[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 4, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9230-H9235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2534, INSIDER TRADING PROHIBITION 
 ACT, AND RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 77, DIRECTING THE 
  PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5(C) OF THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO 
 REMOVE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES IN THE SYRIAN ARAB 
           REPUBLIC THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 739 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 739

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant

[[Page H9231]]

     to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
     for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2534) to amend the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit certain 
     securities trading and related communications by those who 
     possess material, nonpublic information. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services 
     now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     116-39 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such further amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. (a) At any time on the legislative day of 
     Wednesday, December 11, 2019, it shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order to consider in the House a 
     motion to discharge the Committee on Foreign Affairs from 
     further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
     Res. 77) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of 
     the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed 
     Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have 
     not been authorized by Congress, if offered by Representative 
     Gabbard of Hawaii. The motion shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion except 20 
     minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Gabbard of Hawaii and an opponent. The 
     question of adoption of the motion may be subject to 
     postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
       (b) The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers 
     Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the 
     remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress to House 
     Concurrent Resolution 77.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only.

                              {time}  1215


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and 
reported House Resolution 739, providing for consideration of H.R. 
2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, under a structured rule, 
which makes in order two amendments.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services and provides for one motion to recommit. Lastly, the rule 
makes the motion to discharge H. Con. Res. 77, if offered by 
Representative Gabbard from Hawaii, in order on December 11 and that 
the resolution be debatable for 20 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide for 
consideration of H.R. 2534, the Insider Trading Prohibition Act, which 
will establish a statutory prohibition on insider trading.
  For millions of hardworking Americans, investing in the stock market 
is an important tool to save for retirement, send their kids to 
college, or save for a downpayment on a home. The foundation of an 
efficient market is rooted in fairness and transparency, that all 
investors have access to the same information so they can make 
reasonable and prudent investment decisions.
  Insider trading erodes the foundation of fairness and transparency. 
When company insiders, or market participants with insider knowledge, 
use nonpublic information to trade stocks, bonds, or other types of 
securities, not only do they unfairly gain a financial advantage over 
families saving for their futures, but the insiders also erode trust in 
our Nation's financial system. We cannot allow insiders to take 
advantage of the folks who play by the rules.
  Current law on insider trading has been largely developed by the 
courts based on the antifraud statute in the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934, yet there is no specific law prohibiting insider trading. This 
lack of clarity in the law, combined with recent court decisions 
limiting the ability of the SEC to prosecute insider trading, has 
opened the door for bad actors to profit at the expense of average 
investors.
  Insider trading is wrong and undermines our economy. It is time for 
Congress to act and provide a clear legal standard for insider trading.
  This bill passed the Financial Services Committee on a voice vote in 
May, showcasing the importance of finally codifying a prohibition on 
insider trading. Since the markup, the sponsor of the legislation, 
Representative  Jim Himes from Connecticut, has negotiated with Ranking 
Member McHenry to address any outstanding issues and incorporate 
feedback from the SEC.
  The text of the bill we are considering today incorporates many of 
the suggestions from Mr. McHenry and other Republicans. Discussions 
between Mr. Himes and Mr. McHenry, which concluded late yesterday, have 
resulted in the McHenry amendment, which enjoys the full support of Mr. 
Himes and Chairwoman Maxine Waters.
  I understand adoption of this amendment, which makes further 
clarifying changes, will bring the support of Ranking Member McHenry 
and many more of my Republican colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Himes on his efforts over the years in 
coming to this bipartisan compromise. This bill will be a big step 
forward in reinstating trust in our financial system and providing 
transparency for our markets.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my friend, 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  We had to hustle over here today, Mr. Speaker. You were already here, 
and I appreciate your timely beginning of the House, but this is a 
different kind of day. Ordinarily, we have more 1 minutes, more folks 
celebrating high school teachers, local newspaper folks, and local 
philanthropic efforts, but as you might imagine, there are other things 
going on on the Hill today.
  That is unfortunate because I come down here today not with a heavy 
heart that I often come with, from a Rules Committee perspective. Mr. 
Speaker, the Rules Committee is in charge of deciding whether or not to 
allow amendments, what to schedule for the floor. As a member of the 
minority, there are four of us up there on the Rules Committee with 
nine members in the majority, so we lose a lot. The time for bipartisan 
partnership happens before a bill gets to the Rules Committee.
  Yesterday, what we saw transpire in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, 
was not at all unprecedented. It is just not as common as I wish it 
were. That is that the committees of jurisdiction were working all the 
way up until the eleventh hour to come together on a bipartisan 
solution so that we wouldn't have to jam something through the Rules 
Committee.
  I see my friend from Connecticut has come down to the floor. Mr. 
Himes, representing the majority on the Financial Services Committee, 
and Mr.

[[Page H9232]]

Huizenga, representing the minority, talked about the partnership that 
came together, not to create the perfect bill, not to create the bill 
that I would have written, and, candidly, not to create the bill that 
my friend from Colorado would have written, but to have crafted a bill 
with give-and-take so that instead of spending time on this floor 
making statements, we are going to spend time on this floor making 
legislation.
  We are going to have an actual opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I don't want 
to upset anybody's applecart here because so often we do spend more 
time trying to make a point than make a difference. This is a 
bill about making a difference today.

  Not at all common, there were no Democratic amendments made in order 
to this bill. The two Republican amendments that were made in order are 
the perfecting amendments to seal that bipartisan compromise. I think 
we are going to end up with a big bipartisan vote on the board.
  The only thing that gives me a heavy heart today, Mr. Speaker, is 
that I offered an amendment last night to add suspension authority for 
the Speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi, to bring up a bill dealing 
with the widows and widowers of American servicemen and -women killed 
in action and the benefits that they are not receiving today. This is 
also a bipartisan bill. I offered an amendment to make that suspension 
authority in order. It was rejected on a party-line vote, so I am going 
to be opposing the rule today because I would like to be able to 
include those things.
  But we did get a motion to recommit that will be made in order today, 
so I will have an opportunity, if we defeat the previous question, to 
bring up the NDAA bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, which 
does contain the widow's tax repeal and gives us an opportunity to do 
even more things together.
  I see my friend from Georgia (Mr.   David Scott) on the floor today. 
He serves on the Financial Services Committee with my friend Mr. 
Loudermilk from Georgia. We have two Georgians who serve on the 
committee of jurisdiction for this bill.
  I always enjoy the Financial Services Committee because, 
historically, in my 9 years here, it has not been led by shrinking 
violets on either side of the aisle. There are those milquetoast 
committees on Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker, that never make the news. 
Nobody ever gets a one-liner. Not so with the committee that my friend 
from Colorado and my friend from Georgia serve on.
  But I like watching the vote tally because so often my friend Mr. 
Scott from Georgia and my friend Mr. Loudermilk from Georgia end up on 
the same side of the issue because, sadly, the only Financial Services 
Committee bills that make the headlines are those that highlight our 
strident differences here. But time and time again, the Financial 
Services Committee has had a record of producing bills that can go to 
the President's desk. They could go to President Obama's desk for his 
signature, and they can go to President Trump's desk for his signature.
  I hope this turns out to be one of those exercises today, again, not 
an exercise in making a point but an exercise in making a difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my friend from Colorado that 
his expertise on the Financial Services Committee is valued by all of 
us on the minority side of the aisle.
  It is a special kind of pain being in the minority on the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Speaker, because minority members have wonderful ideas, 
and friends on the other side of the aisle are constrained from how 
many of those ideas they can support, but we always get a word of 
encouragement from our friend from Colorado.
  I know if he were sitting on the minority side, I would be feeling 
his pain, and he feels ours. He is always a voice for encouragement on 
that committee. We see that come back from the witnesses who have a 
chance to serve with the gentleman from Colorado, talking about how 
much they enjoy that partnership.
  That is why I am particularly pleased I was assigned this rule today, 
because it exemplifies the kind of work that we want out of all of our 
committees, that we have gotten out of the Financial Services Committee 
this day and that my friend from Colorado works each and every day to 
bring forward, sometimes with more success than others, but 
nonetheless, it is appreciated.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy doing these rules with my friend from 
Georgia. He is very kind in his compliments, and he makes points that 
are well taken.
  One, though, that I would take some issue with that he raised was 
with respect to the widow's tax, the bill that he brought up in 
committee last night. I would just say that particular bill was 
incorporated in the National Defense Authorization Act, which this 
House passed months ago, which, like so many other things, was caught 
up in a logjam over in the Senate where at least 275 bills, bipartisan 
bills, are sitting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's desk and 
have not seen any action being taken.

                              {time}  1230

  But we are here today to talk about the Insider Trading Prohibition 
Act, which really has come a long way. Mr. Himes from Connecticut has 
been working on this piece of legislation for some time. And, as Mr. 
Woodall said, there has been a lot of collaboration which has resulted, 
and, upon the passage of Mr. McHenry's amendment, will result in a 
pretty good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Himes) to speak on this rule and his bill.
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
yielding me a little bit of time. I also thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for acknowledging the bipartisan quality of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hope that this body will support the rule. 
The rule, in particular, obviously, made at least one, possibly two, 
Republican amendments in order.
  I just want to reflect for one moment on what my intention was in the 
underlying bill.
  First of all, this is a fix to a problem that we have had in American 
financial services law for a very long time, which is that there is no 
specific statute prohibiting insider trading.
  Yes, we have prosecuted insider trading for a very long time using 
fraud provisions and other provisions of the securities law. As a 
result of there being no explicit prohibition on insider trading, much 
of the law that has grown up around this is court-made law.
  I know I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say we are here to 
make the laws of the land and, hopefully, guard that job jealously.
  This is a good fix, but, to me, it was important how it was done. The 
Senate is controlled by the Republican Party. The House is controlled 
by the Democratic Party.
  It was very important to me to get Republican support for this bill, 
number one, because I believe that that is the way that we get good, 
resilient legislation done and, number two, because it afforded me the 
opportunity to work very closely with people like Ranking Member 
McHenry and my Republican colleagues on the Financial Services 
Committee in a larger effort to build the trust and to build the 
relationships that, hopefully, will open the aperture for us doing more 
of these bipartisan things.
  We do two big things around here: We stand by the values that our 
parties represent, but, at the end of the day, we try to come together 
to get something done. Honestly, in the years I have been here, we have 
done way too much of the former and not enough of the latter.
  I really am very pleased with the way this bill has turned out. I 
think it has a shot of becoming law if we can get the Senate to move on 
it. I am delighted by the bipartisan support it has received.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just close by again thanking my Republican 
colleagues, Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado, and hope that this body will 
support this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H9233]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with my friend from 
Connecticut. It has been true that we have spent too much time making 
policy statements and not enough time making policy. That has been true 
under leadership of both parties here. Though, the truth is, Mr. 
Speaker--and because I take great pride in this institution, I want to 
say it--we do spend more time making policy than we get credit for.
  You can't see behind you, Mr. Speaker, but I am looking at the press 
gallery today, all the folks who are covering us reclaiming our Article 
I responsibilities today. We are not going to let the courts legislate 
in this area; we are going to legislate in this area. There is 
approximately one outlet there covering this today; others are 
elsewhere.
  Again, we worked until the eleventh hour to put something together, a 
bipartisan compromise between the chairman and ranking member on the 
Financial Services Committee. The collective national presence to 
highlight that partnership is, again, one.
  I don't know what we can do here to try to let success beget success. 
So often, these kinds of successes go right underneath the radar 
screen, and, thus, it makes it harder to accomplish these things. If I 
could make it clear to America that the tag team of Waters and McHenry 
can come together to get good things done, that certainly sends a 
message that there is hope for all of us in this space.
  I want to go back to what my friend from Colorado said, though. He is 
absolutely right about the widow's tax. We did incorporate that bill in 
the NDAA. It has been sitting in the Senate doing nothing.
  I wish we would have passed it as a stand-alone bill. That is a 
different conversation for a different day.
  But it is sitting in the Senate, and there is nothing I can do, Mr. 
Speaker, to move the Senate along any faster. I can't get their 
conferees to work any harder.
  But what I can do is I can get the House to take up the Senate-passed 
NDAA, and we can take back the authority in this institution to move 
the NDAA forward. It is important for the widow's tax, but, Mr. 
Speaker, it is important for so many other things absolutely essential 
to the defense of this country.
  It has been one of those bills that we have come together in a 
bipartisan way to be successful on decade after decade after decade, 
and it is a stain on the success of the House and the Senate this cycle 
that we have not been able to move that forward in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, in the same way that I can't speak to 
insider trading in that legislation any better than the gentleman from 
Connecticut does as a member of jurisdiction, I also cannot speak to 
the NDAA in any better words than my friend from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), 
a former member of the Rules Committee, the Conference chairman for the 
House Republicans here, and an unabashed defender of providing the very 
best for our men and women in uniform.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. 
Cheney).
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Woodall, for yielding. I miss our time together on the Rules Committee. 
I look forward to a Rules Committee under majority leadership in the 
near future, and we would like to have Mr. Woodall back. I thank him 
for all of his great service to our Nation and to this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will amend the 
rule and begin immediate consideration of the 2020 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I urge the House to move forward on this measure and 
give our men and women in uniform the resources they deserve and tools 
they need to defend all of us.
  As matters stand, Mr. Speaker, we are facing a grave situation. 
Combining the already delayed NDAA with the most recent continuing 
resolution is bad enough. But further delay on this defense bill, 
combined with the potential of yet one more continuing resolution, 
that, Mr. Speaker, is a national security nightmare.
  Timely, stable, adequate funding is a prerequisite for a strong 
military. It is the first step toward ensuring the security of each and 
every American. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we, as a 
body, fulfill this, our most important constitutional duty, which is to 
provide for the common defense. If we fail to do so, nothing else we do 
in this body will matter.
  If this Chamber fails to do so, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the 
Democrats will be held to account. The partisan tactics and the 
baseless impeachment exercises we have seen will be to blame. Speaker 
Pelosi's leadership has cast a cloud over the defense authorization and 
appropriations processes in this body.
  In July, Mr. Speaker, the House voted on a hyperpartisan defense bill 
on an unprecedented party-line basis. This legislation was loaded with 
poison pills, but it did not have to be this way. The Senate passed its 
bill on a bipartisan basis, carrying on a decades-long tradition.
  Then, as if this partisanship on the defense bill wasn't enough, 
Democrats decided to begin a closed-door impeachment inquiry, an 
inquiry which has served only to distract and delay the NDAA process 
further.
  Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but the Democrats have hijacked the 
Intelligence Committee, one of the single most important committees in 
this body responsible for the security of this Nation. They have 
hijacked it with an impeachment process that we have now seen as an 
absolute and clear waste of valuable time, with huge costs to the 
American people.
  Think for a moment about the sacrifices our men and women in uniform 
are making right now, as I speak. Our troops are hunting down ISIS and 
al-Qaida terrorists; they are deterring rogue regimes; and they are 
working with vital allies around the world. They are securing the 
freedom of millions of Americans.
  Ensuring their ability to do so is not a matter for partisan tactics 
or delay. Protecting our men and women on the front lines should be 
Congress' first priority. Unfortunately, our men and women in uniform 
are, once again, being held hostage in order for the Democrats to chase 
an impeachment fantasy.
  The fact is that our adversaries are not pressing pause. China and 
Russia are developing hypersonic strike weapons, modernizing their 
nuclear forces, advancing their air and missile defenses, and 
increasingly making advances in emerging technologies such as 
artificial intelligence.
  These threats will not go away. In fact, the longer our national 
security is subject to partisan distractions, the harder it will become 
for America to match and overpower these threats.
  When Democrats choose partisanship over providing for our Nation's 
security, as they have since this Congress was sworn in, they are 
helping the Chinese, the Russians, rogue regimes, and terrorist groups. 
The American people will hold the Democrats accountable for their gross 
neglect of our constitutional obligations.
  Mr. Speaker, we must act now to pass a bipartisan NDAA to support our 
troops and to strengthen our security.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the body that we are here to talk about 
insider trading prohibition and not specifically the National Defense 
Authorization Act. But let's talk about some of the differences between 
the House and the Senate that my colleague from Wyoming would, 
apparently, just give up.
  She doesn't, apparently, care or is recommending that we forget about 
the widow's tax, which the gentleman from Georgia has really eloquently 
discussed the need for it. But, obviously, that is something that is in 
the House-passed bill and not in the Senate bill.
  Secondly, in the House-passed bill, there is parental leave for 
members of our military. That certainly is not part of the Senate bill.
  There is a whole section on upgrading and improving military housing 
for

[[Page H9234]]

those who serve our Nation and protect us; and I know there is a 
specific provision in there to assist nuclear weapons workers who have 
become sick or ill due to all the toxicity and radiation that they 
suffered during, particularly, the Cold War period and, since then, in 
dealing with our nuclear weapons arsenal.
  I would suggest to the gentlewoman from Wyoming that she is just 
wrong on wanting to give up, recede, and let the Senate control all of 
this. Those priorities are serious priorities for the men and women of 
our military, for our nuclear weapons workers, and for widows. I 
appreciate her comments.
  We certainly want to see the National Defense Authorization Act 
passed as quickly as possible, but it, like so many other things, has 
gotten stuck in the Republican majority Senate: 275 bills, minimum, 
bipartisan in nature, sitting on Senate Majority Mitch McConnell's 
desk, no action having been taken.

  I would say that there is a lot of bipartisan legislation that 
certainly can be passed today if the Senate majority leader would 
actually take some action instead of just sitting there doing nothing.
  But coming back to this particular piece of legislation, this is a 
good bill; it is done in collaboration between Democrats and 
Republicans; and it needs to be passed. I would urge that we need to 
proceed with this process, move forward, get this rule passed, so we 
can get on with this particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was walking down the hall one day between the Capitol 
and the Budget Committee room, and I was walking with the now-chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Mr. Yarmuth from Kentucky. We were arguing 
because he is a committed budgeteer and I am a committed budgeteer. We 
were arguing about process and how it was that we were going to deliver 
the results that our constituents are demanding and that the Nation 
expects.
  We were about halfway down that tunnel, past all that brilliant 
artwork that high schoolers send in, when we realized that we were 
saying exactly the same thing. I was just saying it in Republican 
terms; he was saying it in Democrat terms. We had been arguing then for 
about 5 minutes on what should have been bringing us together.
  We end up in that space a lot here. Because my friend from Colorado 
does work so hard to reach out and be collaborative, I want to make 
sure that he didn't misunderstand my friend from Wyoming.

                              {time}  1245

  I could hear the frustration in her voice. My friend did not have the 
pleasure of serving with her on the Rules Committee, but when national 
security issues came up, she has been living this commitment as a 
member of the committee. When we do a continuing resolution, for my 
friend and me it is about an extra 2 weeks to solve disagreements. For 
her it is 2 weeks of lost ability to plan for national security.
  When we get things done by December 31 and a deadline, we think of 
this as a great success. For her, it is an entire quarter that we 
couldn't plan for new threats and new challenges that are confronting 
the U.S. intelligence and defense establishment.
  It is not just personal, it is truly life and death in a national 
security way.
  If we defeat the previous question, what the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
was proposing is that we take up the Senate bill and amend it with all 
of those ideas that our conferees have already gotten together on.
  Now, my friend is correct. The Senate has some challenges. I would 
argue it is a challenge that nobody has 60 votes over there, and so 
whether Republicans are leading the Senate or Democrats are leading the 
Senate, there is still no ability to move things past the filibuster 
threshold. But we can take up that bill, because I would say it is 
Democrats in the Senate holding it up. My friend from Colorado might 
say it is Republicans in the Senate holding it up. But we all agree 
that it is critically important that we get it done. So I don't want to 
slow down the insider trading bill, Mr. Speaker, and that is not what I 
am suggesting.
  What I am suggesting is: If we defeat the previous question, we have 
already got section 1 and section 2 of the rule that covers the insider 
trading bill. Let's add a section 3 to the rule. In the same way the 
insider trading bill reclaims Article I responsibility from Article III 
courts, section 3 is going to reclaim from the Senate the House 
prerogative to move forward on legislation. We will bring up the Senate 
bill, we will add in all of the amendments that the Democratic chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee and the Republican ranking member want 
to include, and then we will move that bill forward.
  Mr. Speaker, the insider trading bill is important, and we are going 
to get that done together. National security is even more important.
  Again, while it is not the subject of national news coverage, this is 
something we have gotten done in a bipartisan collaborative way no 
matter who runs the U.S. House, no matter who runs the U.S. Senate, and 
no matter who sits in the White House for almost 60 years. Every single 
year bills fail, bills succeed, Presidents come, and Presidents go. We 
have gotten this done because it is important to 330 million Americans.
  Keep section 1 of the rule and keep section 2 of the rule. Let's move 
forward on the bipartisan product of the Financial Services Committee. 
Let's add section 3. Let's defeat the previous question, let's reclaim 
from the Senate the NDAA papers, let's move forward with a House 
amendment, and let's send the Senate a bill that they can pass 
tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't see any other speakers, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers as well, 
so I will close. I assume that was my friend's closing.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have got my Mars 2033 bumper sticker here 
if we are prepared to talk about other collaborative things moving 
forward, but I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, along with Mr. Woodall, I want to thank my colleagues 
for joining me here today to speak on the rule and the Insider Trading 
Prohibition Act.
  The Insider Trading Prohibition Act has been a long time coming. 
Since passage of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the SEC has 
relied on its antifraud statute and mounting case law without an 
explicit statute prohibiting insider trading. This legislation provides 
the clarity our regulators need in order to do their job and ensure the 
fundamental foundation of fairness and transparency in our financial 
system. We owe it to our constituents to ensure that their savings in 
the stock market are on an equal footing with all investors.
  My friend from Georgia and I have spent a lot of time talking about 
bipartisanship today and how we can work together across party lines to 
tackle the tough issues facing our constituents. That is what the House 
has been doing this year under the Democratic majority. We have passed 
over 275 bipartisan bills that are sitting on the Senate majority 
leader's desk awaiting action in the Senate. These 275 bills represent 
progress that the Democratic majority is delivering for the people to 
strengthen the health, economic security, and well-being of every 
family in every community in America.
  The House has passed bipartisan and commonsense gun violence 
prevention bills, we have strengthened background checks, we have 
passed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and we have 
passed dozens of bipartisan bills to care for our Nation's veterans. We 
want to see those particular pieces of legislation move from the Senate 
to the White House and be passed into law for all Americans.
  I hope the Insider Trading Prohibition Act doesn't get caught up in 
this graveyard over in the Senate and is instead taken up quickly by 
the Senate along with all these other important bipartisan bills our 
colleagues have worked together to pass this year.
  I appreciate the bipartisan nature of Mr. Himes and Mr. McHenry in 
coming

[[Page H9235]]

together with this particular piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                        Amendment to H. Res. 739

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House being in possession of the official 
     papers, the managers on the part of the House at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on S. 
     1790 shall be, and they are hereby, discharged. It shall then 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order for 
     the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee, 
     after consultation with the ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services, to move that the House recede 
     from its amendment and agree to an amendment to the Senate 
     bill (S. 1790). The motion shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question except for one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________