[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8509-8516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2289, COMMODITY END-USER RELIEF ACT

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 288

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2289) to reauthorize the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission, to better protect futures customers, to 
     provide end-users with market certainty, to make basic 
     reforms to ensure transparency and accountability at the 
     Commission, to help farmers, ranchers, and end-users manage 
     risks, to help keep consumer costs low, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Agriculture now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-18. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 5 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 2015, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, H. Res. 288, providing for the consideration of a very 
important piece of legislation, H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User 
Relief Act.
  The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2289 under a 
structured rule and makes five amendments in order--two Democrat and 
two Republican, as well as one bipartisan amendment--allowing for a 
balanced debate on these important issues.
  H.R. 2289 is essential to the smooth functioning of the American 
economy and is long overdue for an enactment into law. This important 
legislation will reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
also known as the CFTC, which had its statutory authority lapse in 
September of 2013.
  The House passed, with strong bipartisan support, a very similar 
version of this legislation on June 24 of last year. Unfortunately, the 
Senate failed to take up the House-passed bill despite its strong 
bipartisan support in the House, leading us to reconsider this 
legislation again today.
  After the financial crisis of 2008, almost everyone agreed that 
changes needed to be made to our financial services sector in order to 
protect our economy and prevent another crisis in the future. Like many 
of my colleagues, I have concerns with some of the reforms that were 
instituted in response to this financial calamity because they have put 
overly burdensome restrictions on our business communities.
  However, it is important to note that this legislation keeps intact 
the overarching reforms made in title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Every 
witness who appeared in front of the Agriculture Committee was 
supportive of the clearing, margining, and execution requirements that 
are the heart of title VII; yet, like every major comprehensive law--
and this was very comprehensive--there are always unintended 
consequences that need to be addressed, and H.R. 2289 does just that.
  For example, the authors of Dodd-Frank would likely argue the law's 
main purpose is to reduce systemic risk to the economy. However, I 
don't think anyone would argue that farmers, who are simply trying to 
lock in a good price for their corn or for their wheat, are a systemic 
risk to our economy.
  It is just as restaurant chains that are looking to make sure they 
have enough beef or pork or potatoes to sell to their patrons also do 
not pose a systemic risk. Utility companies that are seeking to ensure 
that they have enough power to meet the needs and demands of their 
customers did not cause the financial crisis.
  Unfortunately, though, the current law imposes rules that treat all 
of these entities as major risks to our economy, and it imposes overly 
burdensome capital and paperwork requirements on them.
  Mr. Speaker, critics may claim this bill undermines consumer 
protections. However, this could not be further from the truth. Title I 
of H.R. 2289 puts in place greater consumer protections, like requiring 
brokerage firms to notify investors before moving funds from one 
account to another in order to prevent abuses like those that occurred 
at MF Global prior to its bankruptcy.
  It would also require firms that become undercapitalized to 
immediately report to regulators and work with them to restore adequate 
capital and financial security. These title I provisions are 
commonsense reforms that will protect consumers.
  Title II would make reforms to the CFTC itself, such as strengthening 
the cost-benefit analysis the CFTC must perform when considering the 
impacts of its rules and appointing a chief economist to assist with 
compiling and analyzing financial data.

[[Page 8510]]

  Critics may claim that requiring cost-benefit analyses will open up 
the CFTC to lawsuits, which could be costly. However, such critics also 
ignore the endless cycle of the proposal and reproposals of rules that 
are rushed, poorly conceived, and unworkable.
  This work requires the CFTC to waste staff time and Commission funds 
to redraft rules or to provide workarounds for impacted parties. This 
requirement merely gives the CFTC a standard for writing good rules the 
first time that will benefit our economy and the users.
  Title II would also require the CFTC to take steps to invest in IT to 
protect sensitive market data against cyber attacks, a very real issue 
given the recent breaches we have seen at the IRS and at various 
national retailers. Most importantly, this section reauthorizes the 
CFTC until 2019, which has been operating without our authorization, to 
spend money for a year and a half.
  Title III now gets to the heart of what I mentioned earlier, 
providing relief to the end users or the farmers, the restaurants, the 
manufacturers, the utilities, and other entities that rely on a steady 
supply of commodities that have been caught up in the unintended 
consequences of Dodd-Frank's reforms.
  These users have a genuine need to use markets to hedge against bad 
weather, natural disasters, inflation, price shocks, and other 
unforeseen circumstances that could jeopardize their ability to serve 
their customers. These entities inherently want to avoid risk and, 
thus, shouldn't be subjected to the same requirements as financial and 
investment entities.
  Mr. Speaker, title III of H.R. 2289 makes significant reforms to aid 
these end users, such as preventing utility companies from being 
inappropriately classified as ``financial entities'' and being treated 
like banks under the law.
  It exempts end users who are not otherwise regulated by the CFTC from 
having to keep records of every email, phone call, fax, or letter with 
regard to every trade, a huge recordkeeping burden. It would prevent 
nonbank swap dealers from having to hold more capital than banks do, 
which would put them at an unfair disadvantage in the market.
  Additionally, this section would allow end users operating in rarely 
traded markets not to have to disclose trade data, which can be a 
serious disadvantage if they must publicly show all of their trading 
partners what they are buying and selling.
  Title III would also require the CFTC to determine if the rules for 
foreign swaps are equivalent to U.S. rules and create a workable system 
of substituted compliance for market participants whose activity 
crosses multiple jurisdictions. This would ensure that businesses which 
trade internationally do not have to comply with two sets of divergent 
rules.
  Mr. Speaker, the most important thing to remember about H.R. 2289 is 
that the farmer who grows the food that you eat for dinner did not 
cause the financial crisis, neither did the people you buy your 
electricity from or the people who provided the wood for your desk or 
the metal used in your car. I do not know of any reason we should 
continue to treat them as if they did, which is what the current law 
does, and it is what H.R. 2289 is seeking to correct.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule, allowing for the 
consideration of important legislation that will help grow our economy. 
I support its adoption, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
and the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the 
underlying legislation.
  Since my friends on the other side of the aisle have assumed the 
majority, they have made it their mission to undermine the Dodd-Frank 
Act and hamstring the ability of our regulators to put in place strong 
rules to prevent another financial crisis, and this legislation is no 
exception.
  H.R. 2289 reauthorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
through 2019 while making substantial changes to the CFTC's internal 
operations and rolling back key Dodd-Frank provisions intended to 
strengthen our financial regulatory framework.
  I have specific concerns with the new cost-benefit requirements 
imposed in title II of the legislation. The CFTC already conducts cost-
benefit analyses on its rulemakings, and this provision could 
significantly slow down the rulemaking process while also creating 
openings that will put the CFTC at the risk of increased litigation.
  Title II of H.R. 2289 also proposes several unnecessary changes to 
the Commission's internal operations that can make it more difficult to 
manage the agency.
  According to CFTC Chairman Massad, the provisions contained in title 
II could weaken the Commission's ability to respond in a timely and 
effective manner. For example, if these measures were currently in 
place, it would have made it more difficult for the agency to 
positively respond over the past 10 months to concerns raised by market 
participants. Also included in this bill are substantial changes to 
rulemakings taking place at the Commission under the Dodd-Frank Act.
  I am particularly concerned by the cross-border language contained in 
the bill, which will undercut the efforts already underway by the 
Commission to negotiate on an international system of safe and robust 
derivative rules that are necessary to apply to the global derivatives 
market.
  H.R. 2289 requires the CFTC to create a rule that will automatically 
allow U.S. banks and foreign banks conducting business in the U.S. to 
do so under the rules imposed by foreign jurisdictions, all of which 
are currently more lenient than our own. We have seen this kind of race 
to the bottom before, and we all know how it ends.
  Worse yet, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation hamstrings an agency 
that is already woefully underfunded. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that the CFTC will need 30 additional personnel annually to 
handle the increased workload imposed by both the new cost-benefit 
analysis requirements and the mandated cross-border rule contained in 
this legislation.
  Will my friends on the other side of the aisle provide the necessary 
funding increases to the CFTC to carry out these requirements? I doubt 
it.
  Dodd-Frank significantly expanded the CFTC's role in overseeing our 
financial markets, and they have already completed over 80 percent of 
their required rulemakings, the best rate of any financial regulator. 
They have done so despite the fact that Congress has not done its part 
to provide the agency with the resources it needs to police these 
incredibly complex markets, populated by highly sophisticated and 
extremely powerful entities.
  Remember AIG, the insurer brought down by derivatives trades that the 
CFTC is now policing? If that memory is fuzzy, I am sure you will 
remember the funds we provided to bail AIG out, which came to a total 
of $67.8 billion. That would be enough to fund the CFTC at the level 
requested in the President's budget for over 200 years.
  The Commission needs a reauthorization, but it certainly doesn't need 
one saddled with changes that will hamstring its internal operations, 
prolong its rulemakings through an inflexible cost-benefit analysis 
requirement that opens it up to litigation risk, and force it to allow 
a race to the bottom on international rules governing a global market.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and the 
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to make one comment in response to those of my 
colleague from Massachusetts in considering the underfunding of CFTC.
  In the last 5 years, through the reductions of Federal spending and 
the efforts that have been going on, I think anyone would be hard-
pressed to find another agency that has received an almost 50 percent 
increase in its budget over that period of time.

[[Page 8511]]

  I will just point out that, certainly, they have received a lot of 
new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank, but also a large increase in 
their available resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway), the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to provide 
for the consideration of H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act.
  I want to start by thanking Chairman Sessions and the entire Rules 
Committee for their time and work in preparing this rule. Yesterday's 
hearing was spirited but fair, and they have produced a rule that 
reflects the tremendous work the Agriculture Committee has put in on 
this issue.
  Over the past few years, the Agriculture Committee has heard from 
dozens of witnesses at over 10 hearings. These witnesses, many of whom 
are market participants struggling to comply with the needlessly 
burdensome rules and ambiguous portions of the underlying statute, have 
been consistent in their call to action. To address their concerns, 
H.R. 2289 makes targeted reforms that fall into three broad categories: 
customer protections, Commission reforms, and end-user relief.
  Title I of the bill protects customers and the margin funds they 
deposit at their FCMs by codifying critical changes made in the wake of 
the collapses and bankruptcies of MF Global and Peregrine Financial.
  Title II makes meaningful reforms to the operations of the Commission 
to improve the agency's deliberative process. In doing so, it also 
requires the Commission to conduct more robust cost-benefit analyses to 
help get future rulemakings right the first time and to avoid the 
endless cycle of reproposing and delaying unworkable rules.

                              {time}  1245

  While the CFTC is already required to consider costs and benefits of 
the rules it proposes, this rule attempts to legitimize that practice, 
a practice that has been called into question. The current practice has 
been called into question by the Commission's own inspector general, 
who reported the agency seemed to view the process as more of a legal 
one than an economic one.
  Finally, title III of the bill fixes real problems faced by end users 
who rely on derivatives markets to manage their risks. When it is more 
costly for those who need these markets to use them, it discourages the 
exact kind of prudent risk management activities Congress intended to 
protect with the end user exemption in Dodd-Frank.
  Accordingly, the bill provides relief to agricultural and commercial 
market participants struggling to comply with overreaching and costly 
recordkeeping requirements and allows utility companies to continue 
using contracts that allow for a change in the volume of the commodity 
delivered without the worry of needlessly complying with the swaps 
regulations.
  H.R. 2289 will preserve end users' ability to hedge against 
anticipated business risk by providing a more workable definition of 
bona fide hedging. The bill also addresses serious concerns regarding 
the lack of harmony and clarity in global derivatives regulation by 
requiring the CFTC to publish a rule addressing how the U.S. swaps 
requirements apply to transactions occurring outside the United States 
and with non-U.S. persons.
  To be clear, H.R. 2289 makes these meaningful improvements for market 
participants without undermining the basic goals of title VII of Dodd-
Frank, the Holy Grail, to bring clearing, reporting, and electronic 
execution requirements to swaps transactions.
  In closing, I would like to thank the members of the Committee on 
Agriculture who have worked hard, including Mr. Newhouse, to advance 
this important legislation. I am especially appreciative of Mr. Lucas, 
who worked on reauthorization last year, which was our starting point 
for this year, as well as some of our newest members. I also owe 
particular thanks to Mr. Austin Scott and Mr. David Scott, the chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee, respectively, that oversees the 
CFTC. Both of these gentlemen have joined me as original sponsors and 
have held a series of hearings on reauthorization.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. CONAWAY. They did outstanding work helming a new subcommittee 
focused on these issues, and I look forward to their diligent oversight 
work throughout the rest of the Congress.
  Similar to the CFTC reauthorization bill passed by the House with 
overwhelming bipartisan support last year, the Commodity End-User 
Relief Act is comprised of narrowly targeted changes to the Commodity 
Exchange Act. The committee has again put together a bill that earned 
the bipartisan support of our members because we brought the right 
relief to the right people.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule and support 
for the underlying act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to my colleague from Washington 
State with regard to the funding of the CFTC that the agency has never 
received the funding that it has requested, and that is just a fact. 
Here we are imposing new requirements, new mandates. CBO, as I 
mentioned in my opening, estimates that the CFTC will need an 
additional 30 personnel annually to handle the increased workload 
imposed by the new cost-benefit analysis requirements of the mandated 
cross-border rule contained in the provisions in this bill, and so we 
are asking an agency that has never been properly funded to even do 
more and not provide it with the proper funding. I don't think that is 
a smart way to move forward when it comes to an issue so important.
  I also want to point out to my colleagues that they should have 
received a letter from the Consumer Federation of America strongly 
opposing this bill. Let me just read you the first paragraph. It says:

       We are writing on behalf of the Consumer Federation of 
     America to ask you to oppose H.R. 2289, which the House is 
     expected to vote on this month. This legislation would 
     hamstring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 
     effectively overseeing and regulating commodities and 
     derivatives markets, leaving consumers exposed to fraud, 
     manipulation, and abusive practices, and putting the safety 
     and stability of the U.S. financial system at risk. The 
     language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in 
     last year's CFTC reauthorization bill, which the Obama 
     administration strongly opposed because it undermined the 
     efficient functioning of the CFTC and offered no solution to 
     address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. We 
     urge you to resist this relentless attack on the CFTC by 
     voting against this misguided and harmful legislation.

  I would tell my colleagues who are observing this debate that each 
one of them received a copy of this letter from the Consumer Federation 
of America strongly opposing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the statement for the Record.

                               Consumer Federation of America,

                                                     June 2, 2015.
     Re Oppose H.R. 2289

       Dear Representative: We are writing on behalf of the 
     Consumer Federation of America (CFA) to ask you to oppose 
     ``The Commodity End User Relief Act'' (H.R. 2289), which the 
     House is expected to vote on this month. This legislation 
     would hamstring the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
     (CFTC) from effectively overseeing and regulating commodities 
     and derivatives markets, leaving consumers exposed to fraud, 
     manipulation, and abusive practices, and putting the safety 
     and stability of the U.S. financial system at risk. The 
     language in this bill largely mirrors the language offered in 
     last year's CFTC reauthorization bill, which the Obama 
     Administration strongly opposed because it undermined the 
     efficient functioning of the CFTC and offered no solution to 
     address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. We 
     urge you to resist this relentless attack on the CFTC by 
     voting against this misguided and harmful legislation.
       First, this bill would impose an assortment of new, onerous 
     cost-benefit analysis requirements on the CFTC which are 
     likely to delay and obstruct agency action. Under the 
     Commodity Exchange Act, the CFTC already has

[[Page 8512]]

     a statutory mandate to evaluate the costs and benefits of its 
     actions in light of numerous considerations, including the 
     protection of market participants and the public, efficiency, 
     competitiveness, financial integrity, price discovery, and 
     sound risk management practices. This bill would add seven 
     new considerations for the CFTC to undertake. Included in the 
     new economic analysis regime is a requirement for the 
     Commission to assess available alternatives to direct 
     regulation and to determine whether, in choosing among 
     alternative regulatory approaches, those alternatives to 
     direct regulation maximize the net benefits. The practical 
     effect is a further tilting of the regulatory process in 
     favor of adopting an approach that best benefits industry 
     rather than the public.
       Essentially, if this bill is adopted, the CFTC will be 
     required to undertake an in-depth, burdensome economic 
     analysis for each regulation it proposes and compare its 
     proposal to every conceivable alternative. Such a framework 
     likely will create insurmountable barriers that cripple the 
     agency from putting forth rule proposals and finalizing them 
     in a timely manner so as to effectively protect market 
     participants and the overall economy. In addition, the CFTC 
     would be required to evaluate the cost to the Commission of 
     implementing the proposed action, including providing a 
     methodology for quantifying the costs. While this provision 
     is clumsily worded, it appears that the practical effect of 
     requiring the CFTC to consider costs to itself and its staff 
     will be to paradoxically add time and costs to the cost side 
     of the equation, thereby hindering rulemaking. It is also 
     disturbing that this legislation would require the CFTC to 
     undertake exhaustive cost-benefit analyses without providing 
     the agency with the necessary resources to fulfill those 
     obligations.
       The new cost-benefit analysis requirements also are likely 
     to result in increasing opportunities to thwart CFTC 
     regulations through legal challenges. The practical effect of 
     the new heightened requirements will be that any time an 
     industry participant objects to new rules, it will have 
     several new bases for a lawsuit, and it will seek to defeat 
     those rules by claiming that the agency did not undertake a 
     proper economic analysis by considering, and then disposing 
     of, all the possible theoretical alternatives. It is 
     reasonable to believe that armed with such strong ammunition, 
     industry-supported lawsuits seeking to dismantle any new 
     regulations will be successful, a problem again made worse by 
     the agency's lack of funding to effectively defend against 
     such suits.
       This legislation also subverts the CFTC's authority to 
     regulate foreign derivatives activities that have a direct 
     and significant effect on U.S. commerce. As our nation has 
     learned painfully and repeatedly from the collapses of Long 
     Term Capital Management, AIG, and Lehman Bros., and from the 
     JPMorgan London Whale trading debacle, even when derivatives 
     contracts are booked through a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. 
     financial institution, the risks of those derivatives often 
     flow back to the United States, threatening the U.S. economy 
     and potentially putting U.S. taxpayers on the hook for any 
     resulting losses. That is why Dodd-Frank gave the CFTC broad 
     authority to regulate overseas derivatives when they put our 
     national economic interests in peril.
       Pursuant to that cross-border framework, the CFTC allows a 
     foreign host country's regulations to substitute for U.S. 
     regulations only after the CFTC has made a finding that the 
     foreign host country's regulations are comparable to U.S. 
     rules. However, this bill would create a presumption that 
     each of the eight foreign jurisdictions with the largest 
     swaps markets automatically have swaps rules that are 
     considered to be comparable to and as comprehensive as U.S. 
     swaps requirements. The bill makes this determination despite 
     the fact that the CFTC has found only six jurisdictions to be 
     comparable for certain entity-level requirements, and has 
     declined to make comparability determinations for 
     transaction-level requirements for jurisdictions other than 
     the European Union and Japan. Switching the presumption will 
     subjugate the CFTC's authority and expertise on the matter. 
     Furthermore, combining the reversed presumption and 
     overwhelming cost-benefit analysis requirements could mean 
     that the CFTC is effectively thwarted from applying the 
     appropriate regulatory safeguards to certain foreign 
     derivatives transactions. As a result, the CFTC's ability to 
     protect the U.S. economy from the dangers resulting from 
     foreign derivatives transactions could be impaired.
       Derivatives markets affect the U.S. economy in profound 
     ways, and the risks that derivatives pose to the U.S. economy 
     are well-known. The Dodd-Frank Act brought meaningful reforms 
     to increase transparency and accountability in the 
     derivatives markets and provided the CFTC the necessary 
     authority to properly oversee and regulate the market. 
     However, this legislation would put those reforms at risk and 
     hamper the CFTC's ability to adequately protect consumers, 
     market participants, and the U.S. economy. We cannot afford 
     to suffer the grave consequences of another derivatives-laced 
     financial crisis, but this legislation makes it more likely 
     that we will. Accordingly, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2289.
           Sincerely,
     Micah Hauptman,
       Financial Services Counsel.
     Barbara Roper,
       Director of Investor Protection.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
David Scott), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commodity 
Exchanges, Energy, and Credit of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say 
that, as the gentleman just mentioned, I do serve as the ranking member 
of the jurisdictional committee on commodities and futures and trading 
that the CFTC comes under. I say that only to say that I have been in 
the vineyards on this issue and have been struggling with it and 
working on it over many, many years.
  The whole derivatives and commodities and futures markets have 
changed dramatically. We have had a downfall in our economy because of 
a lot of activity that was wrong going on on Wall Street and in our 
financial community, out of which we are now emerging.
  Mr. Speaker, what is urgent here is the fact that we cannot delay any 
longer. It is very important for people to understand that no 
legislation is perfect. I am the first one to say that. This is a glass 
that looks to be half empty or maybe half full. I look at it as half 
full.
  I look at it as an urgent, urgent issue. We have got to get end-user 
relief. That is the major component of this reauthorization for the 
CFTC because it is the end users--our manufacturers, our farmers, those 
who produce the products, those who had nothing to do with the downfall 
of Wall Street, why should they be consistently held to the same 
intrinsic regulations and rules that our financial institutions have? 
We have got to have those financial institutions under strong 
regulation, but it is important that we move, and it is important meat 
of this bill that we give end-user relief.
  Now, I share Mr. McGovern's concerns about the financial situation, 
but let me just assure everyone, this is a reauthorization piece of 
legislation. It is not a funding mechanism. That is in the bosom, in 
the hands of the Committee on Appropriations; and nobody, absolutely 
nobody, has been a stronger champion, more consistent about getting the 
CFTC the funding they need. I bring it up all the time. I will still be 
a champion, but this isn't the bill in which to address that.
  The other point is this, Mr. Chairman, once we get the funding out of 
the way. We talked about the cost-benefit analysis in this. We worked 
on it. This bill received bipartisan support in the last session. Mr. 
McGovern brings up a very good point about possible litigation. We 
address that by adding
a Democratic amendment by Ms. DelBene that addresses that issue to make 
sure that there is no litigation.
  As far as the cost-benefit analysis is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is 
important that we put the same sort of cost-benefit analysis into this 
agency that the Obama administration has in every one of their 
executive agencies. Furthermore, it is not a mandate; it is an 
assessment. It is saying to assess the efficiencies, make sure we do 
it, and it does not put a requirement that any decision on the cost-
benefit analysis outweighs one another as a requirement for them to 
make a decision.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must pass this bill, and we need to do it 
quickly because, in section 300 of this bill--I think it is section 
323--we address a crucial issue. The European Union is eating our 
lunch. All across the world, we are losing our stature as the leading 
financial industry and system in the world. That affects every ounce of 
our security. We are number one in the world, and it is about time we 
stand up and ensure that by making sure that we address the European 
Union's harsh discrimination against our financial institutions abroad. 
This is particularly true when it comes to our clearinghouses, the 
standards that they are using.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, yes, we are dealing with eight foreign countries, 
but they must have similar regimes, what we call equivalency. Now, why 
is that important, Mr. Speaker?

[[Page 8513]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. It is important because it is the CFTC 
that must determine if another nation, one of the eight top foreign 
nations, has an equivalency of a strong regulatory regime as does the 
United States, then certainly we can do business under their regime, 
but as long as we don't pass this legislation, the CFTC doesn't have 
that.
  Finally, on all the cross-border situations, we need a definition of 
what a U.S. person is, and we need to give some backbone to our CFTC 
Commission to say: Look, why should the United States have to treat a 
foreign entity in a manner and with the respect that that foreign 
nation does not treat our industry?
  Mr. Speaker, this country, the United States, is losing a tremendous 
amount of our prestige and our leadership on the world stage, and 
nowhere is that being pronounced more than in our financial system 
because for 3 years we have had this laid on the table. I urge a 
positive vote for this rule.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the gentleman 
from Georgia for his many years of hard work on this very complicated 
issue. As you can see, he understands it well and understands the 
importance of passing this reauthorization legislation. I just want to 
thank him for his comments and hard work.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the 
esteemed former chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the underlying 
bill, H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act. This bipartisan 
bill is the result of a series of hearings in which the Committee on 
Agriculture heard from stakeholders that do business with the CFTC as 
well as every CFTC Commissioner.
  As chairman of the committee last year, I began the process of CFTC 
reauthorization, which resulted in the House-passed bipartisan bill, 
and I laud our committee chairman, Mr. Conaway, for his efforts in 
tackling the same subject and coming to the full House with another 
bipartisan CFTC reauthorization that passed the committee by a voice 
vote.
  A chief selling point of this bill is its commitment to good 
governance reforms at the CFTC to increase transparency and efficiency. 
First, the bill closely follows an executive order by President Obama 
to improve the cost-benefit analysis performed by the Commission prior 
to promulgating rules. In addition, the bill would improve this 
oversight of Commissioners over activities which are outside the normal 
rulemaking process that still impact many futures market participants. 
Many of these activities, such as policy statements, guidance, and 
interpretation rules released by CFTC, would also be subject to public 
comment under the provisions of the bill when they have the force of 
law. Furthermore, H.R. 2289 establishes an office of the chief 
economist at the CFTC to provide objective economic data and analysis.
  The committee also heard from end users during this process and 
included several provisions to provide relief to those end users, such 
as a more workable definition of bona fide hedging and relief from 
burdensome recordkeeping rules for many businesses.
  The CFTC has gone unauthorized since 2013, and it is time many CFTC 
activities were reformed by Congress. This rule will make possible the 
underlying bill that will improve the CFTC in many important ways. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to be clear on one thing. Yes, this is an authorization 
bill. It is not an appropriations bill. But the issue of funding for 
the CFTC is relevant in the discussion of this authorization bill 
because we are essentially proposing that we give additional 
responsibilities or require additional actions from the CFTC with no 
guarantee that we are going to provide the resources for them to do 
their job. We haven't provided them the adequate resources to do what 
they have been expected to do from the very beginning.
  I also want to say that most end user relief in this bill is not 
objectionable, but the CFTC is already addressing them through 
rulemaking. A better way to address these concerns than in statute 
would be more flexibility for them to do rulemaking, which can be 
adjusted.
  In addition to end user provisions, this bill also contains all the 
problems that we have already identified with regard to cost benefit 
and cross border. So there are some significant issues here.
  The DelBene amendment was mentioned earlier. I want to make it clear 
that that does not prevent litigation. It just restates the standard of 
review from the Administrative Procedure Act abuse of discretion.
  I will also point out to my colleagues that the cost-benefit analysis 
is mandated by section 202.
  So, again, I would feel better about all of this if we addressed the 
funding shortfall in the CFTC. We are not doing that. And I don't 
expect that this majority is going to work with us on that.
  I also will insert in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that was sent 
to all Members of the House from Americans for Financial Reform 
strongly opposing H.R. 2289. Let me just read the opening paragraph:
  ``On behalf of Americans for Financial Reform, we are writing to 
express our opposition to H.R. 2289. . . . This legislation would have 
a severe negative impact on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
and its ability to police commodity and derivatives markets. The new 
restrictions it places on the CFTC would require additional years of 
bureaucratic red tape prior to agency action, would enable numerous 
industry lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate 
statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly oversee 
markets crucial to the financial system.''

                               Americans for Financial Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2015.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial 
     Reform, we are writing to express our opposition to HR 2289, 
     ``The Commodity End User Relief Act.'' This legislation would 
     have a severe negative impact on the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission (CFTC) and its ability to police commodity 
     and derivatives markets. The new restrictions it places on 
     the CFTC would require additional years of bureaucratic red 
     tape prior to agency action, would enable numerous industry 
     lawsuits against the agency, and would create inappropriate 
     statutory restrictions on the agency's ability to properly 
     oversee markets crucial to the financial system.
       At the same time, this legislation includes no provisions 
     that address the CFTC's most fundamental problem--the lack of 
     resources to accomplish its mission. Due to the agency's 
     massive new responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act for 
     hundreds of trillions of dollars in previously unregulated 
     derivatives markets, as well as the growth of traditional 
     commodity markets, the size of CFTC-regulated markets has 
     increased roughly 15-fold over the last decade. But the 
     agency's funding lags far behind. As CFTC chair Tim Massad 
     recently stated:
       ``The CFTC does not have the resources to fulfill our new 
     responsibilities as well as all the responsibilities it had--
     and still has--prior to the passage of Dodd-Frank in a way 
     that most Americans would expect. Our staff, for example, is 
     no larger than it was when Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010. . 
     . . Simply stated, without additional resources, our markets 
     cannot be as well supervised; participants and their 
     customers cannot be as well protected; market transparency 
     and efficiency cannot be as fully achieved.''
       While the CFTC's funding is appropriated, the agency 
     authorization process is an appropriate mechanism for 
     introducing mechanisms that would supplement appropriations 
     with some form of agency self-funding. Such self-funding 
     mechanisms are used by all other financial regulatory 
     agencies and have been endorsed for the CFTC by every 
     administration going back to the Reagan Administration, 
     including the Bush and Obama Administrations.
       Instead of addressing the pressing problem of funding, HR 
     2289 would instead load down the CFTC with additional 
     mandates that would drain resources and act as a roadblock to 
     necessary oversight and enforcement. Section 202 of HR 2289 
     would more than double the number of cost benefit analyses 
     the

[[Page 8514]]

     agency must perform prior to taking any action. The CFTC 
     already has a statutory requirement to consider the costs and 
     benefits of its actions, and to evaluate these costs and 
     benefits as applied to a number of significant 
     considerations, including market efficiency, price discovery, 
     and protection of the public.
       However, Section 202 would massively expand this 
     requirement. The section would enormously expand the number 
     of different factors the CFTC must evaluate in any 
     rulemaking, order, or guidance. It would also change the 
     standard of evaluation from consideration of costs and 
     benefits to a much more extensive and burdensome ``reasoned 
     determination'' of costs and benefits. The section includes a 
     particularly sweeping mandate that would require the agency 
     to assess whether an action ``maximizes net benefits'' 
     compared to all possible regulatory alternatives. This 
     requirement alone, which seems to require comparison of any 
     actual regulation to a potentially vast number of theoretical 
     alternatives, could be read to require dozens of additional 
     agency analyses.
       Some of this language does replicate cost-benefit 
     instructions from the Office of Management and Budget that 
     already applies to agencies within the executive branch, 
     although not to independent financial regulatory agencies 
     like the CFTC. However, a crucial difference is that HR 2289 
     would add this language in statute, meaning that each and 
     every additional instruction regarding cost-benefit analysis 
     could become grounds for a Wall Street lawsuit against a CFTC 
     rule. These extensive new cost-benefit requirements amount to 
     a playbook for industry interests to tie up regulations in 
     endless litigation, delays, and red tape. With critical 
     rulemakings such as position limits to control commodity 
     price manipulation still incomplete almost five years after 
     they were passed, the addition of major new barriers to 
     action would be dramatic movement in the wrong direction.
       Section 314 of the legislation would also greatly weaken 
     the authority of the CFTC to properly regulate derivatives 
     transactions booked in foreign subsidiaries of U.S. banks, 
     even when such transactions have a direct and significant 
     connection to the U.S. economy. We need only look at the 
     example of J.P. Morgan's ``London Whale'' transactions, or 
     the London derivatives transactions of AIG Financial Products 
     which resulted in the largest bailout in U.S. history, to see 
     that derivatives transactions conducted through nominally 
     overseas entities can have a profound impact on the U.S. 
     economy. Over half of Wall Street derivatives transactions 
     are currently booked in nominally foreign subsidiaries, and 
     even more could be transacted in this way if there was an 
     incentive to do so to avoid regulation.
       Section 314 would force the CFTC to perform burdensome 
     ``determinations'' in order to regulate foreign subsidiary 
     transactions. Its discretion in performing these assessments 
     would be limited in numerous ways by the legislation. To take 
     just one example, the agency would be banned from considering 
     the actual physical location of personnel doing swaps trading 
     in determining whether a transaction was conducted inside the 
     United States for the purposes of applying U.S. law. It 
     defies common sense to impose such extraordinary restrictions 
     on the discretion of a regulatory agency charged with 
     oversight of the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market.
       HR 2289 also includes many additional changes. Some of 
     them, such as amendments to indemnification requirements for 
     swaps data repositories, are reasonable. However, others 
     create significant statutory loopholes that could permit 
     evasion of derivatives regulations by large banks. For 
     example, Section 301 of the legislation permits large 
     financial institutions affiliated with commercial entities to 
     take advantage of exemptions from key Dodd-Frank risk 
     controls that were intended to apply only to commercial end 
     users. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has 
     stated that the language included in Section 301 ``could 
     potentially allow large banks to trade swaps with other large 
     banks and not be subject to the clearing or exchange trading 
     requirements as long as one of the banks had a nonfinancial 
     affiliate.''
       Some of the other problematic parts of the bill expand the 
     definition of ``commercial end user'' to include financial 
     entities (Section 306), create sweeping exemptions from CFTC 
     oversight for broad classes of complex financial instruments 
     (Section 309), weaken Commission authority to require swap 
     dealers to raise equity capital to back up their trades 
     (Section 311), permit marketing of complex institutional 
     commodity pools to retail investors (Section 312), and weaken 
     limits on commodity market speculation (Section 313). All of 
     these sections appear significantly overbroad and could 
     enable evasion of appropriate regulatory oversight.
       In general, the ``end user'' changes in this bill fail to 
     recognize the very substantial administrative exemptions 
     provided to end users by the CFTC. The CFTC has already 
     exempted end users from numerous Dodd-Frank regulations in 
     areas targeted by this bill. By acting through administrative 
     processes the agency has maintained appropriate safeguards as 
     well as the ability to act if market participants use 
     exemptions to evade important risk controls. In contrast, 
     many of the provisions in HR 2289 would provide sweeping 
     statutory exemptions that lack appropriate controls on risk 
     and could easily become dangerous loopholes.
       But even before considering these issues, the major new 
     restrictions on the agency created by the cost-benefit and 
     cross-border provisions of this bill create overwhelming 
     reasons to reject this legislation as currently written. So 
     long as those provisions are a part of this legislation, 
     supporting appropriate derivatives regulation requires 
     opposing this bill.
       We urge you to vote against HR 2289 and preserve the CFTC's 
     capacity to properly regulate crucial futures and derivatives 
     markets. For more information please contact AFR's Policy 
     Director, Marcus Stanley at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
                                   Americans for Financial Reform.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Again, I would urge all my colleagues to look in their 
mail for the letter from the Americans for Financial Reform strongly 
opposed to this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the good gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
this resolution and the underlying legislation, H.R. 2289, the 
Commodity End-User Relief Act.
  As chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, 
Energy, and Credit, I want to thank our chairman, Mr. Conaway, for his 
strong leadership and for making this reauthorization process a 
productive one through the full Ag Committee.
  I also want to thank my colleague from Georgia and the ranking member 
of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee, Mr. David 
Scott. He has been a tremendous partner throughout this effort, and we 
certainly continue to work well together. I thank him for that.
  Derivatives markets exist to meet the risk management needs of 
farmers, ranchers, utilities, manufacturers, and other end users. To be 
clear, these hedging activities directly benefit the American citizen 
by helping to keep consumer costs low and reducing the risk of 
manufacturing in the United States.
  The ability of producers and end users to use the derivatives markets 
to hedge risk has a direct impact on the cost of living in my district, 
Georgia's Eighth Congressional District, and every other district 
around the country. It is essential that we have strong markets that 
our farmers, ranchers, and end users can utilize to meet their needs 
effectively.
  Earlier this year, our subcommittee held three very productive 
hearings that built upon the work done in the past two Congresses on 
this reauthorization effort. In many hours of testimony we heard 
diverse perspectives from end users, market participants, and 
regulators that were instrumental in drafting this legislation. Their 
testimony included outlooks on the unintentional impacts that the 
market reforms enacted following the 2008 financial crisis were having 
on the end user community.
  Despite congressional attempts to exempt end users from some of the 
more costly and cumbersome mandates, end users continue to face 
unnecessary regulatory burdens and uncertainty. With this legislation 
we have the opportunity to erase that.
  H.R. 2289, the Commodity End-User Relief Act, seeks to clarify 
congressional intent, minimize regulatory burdens, and most 
importantly, preserve the ability for those necessary risk management 
markets to serve those who need them.
  I believe we have met these objectives of ensuring that our 
regulatory framework protects the integrity of our markets while not 
limiting the ability of end users to access these tools to conduct 
their business.
  I am proud to support both this resolution and the underlying 
legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to join me in so 
doing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues the 
Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 2289 and just read a little 
bit of it so

[[Page 8515]]

that my colleagues understand how strongly the administration is 
opposed to this:
  ``The administration strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 2289 
because it undermines the efficient functioning of the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission . . . by imposing a number of organizational 
and procedural changes that would undercut efforts taken by the CFTC 
over the last year to address end user concerns.
  ``H.R. 2289 also offers no solution to address the persistent 
inadequacy of the agency's funding. The CFTC is one of only two Federal 
financial regulators funded through annual discretionary 
appropriations, and the funding that Congress has provided for it over 
the past 5 years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity 
of the Nation's financial markets.
  ``The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the ability of the 
CFTC to operate effectively, thereby threatening the financial security 
of the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky, 
irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession.''
  The statement concludes, Mr. Speaker:
  ``If the President were presented with H.R. 2289, his senior advisers 
would recommend that he veto the bill.''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


                H.R. 2289--Commodity End-User Relief Act

                   (Rep. Conaway, R-TX, June 2, 2015)

       The Administration is firmly committed to strengthening the 
     Nation's financial system through the implementation of key 
     reforms to safeguard derivatives markets and ensure a 
     stronger and fairer financial system for investors and 
     consumers. The full benefit to the Nation's citizens and the 
     economy cannot be realized unless the entities charged with 
     establishing and enforcing the rules of the road have the 
     resources to do so.
       The Administration strongly opposes the passage of H.R. 
     2289 because it undermines the efficient functioning of the 
     Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by imposing a 
     number of organizational and procedural changes and would 
     undercut efforts taken by the CFTC over the last year to 
     address end-user concerns. H.R. 2289 also offers no solution 
     to address the persistent inadequacy of the agency's funding. 
     The CFTC is one of only two Federal financial regulators 
     funded through annual discretionary appropriations, and the 
     funding the Congress has provided for it over the past five 
     years has failed to keep pace with the increasing complexity 
     of the Nation's financial markets. The changes proposed in 
     H.R. 2289 would hinder the ability of the CFTC to operate 
     effectively, thereby threatening the financial security of 
     the middle class by encouraging the same kind of risky, 
     irresponsible behavior that led to the great recession.
       Prior to enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act, the derivatives markets were largely 
     unregulated. Losses connected to derivatives rippled through 
     that hidden network, playing a central role in the financial 
     crisis. Wall Street Reform resulted in significant expansion 
     of the CFTC's responsibilities, establishing a framework for 
     standardized over-the-counter derivatives to be traded on 
     regulated platforms and centrally cleared, and for data to be 
     reported to repositories to increase transparency and price 
     discovery. The changes proposed in H.R. 2289 would hinder the 
     CFTC's progress in successfully implementing these critical 
     responsibilities and would unnecessarily disrupt the 
     effective management and operation of the agency without 
     providing the more robust and reliable funding that the 
     agency needs.
       In order to respond quickly to market events and market 
     participants, the CFTC needs funding commensurate with its 
     evolving oversight framework. The Administration looks 
     forward to working with the Congress to authorize fee funding 
     for the CFTC as proposed in the FY 2016 Budget request, a 
     shift that would directly reduce the deficit. User fees were 
     first proposed in the President's Budget by the Reagan 
     Administration more than 30 years ago and have been supported 
     by every Democratic and Republican Administration since that 
     time. Fee funding would shift CFTC costs from the general 
     taxpayer to the primary beneficiaries of the CFTC's oversight 
     in a manner that maintains the efficiency, competitiveness, 
     and financial integrity of the Nation's futures, options, and 
     swaps markets, and supports market access for smaller market 
     participants hedging or mitigating commercial or agricultural 
     risk.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 2289, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I think that basically says it all.
  While I respect the intentions of my colleagues who drafted this 
bill, I think it is a deeply flawed bill, and it creates hurdles for 
the CFTC that will not be fully funded and will cause all kinds of 
problems.
  I think we ought to make sure that the CFTC can do its job. I don't 
want a repeat of the financial crisis that resulted in the Great 
Recession. And I think the American people don't want a repeat of that.
  I get very worried when I see this Congress chipping away at Dodd-
Frank and the provisions in Dodd-Frank that get us back to what got us 
into this mess to begin with. I think we can do a lot better.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on 
the underlying bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say I appreciate the good discussion here today over the 
past hour. People on both side of the aisles have made very good 
comments, very good points.
  As it relates to the last comment from Mr. McGovern that talked about 
chipping away at Dodd-Frank, everything we're doing around here is 
fine-tuning and improving what has been passed in Congresses--
legislation, laws on the books that need improvement--and I see that as 
what we are doing here today.
  So I appreciate very much the comments. And although we may have some 
differences, I believe that this rule and the underlying bill are very 
strong measures that are important to the future of our country.
  This rule provides for ample debate on the floor, the opportunity to 
debate and vote on the bill and numerous amendments, which I would note 
are divided evenly between Democratic and Republican Members of this 
Chamber. It reflects the balanced deliberation that this rule will 
provide. This rule will provide for a smooth and deliberative process 
for sending this bill over to the Senate for their consideration.
  H.R. 2289 is a solid and substantial measure that will address 
several critical issues that the CFTC and end users are facing.
  Mr. Speaker, no one wants to see the complete deregulation of our 
financial services industry and our commodities and derivative markets. 
And I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts. 
However, it is critical that the regulations put in place are 
appropriate for our economy and as well for the users.
  These rules have to provide safeguards and prevent systemic risk but 
cannot catch our entire economy in a one-size-fits-all regulation.
  As we have discussed here today, the current rules place enormous 
paperwork and financial burdens on small businesses. And that cannot go 
unstated. Our small businesses, ranchers, utilities, and manufacturers 
all face these financial burdens. They take these small, risk-averse 
entities and place them under the same regulatory scheme as large 
financial institutions and hedge funds. H.R. 2289 will differentiate 
and exempt the end users who are not a cause of systemic risk and 
should not have been lumped into these rules in the first place.
  The underlying bill would also make much-needed reforms in the CFTC 
to strengthen their rulemaking process and add commonsense consumer 
protections.
  Overall, this is a strong rule that provides for consideration of 
this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support House 
Resolution 288 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 182, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page 8516]]



                             [Roll No. 274]

                               YEAS--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--182

     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Adams
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Forbes
     Jackson Lee
     Kaptur
     McMorris Rodgers
     Roe (TN)

                              {time}  1340

  Messrs. FARENTHOLD, HANNA, McCLINTOCK, and WEBSTER of Florida changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________