Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require both the Chairman of the SEC and all of its Commissioners to undergo a comprehensive, professional ethics training in order to ensure that all SEC regulations and actions are free from conflicts of interest that may arise from their past or future employment or by legal representation of regulated entities. This training into all of the ethical standards that were just invoked by my distinguished colleague from Michigan is critical to guard against regulatory capture and to protect the public interest. The whole challenge of a republic is how to get legislators and other public officers, who are agents of the people, to serve the common good rather than their own, private interests. In the cost-benefit terms of this legislation, you would call this the ``agency problem.'' Our Constitution, with everything from the separation of powers to the Emoluments Clause, to the Title of Nobility Clause is designed to safeguard the public interest and to reduce the prospects for mischief, corruption, and self-dealing by people in government. Providing mandatory ethics training is a simple way to remind all of us in public life whom we really work for--the American people. Requiring employees to undergo basic ethics training is not unusual. In fact, every congressional staffer who works in this body is required to undergo ethics training in his or her first 60 days of employment here. The freshman class, of which I am a proud member, just had an excellent briefing on professional ethics standards a couple of weeks ago. Under this amendment, Congress will be able to ensure that the SEC officials who are making the critical rules that govern the financial securities industry are looking out for the American people and not for any particular special interest. Conflicts of interest have been rife in the financial sector. In 2008, while Wall Street and big banks preyed on the victims of the mortgage crisis, American families lost trillions of dollars in retirement values, home values, equity, and so on. This amendment would implement a simple safeguard, ensuring that the people who regulate the financial sector are not crossing any ethical lines or are bending the rules in favor of past or future employers or of any other special interests. The people of the United States expect and deserve nothing less from Washington. In closing, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan has invited us, through the various colloquies this afternoon, to believe that there is a comprehensive ethical regime in place. We agree that there is, but what there is not is a requirement that the Chair of the SEC and each of its Commissioners undergo ethics training, the kind of training that millions of Americans undergo all the time in order to understand precisely what their ethical obligations are. It is as if to say that nobody needs to have stop signs or stoplights out there because there is a traffic code someplace. There may be, but we need to give the actual direction to people who are participating in the activity of regulation. Nothing that the good gentleman has said persuades me that the ethics training is actually taking place or that the SEC Commissioners and the Chair of the SEC do not need it. If anything I said is read by anyone to insult the President of the United States or the current Chair of the SEC, then I would stand corrected. I don't think I said anything that would have affronted any of them. This is basic ethics training that takes place for people across the government. For the life of me, I can't understand what the opposition to it is. There seems to be a kind of fetishizing of cost-benefit analysis above everything else. The Constitution doesn't include the words ``cost-benefit.'' There are a whole series of rules that we have in there, including the Emoluments Clause, which established the principle of no conflicts of interest, no foreign bribery, no domestic bribery, no compromising of the integrity of government; and I do not understand why we are so afraid of building those principles into the legal architecture that governs the Securities and Exchange Commission. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. It is in writing, Mr. President.

Mr. RASKIN. Not as of yet, Mr. President.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. President, I have an objection because 10 of the 29 electoral votes cast by Florida were cast by electors not lawfully certified because they violated Florida's prohibition against dual office holding.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. ``. . . to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .''