Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 2354

Having the Securities and Exchange Commission Examine Whether Its Major Regulations Are Necessary

Argument in favor

It isn’t too much to expect the SEC to review the effectiveness and necessity of its regulations every 10 years -- doing so gives them the opportunity to update or eliminate outdated regulations. This is something that regulators are already doing.

DonaldTrump's Opinion
···
09/21/2015
" We need to make sure every single regulation has benefits that outweigh costs and that they don’t kill U.S. jobs." [washingtontimes.com]
Like (36)
Follow
Share
BTSundra's Opinion
···
09/22/2015
Unnecessary regulations do nothing but add more red tape for the people. Having this reassessment be conducted will likely remove many unnecessary regulations, which is nothing but good.
Like (7)
Follow
Share
ScottWalker's Opinion
···
09/21/2015
"We need to rein in the federal government's out-of-control regulations that are like a wet blanket on the economy. Yes, enforce common sense rules - but don't add more bureaucratic red tape." Read more at https://www.scottwalker.com/news/scott-walkers-announcement-speech-prepared-delivery
Like (5)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill essentially declares that it should be open season on SEC regulations once every 10 years, and if it passes it could inhibit the agency’s ability to focus on its real job during these review periods -- potentially setting the stage for financial crisis.

BernieSanders's Opinion
···
09/21/2015
"It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country." [berniesanders.com]
Like (60)
Follow
Share
ElizabethWarren's Opinion
···
09/21/2015
'“More than any of the senators, she is making Wall Street nervous,”' says Dick Durbin, a Democratic senator from Illinois." [bloomberg.com]
Like (19)
Follow
Share
MartinOMalley's Opinion
···
09/21/2015
“stand up to the bullies on Wall Street.” [washingtonpost.com]
Like (7)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 2354?

This bill would require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to review all significant SEC rules and regulations within the first five years of this legislation’s enactment, and every 10 years thereafter. In doing so, the SEC would assess whether each regulation is outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome -- or if it is no longer in the public interest.


The SEC would also be directed to solicit public comment regarding regulations it has determined is unnecessary for the reasons listed above, in an effort to determine if the regulation in question should be improved or modernized, or simply repealed outright.

Within 45 days of any final SEC vote, the SEC will provide a report to relevant congressional committees detailing the results of the vote and any subsequent actions to be taken.

Impact

Individuals and businesses affected by outdated SEC regulations, members of the public who wish to comment on SEC regulations.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 2354

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA), the sponsor of this legislation, pointed out that:

“The SEC is not presently required to conduct comprehensive, retrospective review of its regulations, meaning that outdated and duplicative rules may be left on the books without being modernized.”

He also added that reviewing existing regulations is “a process that other financial regulatory bodies already perform -- to streamline their rules and ensure they are all up-to-date.”

The lead cosponsor of this legislation, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), says that she has been told by Arizona business owners that the “inefficient and often confusing regulatory environment hurts their ability to grow and hire.”

This bill was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 41 to 16, and was introduced as a bipartisan collaboration between Reps. Hurt and Sinema.


Of Note: Another major federal regulator of the financial sector, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), has commenced a retrospective review of its own regulations -- as alluded to by Reps. Hurt and Sinema. Robert Colby, the Chief Legal Officer of FINRA, said that:

“FINRA believes it is important to look back at its significant rulemakings to determine whether those rules and rule sets are meeting their intended investor-protection objectives by reasonably efficient means.”

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user puuikibeach)

AKA

Streamlining Excessive and Costly Regulations Review Act

Official Title

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to review all its significant regulations to determine whether such regulations are necessary in the public interest or whether such regulations should be amended or rescinded.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
      Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship, and Capital Markets
    IntroducedMay 15th, 2015
    " We need to make sure every single regulation has benefits that outweigh costs and that they don’t kill U.S. jobs." [washingtontimes.com]
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    "It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country." [berniesanders.com]
    Like (60)
    Follow
    Share
    '“More than any of the senators, she is making Wall Street nervous,”' says Dick Durbin, a Democratic senator from Illinois." [bloomberg.com]
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    “stand up to the bullies on Wall Street.” [washingtonpost.com]
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Unnecessary regulations do nothing but add more red tape for the people. Having this reassessment be conducted will likely remove many unnecessary regulations, which is nothing but good.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    "Reform will constrain the growth of the largest financial firms, restrict the riskiest financial activities, and create a mechanism for the government to shut down failing financial companies without precipitating a financial panic that leaves taxpayers and small businesses on the hook." [whitehouse.gov]
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    "We need to rein in the federal government's out-of-control regulations that are like a wet blanket on the economy. Yes, enforce common sense rules - but don't add more bureaucratic red tape." Read more at https://www.scottwalker.com/news/scott-walkers-announcement-speech-prepared-delivery
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    "Federal regulation has gone far past the consent of the governed." Read more at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-15/jeb-bush-expected-to-formally-announce-presidential-campaign
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Just one more way for the Koch Bros. to eliminate the regulations they detest! Who's kidding who anymore... Welcome to the "new age" John Birch Society. Every 10 years? All they would need is one session to wipe out years and years of regulations that keep the banking system from taking over everything. This would benefit no one except the extremely wealthy.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    U.S. Federal Securities Laws are complex, rule intensive regulations that are constantly being interpreted and re-interpret by courts, Commission Staff, and market participants. A formal retrospective review could allow the Commission and market participants to bing about substantive changes that lower the costs of compliance, and enforcement. However, a formal review could tie up much of the Commissions limited resources for indeterminable amounts of time. I vote Yay, and qualify my support by saying an open review process for market participants to raise issued and introduce market solutions is, in my opinion, the most effective solution to this problem. Commission resources are so limited, there is an externalization of the compliance function, and therefore a disconnect between the persons making the rules, and the persons enforcing them on a daily basis--allowing the market to introduce more efficient and/or effective compliance solutions could be useful. One could argue no-action letters and public comment of rule proposals affords the markets this opportunity. I disagree. No action letters are simply the Commissions application of current rules to a particularized set of facts--they do not create precedent, and do not addressing inefficiencies in the law at their core. Public comment to proposed rules is a useful tool, but fails to allow for the market to respond after rules have been implemented, and new issues arise.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Ideally, all regulations would have to pass congress (and include sunset provisions), since regulatory law is unconstitutional, but this is better than nothing. There are so many pointless, outdated and burdensome regulations on the books.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    All regulations must be reexamine do often so as to keep up with advancements.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Every organization should periodically evaluate its policies for effectiveness and appropriateness. And the SEC really needs to do this because not enough market manipulation is being caught
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Vote yes here! Ask Arizona! Read thru this info. Reviewing regulations here is needed.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    With rapid changes in global markets , increasingly sophisticated short term program trading models., and cyber terrorism strategies that likely focus on buying / selling based on predictable market reactions to the cyber terror.... Absolutely!
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    I agree with Rand Paul--every regulation should have approval of Congress. Congress is the only government body we, the people granted the authority to create laws.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a no-brainer. Just as each business has to develop a business case as to why it does anything, and update on a regular basis to survive and thrive, so should the SEC. In fact, the SEC should be leading by example on this and not trying to dodge the hard questions along the way. I think every 10 years is a good start, but it should move to at least annually at some point.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Which regulations exactly do we find no longer nessasary? Has fraud, insider trading, and credit default swaps become any less of a threat to our economy? This bill does not adress any 'unessasary regulations', it just gives a blank check that makes it easier for lobiests to roll back regulations they don't like.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely!!! Actually, every single Federal and State regulation should undergo review every 10 years or even more frequently when the environment is dynamic.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This would be like a 2nd grader filling out their own report card... or if deceiving American citizens, stealing, lying and cheating was not only legal, but a law.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE