[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.
____________________