Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is more of the same. It prevents employers from identifying and fulfilling the needs of their companies. Now, use of a credit score, you would argue, is not perfect for every job, but there are certain cases where that would, in fact, be a reasonable thing and a reasonable limitation on employment; and I would ask the amendment sponsor if that is the case. Are there reasonable limitations that we could find here for the types of employment where a credit report may be helpful to an employer? I would ask the bill's sponsor, Mr. Cohen of Tennessee, who is here in the room, so your amendment says you cannot use the credit report for anything related to hiring; is that correct? I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, this is more aggressive than the bad Federal student loan program. If you are a delinquent borrower, you cannot access this like- kind program. What this amendment is saying is, if you are a delinquent borrower, you can get in the front of the line and get that waived away as if you had been paying the whole time. This is a bad idea. If you want to address the problem, let's address the cost of college, not doing this gamesmanship of trying to socialize on the back end through credit scores and credit reporting agencies. Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, on that subject matter, it is the period of time between the arrest and the court date is my concern.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my colleague from Weatherford.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), who is the ranking member of the Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions Subcommittee.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us. This is a Democrat bill under the guise of consumer protection that will destroy the accuracy and completeness of consumer credit files. This will lead to a weaker financial system, undermining a great deal of safety and soundness that we have built up over decades. This will, in essence, socialize credit scoring and, therefore, credit allocation. Mr. Chairman, this is an election year. I see that, and I see that not just in the rhetoric here in the House but in the legislation that is before us today. This bill will weaken underwriting standards. It will make extending credit a riskier and more expensive activity, ultimately impacting both the cost and accessibility of credit for all Americans. Let me be clear. For more than 1 year now, I have made the same statement on the House floor when the House Financial Services Committee has a bill here on the floor. Committee Republicans stand ready to work with the Democrats on issues that are important to the American people, and this bill is a prime example of this. We support policies that create jobs, grow our economy, and make our Nation more secure. Today is no different. Republicans want to work with Democrats to help all consumers, especially consumers who may be struggling to access the necessary credit to apply for a home loan or replace a broken washing machine or perhaps even start a small business. We want to reach a bipartisan compromise to reform the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA. We want to find a compromise that meaningfully helps consumers and, at the same time, stands a chance of being signed into law. This bill is not that. I fear my colleagues have thrown out bipartisanship in favor of satisfying political allies in an election year. This bill socializes credit modeling giving, the CFPB, an unaccountable bureau within the government, the ability to develop, maintain, and regulate credit modeling and factors used in analysis. You will have politicians making the decisions on how credit is scored, Mr. Chairman. That is a dangerous thing and something in the United States we should not stand for. This bill prevents employers from knowing the creditworthiness of employees. This creates a situation in which employees who are in significant debt could be targets of bribes or extortion or perhaps take money that is owed to other people. This bill creates a boon for the trial lawyers, creating new reinvestigation and appeals processes to be exploited by the trial bar. This bill diminishes the value of a credit score as a determining factor in extending credit--I don't think that is a secondary fact; I think that is the primary goal of this bill--by removing past credit scores after 2 years from a report and prohibiting those scores within the 2-year period from being used as a factor. This bill also arbitrarily changes the time period negative information, such as a missed payment, remain on a consumer's credit report. This bill makes it more difficult for private lenders to compete in the student loan industry by allowing delinquent borrowers or a borrower who has defaulted on a loan to rehabilitate their credit outside of the contractual terms. This bill imposes unfunded mandates on the private sector to really an unprecedented degree. These provisions make clear what Democrats want to accomplish in this bill. They want to socialize credit and the models underlying credit allocation. This bill takes credit reporting out of the hands of the private sector and gives it to the government. Let me be clear. I am no fan of the large credit reporting agencies, also known as CRAs. In fact, during our one hearing on this topic last February, nearly 1 year ago at this point--I use the term loosely--that we discussed this bill, because it was just a discussion draft and much different from what we have before us. But in that hearing, we didn't discuss the implications of this bill or the FCRA. I made it clear at that hearing that I share the chairwoman's concerns with the credit reporting agencies, their lack of competition, and their oligopoly. In fact, there were aspects of the original discussion draft of this bill that are not part of what we have today that I thought had merit and should be explored in greater detail. For example, I have concerns that CRAs' operations are not as consumer-friendly as they could be or should be. Moreover, not once after that hearing did the committee consult with additional subject matter experts on the inefficiencies, ineffectiveness, or improvements needed to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Not once after that February hearing did we discuss how to make CRAs work better for the consumer. Not once did we have real bipartisan discussions about what we could achieve and get signed into law. This is something that both Republicans and Democrats actually agree on, the need to reform this process. I agree that we should be disclosing public record data sources. I agree we should exclude paid medically necessary medical debt from consumer credit reports. I agree we should prohibit certain adverse information resulting from financial abuse or predatory lending from being included in consumer credit reports. In fact, the substitute amendment I filed with the Rules Committee that was not made in order this day includes the bipartisan reform I described and more. Committee Republicans support reforms such as prohibiting the use of Social Security numbers to verify consumers. Now, this is a primary source and a primary ingredient for identity fraud. We should take action there, and I think we can. Committee Republicans also support facilitating online credit freezes and the removal of credit files for minors and children. We also support studying the use of nontraditional data in credit scoring as well as codifying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's, or the CFPB's, credit reporting registry. I think there are things that we can do. Bipartisanship is within our grasp. All my colleagues have to do is reach out and grab it. As I said, Republicans stand ready to work with Democrats to help consumers. But this bill is about socializing credit and credit allocation, and this bill is not the answer to the consumers' challenge. In fact, the Democrats' bill will only hurt the very consumers we are trying to help. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this socialization of credit reporting and vote ``no'' on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the Republican ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record page 114 of the bill, and I would highlight these sections, line 4, ``Maintenance of Credit Scores.'' ``Subsection A: In General. All consumer credit reporting agencies shall maintain the consumer's file credit scores relating to the consumer for a period of 2 years from the date on which such information is generated. ``Subsection B: Disclosure Only to Consumers. A past credit score maintained in a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph A may only be provided to the consumer to which the credit score relates and may not be included in a consumer report or used as a factor in generating a credit score or educational credit score. ``Subsection C: Removal of the Past Credit Scores. A past credit score maintained in a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph A shall be removed from the consumer's file after the end of the 2-year period described under subparagraph A.'' This is the section of the bill that says that your consumer credit report can only be 2 years old--your score. Now, the data can be longer, but your score can only use 2 years of past data. That is deeply problematic because, as we know, these things are more long-run occurrences. Creditworthiness doesn't happen overnight, nor do somebody's riskier habits happen overnight. So for a 2-year period, we have not seen any testimony why 2 years is sufficient. The current industry standard is much longer than that, but each different user of this credit information can determine for themselves what that appropriate time is, and that is not mandated by current law. So I find this troublesome, and problematic, and riskier than what we currently have in the law; and that is one of the components of this bill that I oppose. There are numerous other examples, but I know we will have more debate and I will be able to bring up those exact details as those on the other side tout the so-called benefits. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. I understand that correctly. Is there any reasonable limitation--as an employer, is there any reasonable expectation for using a credit report in a hiring process, in your view?

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in writing about George H.W. Bush it was said duty was duty. In 1975, there is this move in the administration to shuttle off George H.W. Bush to a nondescript position. The assumption was if George H.W. Bush was offered a job in public service, he was going to say no because it wasn't the right job for him. Instead, President Bush said yes and served our Nation as director of the CIA at a moment in American history where that agency had massive need for reform and change and also to rebuild its capacity to protect us as Americans. It was written about him, ``Your message came as a total and complete shock,'' Bush wrote to his friend, Henry Kissinger. ``Henry, you did not know my father. The President did,'' meaning President Nixon. ``My dad inculcated into his sons a set of values that have served me well. In my own short public life''--not realizing that 20 years hence he would still be in public service--``one of these values quite simply is that one should serve his country and his President.'' That is what George H.W. Bush wrote in 1975, his notion of public service. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, those words of public service of the need for us as individual Americans to do our duty when called upon and to offer ourselves to serve the public and to serve our fellow man is something that was commendable in 1975 and is absolutely commendable and especially commendable this day. On the floor this day, on both sides of the aisle, we honor an amazing legacy of what he became known as, as 41. The 41st President of the United States and his First Lady, not just during his time in the White House, but his first lady in his life, Barbara Pierce Bush. We know of their family legacy and the generations they have given this country in public service, but we also know the amazing legacy of that World War II generation that he represented and the legacy of public service and trying to get things done for the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak in favor of this resolution, this bill today, and I ask my colleagues to support this recognition of the lives, the dedication, and the selflessness of 41 and First Lady Bush. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``There could be no definition of a successful life that does not include service to others''--the words of George Herbert Walker Bush. ``Each day we should do something to help others''--the words of Barbara Pierce Bush. We know them as the President and the First Lady. The people of Houston know them and knew them as kind and wonderful and thoughtful neighbors. That is the reason why so much of Houston is named after 41 and his wife, Barbara. They are special people, indeed. In a special time in American history, they served their country and they devoted their life to public service: first, here in the House of Representatives, where George H.W. Bush served for but a short period of time; then, at the highest levels of government, as Ambassador to the United Nations, as Director of the CIA, and as an Ambassador to China. Sadly, we lost President George H.W. Bush in November of 2018, just a few months after his wife, Barbara, passed away on April 17, 2018. We know of their devotion to the American people, and what we have before us is legislation that authorizes the U.S. Mint to make $1 coins honoring the service and extraordinary lives of former President and First Lady Bush. President Bush's decades of service first began in World War II, where he made a rare feat of surviving after being shot down over the Pacific. So we know of his full life of service. We know of their family's full devotion to us as the American people, and we thank them for their service. It is an honor to be on the floor of this House of Representatives to speak in honor of such an important life and work. This is but a small statement of our gratitude for what they did for us and how they served us. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Hill), who is the ranking member of the National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining on our side.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my colleague and member of the House Financial Services Committee, the lead House sponsor of the legislation we are considering today.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), a former George W. Bush administration appointee.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I include in the Record a letter from the Credit Union National Association in support of H.R. 4458 and a blog post by the International Monetary Fund which highlights the global threat of cybersecurity attacks and the need for better preparation and risk assessments. Credit Union National Association, Washington, DC, October 29, 2019. Hon. Maxine Waters, Chairwoman, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Patrick McHenry, Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry: On behalf of America's credit unions, I am writing regarding the House Financial Services Committee's markup of H.R. 4458, ``the Cybersecurity and Financial System Resilience Act.'' The Credit Union National Association (CUNA) represents America's credit unions and their 115 million members. National Cybersecurity Awareness Month is an important reminder to assess cyber dangers and consider what can be done to help protect Americans and American businesses from cyber-attacks. For credit unions, protecting American's financial and other personal information no matter what business or entity possess or handle it is of the utmost importance. Theft and misuse of members' information from other businesses and entities cost credit unions and by extension their member-owners significant money while lining the pockets of criminals and criminal nation states who use the money to hurt the Unites States. CUNA supports H.R. 4458, the ``Cybersecurity and Financial System Resilience Act.'' America's credit unions support efforts to ensure that the entire financial services sector has proper cyber safeguards in place and this effort should extend to the sectors' regulators. H.R. 4458 would require the sectors' regulators to each issue an annual report to Congress describing measures the respective agency has taken to strengthen cybersecurity with respect to its functions as a regulator, including the supervision and regulation of financial institutions and, where applicable, third-party service providers. The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) requires the sectors' regulators to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide information security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency. It appears that H.R. 4458 would enhance FISMA through reporting requirements while also requiring the regulators to ensure robust oversight of their regulated entities, which is already a primary duty of the regulators. The regulators should be given wide latitude to decide the information reported publicly on the status of their regulated entities. Any information that details cyber vulnerabilities at financial institutions should not be reported publicly as it could harm the sector as bad actors could use reports as a roadmap for future attacks. Furthermore, the regulators should coordinate publicly reporting their regulated financial institutions for the same reason. Lastly, we commend the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Chairman Rodney Hood for recently appointing a cybersecurity advisor. We believe this is a critical step to ensure the agency stays focused on important cyber issues. We appreciate that NCUA has taken proactive efforts to work to secure the cyber security framework for credit unions and their members. On behalf of America's credit unions and their 115 million members, thank you for the opportunity to share our views. We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on safeguarding the financial services sector against cyber- attacks. Sincerely, Jim Nussle, President & CEO.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, I begin by thanking Chairwoman Waters and her staff for working with my staff and me to bring this bill to the floor today and, indeed, making it a bipartisan outcome. It is a nice way to start a year. We started last year on the floor passing bipartisan bills, and from time to time, we have been able to do that over the last year. So I thank Chairwoman Waters for working with me where we can, but when we disagree in our committee, we are able to disagree and still have the capacity to talk to one another. I think that is a very special thing. Now, the rest of our politics, they are what they are, but it is good to celebrate when we have our bipartisan victories. Madam Speaker, the bill we have before us will ensure the government regulators are taking seriously the systemic risk that cybersecurity attacks pose to the global economy. For the first time, this legislation will require U.S. bank regulators--the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration--to provide Congress with a detailed analysis of what they are doing to protect against cyberattacks, both internally and in the entities they oversee. This includes the regulators' technical procedures, their operational policies to ensure accountability for cybersecurity at the highest management levels, their cooperation with domestic and foreign financial institutions, as well as their forecasts on emerging threats to the resilience of the financial system--important stuff. The need for this bill is clear. We have witnessed nearly half a billion data records exposed as a result of breaches in the private sector. We know that the world is digitizing. Our government is trying to keep pace, but the private sector is moving very quickly as we, as consumers, drive this move to greater digitization. Not surprisingly, one recent survey found that no less than two- thirds of our large financial institutions had experienced an increase in cyberattacks over the previous year, with 79 percent of them concluding that hackers were becoming more sophisticated. Certainly, they are. At an April 2019 hearing of the Financial Services Committee, CEOs from five of America's seven largest banks cited cyberattacks as the foremost risk they face. Now, that is not productivity growth. It is not political upheaval overseas. It is not an economic slowdown in China or Europe. They ranked their highest concern as cybersecurity threats. In the private sector, they are not alone in this exposure. Last year, we saw ransomware attacks against Baltimore and three towns in Florida that forced local government operations to be suspended, in some cases jeopardizing basic public services. What would happen if hackers had that same success in a large attack that has systemic implications? Here is just one example. The Federal Reserve settles $35 billion in global payments in just the first hour of operations each business day. A cyberattack on the Fed that could be just partially successful would have and could have disastrous consequences. It is precisely the scale and interconnectedness of the financial sector that makes such scenarios so alarming. As the 2019 annual report of the Financial Stability Oversight Council explains: ``The increasing reliance of financial firms on information technology increases the risk that a cybersecurity event could have severe negative consequences for the U.S. economy, potentially impacting financial stability.'' True. The FSOC report goes on to say: ``The unique and complex threats posed by cyber risks require the public and private sectors to cooperate to identify, understand, and protect against these risks.'' It is a new threat. It is a complex one. While I appreciate our regulators' growing sensitivity to cyber-related risks, we can and must do more. As the Fed acknowledged in its most recent financial stability report, cyber resiliency is a potential risk for financial stability that doesn't fit neatly into existing risk frameworks. This bill will help our regulators, including the Fed, incorporate cybersecurity into those risk assessments more effectively. To be clear, Madam Speaker, the answer to cyber threats is not to return to some bygone, less technologically sophisticated age, something we can't do. On the contrary, ensuring the resiliency of the financial system means increasing vigilance and innovation. That means we need to have the best and brightest protecting our important institutions of government and the best and brightest protecting our important institutions in the private sector. It is a lack of technological sophistication in the public and private sectors that will offer an opening to attackers if we don't take this action, and that is why Congress needs to hold our regulators to the highest standards of accountability so that they will remain a step ahead of tomorrow's threats. Again, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for working with us on this important measure, and I urge all Members to support its passage. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, due to an unforeseen scheduling conflict, I was unable to vote on the first two amendments to H.R. 535. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 9, and YEA on Roll Call No. 10.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 9. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Balderson

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, 63 million Americans went to the polls and elected Donald Trump President of the United States. House Democrats have been trying to overturn the election ever since. In fact, they have tried five additional times to the one that is before us to impeach the President, including the vote in May 2017, just 5 months into his term. In January of this year, House Democrats took control of this Chamber, and they were faced with a choice. They could use the tools of the majority to pursue legitimate priorities of the American people, policies that can impact their lives, or they could use the tools to undo the 2016 election. They made their choice. Since then, House Democrats have issued more subpoenas than bills have been signed into law. That tells us all we need to know about this Congress and that party. Rather than launch a legitimate investigation, Democrats turn to focus groups to workshop their language, to see if they could sell this to the American people, and the American people have rejected it. Instead of negotiating with the executive branch, for instance, and allowing the courts to resolve any legitimate disputes, House Democrats rushed toward an impeachment vote. So here we are, 12 weeks later, voting whether to impeach the President based off the thinnest record in modern history. It is no surprise that the Senate is already asking for additional witnesses, more documents, and real evidence. The body of evidence is weak and woefully insufficient for impeachment.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, I have concerns with H.R. 2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act in its current form. And, Madam Chair, my amendment addresses several of these concerns and improves this bill to better demonstrate congressional intent of codifying current insider trading law and not expanding it. I thank the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) and his staff for their diligence and patience in working with us over the last few months and over the recent Thanksgiving holiday. I also want to thank both of our staffs, as well as the Waters' staff. And I want to thank Mr. Himes for agreeing to support this amendment in order to make this underlying bill a bipartisan approach to codify insider trading law and punish bad actors. My amendment reflects Republican priorities discussed at our May markup, such as the inclusion of an explicit personal benefit test consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the removal of the novel rule of construction section from the Rules print of this bill, and a clarification of ambiguous words to ensure judges and prosecutors know that this bill is not intended to expand or create new insider trading liability. The bill as drafted does not explicitly include the so-called personal benefit test, a significant element of insider trading law that prosecutors must currently satisfy in certain insider trading cases. In the 2016 Salman case, the Supreme Court noted that in order for a violation to have occurred, the insider or ``tipper'' providing the material, nonpublic information must have received a direct or indirect personal benefit, including but not limited to, pecuniary gain, reputational benefit, or a gift of confidential information to a trading relative or friend. Including an explicit personal benefit test, as set forth by the Supreme Court, ensures that this important test cannot be read more broadly by judges than the Supreme Court has allowed, and also, this prevents activist judges and overzealous prosecutors from reading the test out of law entirely. My amendment also clarifies the ambiguities within the ``relating to the market'' phrasing in the underlying bill. This phrase ``relating to the market'' is not a legal term of art defined within the existing body of insider trading law, nor is it defined in this bill. It is entirely plausible for an activist judge or a rogue prosecutor to interpret this phrase far more broadly than the drafters of the bill intended. This amendment provides a limiting principle by applying only to nonpublic information that has or is reasonably expected to have a material effect on the market price of a security. This ensures that the statute will still capture cases where the receipt of material, nonpublic information was not from the company itself, but from another source. This is referenced in the Supreme Court's 1987 Carpenter decision. Finally, my amendment strikes the rule of construction section in the underlying bill that was not reviewed or debated in the House Financial Services Committee. I believe this provision is, at best, unnecessary and at worst, could have been read as giving a congressional stamp of approval for a poorly reasoned judicial set of decisions. As such, my amendment would ensure that Congress' intent is to simply codify existing law, not expand liability or create additional defenses for those accused of insider trading. This is about codifying what is already existent, period, end of statement. That being said, my amendment does not achieve all the Republican goals that we have previously outlined in our committee markup and committee hearing. Unfortunately, the bill, even if it is amended by this amendment, still will not contain an exclusivity provision to make this the exclusive law of the land for insider trading. While my amendment does not make this bill perfect, it does allow for Congress to exercise its Article I authority to produce a comprehensive insider trading law for the first time and does so in a bipartisan manner that simply intends, we believe, to codify current insider trading law without expanding liability to good-faith people innocent under the law. Mr. Chair, I urge its adoption, and I thank the bill's sponsor for working with us on it. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member of the Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets Subcommittee, Mr. Huizenga, for his good work in committee and working on important legislation for economic growth and for his constituents in Michigan. Madam Chair, preventing and punishing bad actors for illegal insider trading is one of the top priorities of Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee because this illegal activity hurts everyday Main Street investors as well as the integrity and the efficiency of our markets. Trading on material insider information in breach of a fiduciary duty is currently prohibited by court-made law under the antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws that we have. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice have the power to bring insider trading cases, and both agencies regularly exercise this power and have done so for decades. Our body of insider trading laws has been developed through those decades of judicial precedent to protect investors and the markets by punishing bad actors who illegally trade on insider information. Codifying nuanced case law and regulations that have been developed over decades into a single statute is really difficult. It is a very difficult undertaking, and it is, really, a very delicate piece of legislating that must occur. Both Republicans and Democrats who have served on the Securities and Exchange Commission have expressed concerns about Congress drafting a statute that accurately captures this extensive and expansive body of law without expanding it into new areas, inadvertently, perhaps, or perfectly by design in some areas. Moreover, bipartisanship is never easy. It is a give-and-take. It is a difficult process. I appreciate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) for his willingness to work with us in a bipartisan manner. The bill on the floor today is not perfect, and, as the gentleman from Connecticut knows, I have several concerns with this bill. I have concerns about the lack of an explicit personal benefit test consistent with Supreme Court precedent. I am concerned that ambiguous language currently in the bill, such as ``relating to the market,'' is ripe for activist judges and overzealous prosecutors and private plaintiffs to exploit, leading to greater uncertainty for anyone involved in investing. That is not what we want; that is not what we seek; and that should not be this undertaking. And I also don't believe that that is the intention of my colleague from Connecticut in the drafting of this bill. I am also troubled that the Rules Committee print before us does not include an exclusivity provision establishing that this bill is the insider trading law rather than just an additional action around insider trading. Finally, the Rules Committee print includes a rule of construction section that has yet to be vetted through the Financial Services Committee; and without a full understanding of the implications of this language, the bill could further open the door for activist judges, overzealous prosecutors, and trial lawyers, creating even more confusion around insider trading law. That is not good for investors. That is not good for our markets. It is not good for anyone outside of a narrow few that personally benefit through fees around lawsuits. My amendment, which I will offer in a minute, addresses some of these concerns, and I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut, and I appreciate the chair of the Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters, for their engagement so that we can actually come to a bipartisan agreement on this important act. Now, Republicans continue to support sensible bipartisan insider trading bills, such as the one that Chairwoman Waters and I brought forth, or she brought forth, as the first action of our committee on this House floor in this Congress, which was promoting Transparent Standards for Corporate Insiders Act, which we passed out of this Chamber. And starting off with the fact that we are going to be tough on bad actors from the Financial Services Committee and doing it in a bipartisan way shows our seriousness. And this bill before us is an addition to that seriousness that we take against bad actors in our area of jurisdiction. Finally, I would say this: We currently have out of decades of lawsuits, decades of regulatory enforcement, we have the greatest clarity on insider trading that we have ever had in this Nation, and that is due to two Supreme Court cases, in particular, giving us serious rules of the road. And I think that clarity is good. And what we want out of this legislation is to put in statute what is confirmed and established currently in the marketplace and currently in the courts of law. This is not to create more confusion or more lawsuits, but rather, codify what is a well-regulated, bright-line space that we currently have. And we want to take that consistency that we currently have and establish it in statute. And that is the reason why Republicans have engaged deeply with Democrats over the last 5 months to come to some reasonable conclusion on this important matter of banning insider trading. So Congress will have its say. I believe we will have a bipartisan vote for final passage, if my amendment is adopted, and I would hope that that would take place. And we have had good conversations along those lines, and I think we have workable language that could be acceptable to all in this body. I want to thank everyone who has participated, but most particularly Mr. Himes from Connecticut. While we don't agree on every issue--heck, I don't think you would get reelected in Connecticut if you agreed with me on every issue, nor I in North Carolina in my district-- bipartisanship is a hard thing, but if we are going to do big, important things, we have to try for that. And when you are in the majority, it is implicit you have more votes than those in the minority. So Democrats could pass this bill on their own. They could. And if they wanted to just use this as a political issue, they could just jam the language they have; they could, right? But it was your willingness to reach out, so that we could actually have a big bipartisan vote, rather than a narrow victory. That is also something that is a marker, that most in this country don't hear about, that we actually do talk. We may disagree on big things, we may, and from time to time Chairwoman Waters and I have had our public disagreements, but at the same time we have been able to come to terms on important things in our jurisdiction and get things done. So while that is not the everyday case for this Congress, when it happens, I think we should actually acknowledge it. Not that anybody is going to pat us on the back for it, but we should acknowledge it. I thank my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle for their work, and I thank my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for their work, as well.