House OK’s bill for wider SEC analyses

WASHINGTON — Legislation cleared the House on Friday that would place stricter requirements on the federal agency overseeing Wall Street to assess the costs and benefits of its regulations before they are issued.

The bill passed on a 235-to-161 vote mostly on party lines. It was the latest salvo against the Securities and Exchange Commission by House Republicans, who opposed the 2010 financial overhaul legislation expanding the SEC’s powers and have resisted increasing its budget. Congress enacted the regulatory overhaul in response to the 2008 financial crisis with an eye to preventing another meltdown.

Friday’s bill isn’t expected to get a vote in the Senate. It would require the SEC to refrain from adopting rules unless it determines that the benefits of the rules outweigh the costs. The agency currently conducts cost-benefit analyses of regulations prior to issuing them. But the bill would make the process more extensive and detailed.


In addition, the SEC would be required to review all its existing rules to determine if they impose excessive costs or administrative burdens on the companies regulated by the agency.

Get Talking Points in your inbox:
An afternoon recap of the day’s most important business news, delivered weekdays.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

Democratic lawmakers said that would force the agency to review every rule put into effect since its creation during the Great Depression, with no additional funding for SEC staff.

The bill seeks to hinder the SEC’s ability to write new rules under the 2010 financial overhaul and to shield Wall Street from regulation, the Democrats charged.

The legislation ‘‘is aimed squarely at undermining Wall Street’s cop on the block,’’ Representative Maxine Waters of California, the senior Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said on the House floor before the vote. ‘‘This is dangerous; it is irresponsible. This is about protecting Wall Street.’’

In addition to tying up SEC staff resources, the requirement for more extensive and detailed cost-benefit analyses would put the agency at greater risk of being sued over each rule it adopts, the Democrats said.


They said that while they support cost-benefit analyses by federal agencies, they object to imposing excessive requirements on the SEC.