29–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–53 

SEC REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

MAY 13, 2013.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HENSARLING, from the Committee on Financial Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1062] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Financial Services, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1062) to improve the consideration by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations 

and orders, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, requires the 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct enhanced cost-benefit analyses in order to ensure that the benefits of 

its regulation justify the costs of the regulation. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Introduced by Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee Chairman Garrett on March 12, 2013, H.R. 

1062 requires the SEC to generally follow the principles set forth 

in Executive Order No. 13563, which directs non-independent executive branch agencies to adopt regulations only if the benefits of 

the regulations justify their costs; to tailor regulations to impose 

the least burden on society; and to develop plans for analyzing existing rules to identify those that are outmoded, ineffective, insuffiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:55 May 14, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR053.XXX HR053

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1See Bus. Roundtable v. SEC, 2011 WL 2936808 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2011). 

cient, or excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them accordingly. 

H.R. 1062 requires, in general, the SEC to identify a problem 

and assess its significance before the SEC issues a rule. The bill 

requires the SEC’s Chief Economist to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of proposed regulations, and it requires that the benefits of 

proposed regulations justify their costs before the SEC can issue 

them. The bill requires the SEC to identify and assess alternatives 

to regulations that it considers, and to explain why a regulation 

that it issues meets regulatory objectives more effectively than the 

alternatives. The bill requires the SEC to ensure that its regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy 

to understand, and to measure and seek to improve the results of 

regulatory requirements. 

More specifically, H.R. 1062 requires the SEC, in deciding whether and how to regulate, to assess the costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating, and 

to choose the approach that maximizes net benefits. The bill requires the SEC to specifically consider whether rulemaking will 

promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation; to evaluate 

whether the regulation is tailored to impose the least burden on society—including market participants, individuals, different-sized 

businesses, and other entities (including state and local governments)—taking into account the cumulative costs of regulation; and 

to evaluate whether the regulation is inconsistent with, incompatible with, or duplicative of other federal regulations. The bill also 

requires the SEC to consider the effect of a potential regulation on 

investor choice, market liquidity, and small businesses. The SEC is 

not required to conduct cost-benefit analyses for orders that are not 

‘‘generally applicable,’’ formal rulemakings related to enforcement 

actions, or regulations certified by the SEC as an emergency action. 

H.R. 1062 requires the SEC to review its existing regulations 

within one year of the bill’s enactment and every five years thereafter, to determine whether any of its regulations are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with that review. 

The bill also requires the SEC to conduct a post-adoption or postamendment assessment of any major regulation to measure the 

economic impact of the regulation and the extent to which it has 

accomplished its stated purposes. 

Finally, H.R. 1062 includes a Sense of Congress that the Public 

Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Municipal Securities 

Rulemaking Board, and any national securities association registered under section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

should comply with the requirements of the bill. 

Perhaps the most compelling rationale for H.R. 1062 was offered 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when it struck 

down the SEC’s proxy access rule.1 As the court’s unanimous opinion explained, the SEC—in promulgating its rule—‘‘inconsistently 

and opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule; 

failed adequately to quantify the certain costs or to explain why 

those costs could not be quantified; neglected to support its preVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:55 May 14, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR053.XXX HR053

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

dictive judgments; contradicted itself; and failed to respond to substantial problems raised by commenters.’’ 

HEARINGS

The Committee on Financial Services’ Subcommittee on Capital 

Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises held a hearing on 

H.R. 1062 on April 11, 2013. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 

May 7, 2013 and ordered H.R. 1062 favorably reported to the 

House by a record vote of 31 yeas to 28 nays (Record vote no. FC– 

17), a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Chairman Hensarling to report the bill to the House with a favorable 

recommendation was agreed to by a record vote of 31 yeas and 28 

nays (Record vote no. FC–17). 

RECORD VOTE NO. FC–17 

Representative Yea Nay Present Representative Yea Nay Present 

Mr. Hensarling ...................... X ........... ............. Ms. Waters ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Gary G. Miller (CA) ......... X ........... ............. Mrs. Maloney (NY) ................ ........... X .............

Mr. Bachus ........................... X ........... ............. Ms. Vela ́zquez ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. King (NY) ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Watt ............................... ........... X .............

Mr. Royce .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Sherman ........................ ........... X .............

Mr. Lucas .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Meeks ............................. ........... X .............

Mrs. Capito ........................... X ........... ............. Mr. Capuano ........................ ........... X .............

Mr. Garrett ............................ X ........... ............. Mr. Hinojosa ......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Neugebauer .................... X ........... ............. Mr. Clay ................................ ........... X .............

Mr. McHenry .......................... X ........... ............. Mrs. McCarthy (NY) .............. ........... X .............

Mr. Campbell ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Lynch ............................. ........... X .............

Mrs. Bachmann .................... X ........... ............. Mr. David Scott (GA) ............ ........... X .............

Mr. McCarthy (CA) ................ X ........... ............. Mr. Al Green (TX) ................. ........... X .............

Mr. Pearce ............................. ........... ........... ............. Mr. Cleaver ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Posey .............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Moore ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Fitzpatrick ....................... X ........... ............. Mr. Ellison ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Westmoreland ................. ........... ........... ............. Mr. Perlmutter ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Luetkemeyer .................... X ........... ............. Mr. Himes ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Huizenga (MI) ................. X ........... ............. Mr. Peters (MI) ..................... ........... X .............

Mr. Duffy ............................... X ........... ............. Mr. Carney ............................ ........... X .............

Mr. Hurt ................................ X ........... ............. Ms. Sewell (AL) .................... ........... X .............

Mr. Grimm ............................. X ........... ............. Mr. Foster ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Stivers ............................ X ........... ............. Mr. Kildee ............................. ........... X .............

Mr. Fincher ............................ X ........... ............. Mr. Murphy (FL) ................... ........... X .............

Mr. Stutzman ........................ X ........... ............. Mr. Delaney .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Mulvaney ........................ X ........... ............. Ms. Sinema .......................... ........... X .............

Mr. Hultgren .......................... X ........... ............. Mrs. Beatty ........................... ........... X .............

Mr. Ross ................................ X ........... ............. Mr. Heck (WA) ...................... ........... X .............

Mr. Pittenger ......................... X ........... .............

Mrs. Wagner .......................... X ........... .............

Mr. Barr ................................ X ........... .............

Mr. Cotton ............................. X ........... .............

Mr. Rothfus ........................... X ........... .............


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee has held hearings and made 

findings that are reflected in this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee states that H.R. 1062 will improve consideration by the SEC of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, May 13, 2013. 

Hon. JEB HENSARLING, 

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1062, SEC Regulatory Accountability Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1062—SEC Regulatory Accountability Act 

H.R. 1062 would expand the amount of analysis performed by 

the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) when developing 

or amending regulations. Specifically, the bill would direct the SEC 

to: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

• Assess the significance of the problem the regulation is designed to address; 

• Determine whether the estimated costs of the proposed 

regulation justify its estimated benefits; and 

• Identify alternatives to the proposed regulation that are 

available. 

Further, under the bill, the SEC would be required to review its 

regulations every five years to determine whether they are outmoded, ineffective, or excessively burdensome. Using the results of 

the review, the agency would then need to consider modifying or 

repealing such rules. 

For major rules (that is, rules expected to have an economic impact greater than $100 million annually), the bill would require the 

SEC to develop and publish a plan to assess whether the regulation 

has achieved its stated purposes. H.R. 1062 would direct the agency, no later than two years after the date such a rule was published, to publish a report assessing the costs, benefits, and consequences of the rule using performance measures that were identified when the rule was adopted. 

Based on information from the SEC, CBO estimates that the 

commission would ultimately need 20 additional staff positions 

(less than a 1 percent increase in the agency’s 2012 staffing level) 

to handle the new rulemaking, reporting, and analytical activities 

required under the bill. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 

1062 would cost the SEC $23 million over the 2013–2018 period, 

assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, for additional 

personnel and overhead expenses. Under current law, the SEC is 

authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset its annual appropriation; therefore, CBO estimates that the net budgetary effect of the 

SEC’s activities to implement H.R. 1062 would not be significant, 

assuming appropriation actions consistent with the commission’s 

authorities. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1062 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Assuming that the SEC increases fees to offset the costs of implementing the additional regulatory activities required by the bill, 

H.R. 1062 would increase the cost of an existing mandate on private entities required to pay those fees. Based on information from 

the SEC, CBO estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandate 

would fall well below the annual threshold for private-sector mandates established in UMRA ($150 million in 2013, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susan Willie (for 

federal costs) and Paige Piper/Bach (for the impact on the private 

sector). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of the section 102(b)(3) of the 

Congressional Accountability Act. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 1062 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Pursuant to section 3(j) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013), the 

Committee states that no provision of H.R. 1062 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULEMAKING

Pursuant to section 3(k) of H. Res. 5, 113th Cong. (2013), the 

Committee estimates that H.R. 1062 does not require any directed 

rule makings. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

This section states that the bill may be referred to as the ‘‘SEC 

Regulatory Accountability Act.’’ 

Section 2. Consideration by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and certain other 

agency actions 

This section amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the SEC to weigh the burden of compliance with its regulations against the benefits of such regulations. It requires the SEC 

to explain in its findings the nature of the comments it received 

while crafting the regulation and to provide the SEC’s response to 

those comments. The section also requires the SEC to conduct a 

cost-benefit analysis of its current regulations and to monitor the 

ongoing impact of its regulations after they are implemented. The 

section provides a statutory definition for ‘‘regulation’’ for purposes 

of the legislation. 

Section 3. Sense of Congress relating to other regulatory entities 

This section expresses the sense of Congress that other regulatory entities, including those in the financial services sector, 

should also follow the requirements of this legislation. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

TITLE I—REGULATION OF SECURITIES EXCHANGES 

* * * * * * * 

RULES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS; ANNUAL REPORTS

SEC. 23. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) CONSIDERATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Before issuing a regulation under the securities laws, as defined in section 3(a), the Commission shall— 

(A) clearly identify the nature and source of the problem 

that the proposed regulation is designed to address, as well 

as assess the significance of that problem, to enable assessment of whether any new regulation is warranted; 

(B) utilize the Chief Economist to assess the costs and 

benefits, both qualitative and quantitative, of the intended 

regulation and propose or adopt a regulation only on a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the costs of the regulation; 

(C) identify and assess available alternatives to the regulation that were considered, including modification of an 

existing regulation, together with an explanation of why the 

regulation meets the regulatory objectives more effectively 

than the alternatives; and 

(D) ensure that any regulation is accessible, consistent, 

written in plain language, and easy to understand and 

shall measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of 

regulatory requirements. 

(2) CONSIDERATIONS AND ACTIONS.— (A) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—In deciding whether and how to 

regulate, the Commission shall assess the costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating, and choose the approach that 

maximizes net benefits. Specifically, the Commission 

shall— 

(i) consistent with the requirements of section 3(f) (15 

U.S.C. 78c(f)), section 2(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 

(15 U.S.C. 77b(b)), section 202(c) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–2(c)), and section 2(c) 

of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 

80a–2(c)), consider whether the rulemaking will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation; 

(ii) evaluate whether, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, the regulation is tailored to impose 

the least burden on society, including market participants, individuals, businesses of differing sizes, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

other entities (including State and local governmental 

entities), taking into account, to the extent practicable, 

the cumulative costs of regulations; and 

(iii) evaluate whether the regulation is inconsistent, 

incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations. 

(B) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS.—In addition, in making a reasoned determination of the costs and benefits of a 

potential regulation, the Commission shall, to the extent 

that each is relevant to the particular proposed regulation, 

take into consideration the impact of the regulation on— 

(i) investor choice; 

(ii) market liquidity in the securities markets; and 

(iii) small businesses. 

(3) EXPLANATION AND COMMENTS.—The Commission shall explain in its final rule the nature of comments that it received, 

including those from the industry or consumer groups concerning the potential costs or benefits of the proposed rule or 

proposed rule change, and shall provide a response to those 

comments in its final rule, including an explanation of any 

changes that were made in response to those comments and the 

reasons that the Commission did not incorporate those industry 

group concerns related to the potential costs or benefits in the 

final rule. 

(4) REVIEW OF EXISTING REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year 

after the date of enactment of the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall 

review its regulations to determine whether any such regulations are outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and shall modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them 

in accordance with such review. In reviewing any regulation 

(including, notwithstanding paragraph (6), a regulation issued 

in accordance with formal rulemaking provisions) that subjects 

issuers with a public float of $250,000,000 or less to the attestation and reporting requirements of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)), the Commission 

shall specifically take into account the large burden of such regulation when compared to the benefit of such regulation. 

(5) POST-ADOPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Whenever the Commission adopts or 

amends a regulation designated as a ‘‘major rule’’ within 

the meaning of section 804(2) of title 5, United States Code, 

it shall state, in its adopting release, the following: 

(i) The purposes and intended consequences of the 

regulation. 

(ii) Appropriate post-implementation quantitative 

and qualitative metrics to measure the economic impact of the regulation and to measure the extent to 

which the regulation has accomplished the stated purposes. 

(iii) The assessment plan that will be used, consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B) and 

under the supervision of the Chief Economist of the 

Commission, to assess whether the regulation has 

achieved the stated purposes. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

(iv) Any unintended or negative consequences that 

the Commission foresees may result from the regulation. 

(B) REQUIREMENTS OF ASSESSMENT PLAN AND REPORT.— (i) REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN.—The assessment plan 

required under this paragraph shall consider the costs, 

benefits, and intended and unintended consequences of 

the regulation. The plan shall specify the data to be 

collected, the methods for collection and analysis of the 

data and a date for completion of the assessment. 

(ii) SUBMISSION AND PUBLICATION OF REPORT.—The 

Chief Economist shall submit the completed assessment 

report to the Commission no later than 2 years after 

the publication of the adopting release, unless the Commission, at the request of the Chief Economist, has 

published at least 90 days before such date a notice in 

the Federal Register extending the date and providing 

specific reasons why an extension is necessary. Within 

7 days after submission to the Commission of the final 

assessment report, it shall be published in the Federal 

Register for notice and comment. Any material modification of the plan, as necessary to assess unforeseen 

aspects or consequences of the regulation, shall be 

promptly published in the Federal Register for notice 

and comment. 

(iii) DATA COLLECTION NOT SUBJECT TO NOTICE AND

COMMENT REQUIREMENTS.—If the Commission has 

published its assessment plan for notice and comment, 

specifying the data to be collected and method of collection, at least 30 days prior to adoption of a final regulation or amendment, such collection of data shall not 

be subject to the notice and comment requirements in 

section 3506(c) of title 44, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act). 

Any material modifications of the plan that require collection of data not previously published for notice and 

comment shall also be exempt from such requirements 

if the Commission has published notice for comment in 

the Federal Register of the additional data to be collected, at least 30 days prior to initiation of data collection. 

(iv) FINAL ACTION.—Not later than 180 days after 

publication of the assessment report in the Federal 

Register, the Commission shall issue for notice and 

comment a proposal to amend or rescind the regulation, or publish a notice that the Commission has determined that no action will be taken on the regulation. 

Such a notice will be deemed a final agency action. 

(6) COVERED REGULATIONS AND OTHER AGENCY ACTIONS.— Solely as used in this subsection, the term ‘‘regulation’’— 

(A) means an agency statement of general applicability 

and future effect that is designed to implement, interpret, 

or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or 

practice requirements of an agency, including rules, orders 

of general applicability, interpretive releases, and other 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

statements of general applicability that the agency intends 

to have the force and effect of law; and 

(B) does not include— 

(i) a regulation issued in accordance with the formal 

rulemaking provisions of section 556 or 557 of title 5, 

United States Code; 

(ii) a regulation that is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters; 

(iii) a regulation promulgated pursuant to statutory 

authority that expressly prohibits compliance with this 

provision; and 

(iv) a regulation that is certified by the agency to be 

an emergency action, if such certification is published 

in the Federal Register. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(11) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 1062 seeks to substantially raise the bar for the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC) to propose or adopt any rule or 

general order, by requiring that the agency meet a heightened 

standard to justify any action. Not only would the bill require the 

SEC to meet a long list of requirements, but that list is weighted 

significantly in favor of industry and ‘‘investor choice,’’ with no 

mention of investor protection, the prime mission of the SEC. 

This is an agency that already operates under stringent standards for economic reviews. Many of the current requirements for 

economic analysis to which the SEC is subject are the same as 

other agencies: the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional 

Review Act, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Unlike other agencies, however, the SEC also is subject to additional statutory requirements under the National Securities Markets Improvement 

Act of 1996. 

The courts have held the SEC responsible for meeting these 

standards, as evidenced by the DC Circuit Court striking down the 

SEC’s rules to expand proxy access for shareholders on the basis 

of its cost/benefit analysis. In response to that case, the SEC has 

developed guidelines for economic review that, in the view of the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), include all the elements 

of sound regulatory economic analysis. 

Not only does the bill impose an extremely high level of review 

for a new rule to be adopted, it requires the SEC to review all of 

its rules every five years. This is essentially a recipe for an agency 

enmeshed in permanent litigation, unable to issue any new rules 

and potentially unable to maintain even its current rules. 

There is an irony to the fact that this bill has been brought forward at the same time the majority continues to push the SEC to 

adopt rules to implement the JOBS Act, which would relax a number of SEC rules. The majority want these rules adopted faster and 

without the level of analysis they say is necessary for rules under 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 

even though the Dodd-Frank Act was enacted more than a year 

earlier than the JOBS Act. 

The main casualty here is investor protection. For that reason, 

Democrats overwhelmingly oppose H.R. 1062. 

MAXINE WATERS, Ranking Member. 

GWEN MOORE. JAMES A. HIMES. DANIEL T. KILDEE. JOHN K. DELANEY. 

GARY C. PETERS. 

ED PERLMUTTER. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY. KYRSTEN SINEMA. STEPHEN F. LYNCH. DAVID SCOTT. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO. GREGORY W. MEEKS. CAROLYN B. MALONEY. BILL FOSTER. KEITH ELLISON. AL GREEN. JOYCE BEATTY. RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA. DENNY HECK. TERRI A. SEWELL. EMANUEL CLEAVER. PATRICK MURPHY. BRAD SHERMAN. JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr. 

WM. LACY CLAY. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS