Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 22 (Thursday, February 9, 2012)

[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--

``(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.''

____________________