding more transparency and not less from the 
most conflicted President and administration in history. We are now 
trying to make transactions less apparent.
  All my colleagues should reject this joint resolution, not only on 
substance, but it is an abuse of the Congressional Review Act.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, we are all painfully aware that 
Washington's financial control law, Dodd-Frank, is full of provisions 
that have nothing to do with protecting consumers or preventing another 
financial crisis.
  The SEC rule in question today is no exception. This politically 
motivated rule, tucked into a provision under the miscellaneous 
provisions of Dodd-Frank, fails to advance the core mission of the SEC, 
which is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient 
markets, and facilitate capital formation.
  Ensuring that payments by oil, gas, and other mineral companies are 
transparent and accountable is a worthwhile public policy goal, but it 
is outside the securities laws' core mission of investor protection.
  Not only should this rule and its enforcement fall outside the 
purview of the SEC, but the rule itself is fundamentally flawed.
  Like so many rules and regulations emanating from Dodd-Frank that 
harm our economy, it is more complex and costly than is required by 
statute, which calls into question the extent to which it meets the 
SEC's economic analysis requirement.
  The SEC itself estimates the cost for compliance at between $239 
million to $700 million initially and from $96 million to $591 million 
annually after that.
  I am also concerned that this rule could force companies to withdraw 
from certain countries. Among other things, some foreign countries have 
laws to prohibit the sort of disclosures called for in this rule.
  Since the rule provides no exemptions, American firms may be forced 
to abandon business ventures that provide jobs and opportunities for 
Americans.
  I understand that some opponents of our effort have tried to label 
the SEC's policy as an anticorruption rule. It is important to keep in 
mind that nothing in today's resolution to repeal the rule undermines 
the ability of the SEC or the Department of Justice to fight 
corruption. Even without this rule, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 
remains in force and any corrupt activities by Americans will be 
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
  The rule under consideration today, however, is unnecessary, poorly 
written, outside the core responsibilities of the agency, and it would 
impose significant costs on publicly listed companies with no 
discernible benefit.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the 
Financial Services Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest, guys: leveling the playing 
field, capital formation. Come on.
  All this rule was written for is to expose bribery. There is no line 
in any corporate report that says: paid for bribery. It comes up as 
royalty fees. It comes up as gifts. It is bribery, pure and simple.
  Every company in a foreign country is subject to it, especially a 
Third World country, especially when it comes to natural resources, and 
we all know it.
  If you think this rule is overbroad, yet you are still truly appalled 
by bribery and the results of it, submit some other option for us to do 
it. That is all this rule was ever meant to do.
  Give us an alternative, as opposed to simply repeal this. It is just 
like health care; you complain, complain, complain, but no alternative.
  Honestly, if you put forth a proposal that says the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act is now legal, it is okay to have bribery, but you have to 
report it, people like me might be open to it. I understand.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I will point out, though, what my 
resolution does, is it directs the SEC to go back to the drawing board. 
It is not our job to write the rule. You are asking for that proposal. 
The SEC wrote a rule; it got struck down by the courts. They got sued 
again.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respectfully 
disagree. This, for all intents and purposes, prohibits them from doing 
it, number one.
  Number two, you have an obligation. You have an obligation, if you 
don't like what exists, to propose an alternative. That is the way the 
world should work.
  Every time we don't like something, we offer an alternative. You 
don't have to like the alternative, but there is an alternative 
offered.
  MR. HUIZENGA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CAPUANO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to write a rule. I am not 
sure that the gentleman from Massachusetts would be happy with it. I am 
not sure that the SEC would be happy with it.
  Again, having that debate here in the well of the House, I was not 
here for the writing of Dodd-Frank. I am dealing with the echo effects 
of it, and that is what we are trying to do right now. So rather than 
us having that, I put it back to the SEC.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the 
gentleman's intentions on this. I understand the concept of a level 
playing field. If the Chinese are bribing a Third World country, we 
should be able to compete with them. If that is the case, make our 
companies allowed to bribe them, as long as we know what is going on. 
Now, I don't know how you are going to write that law, but I am happy 
to work with you any time you want.
  Here is the problem: bribery is insidious. It is secretive. It can't 
be found.
  Now, I am a Catholic. I probably am not the best Catholic in the 
country. I think we could probably all agree to that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, the basic tenets are pretty clear. Here is 
what they write, one line from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: 
`` . . . where governance is weak and corruption is rampant extractive, 
industry revenue that is not transparent becomes a curse that deepens 
poverty, destroys democratic institutions, defrauds elections and 
allows autocratic leaders to remain in power against the will of the 
people.''
  If you really believe that people around this world should benefit by 
true and open democracy, you have to provide them the opportunities to 
do that. I happen to agree with the bishops.
  If you want to allow our companies to bribe foreign governments, say 
it. I don't like it, but it is a reality of the world. They have been 
doing it for generations.
  That is all this attempt was. And to simply repeal it says: It is 
open business day, guys. Go in, pass the cash around, stick it to the 
regular people, and don't tell them about it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. 
Huizenga) for offering the resolution under consideration today.

[[Page H854]]

  This resolution of disapproval will repeal the SEC's resource 
extraction rule, which imposes burdensome disclosure requirements on 
public companies engaged in the commercial development of natural gas, 
minerals, and oil.
  The SEC's mission is to protect investors, maintain efficient 
markets, and facilitate capital formation. Unfortunately, the resource 
extraction rule is well outside the bounds of these mandates, which 
acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar noted in his dissent of the rule 
saying that it `` . . . neither reforms Wall Street nor provides 
consumer protection and it is wholly unrelated, and largely contrary, 
to the Commission's core mission.''
  When our businesses are being overwhelmed by compliance obligations, 
it is crucial that our regulators do everything in their power to 
ensure regulations do not actively disrupt growth by enforcing 
nonmaterial, socially motivated disclosures like those included in the 
resource extraction rule.
  The SEC itself has admitted that this rule will be costly. The SEC 
estimates that the ongoing compliance cost for the resource extraction 
rule could reach as high as $592 million annually and noted that the 
disclosure requirements could result in capital being diverted away 
from productive opportunities. An agency tasked with maintaining 
efficient markets and facilitating capital formation should not be 
promulgating unnecessary and burdensome rules like this.
  Dodd-Frank is full of examples like the resource extraction rule that 
require Federal agencies to engage in rulemaking on topics outside of 
their substantive experience and jurisdiction. In the future, I urge my 
colleagues to craft legislation in a bipartisan manner that only 
requires actions consistent with the mission of the applicable agency. 
Until then, however, it is necessary for Congress to exercise its 
oversight power to unwind these misguided regulations that have 
hampered economic growth.
  I am happy to lend my support to this resolution and encourage my 
colleagues to support this commonsense measure.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how 
much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 7 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams).
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution, providing congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by 
the SEC relating to disclosure of payment by resource extraction 
issuers.
  Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires a public company engaged 
in the commercial development of natural gas, minerals, or oil to 
report payments made to foreign governments for these natural 
resources.

  At a time when our President and my Republican colleagues are looking 
to cut regulations on businesses, the SEC estimates that ongoing 
compliance costs for this rule to be as high as $591 billion. Let me 
say that again: one agency, one rule, $591 billion.
  Let me go back to something many of my colleagues have already 
mentioned today, the SEC mission. I will quote from their own website. 
The mission of the SEC is to ``protect investors, maintain fair, 
orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.''
  If investor protection is truly the mission of the SEC, then why was 
this provision of the Dodd-Frank listed in the section titled 
``miscellaneous provisions''?
  Mr. Speaker, American companies should be protected, and no one 
denies that. But to put them at a competitive disadvantage against 
their foreign counterparts by implementing this rule is just plain 
wrong.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will argue that 
Republicans are gutting an important transparency policy meant to 
combat corruption. Well, Mr. Speaker, my response to those claims are 
this: Republicans are the party of transparency. We value 
accountability. But in this instance, the Dodd-Frank Act instructed a 
Federal agency, without any substantial experience in resource 
extraction or foreign policy, to craft this mandatory disclosure for 
certain public companies. As many of my colleagues have said today, 
industry is already publicly disclosing the work they do in foreign 
countries and will continue to do so. The difference is simple; they do 
it at a level that does not cause competitive harms.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this 
resolution and erase a top-down, Washington-knows-best provision that 
is harmful to American companies and American investors. We should and 
can do it better.
  In God We Trust.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 41. As you have 
heard today, it has an immense cost to our economy. The SEC estimates, 
as you have heard from other Members, up to $590 million per year, Mr. 
Speaker. Now, think about that. That is $5 billion over 10 years. And 
if we put a 10 multiplier on it, that is $50 billion of investable 
capital that could be put out for productive use helping the world have 
more mineral resources. Instead, it goes to this ill-advised rule.

                              {time}  1600

  In the past two decades, the United States has lost more than 50 
percent, Mr. Speaker, of its public companies, in large part due to the 
costs and regulatory burdens of being associated with being a public 
company. Dodd-Frank's resource extraction rule piles on even more 
harmful red tape for those publicly traded companies in the United 
States that are global energy providers.
  As this rule only applies to publicly traded companies, this 
increased burden puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage. Over 75 percent 
of the extracted minerals are owned by state-owned enterprises, Mr. 
Speaker, that are not covered by this rule. That puts our companies at 
a competitive disadvantage. It requires our companies to reveal 
confidential information, putting our companies at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  And if, Mr. Speaker, the people want transparency, the best way to 
handle that is through self-disclosure through global transparency and 
accountability. There are important public policy goals, and 51 
countries have entered into the Extractive Industry Transparency 
Institute, which is self-reporting and publishing, by country, by 
company, both public and private, these important issues about mineral 
extraction.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if it is about corruption, our friend, Senator 
Proxmire from Wisconsin, long ago, in the 1970s, passed the Foreign 
Corrupt Practices Act. There is no more act feared by global corporate 
America than complying with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and 
ensuring that our companies, our shareholders are not prone or party to 
bribery.
  I support this resolution.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Trott).
  Mr. TROTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 41, offered by 
my good friend, Mr. Huizenga. This resolution is simple. It repeals an 
onerous rule that puts American manufacturing and energy companies at a 
global disadvantage.
  Both foreign and American companies sell products and energy in our 
economy, but only American companies are required to jump through 
additional hoops, regulations that cost billions of dollars and pass on 
hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers. Michiganders know all too 
well what happens when government tips the scale in favor of foreign 
companies: jobs are lost overseas, and the investment necessary to 
create jobs is delayed or canceled.
  My friends across the aisle have suggested that this resolution is 
about bribery. It is not. This resolution and, in fact, the election on 
November 8 is about jobs, the loss of American jobs.
  Manufacturers in Michigan don't need special treatment. The 
unparalleled product of hardworking men and

[[Page H855]]

women in Michigan speaks for itself. But I think we can all agree that 
the American Government should be their ally, not their opponent. 
Repealing this rule does just that.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Ms MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, this resolution would overturn a Securities 
and Exchange Commission rule that, according to the agency, is supposed 
to ``help combat global corruption and empower citizens of resource-
rich countries to hold their governments accountable. . . .''
  Well, that is a grand idea, but we have a financial regulator to 
protect the American investor, not to combat global corruption or 
empower citizens for other countries. I am sure we could send the SEC 
off to fight any number of other international problems--religious 
oppression, authoritarian regimes, malaria, maybe even leprosy.
  The question is if a financial regulator mandated to combat all these 
things can fulfill its core mission to provide financial transparency 
and prevent fraud. Given that we had a financial crisis that the SEC 
didn't foresee and did nothing to prevent, that would suggest that it 
needs even less on its plate, not more. What this joint resolution does 
is put the American investor first and help us to stop sending the SEC 
off on global rabbit trails.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Tenney).
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, if you opened up your copy of Dodd-Frank, 
this big thick book with 2,300 pages of microscopic print, and went all 
the way back to title XV, way back in the back, under ``Miscellaneous 
Provisions,'' you would find excessive complexity and a regulation that 
only breeds corruption, not the other way around.
  In these provisions lies section 1504, which directs the SEC, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, to adopt a rule requiring resource 
extraction issuers to report payments to the U.S. and foreign 
governments for the commercial development of certain natural resources 
and make them available to the public.
  Though we all fully support transparency and accountability, I 
believe that section 1504 fails to protect investors while 
simultaneously decreasing the productivity of capital markets and 
competition in the marketplace. This rule has stifled job growth and 
expansion.
  The SEC estimated that the cost of the new rule would be somewhere 
between $239 million and $700 million in initial startup compliance 
costs alone. After the first year, the SEC projects it would be an 
annual ongoing cost of compliance ranging from $100 million to $591 
million. Rather than this rule, companies could reinvest these dollars 
into creating opportunities for local communities, which will result in 
the creation of more good-paying jobs for Americans.
  My district in central New York and the Southern Tier has the highest 
or one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation and a lower 
median household income than the national average. Section 1504 is 
merely another example of how bureaucratic government overreach can 
result in lost opportunities for the people in the 22nd District of New 
York and all hardworking American workers. However, instead of taking 
this opportunity to empower our citizens who are eager to get back to 
work, we are fueling additional costly government regulations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. TENNEY. Let me emphasize, we are not eliminating the SEC's or the 
DOJ's enforcement authority. We are simply asking them to revisit this 
rule. Both of these agencies still retain their power to ensure a level 
playing field and to root out corruption.
  It is important we recognize that vacating this rule is part of the 
joint resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no other 
speakers at this time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Include a number of articles in the Record. One is a Bloomberg 
article, entitled: ``Exxon Set for Early Victory As Congress to Rescind 
Payments Rule.'' The other one is a Politico Magazine article that 
says: ``Tillerson tried to get this rule killed. Now Congress is about 
to do it for him.'' The other article is a Washington Post article: 
``One of House GOP's first targets for regulatory rollback is tops on 
the oil industry's wish list.''

               [From Bloomberg Government, Jan. 30, 2017]

    Exxon Set for Early Victory as Congress To Rescind Payments Rule

                        (By Catherine Traywick)

       For years the oil industry has appealed to the executive 
     branch and courts to de-fang a U.S. rule forcing Exxon Mobil 
     Corp., Chevron Corp. and other producers to disclose their 
     payments to foreign governments.
       Now, the Republican takeover in Washington is handling it 
     for them.
       The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on 
     killing a Securities and Exchange Commission edict that 
     requires publication of overseas payments by oil, natural gas 
     and mining companies. The industry says the rule, part of the 
     2010 Dodd-Frank act, gives global rivals a competitive edge. 
     Backers say it will help keep payments to foreign nations in 
     government coffers, not private pockets.
       ``To roll it back would be a complete abdication of U.S. 
     initiative and leadership on issues of corruption,'' said 
     Daniel Kaufmann, president of the Natural Resource Governance 
     Institute, an International transparency watchdog.
       The SEC rule, set to take effect next year, is one of a 
     series of Obama administration regulations Republican 
     lawmakers are trying to reverse using the Congressional 
     Review Act, a law that allows Congress to undo regulations 
     with a simple majority vote.
       Congress also plans to vote this week to kill rules curbing 
     methane venting and mountain-top mining. To do so, both 
     chambers must pass a resolution disapproving the rules, which 
     the president would then have to sign. While President Barack 
     Obama would have reliably vetoed such resolutions, President 
     Donald Trump is likely to sign it.
       Trump argues that curbing regulations is key to unleashing 
     investment by U.S. companies. He pledged to rescind two 
     existing regulations for each new one that's issued.
       ``The SEC's rule forces U.S. companies to disclose 
     proprietary information to its competitors while foreign 
     entities do not. This can give some large industry players an 
     advantage on future business projects,'' the American 
     Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said in a statement.
       House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged in a Wall 
     Street Journal op-ed, to ``take the ax'' to the SEC rule, 
     which he characterized as ``an unreasonable compliance 
     burden.''
       Transparency advocates dismiss that argument, pointing out 
     that the European Union and U.K. already require such 
     disclosures from some of Exxon's biggest competitors. BP Plc, 
     Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell are among those that annually 
     report taxes, bonuses and other payments to foreign 
     governments.


                             U.S. Advantage

       Because Exxon and Chevron aren't listed on the European 
     exchanges, they don't have to comply with the EU disclosure 
     rules. That may give them an edge over other oil majors who 
     must report project-level payments, critics say.
       In its 2015 disclosure to the UK, Rosneft reported $29.8 
     million in payments to the Russian Federation, Vietnam, 
     Brazil and Norway. In the same year, BP reported $15.2 
     billion in payments to 23 countries, Total disclosed $16.7 
     billion to 44 countries, and Shell reported $21.8 billion to 
     24 countries.
       The idea behind the measure is simple: If foreign oil 
     companies disclose payments of $1 million to the government 
     of Country X, then the lawmakers and citizens of Country X 
     will know that $1 million should show up on the country's 
     budget. If less shows up, that means it has been diverted for 
     private use.
       ExxonMobil and Chevron say they support financial 
     transparency in the oil sector. Both are members of an 
     advisory committee under the Interior Department that 
     oversees a voluntary corporate financial disclosure program.


                              sec comments

       In comments to the SEC, the companies say they would 
     support a version of the regulation that protected company-
     specific data. They argue that the current SEC rule would 
     make available potentially valuable company information to 
     state-owned competitors such as Saudi Aramco and Cnooc Ltd., 
     neither of which are subject to the disclosure rules.
       The American Petroleum Institute successfully challenged an 
     earlier version of the rule in court, forcing the SEC to 
     rewrite it.

[[Page H856]]

     API asked the agency to consider a reporting model that 
     detailed payments by resource type and production method--
     omitting company-specific data. But, the SEC didn't adopt 
     that approach.
       ``The SEC largely ignored industry's comments,'' said Exxon 
     spokesman Bill Holbrook. While the final rule included 
     exemptions for acquired companies and exploratory activities, 
     it ``remains based on the EU's model and likely will 
     adversely affect the ability of publicly-traded companies to 
     compete globally,'' he said.
       A Chevron spokesperson did not respond to a request for 
     comment.


                          pattern of behavior

       Transparency advocates say they're concerned that the 
     repeal effort is part of a pattern of behavior among 
     Republican lawmakers.
       ``The GOP that tried to gut the ethics committee is trying 
     to gut a critical anti-corruption law,'' said Jana Morgan, 
     director of the advocacy group Publish What You Pay. ``It 
     sends a really disturbing message.''
       The planned vote is generating tension among members of the 
     anti-corruption advisory committee on which Exxon, Chevron 
     and API sit. The panel, made up of representatives from 
     government, industry and civil society, publishes an annual 
     report detailing U.S. government revenues from the oil, 
     natural gas and mining industries, as well as voluntarily 
     reported payments made to the U.S. government from companies 
     in those sectors.
       Civil society members of the committee say Exxon's 
     opposition to the SEC rule jeopardizes its standing on the 
     panel. At a meeting on Wednesday, members will discuss 
     whether Exxon, Chevron and API should keep their seats at 
     all.
       ``I really have to question whether it's appropriate for 
     companies like Exxon and Chevron and API to continue to sit 
     around this table,'' said Zorka Milin, an attorney with the 
     anti-corruption group Global Witness, and a member of the 
     advisory committee.
                                  ____


                 [From POLITICO Magazine, Feb. 1, 2017]

Tillerson Tried To Get This Rule Killed. Now Congress Is About To Do It 
                                for Him

                         (By Michael Grunwald)

       The leader of the world's most valuable company doesn't 
     typically fly to Washington to fight one obscure amendment to 
     a 2,300-page bill, especially a motherhood-and-apple-pie-
     style amendment designed to prevent and expose corruption 
     abroad. But back in 2010, ExxonMobil's then-CEO, Rex 
     Tillerson, was deeply worried about Section 1504 of the Dodd-
     Frank Wall Street reforms, a bipartisan amendment that 
     required drilling and mining companies to disclose any 
     payments they make to foreign governments. So Tillerson and 
     one of his lobbyists paid a half-hour visit to the 
     amendment's Republican co-author, then-Sen. Richard Lugar, to 
     try to get it killed.
       Tillerson argued that forcing U.S. oil firms to reveal 
     corporate secrets--such as paying foreign governments--would 
     put them at a competitive disadvantage. He also explained 
     that the provision would make it especially difficult for 
     Exxon to do business in Russia, where, as he did not need to 
     explain, the government takes a rather active interest in the 
     oil industry. But Lugar believed greater transparency could 
     help alleviate the ``resource curse'' of corruption that 
     plagues so many mineral-rich countries, so he told Tillerson 
     they would have to agree to disagree. Section 1504 stayed in 
     the bill, the bill became law, and the disclosure requirement 
     became an international example: France, Canada and the 
     United Kingdom all went on to use it as a model for similar 
     rules.
       Seven years later, Republicans are preparing to confirm 
     Tillerson today as President Donald Trump's secretary of 
     State, despite allegations that he's too cozy with Russia. At 
     the same time, the GOP is preparing to try to kill the 
     disclosure rule created under Section 1504, despite warnings 
     from international aid groups that the move would provide a 
     wink-and-nod blessing to hidden corporate payments to petro-
     thugs. The House is expected to act Wednesday afternoon, and 
     since the move relies on a special mechanism for reversing 
     rules enacted late in a presidential term, Senate Republicans 
     will need a mere majority rather than a filibuster-proof 60 
     votes to follow suit.
       So after all of Trump's promises to drain the swamp, an 
     anti-anti-corruption bill pushed by Big Oil and his own top 
     diplomat might be the first policy legislation to reach his 
     desk.
       ``It would be a real tragedy for democracy and human 
     rights,'' says Lugar, the former chairman of the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee, who now leads a center in his 
     name focusing on global issues. ``It's hard to believe this 
     would be such a high priority right now.''
       The so-called resource extraction rule is not one of 
     President Barack Obama's most prominent legacies, but one 
     reason getting rid of it is such a high Republican priority 
     is that it's one of his most vulnerable legacies. That's 
     because it was only finalized last June; two weeks too late 
     to avoid scrutiny under the Congressional Review Act, a law 
     allowing Congress to strike down end-of-term regulations with 
     simple majorities. The CRA has only been used once before, 
     when Congress erased a Clinton-era workplace ergonomics rule 
     in 2001. But now that the Republicans have control of both 
     houses of Congress and the White House, they hope to use the 
     CRA to wipe out a variety of Obama rules, starting Wednesday 
     with this and another measure opposed by extractive 
     industries, a ``stream protection'' rule restricting 
     discharges from mining operations.
       Aside from anti-Obama politics, the other reason gutting 
     the Section 1504 rule is a high priority for Republicans is 
     that their supporters in the oil industry really hate it. In 
     fact, oil interests successfully sued to block an earlier 
     version of the rule, contributing to the delays that pushed 
     the final rule past the Congressional Review Act deadline.
       On Tuesday, American Petroleum Institute president Jack 
     Gerard sent a letter to House leaders reiterating the 
     industry's longstanding complaints that the rule would damage 
     the competitiveness of U.S. firms. He noted that America 
     already has laws like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that 
     specifically ban U.S. firms operating abroad from making 
     illicit payments, describing the additional rule as 
     regulatory overkill. And he said the rule injected the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission into a ``social agenda 
     issue'' that had little to do with its mission of policing 
     fraud and protecting investors. By striking it down, Gerard 
     wrote, ``Congress can reclaim its authority, and in the 
     process protect American companies, workers, and investors.''
       Tillerson alluded to those competitiveness arguments in his 
     written responses to Senate questions about his confirmation, 
     noting that since the Section 1504 rule would impose 
     restrictions on U.S.-based companies, part of his job as 
     secretary of State would be to make sure ``foreign companies 
     or investors do not get an unfair advantage by cheating or 
     keeping to a lower standard.'' But groups that specialize in 
     fighting global poverty and corruption argue that those 
     arguments make no sense now that foreign nations have adopted 
     similar rules; in fact, conglomerates like BP, Total and even 
     Russian oil majors listed in London have already filed 
     disclosures under those rules. A blog post on the issue on 
     Tuesday from Oxfam America--which sued the Obama 
     administration in 2014 for moving too slowly to revise the 
     rule after the initial effort was struck down in court--was 
     titled ``From Russia With Love,'' characterizing the GOP 
     effort as a gift to Vladimir Putin and other authoritarian 
     leaders of resource-rich countries.
       ``Why would Congress want to take a stand for facilitating 
     corruption?'' asked Jana Morgan, director of Publish What You 
     Pay USA, a coalition of groups focused on accountability in 
     the extractive industries. ``Why would anyone want to help 
     the oil industry hide payments to kleptocracies?''
       Lugar pointed out that in 2010, his amendment introducing 
     Section 1504 with Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin had a fair 
     amount of bipartisan support. But so far, no Republicans have 
     come out against the resolutions to strike it down, filed by 
     Bill Huizenga of Michigan in the House and Jim Inhofe of 
     Oklahoma in the Senate. If the GOP can cobble together a 
     majority for the resolution in the Senate, Democrats can 
     spend five hours of floor time delaying it, but they can't 
     stop it. And nobody seems to think that Trump, who had lunch 
     with Tillerson Wednesday, would veto it, regardless of his 
     fiery rhetoric about taking on special interests. The White 
     House did not respond to a request for comment.
       Most of Obama's most important regulations, like his Clean 
     Power Plan to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions or other Dodd-
     Frank financial rules designed to rein in Wall Street, were 
     completed early enough to avoid Congressional Review Act 
     challenges. Trump and the Republicans will have to take on 
     protracted legislative and judicial fights to kill those 
     rules. But there are plenty of less prominent late-term rules 
     that Republicans can take on if they're willing to devote the 
     floor time, on issues ranging from paid sick days for federal 
     contract workers to energy efficiency for ceiling fans to 
     carcinogenic beryllium in the workplace.
       In general, the rules that are most likely to face 
     challenges are the rules that could cause problems for the 
     best-connected Republicans. And the kind of rules that 
     inspire impassioned lobbying campaigns by the CEOs of mega-
     corporations like Exxon Mobil seem unlikely to survive in the 
     current Washington environment.
       ``It's a tough political landscape,'' says Zorka Milin, a 
     senior legal adviser for the anti-corruption group Global 
     Witness. ``The issue of corruption ought to resonate with 
     both parties, but we know this won't be easy to stop.''
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 1, 2017]

One of House GOP's First Targets for Regulatory Rollback Is Tops on the 
                        Oil Industry's Wish List

                           (By Steven Mufson)

       One of the House Republicans' first targets for regulatory 
     rollback is torn from the oil industry's wish list: 
     eliminating recent Obama administration requirements that 
     oil, gas and mining companies divulge more information about 
     business payments they make to foreign governments.
       A House resolution this week, which aims to scrap the 
     transparency rule imposed by the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, is one of the first measures that seeks to use 
     the Congressional Review Act to undo regulations adopted 
     during the final months of the Obama administration.
       And it comes at a potentially awkward moment for former 
     ExxonMobil chief executive

[[Page H857]]

     Rex Tillerson, who opposed the SEC regulation and who is now 
     awaiting confirmation for the position of secretary of State.
       The review act could be used to nullify regulations dating 
     back to June last year, experts on the law say.
       In this case, the SEC drafted the regulation in response to 
     directions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation. 
     The directive was in an amendment backed by Sen. Ben Cardin 
     (D-Md.) and then-Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). ``Information 
     is power,'' Lugar said at the time. ``It is power for 
     shareholders and power for citizens living under oppressive 
     regimes.''
       The SEC says that it would ``combat government corruption 
     through greater transparency and accountability.''
       But the SEC's first version of the regulation was struck 
     down by a federal district court in the District of Columbia 
     after the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of 
     Commerce filed suit in 2012. That prompted a second attempt 
     by the SEC. Because the final version was imposed near the 
     end of the Obama administration, it now falls within the time 
     frame that permits Congress and the president to use the 
     review act to undo the regulation.
       The oil industry has been particularly incensed about the 
     regulation, complaining that the SEC rule would put them at a 
     competitive disadvantage to foreign firms and be unduly 
     expensive.
       The SEC has argued that the rule would help fight 
     corruption not only by companies but by governments around 
     the world. It has also noted that global companies have begun 
     to provide, on a voluntary basis, more comprehensive 
     disclosures. In December 2015, then-commission member Luis A. 
     Aguilar said that at least two large resource extraction 
     companies were already providing payment disclosure on a 
     project basis, and at least one other major resource 
     extraction company was voluntarily providing other 
     disclosures.
       ``Other global companies are also beginning to open their 
     books to permit a window into their resource extraction 
     payments to foreign governments,'' he said.
       But Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum 
     Institute, said in an interview that big oil and gas 
     companies compete with state-owned companies that do not have 
     disclosure requirements and that the SEC rule would allow 
     those companies to win contracts after seeing what U.S. firms 
     pay.
       ``We think it's a regulation that would have an unintended 
     consequence of hurting U.S. business's ability to compete,'' 
     he said. He said the SEC's requirement that information be 
     provided on a project basis was particularly objectionable.
       He also cited the SEC's own estimates of the cost the 
     regulation would impose on oil, gas and mining companies. 
     Gerard said compliance would cost between $96 million and 
     $591 million annually for the entire industry. On an 
     individual corporate basis, that would work out to $225,000 
     to $1.4 million a year, Gerard said.
       ExxonMobil spokesman William F. Holbrook said ``the SEC 
     largely ignored industry's comments and published a notice of 
     a final rule that remains based on the [European Union's] 
     model and likely will adversely affect the ability of 
     publicly traded companies to compete globally.''
       Other groups disagree. ``Rolling back this law will enable 
     the corruption President Trump told us all he would end,'' 
     said Corinna Gilfillan, head of the U.S. office of Global 
     Witness, an advocacy group that targets environmental and 
     human rights abuses. ``The oil industry has been striking 
     backroom deals with dictators and tyrants for decades, 
     wrecking developing economies and the environment in the 
     process.''
       She added that ``this law helps prevent it by making sure 
     people can see how much money is changing hands for their 
     resources, and who is really benefiting from those deals.''
       The House resolution was introduced by Rep. Ken Buck (R-
     Col.). The House might take it up as early as Wednesday or 
     later in the week.

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely 
surprised at how brazen our friends on the opposite side of the aisle 
are. They come here on this floor today with this rule that they would 
like to overturn. They have not been in committee. We have not had any 
hearings. They have moved very, very quickly to do exactly what all of 
these articles are discussing. They are concentrating on how to roll 
back disclosure that the SEC had developed a rule for for the oil 
industry.
  And why are they trying to do this?
  It is so interesting that this is happening on the same day that Mr. 
Tillerson has just been voted on to be the Secretary of State for the 
United States Government, the former CEO of Exxon; and I am going to 
talk about that connection, which should cause a lot of people to be 
concerned.
  This government is not about disclosure. First of all, the President 
of the United States refuses to disclose his income tax returns. I 
didn't expect them to support disclosure of the oil industry to avoid 
corruption.
  As a matter of fact, they have the audacity to come here today and 
say that it is too expensive to be honest. It costs too much money to 
these huge billionaire oil companies to disclose, and somehow that is 
going to prevent them from creating jobs. That is nonsense.
  I would like to just show some connections here.
  Both during his campaign and since his election, Donald Trump has 
surrounded himself with people who have extensive ties to Vladimir 
Putin and the Russian Government, and then we are going to see the 
connection between Tillerson and the Russian Government. First of all, 
let's look at this circle of people around him and their connection to 
Russia.
  Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was a paid lobbyist 
for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian politician in Ukraine who fled 
to Russia in 2014 and was subjected to U.S. sanctions related to 
Russian aggression in Ukraine. Manafort has also been involved in 
multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian and Ukrainian 
oligarchs, which were reportedly the subject of an FBI inquiry.
  The other person, Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend, is reportedly 
under investigation for possible links with Russia. He has denied ever 
visiting Russia but admitted he had worked in Ukraine. Stone announced 
in a speech last summer that he had spoken to WikiLeaks founder Julian 
Assange, and Stone predicted that there would be additional leaked 
documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.
  Let's go to another person. Michael Flynn, Trump's National Security 
Adviser, did a paid series of events in Moscow, including a speech and 
appearance at a party for RT, a Kremlin-funded TV station, where he was 
photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin.
  Trump's nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was a 
business partner of Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch and Putin 
ally, in a major financial project involving the Bank of Cyprus.
  Finally, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee and now 
the person who has been voted by the Senate for Secretary of State, 
signed a multibillion-dollar agreement with Russia in 2011 on behalf of 
ExxonMobil for an oil drilling project in the Arctic. The project was 
brought to a halt in 2014 as a result of the sanctions that were 
imposed on Russia in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
  Putin personally awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship in 2013. 
Don't forget, this President talked about lifting sanctions. Oh, you 
can see the connection here.
  In addition to that, I just want to point out that it comes as little 
surprise that ExxonMobil is one of the leading companies in the fight 
against the global initiative to enhance the transparency of extractive 
industry payments made to foreign governments, given its long history 
of engaging in questionable transactions with governments of oil-rich 
countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, and 
Chad.
  The move to eviscerate the rule issued under section 1504 that we are 
talking about here today makes clear that Republicans in Congress and 
the Trump administration believe that profits are more important than 
people and that fighting corruption is less important than enriching 
oil, gas, and mining companies.
  Without the SEC's extractive industry transparency rule, citizens 
around the world will lose a critical tool for holding their 
governments and corporations accountable for how natural resource 
proceeds are used.
  Let's talk about Nigeria. Just days before the Securities and 
Exchange Commission issued its final rule pursuant to section 1504 of 
the Dodd-Frank Act, Global Witness, a highly respected and good 
governance NGO, issued a report detailing how a major oil deal, as I 
referred to earlier, struck by ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government, 
was being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes 
Commission, an agency charged with uncovering high-level corruption.

                              {time}  1615

  The investigation relates to a widely reported deal in which the 
Nigerian Government in 2009 agreed to renew a

[[Page H858]]

40 percent share of three oil licenses from Mobil Producing Nigeria, a 
wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil. This is all about the 
billionaires. Just follow the dollars and you can see what this is all 
about.
  Little town, America, needs to know that this is not about them. This 
is about these billionaires, and they will go to any extent to continue 
to steal from them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stewart). The gentleman from Texas has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the American people are watching 
this debate because it will certainly confirm their decision to deny 
Democrats control of the House, to deny them control of the Senate, and 
to deny them control of the White House.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, their words may claim they care about jobs, but 
their policies don't. That is what we are here to talk about, Mr. 
Speaker, is jobs, and we are talking about a rule promulgated by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission that can cost $591 million a year 
and can cost us 10,000 jobs.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have been clearly tone deaf 
to the pleas of the American people. They want to go back to work. They 
are tired of part-time jobs. They are tired of stagnant paychecks. They 
are tired of decimated savings. That is why they have turned to the 
Republican Party, and that is why we are going to help give them a 
healthy economy with policies, including rolling back this foolish rule 
from the Securities and Exchange Commission, a rule that in a previous 
iteration has already been struck down by courts.
  Now, you listen to the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, and you 
hear all this talk about corruption. It appears that some of my friends 
on the other side of the aisle are ignorant that the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act is already in the Federal code. For those who do not 
know, I have done the homework for you: 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1. Look it up 
yourself.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with corruption. Rarely has 
more of a red herring come across the House floor. Let me tell you what 
this is really about, Mr. Speaker. It is about a radical, leftist, and 
elitist agenda that promotes narrow special interests and has declared 
war on carbon-based industry and energy and the industry and jobs that 
are represented by it. That is what this is really about.
  By the way, why is the Securities and Exchange Commission involved in 
this? Why isn't this--listening to them--part of the Homeland Security 
Department or maybe part of the Department of Defense? What will they 
have the SEC do next, deliver the mail? Will they become our air 
traffic controllers?
  Meanwhile, there are Ponzi schemes taking place in America. 
Meanwhile, we have markets that are not efficient creating the jobs 
that the American people demand.
  Let's vote for jobs. Let's vote to get America back to work. Let's 
vote down this leftist, elitist agenda declaring war on carbon-based 
jobs. Let's vote for H.J. Res. 41.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 71, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.J. Res. 41 will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on passage of H.J. Res. 38, and agreeing to the Speaker's 
approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 187, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               YEAS--235

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

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier

[[Page H859]]


     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cartwright
     Clark (MA)
     Kildee
     Meeks
     Mulvaney
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush
     Taylor
     Walker
     Zinke

                              {time}  1643

  Mr. GALLEGO and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GONZALEZ of Texas, VELA, JOYCE of Ohio, and SANFORD changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________