29–008 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 113–60 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 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 

MAY 15, 2013.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 216] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 216, by a record vote of 8 to 2, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1062, the SEC 

Regulatory Accountability Act, under a structured rule. The resolution provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The resolution waives all points of 

order against consideration of the bill. The resolution makes in 

order as original text for purpose of amendment an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 113–10 and provides that it shall be considered as read. The 

resolution waives all points of order against the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. The resolution makes in order only those 

further amendments printed in this report. Each such amendment 

may be offered only in the order printed in this report, may be offered only by a Member designated in this report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in this report 

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a 

demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The resolution waives all points of order 

against the amendments printed in this report. The resolution provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

includes a waiver of section 3(j)(2) of H. Res. 5 (113th Congress). 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

While the Committee on Financial Services statement in its report 

does not include the required specific references to reports from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139 or the most recent Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance, the Committee has determined that the bill 

does not establish or reauthorize a duplicative federal program consistent with the intent of the standing order. 

Although the resolution waives all points of order against the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original 

text, the Committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver 

is prophylactic in nature. 

Although the resolution waives all points of order against the 

amendments printed in this report, the Committee is not aware of 

any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 32 

Motion by Ms. Slaughter to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #4, offered by Rep. Slaughter (NY), 

which delays implementation of the bill until the enactment of a 

law that requires the political intelligence industry to comply with 

the Lobbying Disclosure Act registration requirements and the Ethics in Government Act ‘‘revolving door’’ restrictions. Defeated: 2–8. 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Ms. Foxx ............................................................ Nay Ms. Slaughter .................................................. Yea 

Mr. Bishop of Utah .......................................... Nay Mr. McGovern ...................................................

Mr. Cole ............................................................ Nay Mr. Hastings of Florida ...................................

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Nay Mr. Polis ........................................................... Yea 

Mr. Nugent ....................................................... Nay 

Mr. Webster ...................................................... Nay 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen .............................................

Mr. Burgess ...................................................... Nay 

Mr. Sessions, Chairman ................................... Nay 

Rules Committee record vote No. 33 

Motion by Ms. Slaughter to strike all waivers of points of order 

in the rule. Defeated: 2–8. 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Ms. Foxx ............................................................ Nay Ms. Slaughter .................................................. Yea 

Mr. Bishop of Utah .......................................... Nay Mr. McGovern ...................................................

Mr. Cole ............................................................ Nay Mr. Hastings of Florida ...................................

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Nay Mr. Polis ........................................................... Yea 

Mr. Nugent ....................................................... Nay 

Mr. Webster ...................................................... Nay 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen .............................................

Mr. Burgess ...................................................... Nay 

Mr. Sessions, Chairman ................................... Nay 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Rules Committee record vote No. 34 

Motion by Ms. Foxx to report the rule. Adopted: 8–2. 

Majority Members Vote Minority Members Vote 

Ms. Foxx ............................................................ Yea Ms. Slaughter .................................................. Nay 

Mr. Bishop of Utah .......................................... Yea Mr. McGovern ...................................................

Mr. Cole ............................................................ Yea Mr. Hastings of Florida ...................................

Mr. Woodall ...................................................... Yea Mr. Polis ........................................................... Nay 

Mr. Nugent ....................................................... Yea 

Mr. Webster ...................................................... Yea 

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen .............................................

Mr. Burgess ...................................................... Yea 

Mr. Sessions, Chairman ................................... Yea 

SUMMARY OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER

1. Sessions (TX): Mandates that assessment plans required under 

this Act include analysis of any jobs added or lost as a result of 

the regulation, differentiating between public and private sector 

jobs. (10 minutes) 

2. Hurt (VA): Expresses the sense of Congress that rules adopted 

by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) comply with the same standards required of the SEC. Requires the 

SEC to ensure that any rules adopted by the Municipal Securities 

Rulemaking Board (MSRB), and other national securities associations comply with the standards set forth in the bill. (10 minutes) 

3. Maloney, Carolyn B. (NY): Strikes all after the enacting clause 

and inserts findings and a sense of Congress that the SEC is required to conduct economic analysis as part of its rulemaking. (10 

minutes) 

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER

1. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE SESSIONS

OF TEXAS OR HIS DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES

Page 6, line 25, add at the end the following: ‘‘The assessment 

plan shall include an analysis of any jobs added or lost as a result 

of the regulation, differentiating between public and private sector 

jobs.’’. 

2. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE HURT OF

VIRGINIA OR HIS DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR 10 MINUTES

Page 10, beginning on line 7, strike ‘‘other regulatory entities, including’’. 

Page 10, beginning on line 8, strike ‘‘, the Municipal Securities 

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

(15 U.S.C. 78o–3)’’. 

Page 10, after line 13, insert the following: 

SEC. 4. ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISION RELATING TO OTHER REGULATORY ENTITIES. 

A rule adopted by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or 

any national securities association registered under section 15A of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o–3) shall not 

take effect unless the Securities and Exchange Commission deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:25 May 16, 2013 Jkt 029008 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR060.XXX HR060

SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

mines that, in adopting such rule, the Board or association has 

complied with the requirements of section 23(e) of such Act, as 

added by section 2, in the same manner as is required by the Commission under such section 23(e). 

3. AN AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN

B. MALONEY OF NEW YORK OR HER DESIGNEE, DEBATABLE FOR

10 MINUTES

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO EXISTING REQUIREMENTS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSES. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

(1) As with other agencies, current law requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct economic analyses 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional 

Review Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

(2) In addition to the analyses required of all regulatory 

agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission is also required to perform additional economic analyses pursuant to 

section 3(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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)), which provide that, 

where the Commission is engaged in rulemaking and is required to consider whether the rule is necessary or appropriate 

in the public interest, the Commission must also consider 

whether the rule will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 

(3) In the July 22, 2011 decision in Business Roundtable v. 

SEC (647 F.3d 1144), the United States Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit vacated the Commission’s recently adopted 

proxy access rule, which would have provided a company 

shareholder or group of shareholders meeting certain minimum 

ownership thresholds and other requirements the ability to include in the company’s proxy materials the shareholder(s)’ 

nominee(s) for the company’s board of directors. The court 

found that, because the Commission had not adequately addressed the likely economic consequences of the rule, its adoption of the rule was arbitrary and capricious. 

(4) In March of 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission revised and clarified its guidance on cost benefit analysis. 

In December of 2012 the Government Accountability Office 

issued a review of agencies’ analysis and coordination of rules. 

The GAO found, ‘‘SEC’s guidance defines the basic elements of 

good regulatory economic analysis in a manner that closely 

parallels the elements listed in Circular A–4: (1) a statement 

of the need for the proposed action; (2) the definition of a baseline against which to measure the likely economic consequences of the proposed regulation; (3) the identification of 

alternative regulatory approaches; and (4) an evaluation of the 

benefits and costs—both quantitative and qualitative—of the 

proposed action and the main alternatives.’’. 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that the Securities and Exchange Commission is required pursuant to law to 

conduct economic analyses as part of its rulemakings. Further, the 

D.C. Circuit Court’s recent decision in the Business Roundtable 

case makes clear that the economic analyses the Commission undertakes in connection with its rules are subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny. 

Æ 


SMARTINEZ on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS