Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I rise to oppose the closed rule on H.R. 1256. H.R. 1256 really has no business being hidden in this bill at all. It is another attempt to keep the debate from taking place so that people will know what is happening when we are trying to have a regulatory regime that will protect us from having to bail out big institutions. We are simply saying that we can't allow our financial institutions to have subsidiaries overseas that are doing business and trading and putting us at risk. Every time they get involved in a trade in which they don't have comparable rules in that country, what we are doing is putting this country at risk that we are going to have to bail out a big financial institution because the harm will come right back to the parent company. We, in Dodd-Frank, have said that we must have comparable rules, that we must have regulatory regimes that are comparable to ours in order to do business and to do trading in order to protect against big institutions failing. So now we have this H.R. 1256 that would undo all of that and drag it back into the shadows, this derivatives trading, and put us all at risk. We can't even debate it. We can't even have an amendment because, again, they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much. I do appreciate this. This is so important. I am against this closed rule simply because we have mandated the kind of reform in Dodd-Frank that would keep us from ever being in the position in which we have to bail out these big institutions, and now we have so much organized push back and undermining of Dodd-Frank in which they are attempting to undo the reforms that we have done. Simply put, we cannot allow the branches and subsidiaries of these big broker dealers--these big banks--to go over and do trading with countries that don't have comparable rules. If we allow that to happen, we will be forced to do what we have seen with AIG, which was to bail them out to the tune of billions of dollars, and supposedly, we'd done reforms to keep from having to be in that position again. We will find that we will again be experiencing what happened with Goldman Sachs and others who ended up being the beneficiaries of our failed regulatory regime. So I am opposed to the closed rule. Vote against the closed rule, and then vote against the bill.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings of what this bill is about. The more we debate it, the better Members understand the impact of this bill on our economy. The gentleman from Texas, the chairman, just talked about how generous they are in allowing this debate to take place. Members, let me tell you what really happened. The fact of the matter is there has been an attempt to hide H.R. 1256 in this DOD bill. What business does it have in this bill? Why is it the Rules Committee determined that it would be a closed rule? The first reason is that they tried to get away without having amendments to the bill. I had an amendment that I offered in committee that was not accepted, an amendment that if there were an open rule, I would have been able to offer this amendment on the floor. But, no, they close-ruled this bill to keep any amendments from being heard, to be debated, to be voted on, because they know that if Members really discover what these derivatives are all about and how they could create such risk that we'll be put in the position of bailing out failed institutions all over again, that Members would not support this kind of bill. This country has been through a terrible financial crisis. Part of the reason is that we allowed our banks and financial institutions to place unregulated bets on the mortgage markets. Remember AIG? What did AIG do? It made a really big bet that the mortgage market would go up, and it lost, and the taxpayer was put in the position of having to bail it out. The Dodd-Frank Act enabled us to put a stop to that kind of betting going on, hidden from the rest of us, finally dragging that activity out into the sunlight. The CFTC and the SEC are finally putting in place rules of the road to prevent any one institution from threatening our livelihood again, but this bill wants to drag some of that activity back into the shadows, allowing banks and others, once again, to enter into transactions without even our regulators being able to see them. You may say that this bill just concerns the limits on how far U.S. law goes. So why is it so important that the CFTC and SEC have discretion over the rules on cross-border initiatives? Because the exposure that a foreign branch or subsidiary of a U.S. institution takes in foreign markets comes back home to the U.S. Moreover, U.S. banks and corporations may find that those they do business with have much more hidden exposure because of foreign transactions. This bill says that we will have to rely on the foreign regulators to protect us. We shouldn't have to rely on foreign regulators who don't even have regulatory regimes to protect us. We should protect ourselves by making sure that anybody our branches and our subsidiaries are doing business with have comparable rules. Those countries must have comparable rules to the U.S. rules in order to protect us. To put it simply, this bill would delay the implementation of the Wall Street Reform Act's derivatives provisions by months, if not years, and would preserve the kind of opacity in our markets that led to taxpayers' bailing out AIG just 5 short years ago. For example, while Europe has made considerable progress on its swaps' clearing and reporting rules, Europe's framework for implementing trading and internal business conduct standards have been caught up in delays. It is unclear at this point how strong those requirements ultimately will be. This bill increases the incentives for other jurisdictions to avoid making the tough decisions to put in a strong financial framework. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I enter into the Record three letters of opposition to this bill. One is from the Executive Office of the President of the United States Office of Management and Budget; Americans for Financial Reform; and American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, DC, June 11, 2013. Dear Representative: The AFL-CIO opposes the ``Swaps Jurisdiction Certainty Act'' (H.R. 1256) scheduled for floor consideration this week. If passed, this bill would undermine the framework Congress put in place in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 to prevent risky derivatives trading from contributing to another global financial crisis. It would impose major new procedural hurdles that would impede the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) ability to move forward with effective rules designed to prevent risks that arise from overseas derivatives trading from impacting the U.S. economy. The 2008 financial crisis provided vivid illustrations of how derivatives transactions conducted by U.S. institutions in overseas markets can wreak havoc on the U.S. economy--both the AIG bailout and the Lehman Brothers failure were caused to a large extent by offshore derivatives trades. As we saw with AIG and Lehman Brothers, U.S. institutions can easily conduct derivatives transactions outside U.S. borders that put U.S. financial institutions at risk. With this in mind, Congress granted the CFTC, which regulates around 90 percent of U.S. derivatives markets, authority in Section 722(d) of Dodd-Frank to oversee derivatives transactions that ``have a direct and significant connection with activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States.'' The CFTC has issued proposed guidance that strikes an appropriate balance. It protects U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. economy while allowing overseas subsidiaries of U.S. banks to be regulated under `substituted compliance' by their local regulator when the CFTC makes a specific determination that the relevant foreign rules are as strong as the U.S. rules. H.R. 1256 would seriously undermine the CFTC's ability to protect U.S. taxpayers from risks that arise from overseas derivatives trading by creating a presumption that these transactions are exempt from U.S. regulation. To overcome this presumption, the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would be required to determine that the foreign country rules are not `broadly comparable' to U.S. rules, issue joint rules, and make formal reports to Congress. The CFTC's ability to effectively oversee offshore derivatives transactions that create risks to the U.S. economy is central to whether Title VII is ultimately successful in mitigating the risks in the derivatives markets that nearly brought down the economy less than five years ago. Don't let another AIG or Lehman Brothers happen under your watch. Vote against the ``Swaps Jurisdiction Certainty Act'' (H.R. 1256) and prevent a major loophole from undermining the basic derivatives market protections that Congress so sensibly put in place when it passed Dodd-Frank in 2010. Sincerely, William Samuel, Director, Government Affairs Department.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record the amendment that I would have offered had they not come up with a closed rule. Page 5, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 7, line 6, and insert the following: (d) General Application to Foreign Jurisdictions.-- (1) General application.--In issuing rules under subsection (b), the Commissions shall provide that persons in compliance with the regulatory requirements of a country or administrative region that has one of the nine largest combined swap and security-based swap markets by notional amount in the calendar year preceding issuance of such rules or any other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commissions may satisfy the corresponding categories of United States swaps requirements through such compliance upon the making of a joint determination by the Commissions pursuant to subsection (d)(2). (2) Determinations.--The Commissions shall jointly determine whether one or more categories of regulatory requirements of a foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commissions, are broadly equivalent to corresponding United States swaps requirements, with such determinations initially to be made as follows: (A) Initial determinations regarding a country or administrative region described under paragraph (1), or any other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commissions, accounting for the five largest combined swap and security-based swap markets by notional amount in the calendar year preceding issuance of rules under subsection (b) shall be made within 180 days after issuance of such rules. (B) Initial determinations regarding a country or administrative region described under paragraph (1), or any other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commissions, accounting for the next five largest combined swap and security-based swap markets by notional amount in the calendar year preceding issuance of rules under subsection (b) shall be made within 360 days after issuance of such rules. (C) Initial determinations regarding a country or administrative region described under paragraph (1), or any other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commissions, shall be made within 540 days after issuance of rules under subsection (b). (3) Criteria.--In such rules, the Commissions shall jointly establish criteria for determining that one or more categories of regulatory requirements of a country or administrative region described under paragraph (1) or other foreign jurisdiction are broadly equivalent to corresponding United States swaps requirements, and shall jointly determine the appropriate application of certain United States swap requirements to persons or transactions relating to or involving such country or administrative region or other foreign jurisdiction as jointly determined by the Commission to the extent that the Commissions have determined that certain regulatory requirements of such country or administrative region or other foreign jurisdiction are broadly equivalent to corresponding United States swaps requirements. (4) Right to petition.--A market participant or group of market participants may request a determination with respect to a particular category or categories of foreign regulatory requirements with regard to a foreign jurisdiction or jurisdictions. Any determination made regarding such a request shall be available to all market participants. Page 7, line 7, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Ms. WATERS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. The gentleman from Georgia talked about there are no unintended consequences, and he attempted to speak for me, one of the authors of the bill. I just think that he does not understand that we put in a lot of work on this bill. We worked in a bipartisan way. And if one of the authors of the bill tells you there are unintended consequences, then I think the gentleman from Georgia cannot dispute that. Let me just say that I talked with FEMA about mapping, and I talked with FEMA about these decertified levees. They admitted that they had decertified some and they're going to recertify them because they didn't quite know what they were doing. They also told me that the maps certainly need a lot of work, that they are not complete. What I'm saying is this: all of those homeowners who can't sleep at night, who can't plan their futures, don't know whether or not they're going to be able to send their children to college, all of those homeowners who are in limbo, who don't understand whether or not they're going to be able--certainly they're not going to be able to pay increased premiums. They won't be able to sell the house. Why would we be a party to causing that kind of consternation to fellow human beings? I don't think we want to do that. We have the power here today to support Mr. Cassidy's bill and to buy some time and tell FEMA to get it right, to work on it, because these are unintended consequences. So I just wanted the gentleman from Georgia to know that I certainly appreciate your concern. But you certainly don't understand the work that was put into it and how I know unintended consequences when I see them because of the way that I worked on the bill, and I know it was not intended to do what it is now doing. If you had spent some time with the people who traveled to Washington, D.C.--elected officials and community leaders alike--who took up the whole room, making an appeal to us to not put them in a position where they would lose their homes, where communities would be destroyed because FEMA was not ready, not prepared--not equipped maybe--to do what they needed to do to carry out the bill even. And that some of those increases that were being talked about, that were being projected, were increases that were almost made up; they were not actuarially sound. So I would ask you to please vote for this bill. Change your mind. Give some leadership and ask your colleagues to vote for the bill.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to thank Mr. Grimm for his eloquent description of precisely what can happen and what is happening, and his plea to all of us to ensure that we don't place people in the position of losing their homes because they cannot afford these extraordinary increases in premiums. I met with residents from Plaquemines Parish who came to the Congress of the United States. All the elected officials and community leaders came together, and they came here to make a plea to us to understand that, with this increase in premiums, they certainly can't afford it, and they can't afford to sell it because nobody is going to buy it. So Mr. Grimm talked about victimization and the fact that we would be victimizing people who are victims of natural disasters twice, and that's precisely what it's all about. And I think that we are more caring than that. I think that we understand that there's still a lot of things to be worked out. The flood maps have not been completed. The pricing has not been really dealt with, and so I think we need time. We need time in order to answer these questions, to deal with the complexities of what we're trying to do. I think we can stabilize flood insurance. I think that is possible. But I, as one of the authors of this bill, I'm also making a plea to say that we did everything that we could to try and have a bill that's sustainable, that's viable, that makes good sense. But as we review what is going on and the risk and the harm that people are now confronted with, we're saying, let's take a step backwards for a short period of time and let's give these victims, and other victims in other areas of this country, an opportunity to at least hold on to their homes and not have them literally taken away from them because we didn't realize these unintended consequences. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy). I am pleased to say that my colleagues, Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Richmond, and I have worked to address this important issue in an ongoing, bipartisan way. The National Flood Insurance Program was created in 1968 after record flooding led the private sector to abandon the flood insurance market and stop writing flood insurance policies. The program is a key component of the Federal Government's efforts to minimize the damage and financial impact of floods. It is the only source of insurance against flood damage for most residents and provides much-needed coverage for 5.5 million homeowners and their families. This is why I worked across the aisle with my colleague, Representative Judy Biggert, to reauthorize this program. Before this reauthorization, the flood insurance program was plagued by repeated lapses in authority, placing many local communities at risk. During those lapses, FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits, causing great uncertainty for millions of homeowners who depend on the program's existence. The Biggert-Waters bill was instrumental in stabilizing the flood insurance program. It provided a 5-year reauthorization and made critical improvements to the program. The reforms in Biggert-Waters gave communities more input into flood maps and strengthened the financial position of the flood insurance program. In drafting this bill with then-Chairwoman Judy Biggert, I sought to strike the right balance between protecting homeowners and strengthening the flood insurance program. This law was intended to reauthorize the flood insurance program in a sustainable way. The intent was not to impose punitive or unaffordable rate hikes that could make it difficult for some to remain in their homes. You heard the testimony from Mr. Richmond about the incredible increases in the premium costs. This is why I am extremely concerned about reports that homeowners in certain areas are facing high and unsustainable flood insurance rates. I have committed to work with FEMA and with my colleagues here in Congress to address this unintended consequence of this otherwise helpful legislation, so I am supporting the gentleman's amendment today. This would prohibit FEMA from using funds made available in this act to implement one provision from Biggert-Waters that has raised an unintended consequence and requires further study before being implemented. While the gentleman's amendment is a positive first step in addressing this issue, more needs to be done. Last month, my friend from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, and I introduced H.R. 2199, the Flood Insurance Implementation Reform Act of 2013, a bill on which Mr. Cassidy is an original cosponsor, that would take additional steps to provide meaningful relief and address the issue of affordability. The bill would delay implementation of changes to grandfathered rates, the subject of Mr. Cassidy's amendment, for 3 years instead of 1 year. It would also delay implementation of the rate changes that FEMA is currently rolling out. I look forward to continuing to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Biggert-Waters Act is implemented in a balanced way to ensure the flood insurance program's stability and affordability. FEMA's current implementation schedule would upset that delicate balance and unintentionally impact families and local communities. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 2199 and to also vote ``aye'' on this amendment. Let me just say to those who would represent that we all voted for it: so since we voted for it and we worked together, we worked across the aisle, Democrats and Republicans working together, that somehow we can't make amends or changes that are desperately needed, working together. I think it is extremely important when you have Mr. Cassidy over there and you have Waters over here, one of the original authors of the bill, who are talking about something has happened, unintended consequences that have taken place that will cause homeowners to lose their homes. Now, it's easy if this does not happen in your communities or in your districts. But, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to know that this is an interdependent business that we're in, and to the degree we recognize other people's problems and we're willing to stand up and give support, particularly when it talks about homeownership, when it talks about that which is so important to all of us, that we should work together, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1911--the Smarter Solutions for Students Act. Mr. Speaker, this terrible bill should instead be called the Making College More Expensive Act because that is exactly what it would do if passed through Congress. Instead of making college more affordable for students, H.R. 1911 would burden students with an additional $4 billion in loan interest charges relative to current law. According to a recent study by the Federal Reserve, there is plenty of evidence that student loan debt has negatively affected a student borrower's participation in our economy. With the national student loan debt already topping $1.1 trillion, H.R. 1911 would only deepen the college debt crisis students are now experiencing in America. Over the past couple of years, legislators have been repeatedly warned about the impacts student loan debt has on economic growth. Even the Federal Reserve has identified that student debt is the likely cause of delays by American college graduates in purchasing homes and cars or starting families. H.R. 1911 is a bait and switch scheme that does nothing to remedy this issue. This bill only makes it more expensive to attend by forcing students and families to accept loans with skyrocketing interest rates that increase annually. Just this past weekend, students from all over the country in the class of 2013 graduated with an average debt load of $30,000 (Source: Mark Kantrowitz--publisher of FinAid.org analysis). When adjusted for inflation, that's roughly double the average amount of debt students graduated with 20 years ago. The passage of this bill would continue this trend by changing student loan interest rates from year-to-year based on the 10-year Treasury note, marked up by 2.5 percent to 4.5 percent. As a result of this variable rate, federal student loans taken out by incoming freshmen class of 2013 would at first be at a lower rate; however, by the time this class of freshman graduates in 2017, the interest rate on their loans is projected to be 7.4 percent, more than double today's current 3.4 percent rate for subsidized Stafford loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, released a report this month citing the long-term impacts of high student loan debt. The CFPB found ``As a growing number of young consumers have been unable to participate more fully in the housing marketplace, the segment of young consumers that remains interested in becoming first-time homebuyers may face new barriers to homeownership. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) stated that higher student debt burdens ``impair the ability of recent college graduates to qualify for a loan.'' According to NAHB, high student loan debt has an impact on consumers' debt-to- income (DTI) ratio--an important metric for decisions about creditworthiness in mortgage origination. I have long championed the importance of developing the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators to lead our country boldly in the 21st Century. Yet, the CFPB report found that student loan debt is poising a barrier to young entrepreneurs. According to the report by CFPB ``For many young entrepreneurs, it is critical to invest capital to develop ideas, market products, and hire employees. Student debt burdens require these individuals to divert cash away from their businesses so they can make monthly student loan payments.'' Is this the future we want for our nation's student borrowers? Instead of building businesses, buying homes, and having families they are being crushed by the weight of student loan debt. This is not the future I want for current and future student borrowers. Attaining an education is one of our Nation's founding principles. We should be working on finding solutions to lower the cost of education for our nation's youth rather than debating legislation designed to earn another $3.7 billion in revenue from struggling student borrowers. This bill is egregious. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to my Democratic colleagues and I that college affordability is still a pervasive issue in America. It is also clear, that this issue will require more than just a temporary fix. In order for us to maintain our competitive edge as a nation, we need to support every single American who desires to pursue a higher education. Congress needs to pass meaningful legislation that actually solves this problem and not perpetuate it. Let's start by voting no on H.R. 1911 and support our American students by not saddling them with insurmountable debt.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York for bringing this amendment today. As a matter of fact, the opposite side should thank her, too, because she is giving them an opportunity to back out of this awful bill that will be harmful and that is ill-informed and to get on with just saying that her resolution would make good sense. So I am eager to support this amendment from the gentlelady from New York. The amendment strikes all bill text and replaces it with a sense of Congress, reiterating all the economic analysis requirements already imposed on the SEC. Specifically, current law requires the SEC to conduct economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as well as additional cost-benefit analysis per the National Securities Markets Improvement Act.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Ms. WATERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on all of the problems raised by H.R. 1062 by imposing the same burdensome cost-benefit analysis requirements on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, or MSRB, and certain self-regulatory organizations as the underlying bill imposes on the SEC. Beyond the problems caused by H.R. 1062, this amendment would further put individual citizens and taxpayers at risk by tying the hands of the MSRB, which is entrusted with regulating dealers of municipal securities, including city bond issuances. The Wall Street Reform Act expanded the mission of the board to protect State and local governments and to regulate, for the first time in history, the individuals who provide municipalities with financial advice. We had good reason to expand the mission and responsibilities of the MSRB under Dodd-Frank. Like many borrowers who were sold exotic mortgages based on the representations made by mortgage brokers in the lead-up to the financial crisis, we saw that many municipalities entered into complex financial instruments that they didn't fully understand. At the same time, we saw that many financial advisers to municipalities were involved in pay-to-play scandals and recommended unsuitable investments, particularly to small communities. The result was the imposition of substantial costs on taxpayers in communities across the country. The most high-profile example is the case of Jefferson County, Alabama, which entered into the largest municipal bankruptcy in history after a simple sewer bond financing deal ended with the county going broke over faulty interest rate derivatives. This amendment will make it much more difficult for the MSRB to regulate the financial entities selling these derivative products to our small counties, cities, and towns. But that's just one example. The amendment would impose similar onerous requirements on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority-- that is FINRA--the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers, and the Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board, which regulates the auditing industry. Again, this amendment doubles down on what is already a harmful bill by extending the same onerous requirements of self-regulatory organizations. I see no reason why the Congress would want to further tip the scales in favor of Wall Street over Main Street. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. This is the final amendment to the bill, which would not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. This motion ensures the ability of the SEC to continue to protect investors and enforce the securities laws. I want to emphasize that this motion does not stop the bill, but it does flag the very important ways in which we need to let the SEC act. The motion would ensure that the SEC can protect investors and enforce the securities laws in two specific areas: First, the motion will ensure that this bill does not reduce the ability of the SEC to protect the pension plans of our firefighters and police, the people on whom we rely as our first responders, as well as the pension plans of teachers and other retirees against fraudulent and deceptive practices. Protecting investors is a core element of the SEC's mission and one that we ignore at our peril. This week is Police Officers Week. Do we really want to honor our men and women in service by stripping them of protections for their hard-earned and hard-won earnings? Mr. Speaker, these protections become ever more crucial as we rely increasingly on the securities markets for our retirement savings. Second, the motion to recommit focuses on protecting investors by ensuring that the SEC can protect against the takeover of American firms by foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies, that are using such mergers to access the investor funds in our capital markets without going through the SEC registration process. The SEC has had numerous enforcement actions against such companies which purchase a small company and merge it with a larger, often fraudulent, foreign company. It has worked hard to protect the savings of hardworking Americans, including union pension holders and other pensioners, from being disadvantaged by these Chinese firms that don't play by the same rules. Both of these areas highlight the importance of SEC action to protect investors, particularly those preparing for retirement. With Americans increasingly dependent on the securities markets to protect their retirement savings, it is more critical than ever to ensure that we preserve the ability of the SEC to act. Just yesterday, we heard from the SEC's new chairwoman, Mary Jo White. When we asked her about this bill, she said that she found it ``very troubling.'' I don't imagine that a former prosecutor who took on the Mob and terrorists is easily troubled. Indeed, she said that she had already needed at least 45 new economists to meet the need for an expanded economic analysis under the SEC standards, but she couldn't hire them due to the sequester. This is troubling indeed. Rather than helping the SEC to do its job better, we are cutting its budget and throwing up new roadblocks, like this bill. It is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. WATERS. In its current form, I am.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment adds a requirement that the SEC analyze the number of jobs created or lost as a result of a new rule or order, while differentiating between public and private sector jobs. Although this amendment is not by itself problematic, it layers one more requirement onto a bill already bursting with onerous cost-benefit requirements. And while counting the jobs created or lost because of a particular regulation is a noble goal, we have to view this goal in the context of the overall bill, which tips the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors, including the pension plans for millions of Americans. The criteria by which the SEC would need to engage in cost-benefit analysis under H.R. 1062 would have the Commission make all decisions on the basis of whether the rules impose the least burden on ``market participants.'' In fact, nowhere in the bill are the words ``investor protection'' used, despite the fact that a central mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors. Let's be clear: H.R. 1062 is essentially a solution in search of a problem. This bill is not about refining the SEC's cost-benefit analysis. The Commission, in fact, has already done that by adopting a new set of guidelines to ensure that its analysis meets the very high bar set in the decision overturning their proxy access rule. Instead, this bill is about making it easier for industry groups to overturn SEC regulations in the courts. After the 2008 financial crisis, the public spoke; and they demanded that Congress stand up and legislate rules of the road to prevent another crisis. So we took action to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market, improve corporate governance, implement the Volcker rule to stop commercial banks from gambling with depositor money, and to reform the credit ratings agencies that slapped AAA ratings onto toxic securities. Having lost that battle here in Congress, the industry--with the help of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--is now waging a new, quiet battle to have these regulations thrown out in court. H.R. 1062 abets that goal by making it significantly easier for the industry to win in court. This is a key differentiation from the President's executive order on cost-benefit analysis, whose requirements cannot be used as a basis for litigation. So, again, this amendment is harmless, but it amends what is a deeply problematic bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. McGovern, I thank you so much for aptly describing what is happening on the floor today relative to the SEC. Since its passage, Republicans have introduced dozens upon dozens of bills to undermine, repeal, or otherwise dismantle Dodd-Frank; and a prime example of that is what they're doing on this whole issue of cost-benefit analysis. We're going to have on the floor today a bill that is going to pile more requirements on top of the SEC for economic analysis. We're going to have a bill whose real aim is to bog down the SEC so that they won't be able to do their work, so that they won't be able to do their rulemaking, so that they won't be able to protect investors. This is absolutely unconscionable. I can understand that there's a lot of disagreement with Dodd-Frank. I can understand that there are those on the opposite side of the aisle who are concerned about protecting the markets and not necessarily the investors. But to come up with the kind of obstruction that we're seeing, not only legislatively, but going so far as to team up with their friends and go into court, as they have done on proxy access, and get a ruling against proxy access so that they can, basically, have this bill come to the floor today, where they put requirement on top of requirement, costing more money, as Mr. McGovern has said, costing more time, and diverting the attention away from the work that the SEC should be doing. I am particularly concerned about the Jobs Act, the jobs bill. Yes, on the jobs bill, we have a bipartisan effort, and many Democrats joined up with Republicans on this bill, even though there were some concerns about it, so that we could try and see if we could use a new approach to creating jobs. But that's going to get delayed because now they're attacking the SEC.