[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 22 (Thursday, February 9, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H645-H657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STOP TRADING ON CONGRESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACT OF 2012

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (S. 2038) to prohibit Members of Congress and employees 
of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their 
official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

                                S. 2038

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Trading on 
     Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012'' or the ``STOCK Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Member of congress.--The term ``Member of Congress'' 
     means a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, a 
     Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident 
     Commissioner from Puerto Rico.
       (2) Employee of congress.--The term ``employee of 
     Congress'' means--
       (A) any individual (other than a Member of Congress), whose 
     compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or 
     the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (B) any other officer or employee of the legislative branch 
     (as defined in section 109(11) of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 109(11))).
       (3) Executive branch employee.--The term ``executive branch 
     employee''--
       (A) has the meaning given the term ``employee'' under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (B) includes--
       (i) the President;
       (ii) the Vice President; and
       (iii) an employee of the United States Postal Service or 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission.
       (4) Judicial officer.--The term ``judicial officer'' has 
     the meaning given that term under section 109(10) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (U.S.C. App. 109(10)) .
       (5) Judicial employee.--The term ``judicial employee'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 109(8) of the Ethics 
     in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 109(8)).
       (6) Supervising ethics office.--The term ``supervising 
     ethics office'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     109(18) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App. 109(18)).

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF NONPUBLIC INFORMATION FOR 
                   PRIVATE PROFIT.

       The Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives shall 
     issue interpretive guidance of the relevant rules of each 
     chamber, including rules on conflicts of interest and gifts, 
     clarifying that a Member of Congress and an employee of 
     Congress may not use nonpublic information derived from such 
     person's position as a Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress or gained from the performance of such person's 
     official responsibilities as a means for making a private 
     profit.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF INSIDER TRADING.

       (a) Affirmation of Nonexemption.--Members of Congress and 
     employees of Congress are not exempt from the insider trading 
     prohibitions arising under the securities laws, including 
     section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 
     10b-5 thereunder.
       (b) Duty.--
       (1) Purpose.--The purpose of the amendment made by this 
     subsection is to affirm a duty arising from a relationship of 
     trust and confidence owed by each Member of Congress and each 
     employee of Congress.
       (2) Amendment.--Section 21A of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Duty of Members and Employees of Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the rule of construction 
     under section 10 of the STOCK Act and solely for purposes of 
     the insider trading prohibitions arising under this Act, 
     including section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each 
     Member of Congress or employee of Congress owes a duty 
     arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to the 
     Congress, the United States Government, and the citizens of 
     the United States with respect to material, nonpublic 
     information derived from such person's position as a Member 
     of Congress or employee of Congress or gained from the 
     performance of such person's official responsibilities.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Member of Congress' means a member of the 
     Senate or House of Representatives, a Delegate to the House 
     of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
     Rico; and
       ``(B) the term `employee of Congress' means--
       ``(i) any individual (other than a Member of Congress), 
     whose compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the 
     Senate or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       ``(ii) any other officer or employee of the legislative 
     branch (as defined in section 109(11) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 109(11))).
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to impair or limit the construction of the 
     existing antifraud provisions of the securities laws or the 
     authority of the Commission under those provisions.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT.

       Section 4c(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 
     6c(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``or any Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress (as such terms are defined under section 2 of the 
     STOCK Act) or any judicial officer or judicial employee (as 
     such terms are defined, respectively, under section 2 of the 
     STOCK Act)'' after ``Federal Government'' the first place it 
     appears;
       (B) by inserting ``Member, officer,'' after ``position of 
     the''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or by Congress or by the judiciary'' 
     before ``in a manner''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``or any Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress or any judicial officer or judicial employee'' after 
     ``Federal Government'' the first place it appears;
       (ii) by inserting ``Member, officer,'' after ``position of 
     the''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``or by Congress or by the judiciary'' 
     before ``in a manner'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``or any Member of Congress or employee of 
     Congress or any judicial officer or judicial employee'' after 
     ``Federal Government''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``or 
     by Congress or by the judiciary''--

       (I) before ``that may affect''; and
       (II) before ``in a manner''; and

       (ii) in clause (iii), by inserting ``to Congress, any 
     Member of Congress, any employee of Congress, any judicial 
     officer, or any judicial employee,'' after ``Federal 
     Government,''.

     SEC. 6. PROMPT REPORTING OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Reporting Requirement.--Section 103 of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 103) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(l) Not later than 30 days after receiving notification 
     of any transaction required to be reported under section 
     102(a)(5)(B), but in no case later than 45 days after such 
     transaction, the following persons, if required to file a 
     report under any subsection of section 101, subject to any 
     waivers and exclusions, shall file a report of the 
     transaction:
       ``(1) The President.
       ``(2) The Vice President.
       ``(3) Each officer or employee in the executive branch, 
     including a special Government employee as defined in section 
     202 of title 18, United States Code, who occupies a position 
     classified above GS-15 of the General Schedule or, in the 
     case of positions not under the General Schedule, for which 
     the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent 
     of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the 
     General Schedule; each member of a uniformed service whose 
     pay grade is at or in excess of O-7 under section 201 of 
     title 37, United States Code; and each officer or employee in 
     any other position determined by the Director of the Office 
     of Government Ethics to be of equal classification.
       ``(4) Each employee appointed pursuant to section 3105 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(5) Any employee not described in paragraph (3) who is in 
     a position in the executive branch which is excepted from the 
     competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or 
     policymaking character, except that the Director of the 
     Office of Government Ethics may, by regulation, exclude from 
     the application of this paragraph any individual, or group of 
     individuals, who are in such positions, but only in cases in 
     which the Director determines such exclusion would not affect 
     adversely the integrity of the Government or the public's 
     confidence in the integrity of the Government;
       ``(6) The Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster 
     General, each Governor of the Board of Governors of the 
     United States Postal Service and each officer or employee of 
     the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory 
     Commission who occupies a position for which the rate of 
     basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the 
     minimum rate of basic pay payable for GS-15 of the General 
     Schedule.
       ``(7) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics and 
     each designated agency ethics official.
       ``(8) Any civilian employee not described in paragraph (3), 
     employed in the Executive Office of the President (other than 
     a special government employee) who holds a commission of 
     appointment from the President.
       ``(9) A Member of Congress, as defined under section 
     109(12).
       ``(10) An officer or employee of the Congress, as defined 
     under section 109(13).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to transactions occurring on or after the date 
     that is 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON POLITICAL INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States, in consultation with the Congressional Research 
     Service, shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security 
     and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on the

[[Page H646]]

     Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the 
     role of political intelligence in the financial markets.
       (2) Contents.--The report required by this section shall 
     include a discussion of--
       (A) what is known about the prevalence of the sale of 
     political intelligence and the extent to which investors rely 
     on such information;
       (B) what is known about the effect that the sale of 
     political intelligence may have on the financial markets;
       (C) the extent to which information which is being sold 
     would be considered nonpublic information;
       (D) the legal and ethical issues that may be raised by the 
     sale of political intelligence;
       (E) any benefits from imposing disclosure requirements on 
     those who engage in political intelligence activities; and
       (F) any legal and practical issues that may be raised by 
     the imposition of disclosure requirements on those who engage 
     in political intelligence activities.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``political intelligence'' shall mean information that is--
       (1) derived by a person from direct communications with an 
     executive branch employee, a Member of Congress, or an 
     employee of Congress; and
       (2) provided in exchange for financial compensation to a 
     client who intends, and who is known to intend, to use the 
     information to inform investment decisions.

     SEC. 8. PUBLIC FILING AND DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE 
                   FORMS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL 
                   STAFF.

       (a) Public, Online Disclosure of Financial Disclosure Forms 
     of Members of Congress and Congressional Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than August 31, 2012, or 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later, 
     the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the 
     Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, shall 
     ensure that financial disclosure forms filed by Members of 
     Congress, candidates for Congress, and employees of Congress 
     in calendar year 2012 and in subsequent years pursuant to 
     title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 are made 
     available to the public on the respective official websites 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 
     30 days after such forms are filed.
       (2) Extensions.--Notices of extension for financial 
     disclosure shall be made available electronically under this 
     subsection along with its related disclosure.
       (3) Reporting transactions.--In the case of a transaction 
     disclosure required by section 103(l) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, as added by this Act, such disclosure 
     shall be filed not later than the date required by that 
     section. Notices of extension for transaction disclosure 
     shall be made available electronically under this subsection 
     along with its related disclosure.
       (4) Expiration.--The requirements of this subsection shall 
     expire upon implementation of the public disclosure system 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Electronic Filing and Online Public Availability of 
     Financial Disclosure Forms of Members of Congress, Officers 
     of the House and Senate, and Congressional Staff.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (6) and not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the 
     Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
     develop systems to enable--
       (A) electronic filing of reports received by them pursuant 
     to section 103(h)(1)(A) of title I of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978; and
       (B) public access to financial disclosure reports filed by 
     Members of Congress, candidates for Congress, and employees 
     of Congress, as well as reports of a transaction disclosure 
     required by section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978, as added by this Act, notices of extensions, 
     amendments, and blind trusts, pursuant to title I of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978, through databases that--
       (i) are maintained on the official websites of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate; and
       (ii) allow the public to search, sort, and download data 
     contained in the reports.
       (2) Login.--No login shall be required to search or sort 
     the data contained in the reports made available by this 
     subsection. A login protocol with the name of the user shall 
     be utilized by a person downloading data contained in the 
     reports. For purposes of filings under this section, section 
     105(b)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 does not 
     apply.
       (3) Public availability.--Pursuant to section 105(b)(1) of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, electronic availability 
     on the official websites of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives under this subsection shall be deemed to have 
     met the public availability requirement.
       (4) Filers covered.--Individuals required under the Ethics 
     in Government Act of 1978 or the Senate Rules to file 
     financial disclosure reports with the Secretary of the Senate 
     or the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall file 
     reports electronically using the systems developed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, 
     and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
       (5) Extensions.--Notices of extension for financial 
     disclosure shall be made available electronically under this 
     subsection along with its related disclosure.
       (6) Additional time.--The requirements of this subsection 
     may be implemented after the date provided in paragraph (1) 
     if the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives identifies in writing to relevant 
     congressional committees the additional time needed for such 
     implementation.
       (c) Recordkeeping.--Section 105(d) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 105(d)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Any report filed with or transmitted to an agency 
     or supervising ethics office or to the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate pursuant to 
     this title shall be retained by such agency or office or by 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of 
     the Senate, as the case may be.
       ``(2) Such report shall be made available to the public--
       ``(A) in the case of a Member of Congress until a date that 
     is 6 years from the date the individual ceases to be a Member 
     of Congress; and
       ``(B) in the case of all other reports filed pursuant to 
     this title, for a period of 6 years after receipt of the 
     report.
       ``(3) After the relevant time period identified under 
     paragraph (2), the report shall be destroyed unless needed in 
     an ongoing investigation, except that in the case of an 
     individual who filed the report pursuant to section 101(b) 
     and was not subsequently confirmed by the Senate, or who 
     filed the report pursuant to section 101(c) and was not 
     subsequently elected, such reports shall be destroyed 1 year 
     after the individual either is no longer under consideration 
     by the Senate or is no longer a candidate for nomination or 
     election to the Office of President, Vice President, or as a 
     Member of Congress, unless needed in an ongoing investigation 
     or inquiry.''.

     SEC. 9. OTHER FEDERAL OFFICIALS.

       (a) Prohibition of the Use of Nonpublic Information for 
     Private Profit.--
       (1) Executive branch employees.--The Office of Government 
     Ethics shall issue such interpretive guidance of the relevant 
     Federal ethics statutes and regulations, including the 
     Standards of Ethical Conduct for executive branch employees, 
     related to use of nonpublic information, as necessary to 
     clarify that no executive branch employee may use nonpublic 
     information derived from such person's position as an 
     executive branch employee or gained from the performance of 
     such person's official responsibilities as a means for making 
     a private profit.
       (2) Judicial officers.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States shall issue such interpretive guidance of the 
     relevant ethics rules applicable to Federal judges, including 
     the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, as necessary to 
     clarify that no judicial officer may use nonpublic 
     information derived from such person's position as a judicial 
     officer or gained from the performance of such person's 
     official responsibilities as a means for making a private 
     profit.
       (3) Judicial employees.--The Judicial Conference of the 
     United States shall issue such interpretive guidance of the 
     relevant ethics rules applicable to judicial employees as 
     necessary to clarify that no judicial employee may use 
     nonpublic information derived from such person's position as 
     a judicial employee or gained from the performance of such 
     person's official responsibilities as a means for making a 
     private profit.
       (b) Application of Insider Trading Laws.--
       (1) Affirmation of non-exemption.--Executive branch 
     employees, judicial officers, and judicial employees are not 
     exempt from the insider trading prohibitions arising under 
     the securities laws, including section 10(b) of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
       (2) Duty.--
       (A) Purpose.--The purpose of the amendment made by this 
     paragraph is to affirm a duty arising from a relationship of 
     trust and confidence owed by each executive branch employee, 
     judicial officer, and judicial employee.
       (B) Amendment.--Section 21A of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u-1), as amended by this Act, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Duty of Other Federal Officials.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to the rule of construction 
     under section 10 of the STOCK Act and solely for purposes of 
     the insider trading prohibitions arising under this Act, 
     including section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each 
     executive branch employee, each judicial officer, and each 
     judicial employee owes a duty arising from a relationship of 
     trust and confidence to the United States Government and the 
     citizens of the United States with respect to material, 
     nonpublic information derived from such person's position as 
     an executive branch employee, judicial officer, or judicial 
     employee or gained from the performance of such person's 
     official responsibilities.
       ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `executive branch employee'--
       ``(i) has the meaning given the term `employee' under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code;
       ``(ii) includes--

       ``(I) the President;
       ``(II) the Vice President; and
       ``(III) an employee of the United States Postal Service or 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission;

       ``(B) the term `judicial employee' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 109(8) of the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 109(8)); and
       ``(C) the term `judicial officer' has the meaning given 
     that term under section 109(10) of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 109(10)).
       ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to impair or limit the construction of the 
     existing antifraud provisions of the securities laws or the 
     authority of the Commission under those provisions.''.

     SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, the amendments made by this Act, or 
     the interpretive guidance to be

[[Page H647]]

     issued pursuant to sections 3 and 9 of this Act, shall be 
     construed to--
       (1) impair or limit the construction of the antifraud 
     provisions of the securities laws or the Commodity Exchange 
     Act or the authority of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under 
     those provisions;
       (2) be in derogation of the obligations, duties, and 
     functions of a Member of Congress, an employee of Congress, 
     an executive branch employee, a judicial officer, or a 
     judicial employee, arising from such person's official 
     position; or
       (3) be in derogation of existing laws, regulations, or 
     ethical obligations governing Members of Congress, employees 
     of Congress, executive branch employees, judicial officers, 
     or judicial employees.

     SEC. 11. EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORTING.

       (a) Executive Branch Reporting.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than August 31, 2012, or 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later, 
     the President shall ensure that financial disclosure forms 
     filed pursuant to title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.), in calendar year 2012 and 
     in subsequent years, by executive branch employees specified 
     in section 101 of that Act are made available to the public 
     on the official websites of the respective executive branch 
     agencies not later than 30 days after such forms are filed.
       (2) Extensions.--Notices of extension for financial 
     disclosure shall be made available electronically along with 
     the related disclosure.
       (3) Reporting transactions.--In the case of a transaction 
     disclosure required by section 103(l) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978, as added by this Act, such disclosure 
     shall be filed not later than the date required by that 
     section. Notices of extension for transaction disclosure 
     shall be made available electronically under this subsection 
     along with its related disclosure.
       (4) Expiration.--The requirements of this subsection shall 
     expire upon implementation of the public disclosure system 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Electronic Filing and Online Public Availability of 
     Financial Disclosure Forms of Certain Executive Branch 
     Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (6), and not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     President, acting through the Director of the Office of 
     Government Ethics, shall develop systems to enable--
       (A) electronic filing of reports required by section 103 of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 103), 
     other than subsection (h) of such section; and
       (B) public access to financial disclosure reports filed by 
     executive branch employees required to file under section 101 
     of that Act (5 U.S.C. App. 101), as well as reports of a 
     transaction disclosure required by section 103(l) of that 
     Act, as added by this Act, notices of extensions, amendments, 
     and blind trusts, pursuant to title I of that Act, through 
     databases that--
       (i) are maintained on the official website of the Office of 
     Government Ethics; and
       (ii) allow the public to search, sort, and download data 
     contained in the reports.
       (2) Login.--No login shall be required to search or sort 
     the data contained in the reports made available by this 
     subsection. A login protocol with the name of the user shall 
     be utilized by a person downloading data contained in the 
     reports. For purposes of filings under this section, section 
     105(b)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App. 105(b)(2)) does not apply.
       (3) Public availability.--Pursuant to section 105(b)(1) of 
     the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 
     105(b)(1)), electronic availability on the official website 
     of the Office of Government Ethics under this subsection 
     shall be deemed to have met the public availability 
     requirement.
       (4) Filers covered.--Executive branch employees required 
     under title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to file 
     financial disclosure reports shall file the reports 
     electronically with their supervising ethics office.
       (5) Extensions.--Notices of extension for financial 
     disclosure shall be made available electronically under this 
     subsection along with its related disclosure.
       (6) Additional time.--The requirements of this subsection 
     may be implemented after the date provided in paragraph (1) 
     if the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, after 
     consultation with the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
     and Secretary of the Senate, identifies in writing to 
     relevant congressional committees the additional time needed 
     for such implementation.

     SEC. 12. PARTICIPATION IN INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS.

       Section 21A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     U.S.C. 78u-1), as amended by this Act, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Participation in Initial Public Offerings.--An 
     individual described in section 101(f) of the Ethics in 
     Government Act of 1978 may not purchase securities that are 
     the subject of an initial public offering (within the meaning 
     given such term in section 12(f)(1)(G)(i)) in any manner 
     other than is available to members of the public 
     generally.''.

     SEC. 13. REQUIRING MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Requiring Disclosure.--Section 102(a)(4)(A) of the 
     Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 102(a)(4)(A)) 
     is amended by striking ``spouse; and'' and inserting the 
     following: ``spouse, except that this exception shall not 
     apply to a reporting individual--
       ``(i) described in paragraph (1), (2), or (9) of section 
     101(f);
       ``(ii) described in section 101(b) who has been nominated 
     for appointment as an officer or employee in the executive 
     branch described in subsection (f) of such section, other 
     than--

       ``(I) an individual appointed to a position--

       ``(aa) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(bb) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or

       ``(II) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code; or

       ``(iii) described in section 101(f) who is in a position in 
     the executive branch the appointment to which is made by the 
     President and requires advice and consent of the Senate, 
     other than--

       ``(I) an individual appointed to a position--

       ``(aa) as a Foreign Service Officer below the rank of 
     ambassador; or
       ``(bb) in the uniformed services for which the pay grade 
     prescribed by section 201 of title 37, United States Code is 
     O-6 or below; or

       ``(II) a special government employee, as defined under 
     section 202 of title 18, United States Code; and''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to reports which are required to be 
     filed under section 101 of the Ethics of Government Act of 
     1978 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 14. TRANSACTION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       The transaction reporting requirements established by 
     section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as 
     added by section 6 of this Act, shall not be construed to 
     apply to a widely held investment fund (whether such fund is 
     a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or 
     deferred compensation plan, or other investment fund), if--
       (1)(A) the fund is publicly traded; or
       (B) the assets of the fund are widely diversified; and
       (2) the reporting individual neither exercises control over 
     nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial 
     interests held by the fund.

     SEC. 15. APPLICATION TO OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CRIMINAL 
                   OFFENSES.

       (a) Application to Other Elected Officials.--
       (1) Civil service retirement system.--Section 8332(o)(2)(A) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by inserting ``, the President, the Vice 
     President, or an elected official of a State or local 
     government'' after ``Member''; and
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``, the President, the 
     Vice President, or an elected official of a State or local 
     government'' after ``Member''.
       (2) Federal employees retirement system.--Section 
     8411(l)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, the President, 
     the Vice President, or an elected official of a State or 
     local government'' after ``Member''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, the President, 
     the Vice President, or an elected official of a State or 
     local government'' after ``Member''.
       (b) Criminal Offenses.--Section 8332(o)(2) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking clause (iii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(iii) The offense--
       ``(I) is committed after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection and--
       ``(aa) is described under subparagraph (B)(i), (iv), (xvi), 
     (xix), (xxiii), (xxiv), or (xxvi); or
       ``(bb) is described under subparagraph (B)(xxix), (xxx), or 
     (xxxi), but only with respect to an offense described under 
     subparagraph (B)(i), (iv), (xvi), (xix), (xxiii), (xxiv), or 
     (xxvi); or
       ``(II) is committed after the date of enactment of the 
     STOCK Act and--
       ``(aa) is described under subparagraph (B)(ii), (iii), (v), 
     (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), 
     (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), (xxv), (xxvii), 
     or (xxviii); or
       ``(bb) is described under subparagraph (B)(xxix), (xxx), or 
     (xxxi), but only with respect to an offense described under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), 
     (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xx), 
     (xxi), (xxii), (xxv), (xxvii), or (xxviii).''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) An offense described in this subparagraph is only the 
     following, and only to the extent that the offense is a 
     felony:
       ``(i) An offense under section 201 of title 18 (relating to 
     bribery of public officials and witnesses).
       ``(ii) An offense under section 203 of title 18 (relating 
     to compensation to Member of Congress, officers, and others 
     in matters affecting the Government).
       ``(iii) An offense under section 204 of title 18 (relating 
     to practice in the United States Court of Federal Claims or 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by 
     Member of Congress).
       ``(iv) An offense under section 219 of title 18 (relating 
     to officers and employees acting as agents of foreign 
     principals).
       ``(v) An offense under section 286 of title 18 (relating to 
     conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to claims).
       ``(vi) An offense under section 287 of title 18 (relating 
     to false, fictitious or fraudulent claims).
       ``(vii) An offense under section 597 of title 18 (relating 
     to expenditures to influence voting).
       ``(viii) An offense under section 599 of title 18 (relating 
     to promise of appointment by candidate).
       ``(ix) An offense under section 602 of title 18 (relating 
     to solicitation of political contributions).
       ``(x) An offense under section 606 of title 18 (relating to 
     intimidation to secure political contributions).

[[Page H648]]

       ``(xi) An offense under section 607 of title 18 (relating 
     to place of solicitation).
       ``(xii) An offense under section 641 of title 18 (relating 
     to public money, property or records).
       ``(xiii) An offense under section 666 of title 18 (relating 
     to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving Federal 
     funds).
       ``(xiv) An offense under section 1001 of title 18 (relating 
     to statements or entries generally).
       ``(xv) An offense under section 1341 of title 18 (relating 
     to frauds and swindles, including as part of a scheme to 
     deprive citizens of honest services thereby).
       ``(xvi) An offense under section 1343 of title 18 (relating 
     to fraud by wire, radio, or television, including as part of 
     a scheme to deprive citizens of honest services thereby).
       ``(xvii) An offense under section 1503 of title 18 
     (relating to influencing or injuring officer or juror).
       ``(xviii) An offense under section 1505 of title 18 
     (relating to obstruction of proceedings before departments, 
     agencies, and committees).
       ``(xix) An offense under section 1512 of title 18 (relating 
     to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant).
       ``(xx) An offense under section 1951 of title 18 (relating 
     to interference with commerce by threats of violence).
       ``(xxi) An offense under section 1952 of title 18 (relating 
     to interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of 
     racketeering enterprises).
       ``(xxii) An offense under section 1956 of title 18 
     (relating to laundering of monetary instruments).
       ``(xxiii) An offense under section 1957 of title 18 
     (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property 
     derived from specified unlawful activity).
       ``(xxiv) An offense under chapter 96 of title 18 (relating 
     to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations).
       ``(xxv) An offense under section 7201 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to attempt to evade or defeat 
     tax).
       ``(xxvi) An offense under section 104(a) of the Foreign 
     Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (relating to prohibited foreign 
     trade practices by domestic concerns).
       ``(xxvii) An offense under section 10(b) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (relating to fraud, manipulation, or 
     insider trading of securities).
       ``(xxviii) An offense under section 4c(a) of the Commodity 
     Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6c(a)) (relating to fraud, 
     manipulation, or insider trading of commodities).
       ``(xxix) An offense under section 371 of title 18 (relating 
     to conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States), 
     to the extent of any conspiracy to commit an act which 
     constitutes--
       ``(I) an offense under clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), 
     (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), 
     (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), or (xxviii); or
       ``(II) an offense under section 207 of title 18 (relating 
     to restrictions on former officers, employees, and elected 
     officials of the executive and legislative branches).
       ``(xxx) Perjury committed under section 1621 of title 18 in 
     falsely denying the commission of an act which constitutes--
       ``(I) an offense under clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), 
     (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), 
     (xv), (xvi), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx), (xxi), (xxii), 
     (xxiii), (xxiv), (xxv), (xxvi), (xxvii), or (xxviii); or
       ``(II) an offense under clause (xxix), to the extent 
     provided in such clause.
       ``(xxxi) Subornation of perjury committed under section 
     1622 of title 18 in connection with the false denial or false 
     testimony of another individual as specified in clause 
     (xxx).''.

     SEC. 16. LIMITATION ON BONUSES TO EXECUTIVES OF FANNIE MAE 
                   AND FREDDIE MAC.

       Notwithstanding any other provision in law, senior 
     executives at the Federal National Mortgage Association and 
     the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are prohibited 
     from receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship 
     for those entities on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 17. POST-EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATION RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Restriction Extended to Executive and Judicial 
     Branches.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
     individual required to file a financial disclosure report 
     under section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App. 101) may not directly negotiate or have any 
     agreement of future employment or compensation unless such 
     individual, within 3 business days after the commencement of 
     such negotiation or agreement of future employment or 
     compensation, files with the individual's supervising ethics 
     office a statement, signed by such individual, regarding such 
     negotiations or agreement, including the name of the private 
     entity or entities involved in such negotiations or 
     agreement, and the date such negotiations or agreement 
     commenced.
       (b) Recusal.--An individual filing a statement under 
     subsection (a) shall recuse himself or herself whenever there 
     is a conflict of interest, or appearance of a conflict of 
     interest, for such individual with respect to the subject 
     matter of the statement, and shall notify the individual's 
     supervising ethics office of such recusal. An individual 
     making such recusal shall, upon such recusal, submit to the 
     supervising ethics office the statement under subsection (a) 
     with respect to which the recusal was made.

     SEC. 18. WRONGFULLY INFLUENCING PRIVATE ENTITIES EMPLOYMENT 
                   DECISIONS BY LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH 
                   OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 227 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting after 
     ``Congress'' the following: ``or an officer or employee of 
     the legislative or executive branch''; and
       (2) by striking ``Whoever'' and inserting ``(a) Whoever'';
       (3) by striking ``a Senator or Representative in, or a 
     Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or an 
     employee of either House of Congress'' and inserting ``a 
     covered government person''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) In this section, the term `covered government person' 
     means--
       ``(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
       ``(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
       ``(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the 
     United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory 
     Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such 
     term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States 
     Code).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for chapter 
     11 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by amending 
     the item relating to section 227 to read as follows:

``227. Wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions 
              by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the 
              legislative or executive branch.''.

     SEC. 19. MISCELLANEOUS CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Repeal of Transmission of Copies of Member and 
     Candidate Reports to State Election Officials Upon Adoption 
     of New Systems.--Section 103(i) of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 103(i)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(i)'' and inserting ``(i)(1)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The requirements of paragraph (1) do not apply to any 
     report filed under this title which is filed electronically 
     and for which there is online public access, in accordance 
     with the systems developed by the Secretary and Sergeant at 
     Arms of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives under section 8(b) of the Stop Trading on 
     Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012.''.
       (b) Period of Retention of Financial Disclosure Statements 
     of Members of the House.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304(c) of the Honest Leadership 
     and Open Government Act of 2007 (2 U.S.C. 104e(c)) is amended 
     by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, or, in the case of reports filed under section 
     103(h)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, until the 
     expiration of the 6-year period which begins on the date the 
     individual is no longer a Member of Congress.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to any report which is filed on or 
     after the date on which the systems developed by the 
     Secretary and Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the Clerk of 
     the House of Representatives under section 8(b) first take 
     effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2038, as amended, 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, every Member of this House has sworn a solemn oath to 
support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the 
office to which they have been entrusted by their constituents. The 
Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act, goes to the 
heart of what it means to faithfully execute public office.
  The government exists to promote the public good, not to enrich 
government officials and employees. Those who are entrusted with public 
office are called public servants because their work should always 
serve the public rather than themselves. No one should violate the 
sacred trust of government office by turning ``public service'' into 
``self-service.''
  The risk of government self-dealing is heightened by the huge growth 
in recent years of the Federal Government and its increasing 
entanglement with the private economy. The risk of self-dealing 
increases when the government undertakes to spend nearly $1 trillion in 
stimulus money on private companies like Solyndra, or when the 
government inserts itself into the one-fifth of our economy represented 
by health

[[Page H649]]

care and dictates the terms of private insurance policies.
  The decisions made by Big Government can have big money consequences. 
Big Government can move markets. That's why we need strong rules to 
reassure the public that decisionmakers are not enriching themselves by 
investing based on insider knowledge of government policies.
  This is the goal of the STOCK Act, and the House version of the STOCK 
Act achieves this goal. It strengthens the Senate proposal by expanding 
the scope of the bill to require more disclosure and prevent all office 
holders from profiting from insider information.
  The House bill expands the legislation so that the ban on insider 
trading applies to all legislative, executive, and judicial branch 
officials and their staffs. The American people deserve to know that no 
one in any branch of government can profit from their office. All three 
branches should be held to the same standard because all three branches 
must be worthy of the public's trust.
  And the bill ensures that Members of Congress who commit a crime do 
not receive a taxpayer-funded pension. The STOCK Act clarifies that 
Members of Congress and other government insiders have to play by the 
same rules against insider trading that have applied to the private 
sector for nearly 80 years.
  Under the House bill, no Federal Government official may use 
nonpublic information which they learn about by virtue of their office 
for the purpose of making a profit in the commodities or stock markets.
  The bill strengthens financial disclosure rules for public officials. 
Financial disclosure forms will be made publicly available in 
searchable, downloadable databases on government Web sites.
  The bill requires prompt reporting of significant securities 
transactions by key legislative and executive branch officials. This 
will bring the financial dealings of public servants into the light of 
day.
  The STOCK Act also strengthens disclosure of officials' mortgages so 
that public servants do not receive special rates and offers by virtue 
of their office.
  The bill expands the list of crimes that result in a forfeiture of 
government pension rights, and it prevents Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
from paying lucrative bonuses to the executives who bear so much 
responsibility for the housing crisis.
  The House bill adds a provision to prevent government officials from 
receiving special early access to the initial public offerings of 
stock, which can result in major profits for the well-connected.
  The bill requires executive branch officials to disclose their 
negotiations for private sector jobs, just like legislative branch 
officials do under current law. And the bill makes it a crime for 
executive branch officials to pressure private businesses to hire 
employees of a certain political party, a government law that currently 
only applies to Congress.
  The STOCK Act increases disclosure and accountability for every 
branch of the Federal Government and ensures that public servants don't 
breach the trust of the American people.
  Madam Speaker, for all the above reasons, I support this legislation 
and encourage my colleagues to support it as well.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, Members of the House, we come here this morning as the 
leaders of the Judiciary Committee, and I have to assume that the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, like myself, is deeply 
disappointed that we're bringing a bill that we've never had a hearing 
on before the committee before the Congress for disposition.

                              {time}  0920

  Here was a bill referred to six committees: Financial Services, 
Agricultural, Judiciary, House Administration, Ethics, and the Rules 
Committee. Only one hearing was held in one of these committees on this 
measure. It's never been before Judiciary or any other committee, and 
so I want to begin by complimenting the author of this measure, the 
ranking member, former chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the 
gentlelady from New York, Louise Slaughter, for a serious and important 
amendment that has never been treated fairly.
  Now, I don't know what the explanation is. Maybe we can get to it 
during this proceeding. But I think that this is not the way that we 
want to move forward with a bill that was supposed to get to an insider 
trading ban that everybody wanted, because there's no reporting 
requirement in this bill.
  So, I will reserve the balance of my time and look forward to the 
discussion.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Ross) who's an active member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. ROSS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the STOCK 
Act today and in support of extending its reach to the executive 
branch. All of us who have been honored by our fellow citizens with the 
enormous responsibility of protecting the liberties of this Republic 
have a duty to hold ourselves to the highest of standards.
  You know, it's ironic that in 2012 we are here debating a bill that 
would prevent public officials from enriching themselves through our 
positions.
  It's ironic because one of the great causes that impelled the 
separation from Great Britain was the common practice of public 
officials using their office to increase their personal wealth.
  Madam Speaker, 236 years ago, those patriots said ``enough.'' That 
spirit is in America's DNA, and we would do a disservice to all who 
came before us if we failed to act. I know that a vast majority of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle share this belief as well. A 
calling to service knows no party label.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the 
original author of this bill, and because of her deep concern about 
this matter, I am going to yield the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) as much time as she may consume.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his 
generosity.
  Try as they may, Majority Leader Cantor and the House Republican 
leadership were unable to move forward with the STOCK Act without 
keeping at least some of the reforms that we included in this bill 6 
years ago. However, when it comes to K Street, it appears that 
Republican leadership couldn't stomach the pressure from the political 
intelligence community.
  After working behind closed doors, the majority removed the major 
provision that would have held political intelligence operatives to the 
same standards as lobbyists who come before the Congress.
  I need to put into the Record that political intelligence is worth 
$400 million a year. It is unregulated, unseen, and operates in the 
dark. Fortunately, Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting to keep 
political intelligence as part of the final bill.
  Senator Grassley shares my outrage that Mr. Cantor would let the 
political intelligence community off the hook. Together with a 
supermajority, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, Senator 
Grassley followed my lead and included the political intelligence 
requirement in the Senate version of this bill.
  I think his statement yesterday tells you all you need to know about 
his desire to see this language inserted back into the STOCK Act before 
it reaches the President's desk.
  I would like to read that into the Record if I may.
  ``It's astonishing and extremely disappointing,'' Senator Grassley 
said, ``that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing 
this provision. The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an 
industry that's behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, 
as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the 
provision altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful 
transparency through a House-Senate conference or other means. If 
Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay 
in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.''
  And it's hard. The STOCK Act is a statement of how we in Congress 
view ourselves and our relationship with

[[Page H650]]

those who sent us here. No matter how powerful our position may be or 
we believe it is, nor how hallowed the Halls that we walk, none of us 
is above the law.
  With the passage of the STOCK Act, we can move one step closer to 
living up to the faith and trust bestowed upon us by the American 
people, the citizens whom we serve.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Dold) who is also a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. DOLD. Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the chairman for 
yielding, and thank you for your leadership. I also want to thank my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Walz, for 
your leadership with regard to the STOCK Act.
  Madam Speaker, the American public believes that Congress has the 
ability to profit from their position, and while this is illegal today 
in insider trading laws, I think that we've got an obligation to make 
it even stronger and even clearer to the American public and to 
everyone that we here in the United States Congress hold ourselves up 
to a higher standard. I think this is expected of us as public 
servants.
  I am pleased to say that in the STOCK Act, in this legislation moving 
forward, is language from my bill, H.R. 2162, the No Pensions for 
Felons bill. This language will strengthen and expand the existing law 
to require that Federal lawmakers convicted of a public corruption 
felony forfeit their taxpayer-funded congressional pension.
  I know this sounds like common sense, but actually today there are 
those that are collecting taxpayer-funded pensions that have been 
convicted of a public corruption charge while serving in public office.
  This provision adds 21 new public corruption offenses to the current 
law, including violations for insider trading and others. Additionally, 
this will prohibit the former Members of Congress from receiving a 
congressional pension if they are convicted of a covered offense that 
occurred while they are subsequently serving in any other publicly 
elected office.
  Sadly, we have seen this before, where former Members of this 
Chamber, like one from my State, former Governor Rod Blagojevich, 
convicted of felony corruption charges and yet at age 62 he'll be 
eligible for a taxpayer-funded pension. Not only is this wrong, this is 
an insult to the American taxpayers. This provision will address such 
violations of the public trust in the future.
  I want to thank the chairman for your leadership, and I want to urge 
my colleagues, not just on my side of the aisle, but across the aisle 
to support this important legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield as much time as 
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, Tim Walz, 
who joined with the ranking member of the Rules Committee in 
introducing the original bill.
  Mr. WALZ. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  I'd also like to thank the chairman for his support of this bill and 
eloquent response on it.
  It's been a long 6-year journey to pass this reform. It has taken 
hard work and a bipartisan effort. The American people expect and 
deserve that.
  When I first came to Congress in 2006 after spending a lifetime of 
teaching social studies in the public school classroom, I was 
approached by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and Brian 
Baird, our former Member from Washington State. He said, You were sent 
here to make a difference and do things differently. If you really 
believe in reform, take a look at this bill.
  I got involved right after that, and Representative Slaughter, I can 
say, has been a stalwart supporter of this bill. She understood this is 
far more than just about clarifying insider trading. This is about 
restoring faith to the institution.

                              {time}  0930

  She was concerned about the ethics of this body before ethics seemed 
to be in vogue. It has been in vogue her whole lifetime. She has lived 
that sermon of ethics and of living by the rules instead of just giving 
it, and that I appreciate.
  The integrity of this institution stands above all else. As the 
sacred holders of the privilege, the honor and the responsibility given 
to us by our neighbors to self-govern ourselves, we must make sure that 
this institution is never tarnished; and this bill goes a long way to 
doing that.
  The perception is that Members of Congress are enriching themselves. 
That's not only an affront to our neighbors that we're not playing by 
the rules; it is a cancer that can destroy the democracy. Each Member 
of Congress has a responsibility to hold himself not just equal to his 
neighbors but to a higher standard. The public wants us to come here 
and debate how we educate our children, how we serve our veterans, how 
we build our roads, how we protect this Nation, how we spend those 
taxpayer dollars. That's what makes us strong--all these differing 
ideas coming together for a compromise and moving forward. If there is 
a perception that someone is enriching himself, it undermines our 
ability to do those things.
  We're not here today to pat ourselves on the back. This might be the 
only place where doing the right thing gets you kudos when it's 
expected of everyone else. So we're here to say that this is a victory, 
not for us, but it is one tiny step on a journey, which is about 
restoring the faith of the American people and the institution. They 
can believe with all their hearts that we are wrong. They cannot 
believe that we are corrupt. They will have us and we will pass and we 
will be dust, and this place--this building, this podium right here--
will still stand.
  That's what we're doing here today. So I implore folks, let's come 
together in a bipartisan manner.
  I agree with the gentlelady: I'm disappointed the political 
intelligence piece isn't in here; but as I said, I believe this is a 
first step. We can't wait for the perfect to move something forward, so 
I think it's a good bipartisan compromise. I implore my colleagues to 
join us on this first step. Give this win to the American public, and 
then let's get back in here and start working on jobs. Let's get back 
in here and start working on the national debt. Let's get back in here 
and figure out how we're going to protect this Nation and educate our 
children into the future. This lets us do that and, I think, shows the 
American public we can come together. Let's get it passed, and let's 
have the President sign it. Then let's get on to real business.
  With that, I would be remiss not to mention a person who was one of 
the original seven folks on this bill. Walter Jones has been our 
Republican colleague, and has been a stalwart supporter of this. This 
is a truly bipartisan piece. Ethics crosses the aisle. Our folks in 
here are good people who are coming together for the good of their 
citizens, and for that I am grateful for today.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my Texas 
colleague, Mr. Canseco, who is a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. CANSECO. I thank my colleague, Chairman Smith, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, too often the American people feel that Members of 
Congress live by and benefit personally from a different set of rules 
than those by which ordinary Americans live.
  To me, this lack of confidence is unacceptable. It is imperative that 
we rebuild the trust of the American people in their elected 
Representatives.
  The STOCK Act will help do just that. It explicitly bans Members of 
Congress and congressional staff from using information obtained on the 
job and using it to profit from securities trading and gives the 
Securities and Exchange Commission the ability to investigate and 
prosecute them just like any other American.
  The American people expect that those who serve in government do so 
with integrity. The STOCK Act will help ensure that those in government 
meet this expectation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott, the ranking member 
of the subcommittee to which this measure would have gone had we been 
able to hold hearings.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H651]]

  Madam Speaker, the bill we're considering today, the STOCK Act, would 
prohibit Members of Congress and other legislative branch employees, as 
well as executive and judicial branch employees, from using nonpublic 
information for personal benefit derived from an individual's position 
or gained from the performance of an individual's duties.
  Today, we are amending the Senate-passed bill, S. 2038, with a 
substitute that makes some changes to the Senate text, such as 
regrettably eliminating the requirement that certain political 
intelligence activities be disclosed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. 
These intelligence firms obtain inside information from Members of 
Congress and their staffs, and then they sell that information to 
investment firms. The public should be informed of these types of 
contacts.
  With this bill, our goal is to hold Members of Congress, as well as 
other government officials, to the same standard as those in 
corporations who have the duty not to trade on information that is not 
available to the general public.
  Most Members of Congress believed that this type of activity was 
wrong whether explicitly prohibited by criminal law or at least subject 
to Ethics Committee sanctions. Most of us assumed that a Food and Drug 
Administration official could not call a stockbroker shortly before a 
blockbuster drug were to be approved and profit off of that insider 
knowledge. We just assumed that that was wrong. So this bill codifies 
what most of us thought was already in the law.
  This is not a complicated issue. This is the same standard that 
applies to those in the corporate context. It is wrong to trade on 
nonpublic information for our benefit and to the detriment of the 
public. The public has the right to expect that the public interest 
comes first, and people should not have to worry about what may be 
motivating our actions as we make decisions that impact them.
  I want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentlelady from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), 
for their leadership in drafting and introducing the House version of 
the STOCK Act.
  This legislation represents an appropriate acknowledgment of what 
most of us thought was already the law, that national government 
officials of all branches should not benefit financially from nonpublic 
information they learned by virtue of their positions, and so I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), who is a member of the Financial Services 
Committee.
  Mr. DUFFY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  I think we are all aware that this issue came out when Peter 
Schweizer wrote a book called ``Throw Them All Out.'' After that, ``60 
Minutes'' did a special story about how Members of Congress were 
benefiting by using insider information or information that the rest of 
the public wasn't privy to. In the succeeding several months, I think 
that story has created a deficit of trust between Members of Congress 
and the American constituents.
  I introduced a version that would deal with this issue, I think, very 
simply. I thought what we should do is mandate that Members put their 
assets into a blind trust so there will be a bright line between 
information that they have as Members and their trading portfolios, and 
if they were to choose not to do that, they would have to aggressively 
disclose every trade within 3 days.
  Now, my bill is not on the floor today, but the version that we have 
here today, I think, is much improved from the original version that 
came out. We have an improved reporting requirement that goes, not from 
3 days, but from 90 days to 30 days, which is much improved from the 
original legislation. We've included the executive branch, which I 
think is imperative; and we have language that uses the blind trust as 
a potential opt-out if you're not actually managing your funds.
  As we gather around and debate and vote on this bill, I think it is 
important to know that this is the first step, a step in the right 
direction. Then as we come together and reevaluate what we've done 
here, I think there will be many more steps to take to ensure that 
Members of Congress don't profit from the information they come across 
as Members of this institution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, one who has worked on this matter even though we couldn't 
hold hearings.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member 
Conyers.
  Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill, and I appreciate the 
efforts put in it by Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Walz, who have championed 
this for over many, many, many years, and I appreciate the Republicans 
for coming in with a bipartisan effort.
  The bill has, indeed, been improved by the Senate; and it was 
improved through the honest services statute that was added to it, 
which our committee debated and passed, I believe, in good fashion. I 
don't know if it was unanimous or not, but that was one of the most 
important aspects, in my opinion, of this bill.
  There are public officials throughout this country who have abused 
their position of trust, and using their position for personal gain has 
hurt all of government. The honest services statute used to be a 
vehicle by which U.S. attorneys could go after them. The Supreme Court 
ruled that there was a defect in that law. That has been corrected in 
this bill, which means we have more effective ways to clean up folks 
who are using public service for their own benefit, and are able to 
restore public trust in public officials, from the courthouse to 
Congress. Further, it makes clear that nobody can use their inside 
information here to be making money in the stock market or in other 
places, all of which destroys the public trust which we hold.
  This Congress is so, so, so, so much better than the ratings the 
public gives it. Some of it is because of a few bad apples, and some of 
it is because of a misunderstanding about what we do. This bill will go 
a long way toward cleaning up Congress and local officials and the 
appearance of impropriety, which is as important as impropriety. We 
need to be like Caesar's wife, beyond reproach, and this bill will do a 
lot towards it.
  I take my hat off, again, to Ms. Slaughter, the champion of this 
bill, and Mr. Walz, who have done so much. And I am proud to be one of 
the original nine.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the majority 
leader.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Texas.
  Madam Speaker, our government was founded on a promise. This promise 
was built on a trust between the people and their elected officials. We 
all have a duty to honor the trust of the American people and to work 
faithfully on their behalf.
  Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable for anyone, any elected official or 
their staff, to profit from information that is not available to the 
public. People in this country have a right to know and trust that 
officials at all levels of government are living under the same rules 
that they are. If there is even the slightest appearance of 
impropriety, we ought to go ahead and prevent that from taking place.
  It is incumbent upon each of us to start restoring the trust between 
the people and their elected representatives. That's what the STOCK Act 
is all about.
  Madam Speaker, Members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard 
on this issue. I would especially like to express my appreciation to 
Representatives Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter for their years of work 
on this effort. Congressman Walz has been a leader on the STOCK Act 
since he took office at the start of the 110th Congress, and I 
particularly want to recognize his willingness to reach across the 
aisle and keep the lines of communication open as we worked to make 
clear that elected officials abide by the same rules as the American 
people.
  This bill we are bringing to the floor today puts in place measures 
that both

[[Page H652]]

strengthen and expand the Senate's work on the STOCK Act, as well as 
removes provisions that would have made the bill unworkable or raised 
far more questions than they would have answered. We expanded the bill 
to ensure that executive branch officials and their employees are 
subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as those in 
Congress. We must all live under the same rules.
  We also included a provision, championed by Representative Robert 
Dold, to ensure that Members of Congress who are convicted of a crime 
do not receive a taxpayer-funded pension after the fact. And finally, 
Madam Speaker, we added a provision to prohibit Members of Congress, 
executive branch officials, and their staffs from receiving special 
access to initial public offerings due to their positions.
  Madam Speaker, we intend to act quickly to send the President a 
strengthened, workable bill that delivers on our promise to uphold the 
trust of the American people. And I urge all my colleagues to support 
the STOCK Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  May I ask the distinguished majority leader one question, why he took 
political intelligence out of this provision?
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. Sure. I would respond to the gentleman, I think that is a 
provision that raises an awful lot of questions. I think there is a lot 
of discussion and debate about who and what would qualify and fall 
under the suggested language that came from the Senate. And that is 
why, in the STOCK Act, we are calling for a study of that issue, to 
ensure that the integrity of this process is maintained.
  But I would remind the gentleman, the thrust of this bill is about 
making sure that none of us, in elected office or those in the 
executive branch, are able to profit from nonpublic information. The 
political intelligence piece is outside of this body, and we are 
talking about us and the perception that has gathered around our 
conduct.
  Mr. CONYERS. Well, I thank the gentleman because there are some 
Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle that say, if Congress 
delays action on the political intelligence industry, we will stay in 
the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it. So I think we ought to 
think about that. And I'm hoping that the leader will continue the 
examination of the political intelligence industry piece.
  I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California, Nancy Pelosi, the distinguished leader on our side of the 
aisle.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for 
giving us this opportunity to discuss an important matter--the 
integrity of Congress--on the floor of the House.
  I, too, want to join the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Cantor, 
in praising the leadership of Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, our 
ranking member on the Rules Committee, and Congressman Tim Walz for 
their extraordinary leadership over time, their persistence, the 
approach that they have taken to this to remove all doubt in the 
public's mind, if that is possible, that we are here to do the people's 
business and not to benefit personally from it.
  I listened attentively to the distinguished majority leader, Mr. 
Cantor's remarks about the STOCK Act and its importance. And it just 
raises a question to me as to, if it is so important, and it certainly 
is, why we could not have worked in a more bipartisan fashion either to 
accept the Senate bill which was developed in a bipartisan fashion and 
passed the Senate--what was it?--94-6. It's hard to get a result like 
94-6 in Congress these days, but they were able to get the result 
because they worked together to develop their legislation.
  We had two good options. One was to accept the Senate bill, or to 
take up the Slaughter-Walz legislation which has nearly 300 cosponsors. 
Almost 100 Republicans cosponsored the original STOCK Act. The 
discharge petition has been calling upon the leadership to bring that 
bill to the floor. What's important about that is that if we passed 
that bill, we could go to conference and take the best and strongest of 
both bills to get the job done.
  Instead, secretly, the Republicans brought a much-diminished bill to 
the floor. It has some good features. So I urge our colleagues to vote 
for it to bring the process along. What's wrong with it, though, is 
that it makes serious omissions. And I want to associate myself with 
the remarks that had been made earlier; but I think they bear 
repetition, in any event.
  Senator Grassley's remarks are stunning. It is really a stunning 
indictment of the House Republicans in terms of their action on this 
bill. And I know my colleague has read this into the Record already, 
but I will, too.
  Senator Grassley said: ``It's astonishing and extremely disappointing 
that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing this 
provision''--that would be the provision on political intelligence. 
``The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's 
behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents 
say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision 
altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through 
a House-Senate conference or other means. If Congress delays action, 
the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the 
way Wall Street likes it.''

                              {time}  0950

  Well, the Senator's statement is very widely covered. The Hill today 
has a big, full page, ``Grassley: Republicans caved. Iowa Senator says 
House doing Wall Street's bidding.''
  I think it is important to note that on the Senate side there was 
interest in doing this study that is now in the House bill, and it was 
rejected by the Senate by a 60-39 vote, to include the political 
intelligence provision in the bill, rejecting the study. Now that that 
has already been rejected in the Senate, it's resurrected on the House 
side, a weakening of the bill.
  So whether it's the political intelligence piece proposed by Senator 
Grassley or Senator Leahy's piece about corruption, I think it is 
really important that those two elements be included in the bill. A 
good way to do that, to find a path to bipartisanship in the strongest 
possible bill, is to pass the bill today despite its serious 
shortcomings. And it is hard to understand why the shortcomings are 
there, but nonetheless they are. But pass the bill today and go to 
conference. To pass earlier or to accept the Senate bill, or to take 
the original STOCK Act, strong STOCK Act to the floor. Both of those 
were rejected. Pass this bill and go to conference. It is very 
important that the House and the Senate meet to discuss these very 
important issues. With all due respect to a study on political 
intelligence, that's really just a dodge. That is just a way to say 
we're not going to do the political intelligence piece.
  So again, with serious reservations about the bill but thinking that 
the better course of action is to pass it, and I don't want anybody to 
interpret the strong vote for it to be a seal of approval of what it 
is, but just a way of pushing the process down the line so that we can 
move expeditiously to go to conference for the strongest possible bill.
  I want to close again by saluting Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and 
Congressman Tim Walz for their relentless persistence and dedication to 
this issue. Had they not had this discharge petition and the nearly 300 
cosponsors, bipartisan, nearly 100 of them Republicans, I doubt that we 
would even be taking up this bill today. So congratulations and thank 
you.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) who is a senior member of the 
Judiciary Committee and also chairman of the House Administration 
Committee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, let me just point out a couple of things in response 
to what has been said on the floor about the bill before us. Had we 
adopted, had we accepted the Senate bill, we would have had 16 drafting 
errors not corrected; 16 misstatements in the Senate bill that drafted 
the wrong provisions of the ethics laws that already existed and would 
have ensured that what was said on the Senate floor and is being said 
here would not be enforced in law, number one.
  Number two, if we had taken the Senate bill, the absolute prohibition

[[Page H653]]

about Members participating in IPOs would not be before us. That is an 
addition that we have in the House bill. That is an additional 
prohibition. That makes that an illegal act. It has not been in the 
past. The Senate bill did not even talk about that.
  Third, with respect to the issue of political intelligence, I respect 
the Senator from Iowa very much, but I doubt he has ever prosecuted 
anybody and put them in prison for conflict of interest during their 
public service. I have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I understand when you do that, 
you have to deal with the very careful constitutional questions of 
people dealing with their right to apply before the government their 
grievances. That has become known now as lobbying. It is a 
constitutionally protected activity.
  And the idea that we have a Congress committed to transparency means 
that we give out as much information as we possibly can. Those are 
difficult, conflicting interests that have to be carefully determined 
if we're going to deal with the question of political intelligence. It 
does us no good to pass a bill that will be rendered unconstitutional. 
And it does us no good to not carefully consider this. As a matter of 
fact, on the Senate floor, it was Senator Lieberman who asked his 
fellow colleagues to give them time on the Senate side to study the 
issue so that, precisely, they would not render the bill 
unconstitutional. I might add that Senator Lieberman also served as 
Attorney General of his State, and knows whereof he speaks.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would just like to compliment the distinguished gentleman from 
California who was an Attorney General himself and is very sharp on 
these matters. Could you make available to us these 16 drafting errors 
of the Senate? I'd be delighted to get them from you.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would send 
someone over here, you can make a copy of it right now.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I'm pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I thank Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Walz for their 
tremendous work.
  I stand here and urge our Members to support this bill, but certainly 
I have my concerns. House Republicans stripped out of a bipartisan bill 
that passed the Senate overwhelmingly key provisions that were 
supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. Senator Grassley, the 
Senator from Iowa who I work with quite a bit, was among the first to 
criticize their actions. And after they stripped out his provision to 
require greater transparency over so-called political intelligence, 
Senator Grassley said, and it has been said again and again, but I 
think it needs to be in the DNA of every cell of our brains, that 
``It's astonishing''--and these are his words--``and extremely 
disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by 
killing the provision.''
  That is an incredible indictment, and I share his disappointment that 
this bill does not go far enough to require the transparency that we 
need. Let me be clear: no Members of Congress should be able to benefit 
personally from information they gain by virtue of their service in the 
Congress. However, House Republicans have rushed to the floor weakened 
legislation that Members have not had a chance to read the way they 
should have had. Perhaps as a result of the rush, this bill also 
appears to have drafting problems that need to be corrected. For 
example, the Office of Government Ethics has indicated that the current 
bill could be interpreted as requiring that confidential financial 
disclosure forms filed by low-level employees, such as staff assistants 
in the executive branch, must be posted online.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support the purpose of this legislation, while I 
will vote for this legislation, I have my deep concerns. But as Mr. 
Cantor said, hopefully we'll be able to address these issues in the 
future and come out with a better bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, we are prepared to close, so I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I'm prepared to close, and I do so by 
yielding the balance of my time to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 
2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the members of the 
Judiciary Committee, both the chairman and the ranking member, and, as 
all have applauded, Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Walz for 
their continued leadership. And I am very pleased to have been one of 
the, as they say, long-suffering cosponsors since, I believe, the 110th 
Congress.
  It's important for our colleagues to understand that I think we all 
come here with the intent to serve this country, and to serve it well. 
And I believe that when we self-regulate, we only enhance this 
institutional body that has such enormous history because of the 
changing times.
  I don't believe that Members of Congress are spending their time 
dwelling on information that they have and using it for self-purpose, 
but we now stand here united saying that Members of Congress, employees 
of Congress, and all Federal employees are prevented from using any 
nonpublic information derived from the individual's position as a 
Member of Congress or employee of Congress, or gain from performance of 
the individual's duties, for personal benefit.

                              {time}  1000

  That is waving a flag to all of our constituents, to the Nation that 
says that we're here to stand united for you. I hope that helps us as 
we move forward on payroll tax relief and unemployment. But there is a 
challenge that I think we have missed, and I think Senator Grassley has 
carefully analyzed why he is in essence offended, even with 16, if you 
will, drafting errors, which I hope that as we move to conference--that 
we must do--will be corrected.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentlelady yield to me just briefly?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CONYERS. Because we've got the 16 from our distinguished 
Judiciary colleague Mr. Lungren. These are merely technical errors that 
are corrected by the enrolling resolution that surely he must have 
heard about. These aren't errors that would have gone into the bill.
  I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for clarifying it.
  I still think that we should rush quickly to conference because what 
is missing from this--and we can't say it more often than over and over 
again, from the Abramoff matter that all of us knew of years ago and by 
``political intelligence'' refers to information that is potentially 
market-moving, is nonpublic, or not easily accessible to the public, is 
gathered and analyzed. Therefore, we are missing a large gap by leaving 
out the provision on political intelligence, a $100 million industry.
  Yes, we're going to support this legislation, but we can't get to 
conference soon enough to make this bill comparable and ready for the 
American people. We must regulate ourselves because they have trusted 
us to lead this Nation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), chairman of the 
House Administration Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, at the very outset, I would like to thank Members on 
both

[[Page H654]]

sides of the aisle for attempting to try and deal with a serious issue. 
I'd like to particularly point to staff who have worked over this last 
weekend, including four attorneys on my House Administration Committee, 
who spent a good portion of this last weekend going through the Senate 
bill and trying to come up with what we believe is a responsible bill, 
a tough bill that could pass this House, and frankly did not include 
the errors that we found in the bill on the Senate side.
  Several months before the STOCK Act debuted in the Senate, questions 
were raised publicly about the application of existing laws relating to 
insider trading. Specifically, there were questions as to whether or 
not the current laws applied to Members of Congress or their staff. As 
chairman of the Committee on House Administration, I and my staff 
carefully reviewed current law, and we concluded that the prohibition 
on insider trading and the criminal penalties associated with it are 
very much applicable, and not just to Members of Congress and staff of 
the legislative branch.
  Let me be clear. Let us disabuse anyone of the notion that somehow 
they could engage in insider trading between now and the time the bill 
gets on the President's desk and he signs it. It is already illegal. 
That is the advice I've given Members when I've been asked. That's the 
advice I've given to the press when they've asked. It's the advice 
that's been given by the Ethics Committee to Members of Congress and to 
staff. No one within the House of Representatives or the Senate or the 
executive branch or even the judicial branch, regardless of 
responsibility, title or salary, should be under the false impression 
that they are somehow exempt under these laws. They are not.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir.
  Why are we passing this law if the conduct we are prohibiting is 
already illegal?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be very happy to respond 
to that, and I will a little bit later on in my statement. Thank you 
very much.
  In addition to the Congress sometimes dedicated to redundancy, there 
is a question of clarification. The fact that we've had questions asked 
of us over the last several months as House Administration chairman, as 
the Ethics chairman has done, gives rise to the question that some have 
asked, and we have tried to disabuse them of that notion all along. 
Although we create and uphold the laws of the land, we are not above 
them. As their elected representatives, we owe our constituents the 
assurance that the decisions we make here in the people's House are, in 
fact, for the people and not ourselves. This assurance, Madam Speaker, 
must be government-wide. America not only needs to know that all of 
their government officials are subject to insider trading laws, but 
also need to know and need proof that they are adhering to them, which 
is exactly what the amended version of the S. 2038 accomplishes.
  In 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Skilling v. United 
States that set out several specific questions that it said must be 
answered in criminal statutes on honest services. The Senate bill 
ignored the Supreme Court's guidance and failed to answer the questions 
it set out. The amendment does more than eliminate the Senate's 
defective provisions and numerous drafting errors.
  Our bill before us also strengthens the previous House and Senate 
proposals by first clarifying the broad application of insider trading 
laws, making sure no one questions it. As I say, it is already against 
the law, and no Member ought to rush out now and attempt to use his 
insider trading information for insider trading thinking that he or she 
is not covered. They are already covered.
  It expands the financial transaction disclosure requirements. We are 
going to be required now, in terms of actual financial transactions, to 
report within a 30-day period as opposed to doing it quarterly. We're 
also going to be required to disclose our mortgages, which are not 
required right now. So we are expanding the disclosure requirements. We 
extend the post-employment negotiation restrictions. We expand 
prohibitions on influencing private hiring decisions. This is an 
additional point.
  I would say to my friend from Michigan, the former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, we end the preferential treatment of government 
officials by prohibiting them from accepting exclusive access to IPOs. 
That has not been against the law. There's been some suggestion that 
might have been carried on by some Members. I have no evidence whether 
it has or it has not; but that is an additional prohibition placed in 
this, which I believe was not in the Senate bill, is not under current 
law, but it does make it explicit. Members of Congress cannot 
participate in accepting exclusive access to IPOs.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Certainly.
  Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing us this 
information. I will take back to everybody on this side of the aisle 
not to rush out and try to do any last-minute deals because it is 
already illegal if you will do the same with the Members on your side.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would be happy to if they 
don't know that already. But when you read the newspapers, you would 
think that somehow it is proper and appropriate.
  I want to make it clear not only to our colleagues but to the 
American public, it is against the law now, it has been against the 
law. If anybody has evidence of this, they should report it to the 
proper authorities because it is against the law.
  Madam Speaker, the amendment before us, when applied to the 
underlying bill, creates the clarity and accountability necessary to 
ensure that government officials--elected, appointed, and otherwise--
adhere to Federal insider trading laws. It prohibits Members, 
officials, and employees of every branch of government from using 
nonpublic privileged information for personal gain, and it creates a 
disclosure mechanism for finding out when they do so. Additionally, the 
bill denies pensions for Members convicted of crimes. That is an 
addition to current law. It eliminates bonuses for senior executives at 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That is an addition to current law. And it 
directs the GAO to utilize----
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. With that, I would urge that all 
vote for this strong, strong STOCK Act.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to ask one 
brief question that's pertinent to this bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman seek unanimous consent to 
extend the debate time?
  Mr. COHEN. Yes, please. For 1 minute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee to extend the debate time?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am afraid I will have to object. The 
gentleman's time has expired.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, also known as the 
STOCK Act. As a sponsor of the original bill in 109th Congress, I am a 
firm believer that Members of Congress should receive no greater 
privilege than that of our own constituents. Although I am grateful for 
the passage of this bill today, it is reprehensible that it has taken 
six long years for this legislation to finally come to the Floor for 
consideration.
  As President Lincoln stated, our government was intended to be a 
``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' Sadly, we 
have fallen away from those founding principles. Today, many government 
officials live in Washington, secluded from their constituents, and out 
of touch with reality. They benefit from financial insight used to 
improve their own stock portfolios, enjoy luxury trips disguised as 
CODELs, and upon retirement, receive generous pensions despite their 
own actions while in office. Politicians come to Washington not to 
represent their constituencies, but for their own avail.
   Vainglorious acts such as these, committed by our country's leaders, 
are simply unacceptable.

[[Page H655]]

  I have introduced several pieces of legislation intended to reduce 
government waste, hold Members accountable for their actions, and 
increase transparency within our federal government. For example, the 
STAY PUT Act would require the completion of a study on the costs of 
Congressional foreign travel claimed to meet criteria of ``official 
business,'' by Members, officers, and employees of Congress. Another 
piece of legislation I have introduced, the Citizen Legislator Act, 
aims to cut the time spent in Washington, DC in half, cuts 
Congressional salaries and budgets in half, allows Members to work jobs 
outside of public office, and increases the time Members spend in their 
districts with the people who elected them.
  Madam Speaker, while, many of us may attempt to project the 
appearance that our motives are truly altruistic, the time has come for 
real action. I applaud my colleagues for passing the STOCK Act today 
and encourage them to consider additional legislation bearing similar 
objectives, to listen to their constituents, and to spend more time in 
their districts. I remain optimistic that many of us still remember why 
we find ourselves here today: to serve the American people.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2038, the STOCK 
Act. I have always stood for the strictest ethical standards for all 
government employees, and today is no different. Government employees 
cannot be allowed to profit privately in the performance of their 
official duties. Indeed, throughout my career, it has always been my 
understanding that the House Ethics Rules specifically prohibit this 
sort of behavior.
  I will vote in favor of S. 2038. I am very pleased that the bill 
contains a rule of construction to preserve the Securities Exchange 
Commission's, SEC, existing anti-fraud enforcement authorities. 
Nevertheless, I have lingering concerns about the bill's practicability 
and other unintended consequences. I believe these matters might have 
been clarified if the bill had undergone regular order. Absent that, 
Members of the House should have been given a briefing about the bill 
prior to taking it up. In fact, I requested such a briefing in a 
February 7, 2012, letter to Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor, but that 
request appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
  It is uncertain to me whether House Leadership will insist on 
convening a conference committee with our friends in the Senate to 
forge a compromise. If that is to occur, I strongly urge House 
conferees to consider and solve the rather ticklish problem of how the 
SEC and House Committee on Ethics will interact under the Act. 
Furthermore, I have deep, dark fears that influential members of the 
House, Senate, and associated political organizations might exert 
pressure on the Commission to open or never begin a congressional 
insider trading investigation for political gain. Such an incident 
would fly in the face of the STOCK Act's otherwise meritorious intent.
  In closing, I can only stress that this matter would have been best 
addressed in the various committees of jurisdiction and according to 
regular order. Observance of this institution's rules and procedures 
has produced well-written laws which have endured for years. I observed 
regular order as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
held numerous hearings on securities fraud in the 1980s. These hearings 
produced P.L. 98-376, the ``Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984,'' 
and P.L. 100-704, the ``Insider Trading and Securities Fraud 
Enforcement Act of 1988,'' which are the only major insider trading 
laws on the books.
  Madam Speaker, I am ashamed to say I was right in predicting that 
banks would become ``too big to fail'' when I opposed the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act on the floor in 1999. I hope I am wrong in predicting that 
the STOCK Act, if not subjected to serious scrutiny and amended, will 
produce an administrative morass and, worse, an enforcement tool 
subject to the perils of political manipulation.
  That in mind, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 2038.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
STOCK Act. I regret having to miss a vote on this significant 
legislation, but I had to return to Maine to attend a family funeral. 
Had I been present, I would have voted for the House Amendment to S. 
2038.
  These commonsense rules will help ensure that no member of Congress 
profits from the nonpublic information they receive in their official 
capacity. The voters in our districts sent us here to work hard on 
their behalf. It is simply wrong that anyone would consider using 
insider information he or she gains while working for his or her 
constituents to make investment decisions.
  Faith in Washington is at an all time low. Unfortunately, the STOCK 
Act is only a small step towards restoring the public's trust in their 
elected officials. However, it is an important step that will help hold 
every one of us more accountable.
  I was proud to join two hundred eighty-four of my colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle as a cosponsor of the original House version of 
the STOCK Act. I am hopeful that this strong show of bipartisanship can 
continue on the other important issues that face our country.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the House amendment 
to S. 2038, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, STOCK, Act, 
but I must share my deep disappointment with the House Republican 
leadership's move to weaken this legislation.
  As a cosponsor of the House version of the STOCK Act that has 285 
bipartisan cosponsors, I strongly believe we need to restore trust in 
our public officials and those who work closely with them by clarifying 
that the same insider trading rules that everyone else must follow 
apply to all three branches of our government as well. The STOCK Act 
will prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from 
profiting from nonpublic information they obtain via their official 
positions. It will also require Members of Congress to report on their 
stock sales.
  The Senate version added a provision that would require firms 
specializing in ``political intelligence,'' that may use information 
obtained from Congress to make financial transactions, to register with 
the House and Senate--just as lobbying firms are now required to do. 
House Republicans watered down this bill in the middle of the night by 
dropping this provision, even though it was unanimously approved by the 
House Judiciary Committee this past December.
  The measure before us today is an important first step, but once it 
is passed, I call on my colleagues to conference with the Senate to 
strengthen this legislation. If we wish to restore confidence in our 
government, we must start by using fair and transparent legislative 
procedures.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and strong 
supporter of the STOCK Act.
  The STOCK Act includes the Congressional Integrity and Pension 
Forfeiture Act, which Congressman Dold and I introduced last year.
  The Pension Forfeiture Act ensures that former Members of Congress 
forfeit their pensions if they are convicted of committing a public 
corruption crime while serving in elected public office.
  Corrupt former legislators who continue to collect pensions on the 
taxpayer dime are taking advantage of the American people even after 
they have left office.
  This legislation will protect taxpayer dollars and end what could 
only be viewed as a reward for those who have abused the public's 
trust.
  In my home state of Illinois, we know all too well about the costs of 
corruption.
  Two former governors of Illinois, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich, 
are serving extensive prison time for corruption.
  Blagojevich, who previously represented the Illinois 5th District, 
continues to claim his federal pension because of a loophole in 
existing law.
  Congressman Dold and I believe that this loophole should be closed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the STOCK Act and 
restoring transparency, accountability, and trust in government and 
public service.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Speaker, insider trading is and has been 
against the law no matter who you are. The bill we are debating is not 
about simply banning Members from insider trading, it is about holding 
Members of Congress and members of the administration to a higher 
standard as I think we should be. Confidence in Congress is at an all 
time low and restoring trust with the American people is paramount. 
While affirming the ban on insider trading the STOCK Act also 
significantly broadens prohibited activity and establishes a new 
reporting system that will allow for unprecedented transparency.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill because even the appearance 
of operating outside the law needs to be addressed forcefully. By 
shining the brightest light possible on the financial transactions of 
Members of Congress and the administration we can help ensure that no 
one is taking advantage of their positions. Madam Speaker, the American 
people have elected us to be their representatives and that means 
conducting ourselves with the highest of ethical standards. Anything 
less is a disservice to this office and to those who sent us here.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate the 
S. 2038--Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, STOCK, Act which 
would amend the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Ethics 
in Government Act. The legislation would require the Senate and the 
House of Representatives to implement an electronic filing

[[Page H656]]

system for financial disclosure forms and provide the public with on-
line access to that information in a searchable database. S. 2038 also 
would make clear that Members of Congress, Congressional employees, and 
federal employees are prohibited from using nonpublic information for 
personal financial benefit. In addition, the legislation would require 
more timely reporting of information about financial transactions by 
Members and staff.
  The STOCK ACT would prohibit Members of Congress, employees of 
Congress, and all federal employees from using ``any nonpublic 
information derived from the individual's position as a Member of 
Congress or employee of Congress, or gained from performance of the 
individual's duties, for personal benefit.''
  The bill before us today is not the same measures that had received 
overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate or the House. The measure 
before us today has been brought onto the Floor under the cover of 
darkness. There was zero transparency in the process and there is no 
opportunity to offer amendments.
  I firmly and unequivocally believe that the American people deserve 
to know that their elected officials only have one interest in mind, 
which is doing what is best for the country rather than their own 
financial interests. This behavior is particularly disturbing at a time 
when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet. Members of 
this body and any public servant should not have a financial edge 
because of information they have attained while serving the American 
people.
  The issue before us today is not whether a insider trading law should 
exist for lawmakers. The issue before us today is one of fairness and 
transparency. As we attempt to shine a spotlight on those who may 
profit on insider knowledge, the Republican led majority in the House 
has closed out the possibility of improving this bill.
  The night before last, the Rules Committee passed a rule on a 
straight party-line vote. The rule has allowed the Republican majority 
to bring up their own version of the STOCK Act under a suspension of 
the rules.
  Let me be clear; Republican leadership has brought a bill onto the 
Floor under a suspension of the rules. They utilized the most 
restrictive process the House has to offer. In fact, this process is so 
restrictive that it is often reserved for noncontroversial items such 
as naming post offices, buildings, or even playgrounds.
  For this bill, of all bills, to be brought up under suspension of the 
rules is unfathomable. The Republican-led majority has given Democrats 
no opportunity to offer their own amendments in order to improve the 
bill. In addition, there is no chance for the Democrats to offer our 
own alternative, under a Motion to Recommit.
  As a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I find the actions of 
the Republican-led House to be outrageous. It is a direct contradiction 
to the original bipartisan effort supported in this House by 285 
Members of this body pushed by Ms. Slaughter, a bill which was composed 
over the course of 6 years.
  Further, considering the bipartisan support received for the initial 
Senate version of the STOCK Act and the significant bipartisan support 
received by the bill introduced by my dear colleague Ms. Slaughter it 
is curious that the Republicans have chosen to put forward their own 
version of the STOCK Act which waters down government reform and leaves 
out a critical piece of the STOCK Act--namely, the registration of the 
political intelligence industry.
  Registration of the political intelligence industry was included in 
the Senate passed bill, but stripped out of this watered down 
Republican version. Instead of requiring registration, my Republican 
colleagues only require a study of the industry.
  It is as though the Majority wishes to ignore the fact that 
regulation of the political intelligence community was supported by 285 
Members of Congress who were co-sponsors of the original Slaughter-Walz 
bill. Instead, what we now know is that after emerging from behind 
closed doors, the bill introduced by Republicans does nothing to 
regulate the political intelligence community.
  Regulating the political intelligence industry is vital to this piece 
of legislation. A study will not have the same impact as a requirement 
that these firms register and come out from the shadows.
  Political intelligence firms or people who have special relationships 
with government officials can obtain nonpublic legislative information 
or learn about pending legislative decisions by attending lobbying 
sessions, or communicating directly with lobbyists and lawmakers.
  The term ``political intelligence'' refers to legislative information 
that is potentially market-moving, is nonpublic or not easily 
accessible to the public, and is gathered, analyzed, and sold to or 
shared with interested parties by firms or people with access to such 
information. Political intelligence is typically sold to independent 
companies or third parties whose business demands knowledge of upcoming 
market and industry affecting legislative decisions.
  The political intelligence industry must be regulated. These firms 
have grown drastically over the last few decades, and are now a $100 
million a year industry. Every day these firms help hedge funds and 
Wall Street investors unfairly profit from nonpublic congressional 
information. These firms have no congressional oversight and can freely 
pass along information for investment purposes. In 2005, insiders 
profited from a last-minute government bailout of companies who were 
embroiled in asbestos litigation. We must prevent such windfalls from 
happening again.
  The U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Manual states that its 
members should ``never use any information coming to him confidentially 
in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private 
profit,'' and the Senate Ethics Manual states that its Conflict of 
Interest Rule 37(1) provides for ``a broad prohibition against members, 
officers or employees deriving financial benefit, directly or 
indirectly, from the use of their official position[s].'' No arrests or 
prosecutions, however, have ever been made against members of Congress 
for insider trading based on nonpublic congressional knowledge.
  While Members of Congress are not exempt from federal securities 
laws, including insider trading prohibitions, it remains unclear 
whether a member of Congress has a fiduciary duty to the United 
States--misappropriating information gained through an employment 
relationship is illegal, but case law conflicts as to whether members 
of Congress actually constitute ``employees'' of the federal 
government--whether the information on which the Member trades is 
``material''--Is there ``a substantial likelihood'' that a reasonable 
investor ``would consider it important'' in making an investment 
decision?--and whether the information on which the Member traded is 
``nonpublic.''
  The bill before us today has utilized Senate language which clarifies 
federal ethics rules and establishes a fiduciary duty against insider 
trading by all three branches of government. This measure does give the 
Securities Exchange Commission, SEC, Department of Justice, DOJ, and 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, clear authority to 
prosecute insider trading cases throughout the federal government, as 
well as clarifying that 28,000 executive branch employees will be 
subject to the same online, public financial disclosure rules as will 
be applied to Congress. In addition it adds more specific disclosure 
restrictions on executive branch officials, and requires that their 
disclosures be online within 30 days of submission.
  Even so, this measure is still a watery version of Ms. Slaughter's 
bill. We have been denied the opportunity to amend the bill on the 
Floor today in a manner that would ensure bipartisan support.
  Again, Republican-led House has gone too far. They not only not 
eliminated the political intelligence registration requirement and 
replaced it with a 12-month GAO study. They have also removed from this 
measure the anti-corruption provision that restored criminal penalties 
in some public corruption cases. This provision had been unanimously 
approved by House Judiciary in December.
  House Republican leadership should have allowed this bill to be 
finalized in an open and transparent manner. Instead, the Majority 
continued their ``my-way-or-the-highway'' approach. They shut out their 
colleagues, and made partisan changes to what was a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I support the Stop Trading on 
Congressional Knowledge, STOCK, Act. This bill clarifies that Members 
of Congress, congressional staff, executive branch officials, and 
judicial officers are subject to the same insider trading rules as 
everyone else. It is common sense to ensure that taxpayers do not pay 
the salary of people who take advantage of privileged conversations to 
make a profit. I am pleased that the STOCK Act has such strong 
bipartisan support, but I am disappointed in the way that Republican 
leaders are ushering the bill through the House.
  For a bill that ends insider trading and is supposed to bring 
transparency to the influence peddling industry in Washington, it is 
disappointing that--literally in the dark of night--Republican leaders 
listened to the complaints of lobbyists and changed the bill. 
Republicans removed two important provisions that shine light on the 
shadowy world of political intelligence and that empower federal 
investigators to bring criminal corruption charges against public 
officials.
  The STOCK Act that I cosponsor, and that passed the Senate with 96 
votes, requires that political intelligence consultants register their 
activities, similar to the manner of lobbyists. These consultants 
gather inside information from Members of Congress and staff and then 
sell that information to Wall Street, lobbyists

[[Page H657]]

and hedge funds. This is a $400 million industry and yet we know very 
little about it; political intelligence consultants work in anonymity.
  Public officials are entrusted by the public to conduct their duties 
with integrity. Those who abuse this trust should be held accountable 
and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is why the 
original version of the STOCK Act gave prosecutors tools to identify, 
investigate, and prosecute criminal conduct by public officials. This 
is an important provision that holds public officials accountable for 
their actions and protects the integrity of government institutions.
  These two provisions should be reinstated when the House and Senate 
go to conference.
  Despite its shortcomings, the STOCK Act offers much to support. In 
addition to the insider trading rules, this bill expands existing law 
that bans Congressional pensions for Members of Congress convicted of 
committing a felony. It also prohibits bonuses for Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac executives while the GSEs are still supported by taxpayer 
dollars.
  It is important that Members of Congress be held to the same ethical 
standards as our constituents. The STOCK Act is a critical piece of 
legislation that is long overdue. I am pleased that it is moving 
forward with strong bipartisan support, but I hope that it is 
strengthened when the House and Senate go to conference.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of the original House 
STOCK Act, H.R. 1148, I commend my colleagues Tim Walz and Louise 
Slaughter for their leadership on this issue and will support the 
version of the legislation we are being asked to vote on today so that 
we can send it to conference and finalize a stronger product for the 
American people.
  While there is broad, bipartisan agreement that Members of Congress, 
their staff and executive branch officials should not be profiting from 
non-public information, there are other steps we can and should take to 
promote transparency and protect the integrity of government. For 
example, the Senate-passed bill and the original House version of the 
STOCK Act would require public registration for the ``political 
intelligence'' industry. That requirement was stripped from today's 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, while I believe this particular version of the STOCK 
Act can clearly be strengthened, I will support it to move the process 
forward.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, S. 2038, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to suspend will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on the motion to instruct on H.R. 3630.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417, 
nays 2, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               YEAS--417

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--2

     Campbell
     Woodall
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blumenauer
     Burton (IN)
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Edwards
     Fudge
     Michaud
     Paul
     Platts
     Rogers (MI)
     Shuster
     Thompson (MS)
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1035

  Messrs. WALDEN, HINCHEY, and HARPER changed their votes from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 47, I was 
unavoidably detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________