[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7120-7128]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1062, SEC REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY 
                                  ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 216

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant 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. 1062) to improve the consideration by the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission of the costs and benefits 
     of its regulations and orders. 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. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-10. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such 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 amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester, 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 216 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 1062. This rule provides for discussion and 
opportunities for every single Member of the majority and the minority 
to participate in this debate. We made in order every single germane 
amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today is really quite simple. 
It is a commonsense solution to preventing unnecessary and overly 
burdensome government regulation, or perhaps an opportunity to 
understand why the government might be perpetrating a rule that would 
impact our free enterprise system. It requires the SEC to perform cost-
benefit analysis before finalizing any major rule. It also prevents the 
implementation of the rule if the benefits do not outweigh the costs.
  Through this bill, the American taxpayer will be protected from 
needless regulations that would impede economic growth without 
providing effective consumer protections. In other words, Mr. Speaker, 
we're here to ensure that the SEC provides balance with the rules and 
regulations that are in a major context when it issues these rules on 
the marketplace.
  In January of 2011, President Obama signed an executive order 
directing all non-independent agencies, such as the Department of 
Energy, the Department of Education, and others, to abide by the same 
rules that we're providing for today in H.R. 1062. However, because it 
is an independent agency, the SEC is not required to follow the 
President's rules.
  The legislation before us today creates parity and opportunity for 
Congress to work with an agency and other non-independent agencies on a 
better way for them to promulgate the rules that they do and show a 
balance in the marketplace, just like the President asked other 
government agencies to do.

                              {time}  0920

  Furthermore, this legislation in no way weakens consumer protections 
or reduces accountability in the financial services industry. To the 
contrary, this proposal ensures that regulations issued by the SEC are 
effective and based on sound policy. Consumers and businesses alike 
will benefit from a reformed regulatory process.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Rules Committee, my friend Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again, another day in the House where we're 
not focused on jobs, where we're not focused on healing our ailing 
economy, where we're not focused on the needs of the American people.
  Yesterday, for the 37th time in 2\1/2\ years, this House passed a 
bill overturning the Affordable Care Act. For the 37th time, my 
Republican friends decided to take up time on this House floor 
supporting a meaningless, partisan bill to overturn a law that will 
dramatically improve the health care of millions of Americans and is 
already helping to lower our deficit. Perhaps one day they will wake up 
from their Tea Party fever-dream and move on to more important 
priorities.
  Not only have they wasted time debating a bill that won't be 
considered in the Senate, let alone signed into law, they are willfully 
ignoring the budget process that they were so stridently defending just 
a few months ago. It's been 55 days since the Senate passed its budget 
resolution, yet the Republicans refuse to go to conference to finish 
their work. This is the same Republican Party that passed a bill that 
says Members of Congress cannot be paid if we don't produce a budget. 
Let me repeat: no budget, no pay. Yet the Republicans refuse to finish 
the budget. All this flip-flopping is giving me whiplash, Mr. Speaker.
  And today, we are presented with a bill, along with a whopping three 
amendments made in order. So much for an open process. Whatever 
happened to open rules?
  So let's take a look at today's bill. It is a bill that would require 
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to conduct even more 
extensive cost-benefit analyses than it already does when proposing any 
rule or when issuing interpretive guidance. Who could be against cost-
benefit analysis? That seems like a commonsense idea, one that has 
merit and should be considered by agencies.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, here is where the devil is really in the details. 
The SEC already does cost-benefit analyses on these rulings and 
regulations. It is already happening. So what's the real purpose of 
this bill? Is there a problem

[[Page 7121]]

with the way the SEC is handling these cost-benefit analyses?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is really about putting more burdens on the 
SEC as they are attempting to fulfill their mandates under Dodd-Frank 
and do their job to protect investors. This bill places additional 
burdens on the SEC to meet these new requirements--and I'd like to 
point out--without providing any additional budget resources.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill 
will cost the SEC $23 million over 5 years and will require the hiring 
of 20 additional staff. This is while sequestration is causing the 
Federal Government to shrink and agencies to furlough staff. In fact, 
right now sequestration is actually preventing the SEC from hiring any 
more additional staff, the same additional staff that would be needed 
to implement this bill if it were ever to become law.
  I can only presume that the authors of this bill are attempting to 
bog the SEC down with additional, unnecessary, and redundant mandates 
in order to prevent the SEC from doing its job of protecting investors. 
This bill actually steers the SEC's work toward minimizing costs to big 
businesses and investment banks. That's what this does. How is that 
protecting the individual investor?
  For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Republican leadership 
wants to undermine the efforts of this agency to protect the individual 
investor. We're coming out of a historic recession, the worst economic 
crisis since the Great Depression.
  A big reason for the recession was the recklessness of investment 
banks and financial institutions. Millions of Americans lost money they 
had put into the stock market and entrusted to banks and financial 
institutions because of these institutions' reckless actions. We're 
talking about college savings, retirement accounts, and other nest 
eggs. Yet the Republican leadership would rather take the side of these 
reckless financial institutions that brought financial and economic 
ruin to our Nation, our communities, and our families than stand up and 
fight for the individual investor--the little guy. They'd rather fight 
for Wall Street than stand up for Main Street.
  Mr. Speaker, that's not the right thing to do. We should pass a 
budget instead; we should pass the Van Hollen sequestration replacement 
bill; we should pass a jobs bill; but we should not be wasting our time 
on a bill that will punish individual investors in order to protect big 
banks.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. I urge my 
Republican friends to, some time soon, take up some legislation that's 
going to help put America back to work and get our economy back on the 
right track.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the gentleman who 
brings up many good points about jobs, job creation, the ability for 
this Congress to be able to effectively hear from the American people 
about the issues and ideas that they're facing, come to resolution in 
this body, work with our friends in the Senate, and to get legislation 
to the President of the United States. I think that should be and has 
been what our goal is about, and it should be our goal also to find 
common ground.
  What's interesting is that this piece of legislation that we're 
handling now actually went to the banking committee, Financial Services 
Committee, as an agreement we more or less thought would be a 
suspension item; in other words, a piece of legislation that there was 
widespread agreement on that it would be good to put in the rules as 
one of a group of pieces of legislation, this would be a good idea to 
have the SEC accept this as part of what they do when they issue a 
rule.
  Now what's happened is it has turned into a larger fight as a result 
of us wanting to simply make sure that the rules that apply to other 
Federal agencies also apply to independent agencies. So we thought we 
were doing the right thing to come and work together, and it's fair, I 
guess, I assume, to do that, even though we are trying to talk about 
this rule today.
  If we want to talk about the budget and things that are presently 
being evolved, then we need to listen to our Democratic friends about 
the budget. They're not happy because we passed in this House an 
opportunity to have a budget that in the next 10 years would balance, a 
balanced budget.
  The gentleman Paul Ryan, the chairman of the Budget Committee, came 
up to the Rules Committee and he spoke about how this President, every 
single year that Barack Obama is President, with the help of former 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, raised spending, put rules and 
regulations on the American people that are causing the lowest level of 
job creation that we've had in over 40 years, a trillion-dollar deficit 
every single year. And even with this massive tax increase that was a 
signing bonus for the President that took place in December, we still 
are going to run a trillion-dollar deficit. So what my friends, the 
Democrats, said upstairs in the Rules Committee, what they're for is 
raising spending another trillion dollars and raising taxes another 
trillion dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I do understand there's widespread disagreement. There's 
widespread disagreement when our friends that control the Senate, the 
Democrats, want to do the exact same thing in their body to this 
country, raising spending another trillion dollars, raising taxes 
another trillion dollars.

                              {time}  0930

  So they make a good point. Why won't we appoint conferees?
  Well, Speaker Pelosi, back in 2009, took more than 2 months to do the 
exact same thing that they want us to do.
  What is occurring is that our chairman, Paul Ryan, is working with 
their chairman on the agreement of how they would go about doing their 
job of having a conference on the budget because, you see, when you 
start so far apart, of trying to balance the budget, trying to not put 
more rules and regulations and taxes on the American people to where 
they stand a better chance, not only of taking care of their own 
families, and providing for their children to go to college and to be 
able to pay for it, and to take care of their lifetime needs when they 
retire, that requires a basic sense of simply agreeing with what people 
are trying to do versus having the government come and provide a 
government-run health care system, having the government provide 
student loans, having the government expand government and take care of 
people endlessly.
  And so there's two different visions, one of raising taxes $1 
trillion, raising spending $1 trillion, which is what the Democrats 
want to do, versus trying to balance our budget, work our way out of 
problems, grow our economy, jobs, job creation and investment. That's 
what we're trying to do, and that's what Republicans talked about last 
month.
  That's why we came forth with a budget when the Senate hadn't even 
done a budget, under Democrat leadership, for 4 years.
  That's why we are leaders in Washington. Republicans are leaders in 
the House of Representatives. We maintain the control. We follow the 
order and listen to the American people of trying to make their lives 
better, not grow a government that will be out of control, like an 
Attorney General who, upon taking the oath of office, then decides when 
he does and when he does not want to make decisions, and whether he 
recuses himself; or whether you have an IRS that's out of control and 
in people's lives and making decisions that are politically based.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why we need a government that is 
smaller, more efficient, and does not have time or the inclination to 
become all things to all people, and to tell the American people what 
they will do and control our lives. That's why we're here today.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't be happier than to say today we're on 
the floor trying to talk about what we thought was an idea that would 
be accepted by every single person in this body as a great idea.

[[Page 7122]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit confused. The gentleman 
from Texas says he wants a smaller government, yet the bill that he's 
proposing here that we discuss on the floor actually will cost the 
American taxpayers more.
  CBO says we need an additional $23 million for this additional 
bureaucracy that the gentleman has embraced. We're going to need to 
hire 20 new employees, according to CBO, in order to meet these new 
requirements.
  So if you want a smaller government, here we are expanding 
government. But they're expanding government in a way that will hurt 
the little guy and protect Wall Street, which is to be expected.
  Just one thing I want to say to make clear to my colleagues, in case 
anybody's a little bit confused here as well on the issue of the 
process. The way the process is supposed to work, when it comes to the 
budget, we pass a budget in the House, the Senate passes a budget in 
the Senate, then you go to conference and you work out the differences. 
And guess what? In a conference, you don't get everything you want, and 
we don't get everything we want, especially when there's a divided 
government, the way it is right now. Compromise is something that has 
to take place.
  And so I would just take issue with the gentleman when he says that 
Republicans are leaders. Republicans aren't leaders. Republicans are 
obstructionists. You're holding everything up.
  We're doing meaningless, sound-bite, press-release legislation day in 
and day out, not helping put one more American back to work, not 
alleviating any of the difficulties that the middle class is dealing 
with right now.
  My friends are obstructing everything. They're holding things up. 
They're delaying the economic recovery. It is unconscionable that we 
are on the floor doing things that are going nowhere and that are 
helping no one.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. McGovern, I thank you so much for aptly describing 
what is happening on the floor today relative to the SEC.
  Since its passage, Republicans have introduced dozens upon dozens of 
bills to undermine, repeal, or otherwise dismantle Dodd-Frank; and a 
prime example of that is what they're doing on this whole issue of 
cost-benefit analysis.
  We're going to have on the floor today a bill that is going to pile 
more requirements on top of the SEC for economic analysis. We're going 
to have a bill whose real aim is to bog down the SEC so that they won't 
be able to do their work, so that they won't be able to do their 
rulemaking, so that they won't be able to protect investors. This is 
absolutely unconscionable.
  I can understand that there's a lot of disagreement with Dodd-Frank. 
I can understand that there are those on the opposite side of the aisle 
who are concerned about protecting the markets and not necessarily the 
investors.
  But to come up with the kind of obstruction that we're seeing, not 
only legislatively, but going so far as to team up with their friends 
and go into court, as they have done on proxy access, and get a ruling 
against proxy access so that they can, basically, have this bill come 
to the floor today, where they put requirement on top of requirement, 
costing more money, as Mr. McGovern has said, costing more time, and 
diverting the attention away from the work that the SEC should be 
doing.
  I am particularly concerned about the Jobs Act, the jobs bill. Yes, 
on the jobs bill, we have a bipartisan effort, and many Democrats 
joined up with Republicans on this bill, even though there were some 
concerns about it, so that we could try and see if we could use a new 
approach to creating jobs. But that's going to get delayed because now 
they're attacking the SEC.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I think it's very interesting 
that they're trying to argue that we're trying to get in the way of the 
SEC. Yet the SEC, in their rules and regulations, have put an impact on 
small business of $1.75 trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is apply the same principles and 
ideas that President Obama had to an agency that spends its life doing 
rules and regulations. And to say that doing their job correctly, with 
a balance, is something that we shouldn't require them to do is a silly 
argument.
  That's like saying that Republicans and sequestration--when it was a 
President Obama idea. It is the President's idea. Sequestration--he's 
the one that proposed it. We're the ones that simply took him up on his 
idea. And he signed it into law.
  They're arguing with themselves about the things which are good. Once 
again, the President initiated sequestration. We worked with the 
President as a back-stop. There we are.
  The President issues this same ruling, asking agencies to please make 
sure they include cost-benefit analysis, but don't apply it later to 
someone who spends their life doing rules and regulations.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. Speaker, it's an amazing world that we live in. We thought, the 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling, after 
testimony in meetings and in feedback thought, the SEC actually agreed 
with this. We simply put it in as something they ought to be doing on a 
regular basis.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have right now a gentleman from the committee who 
has spent time and heard the testimony and understands that this should 
be a piece of legislation that we all agree with because it's common 
sense.
  I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, a member of 
Financial Services, Mr. McHenry.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  This debate is actually really absolutely bizarre. President Obama 
asked for a cost-benefit analysis for independent regulatory agencies 
in an executive order. It's absolutely bizarre because the chairman of 
the SEC, then Mary Schapiro, committed in writing to Congressman 
Garrett, Congressman Issa, and me, committed in writing to a cost-
benefit analysis. Chairman Schapiro even in September of 2011 agreed to 
a retrospective review of offering and reporting requirements and 
posting this on a Web page seeking public input.
  So the complaints from the other side of the aisle seem absolutely 
bizarre because we have commitments. What we're trying to do is codify 
in law what was a process a former chairman of the SEC committed to. We 
want to make sure that this is not ad hoc, that it goes forward, that 
it's in the statute, and that it's clear. Why are we doing this? Well, 
we've heard from the other side of the aisle that we need to focus on 
investor protection.
  There's the other part of the SEC which is supposed to foster capital 
formation. Now, what is capital formation? Capital formation is the 
capacity, or the ability, of a business to get the moneys they need to 
grow and employ more people and to offer more products or more 
services. It's the money a business needs, the investors of the 
business need, in order to grow and help get this economy moving. I 
thought that's what we're all about. We hear speech after speech from 
the President that's what he's all about. But we hear from the other 
side of the aisle that they don't like this approach because they're 
not focused on that, which is unfortunate.
  The reason why we're putting this in statute is that the SEC too 
often just puts rules into place without consideration of the cost. 
Their process has never been formalized until the last 2 years of 
actually weighing both the costs and benefits of a rule. They simply 
say they're benefits. Well, we all know, and I hope the other side of 
the aisle would admit, that there is a cost to regulation. I would hope 
that they would admit that.
  Now, I will give you an example: regulation A is the ability of small 
businesses to get capital from the public markets. Regulation A in 1998 
gave 57

[[Page 7123]]

offerings through regulation A. It meant 58 businesses getting money 
from outside investors through this regulation. This is for the smaller 
size businesses. By 2001, you only had one take advantage of this 
regulation A to get moneys for their small- and medium-sized 
businesses.
  Well, what happened? The market changed, but the SEC, because they 
were not obligated to, did not review their rules. They did not update 
their rules. They did not think about the cost of cutting off capital 
to small businesses that absolutely, desperately need this, mainly 
because of the changing nature of the economy and the impact of the 
awful Dodd-Frank act that has imposed enormous cost burdens on banks, 
and so we have less banks lending so businesses need a different 
opportunity to get money.
  So what we're putting in place is a 5-year review of those rules so 
the SEC is forced to weigh both the costs and benefits of these 
regulations, and we can get this economy moving again and capital 
flowing again. That's what it's really all about. That's not a great 
deal of fuss; but we have folks on the other side of the aisle that 
simply want to make a fuss about that, which is unfortunate.
  We need to be focused on capital formation. We need to be focused on 
making sure that we foster regulations and review regulations so that 
we can get this economy moving again. That's what this is all about.
  I would say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle who raised 
the question of the cost of this, what this cost comes from is what the 
SEC says, right, that it's going to cost us additional money to review 
these regulations, implicitly saying that they have regulations on the 
books that they don't review, that they don't look back on a regular 
basis and see if they actually fit to the modern marketplace. And we 
have rules on the books that have been on the books for over 80 years. 
So I think it's high time we forced the SEC to do something that is 
responsible, that is right, and that even this President has called 
for.
  I hope the folks on the other side of the aisle would join us in 
making sure that we have this bill pass on a unanimous basis. With 
that, I would also encourage us to pass this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, talk about bizarre, the notion that a bill 
comes to the floor, that CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office, says is going to cost $20 million, there will be a need for 
additional employees, and there's nothing in this bill that will cover 
those costs, and on top of that my friends who, by the way, embraced 
sequestration, that's your plan, I would say to my colleague from 
Texas. That's not the President's plan. It was the Members of this 
House led by the majority here that voted for it.
  To everybody who doesn't like it over there, guess what? You're in 
charge. Fix it. Bring something to the floor and fix it. Mr. Van Hollen 
has an alternative. You won't even let us bring it to the floor. So 
don't complain about something that you supported and you voted for and 
now you don't want to fix.
  Just one other thing. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that 
this isn't about protecting small businesses. This is about protecting 
Wall Street, big banks, and big financial institutions. I get it, you 
know. That's nothing new coming from the other side of the aisle. But 
that's what this is about.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  With today's legislation, the majority is putting the interests of 
Wall Street, once again, before the welfare of the American people. 
Unfortunately, the majority's desire to give a helping hand to Wall 
Street is nothing new. In addition to today's legislation, the majority 
has repeatedly provided favors to a shadowy arm of Wall Street known as 
the political intelligence industry.
  Over the last few weeks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and 
The Wall Street Journal have all reported on a suspicious surge in 
stock prices caused by operatives in the political intelligence 
industry. On April 1, a political intelligence consultant sent an email 
to selected investors announcing a pending change in government policy 
that would benefit health insurance companies.
  Shortly after that email was sent--actually 18 minutes before the 
stock market closed that day--stocks in three major health insurance 
companies skyrocketed by--hold the phone--$660 million. In 18 minutes 
before the close of trading that day, three health industries got 
investments of $660 million; and that occurred 30 minutes before the 
government announced its decision.
  Now, earlier this week, we learned that the political intelligence 
consultant sent a subsequent email boasting to his lobbyist friend: 
``Did you see what I did to the stock market in the final 30 minutes of 
trading? I still want to buy you a drink.''
  Now, this is exactly the kind of questionable case that I have been 
fighting for 7 years, and we finally got the STOCK Act; but my point 
this morning is that the SEC has launched an investigation into this 
matter. There would be no cost-benefit whatever to having the SEC stop 
looking into this bill and what happened to the stock markets that day 
because of political intelligence so they can look back over ancient 
laws. There would be no cost-benefit having the SEC so tied up with 
that that they cannot regulate that which they are supposed to regulate 
had they done a better job. The recent financial disaster that cost us 
an awful lot and would have been a great benefit to stop was not caught 
in time.

                              {time}  0950

  The political intelligence industry walks the Halls of Congress every 
day looking to privately profit from the public trust. However, unlike 
lobbyists, there are no regulations to ensure they adhere to any 
ethical standard of behavior.
  Months before I introduced the STOCK Act in 2006 there were 
suspicious Wall Street trades occurring immediately prior to the Senate 
Majority Leader announcing an important vote on asbestos liability 
legislation. It soon became apparent that nonpublic information 
regarding the legislation had been used to enrich stockholders, and the 
political intelligence industry was at the heart of the case.
  We had a lonely battle, those of us--there were seven of us for three 
terms that cosponsored the bill. But in 2011, a television program 
called ``60 Minutes'' did an expose on insider trading by Congress. And 
overnight, just about--well, maybe by the end of the week, I'd say--we 
had 286 cosponsors in the House, including 99 Republican cosponsors.
  As the bill gained popularity, I was promised a markup in the 
Financial Services Committee, but it was canceled, pulled out from 
under the chair. In the Senate, Senator Grassley joined our cause. And 
when Senator Lieberman took it out of the Senate bill, Senator Grassley 
had an amendment that passed the Senate, putting political intelligence 
back into the STOCK Act. However, it still had to come back to the 
House. And miraculously, political intelligence was removed once more 
to benefit Wall Street. It was put on the suspension calendar, 
completely unamendable. I could do nothing about it. It is very painful 
for me. At least I've been paying attention here to what I have seen 
happening since. So I promise you that we will come back again with it, 
but as I said, I'm pleased that the SEC is investigating this most 
recent case.
  Two days ago, I tried to do an amendment on this particular bill to 
see if we could bring political intelligence back. It would have helped 
the SEC build the insider trading investigations, but the majority in 
the Rules Committee rejected my amendment and we go on today, as usual, 
without it.
  We also go on today with a bill that's never going to go to the 
Senate. As I pointed out yesterday on our 38th try to repeal the health 
care bill, that cost us $54 million on that particular bill alone, and 
every time that we have

[[Page 7124]]

tried to repeal it--$54 million has been spent to try to repeal 
Medicare.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. CBS has said it costs about $25 million to run the 
House. I really would like to find out how much House time we've paid 
and how many millions of dollars we've spent since this term started 
with bills like this, one House bill--one House bill that we know the 
Senate will never take up, will never become law. And if by some fluke 
they should, the President tells us that he will veto it--over and over 
and over again.
  I could be mistaken with one or two things, but to the best of my 
recollection the only thing we've done here this term that got some 
action in both Houses was when we changed the FAA policy under 
sequestration. And I join my friend, Mr. McGovern, to say what we 
should have done is do away with sequestration. Maybe the freshmen who 
wanted to vote again to repeal the health care bill might have gotten 
some joy out of lifting sequestration and letting cancer patients again 
get their treatment and children go to Head Start. I'd like to try to 
do it that way. Talk about cost benefit--that's a benefit. If we really 
want to worry about how much it cost and what we get from it, nothing 
could prove that better than to lift sequestration.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in order to balance out the time, I'm 
going to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  I've got to say, listening to my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, they give revisionist history a bad name. They want us all to 
somehow forget how the recession began and on whose watch. It began 
under George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. It ended under Barack Obama.
  My friend from Texas talks about the job loss. That was on George W. 
Bush's watch, when we were losing almost 700,000 jobs a month. On 
average, this year, we've been creating 208,000 jobs a month--and it 
would be more but for the Republican gutting of public sector 
investment that's already cost us 600,000 jobs and shaved a full point 
off unemployment. In other words, unemployment would be one point lower 
than it is today but for their efforts.
  They want you to forget the Wall Street meltdown that required TARP--
on their watch. Now they decry Dodd-Frank as if it caused the meltdown, 
that it is this hobnail boot on the jugular of the poor banking 
community and investment community and Wall Street, which, if removed, 
would unleash unparalleled economic activity--the consumer and the 
investor, not so much.
  Let's call this bill what it is--a naked attempt to undermine the 
investor and consumer protections of Dodd-Frank and tilt the table once 
again in favor of Wall Street, at the direct expense of Main Street 
investors.
  This bill would render what should be the SEC's primary focus--
investor protection--an ephemeral objective at best. Why else would 
this bill codify some of the best practices of the executive order, but 
then conveniently omit any assessment of the benefits accrued by 
greater investor protection?
  They want you to believe the narrative that regulation only involves 
cost. But regulation also includes benefits to protect investors, to 
protect homeowners, to protect senior citizens. That's why AARP has 
expressed concern about this bill. That's why we should defeat the 
rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You know, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to 
put in writing exactly what the gentleman talked about why are they 
promulgating the rule, what effects would their rule have, and why what 
they do makes sense and is in a balanced way. That's what we're trying 
to do here today. It makes sense to me. I wish it made sense to more 
people in this body.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think what's going 
on here is basically that my Republican friends are trying to expand 
the bureaucracy and potentially charge the American taxpayers $23 
million. But they're not going to provide the money, and so they're 
just going to bog down an agency that is designed to protect investors 
and consumers. I think that's the game here. This is about protecting 
big banks and Wall Street and big financial institutions. It's the 
same-old, same-old. This is nothing new for those who have been 
following the agenda of the House Republicans.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous 
question. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 174, Representative Chris Van 
Hollen's resolution, telling the Speaker to appoint conferees to 
negotiate a compromise budget agreement with the Senate.
  It has been 55 days since the Senate passed a budget. My Republican 
friends made a big deal about the fact that we shouldn't be paid unless 
we pass a budget. The House has passed a budget, the Senate has passed 
a budget, but my Republican friends don't want to go to conference 
because they don't believe in compromise.
  So to discuss the importance of starting the budget negotiations with 
the Senate, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts.
  There has been a lot of talk on the floor this morning about the 
sequester and the negative impact it's having on the economy. I would 
remind my colleagues, as my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) 
did, that on four occasions the House Democrats have tried to bring to 
this floor for a vote a bill that would replace the sequester, end the 
disruption, and end the job loss that the Congressional Budget Office 
says is coming with the sequester.
  This morning we're going to ask this House to take a simple vote on 
another resolution, and I'm going to read it because it's really 
simple. It says:

       Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Speaker should follow regular House 
     procedure and immediately request a conference and appoint 
     conferees to negotiate a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution 
     agreement with the United States Senate.

  Now, we all stood on this floor and heard our Republican colleagues 
criticize the United States Senate for 3 years because they did not 
have a budget. Well, guess what? The United States Senate passed a 
budget more than 53 days ago. But now what's happened is the Speaker of 
this House has refused to go to conference to negotiate a final budget.
  We heard for weeks and weeks the mantra, ``No budget, no pay.'' 
Apparently, that was a meaningless cry because as of right now there is 
no Federal budget and Members of the House and the Senate are still 
getting paid. Did you mean it or did you not mean it?

                              {time}  1000

  We heard complaints about how the President's budget was late this 
year. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We are now way overdue in getting a 
resolution out of conference committee. If you look at the statute, the 
law, on the budget, it says the House and Senate are supposed to have 
completed conference action by April 15. We are way overdue. And the 
only reason we are overdue is because this House and the Speaker of 
this House refuses to appoint conferees.
  The Senate Democrats on eight occasions, Mr. Speaker, have asked for 
unanimous consent in the Senate to go to conference, and they have been 
blocked over there. It is getting to be a little embarrassing to some 
of the Republican Senators.
  I just want to show you a quote from Senator McCain just the other 
day: ``I think it's insane for Republicans, who complained for 4 years 
about Harry Reid not having a budget and now we're not going to agree 
to conferees. That is beyond comprehension for me.''
  And guess what, Mr. Speaker? This is getting beyond comprehension to 
the American people, saying one thing and doing another.
  Here's some other Republican Senators:

[[Page 7125]]

  Senator Boozman: ``I think we need to go to conference.''
  Senator Wicker: ``I would say by the end of next week''--that's this 
coming week--``we probably should be ready to go to conference.''
  Senator Coburn: ``I'm okay with going right now.''
  And on and on.
  You would think our House Republican colleagues would begin to feel a 
little sense of that embarrassment as well, given the fact that they 
called for years to get a budget done and now are standing in the way 
of getting that exact budget done.
  In fact, the Speaker of this House on multiple occasions has said we 
should go to conference on the budget, that that's how we resolve 
things in the regular order.
  Here's what the Speaker said on ``Meet the Press'' back in March when 
we were all putting together our budgets, the Senate was putting 
together a budget and the House was putting together a budget: ``It's 
time for us to get back to regular order here in Congress. When the 
House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill; and if we disagree, we 
go to conference to resolve those differences.''
  The Speaker said this on multiple occasions.
  I just want to read again from the resolution I'm asking this House 
to vote on this morning. It says simply: Resolved, that it is the sense 
of the House that the Speaker should follow regular House procedure and 
appoint the conferees that he told the country on national television 
he would do in order to make sure that we get on with the fundamental 
business of this country and pass a Federal budget. Not just a House 
budget, not just a Senate budget. Those things are meaningless by 
themselves. You've got to get a Federal budget.
  It turns out that this ``no budget, no pay'' thing was really just a 
kind of ``wink-wink'' knowing, hey, the House can pass a budget, the 
Senate can pass a budget, but it doesn't actually get the job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I just ask, let us have a vote to appoint conferees to 
get on with the Nation's business.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We've turned this debate into some really commonsense ideas, and that 
is, that we ought to have a budget, which is what Republicans have said 
for years. I have no doubt in my mind that when Chairman Paul Ryan of 
the House Budget Committee, when he is ready, when he feels like they 
have worked out an understanding with the chairman----
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You mentioned Chairman Ryan and the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, Patty Murray. Senator Murray was one of the 
people just the other day on the Senate floor asking for unanimous 
consent to go to conference, because she and Chairman Ryan are not in 
the process of trying to negotiate behind closed doors. We need to do 
this in the light of day. And she has asked, along with Senator Reid, 
now eight times to go to conference. So why delay going to conference?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I don't deal with Senator Patty Murray very much, but I 
bet you she has an opportunity to call Paul Ryan if that's what she 
wants.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, she has. She has said, Mr. Speaker, that she 
wants to go to conference right away, and that's why we're waiting for 
the Speaker in this House to go to conference.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And I have every reason to believe that when Paul Ryan 
and Patty Murray work out the differences and decide these things, that 
that can happen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I don't understand. You want them to work out a 
budget behind closed doors?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would remind the gentleman, I'm not involved in those 
conversations. I do know that this is part of your job as the ranking 
member. I respect that, and I would be in favor of it, because I, too, 
want us to have more of a unified budget, a clear understanding, an 
opportunity for us to understand what we're trying to do.
  Regaining my time, I would say to the gentleman and to this body, I 
have every reason to believe that there can be opportunities for our 
two bodies to work together.
  My last point: This ``no budget, no pay,'' it worked. It worked, Mr. 
Speaker. It was the law. The President actually produced a budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. SESSIONS. The House produced a budget. And the Senate produced a 
budget, which they had not done for 4 years. So for 4 years you didn't 
hear our friends screaming and yelling about what the Senate should do 
until a good idea took place, and that is, in essence, ``no work, no 
budget, no pay.''
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield, because we don't have a 
budget right now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Do you know what? We didn't for 4 years either. We did 
not have a budget for 4 years. It is actually not required by law. We 
operated as two bodies--us, we in the House, trying to move forward 
with a budget that we did pass, and the Senate acting like it wasn't 
important.
  I completely agree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think we 
should do it. That's why Republicans came up with the process of ``no 
budget, no pay.''
  I think we will see very quickly an opportunity for the ideas around 
this issue to materialize. We'll find out what the differences are, 
maybe why we haven't done it.
  That's not what this bill is about today. I'll have the 
conversations. I'll be able to speak cogently. And I will tell you that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and, I believe, because I know 
him well, the gentleman from Maryland should have a chance to keep 
doing their work because they believe it's part of the process.
  So I offer nothing but accolades of the gentleman, the young 
gentleman, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. And he 
knows that. He knows what kind of a person I am. I would not say it if 
I didn't believe it.
  But I did not come prepared today on this bill because it is not what 
it is germane about, and I will respond to him. As a Member of House 
Republican leadership, I will tell you that our Speaker is interested 
in moving this body through.
  The gentleman from Ohio understands how important regular order is, 
how important doing budgets is, how making sure that the American 
people have a chance to know what we're doing. I mean, we actually read 
bills before we pass them, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this House 
goes to conference.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas yield for that 
request?
  Mr. SESSIONS. No, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman does not yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Under the 
rules of the House, would it be possible if the gentleman would yield 
for that request that we could go to conference?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas would have to yield 
for any such request and the gentleman from Texas did not yield.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I think that says it all.
  I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend.
  I thank my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee as well. But 
the gentleman, the chairman of the Rules Committee, said the process 
worked, that ``no budget, no pay'' worked.
  I would remind the gentleman, we don't have a budget as of right now. 
And, in fact, we are now out of compliance with our own law, which says 
that the conference committee should report the budget by April 15. I 
think we can check our calendars. We know it's way overdue. And the 
only thing that's stopping us from going to conference right now is the 
Speaker has refused to move forward on this.

                              {time}  1010

  As I indicated, eight times in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader

[[Page 7126]]

and Patty Murray, Senator Murray, the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, have asked for unanimous consent to go to conference. So we 
could get on with this right now, as Mr. McGovern suggested, if our 
Republican colleagues would allow us to offer a motion to go to 
conference by unanimous consent.
  Mr. McGOVERN. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of 
the gentleman from Texas how many more speakers he has.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking. I have 
no additional speakers at this time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I think what we have just witnessed kind of says it all. My 
Republican friends really do not have any intention of going to 
conference. They do not want to compromise. I think they were hoping 
maybe the Senate wouldn't come up with a budget and that they could 
have a talking point or a press release, but the Senate did come up 
with a budget. We have a budget here in the House that I strongly 
disagree with because I think it ruins our economy, but nonetheless, 
that's what the majority in this House voted for. We ought to go to 
conference, and we ought to be able to figure this out.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment to the rule, which would defeat the previous question, 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing: another day 
and another meaningless piece of legislation that is going nowhere. It 
is a piece of legislation, quite frankly, that is geared toward helping 
big banks and big financial institutions at the expense of investors 
and small businesses. This is a bill that, again, I think, may make a 
nice press release for people who want to do big fundraisers, but at 
the end of the day, we are not doing anything to help the American 
people. We still have sequestration in place, there are people being 
furloughed, there are businesses that are losing contracts, there are 
people in the public and private sectors who are being laid off as a 
result of this.
  By the way, sequestration is what my Republican friends embraced and 
voted for. So, when anyone comes to the floor here and says, Oh, we 
don't really like it, I would remind them that, as much as I hate to 
admit this, the Republicans are in charge of the House. They can bring 
a remedy to the floor any time they want to. Mr. Van Hollen has offered 
on many, many occasions an alternative to get us out of sequestration, 
but each time he offers it the Republican majority says ``no.'' You 
don't even have the right to bring it to the floor. You can't even 
debate it on the floor. That's the answer that we're getting, and it is 
totally unacceptable.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so 
we can get Mr. Van Hollen's resolution made in order so that we can go 
to conference and do something meaningful, and I would also urge a 
rejection of this bill.
  I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think the American people are 
getting sick and tired of the majority in this House essentially 
rooting for this economy's demise so they can gain some political 
advantage. I think people are getting tired of it. They are hoping that 
we can come together in the spirit of compromise and get some things 
done--help put people back to work, help the average working family, 
help the middle class, help lift those in poverty out of poverty. 
They're hoping that we're going to do something serious and meaningful 
so that it will make a difference in their lives. We're not doing that, 
and it's a grave disappointment, I think, to people all over this 
country--to Democrats, Republicans, Independents alike.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the bill, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be on the floor today as we approach 
this issue about the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, in 
that we would simply codify in the law an understanding that they would 
need to, as they have the task of addressing the large rules and 
regulations that they have--but not for every rule and regulation--put 
a cost-benefit analysis in their process. It makes sense.
  I find it very amazing that our colleagues have taken this to the 
level that they have in trying to say that we're doing this to be for 
big banks and against the American people or consumers. That is a 
farfetched idea. It is about the rules and regulations that they talk 
about, just like government agencies would be required to have.
  In a larger sense, here is why we are here today. Here is why 
Republicans are doing what we are doing with the budget, with a jobs 
bill that was passed by this body, why we are trying to talk about what 
we would do with sequestration--the President's idea. This House has 
passed numerous times information, our ideas, giving the President the 
ideas about how we think sequestration should work, a debt limit. We 
are faced with another debt limit vote here in our future. Two weeks 
ago, the House talked about how that should be handled. That bill was 
completely mischaracterized.
  The reason we are here is that, under Barack Obama and Democrats, our 
country is having a $1 trillion deficit every year, and there is not 
one year in the future that they can point to in which we would balance 
our budget even for one year. If you cannot balance your budget, if you 
cannot control yourself--your spending habits, your insatiable appetite 
to grow government--then it means that we are on a dangerous 
trajectory.
  Look at this, Mr. Speaker. This is history. This is what lies ahead. 
This is the demise for our children of America being a great Nation. 
This is why Republicans are down here. This is our past. This is our 
future. Republicans are here with ideas about balance, structure, 
working together--the SEC or other agencies working together--to the 
benefit of growing jobs, balance, things that make sense, instead of a 
government that's out of control with an IRS with a political agenda 
and with the Department of Justice abusing its powers that were 
invested in the Constitution's and the Bill of Rights' understanding of 
a balance.
  This reminds me of a prior administration, under Richard Nixon, when 
he used the IRS and the Department of Justice to punish his enemies, 
people he disagreed with.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here on a broad range of ideas, evidently, today. 
When I woke up, I thought it was just about a balanced rule for the 
SEC, for them to apply in their rules and regulations a chance to say 
``cost-benefit analysis'' so that those to whom they provide 
regulations would understand and the SEC would understand for their 
some 175 lawyers and 50 economists who look at the marketplace. Let's 
balance this out. That's what I thought we were here for. Instead, I 
have learned today we are here to talk about the budget, that we are 
here to talk about sequestration, that we are here to talk about a lot 
of things which all embody themselves in: our country is in trouble.
  We are in trouble because the President of the United States is for a 
bigger activist government, for a health care bill that will cause us 
to lose 2 million more jobs and will keep small business smaller. It 
will harm our future. Republicans are here simply with common sense and 
balance today just to talk about the SEC. I welcome the chance for my 
colleagues, as they have done today, to come to the floor.
  The gentleman, Mr. Van Hollen, is one of my closest friends on the 
Hill. He is a man who I work with on a regular basis, and I respect 
him. His ideas related to moving forward on the conference should be 
answered, and I anticipate they will. I simply came unprepared as to 
that answer today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as always, I will finish where I started and say 
Republicans are trying to provide leadership.

[[Page 7127]]

Our great Speaker, John Boehner, does understand regular order and that 
it is important to read bills before you pass them.

                              {time}  1020

  We believe in coming to the floor and talking about ideas before 
problems occur. That's what we've been doing. That's what the Rules 
Committee is about. And the legislation that we have handled since 
January has been all about trying to work together to let the American 
people know we get it. We're going to balance what we do with their 
needs and desires to make sure that this country remains strong and is 
ready for its future because, Mr. Speaker, I, like you, have children 
who need our country to be prepared for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 216 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     House shall consider without intervention of any point of 
     order the resolution (H. Res. 174) expressing the sense of 
     the House of Representatives that the Speaker should 
     immediately request a conference and appoint conferees to 
     complete work on a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution with 
     the Senate. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question except one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 174.
                                  ____


        The Vote On the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . .When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. With that, 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 181, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--181

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur

[[Page 7128]]


     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Clyburn
     Cummings
     Daines
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Garcia
     Gingrey (GA)
     Grayson
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Johnson, Sam
     Labrador
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Nolan
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Quigley
     Scalise
     Scott, David
     Wagner
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1047

  Mr. DeFAZIO and Ms. WILSON of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. WALBERG changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 180, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               AYES--223

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--180

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Clyburn
     Cummings
     Daines
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Garcia
     Gingrey (GA)
     Grayson
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hoyer
     Johnson, Sam
     Labrador
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Nolan
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Quigley
     Rigell
     Scalise
     Scott, David
     Wagner

                              {time}  1055

  Mr. MAFFEI changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________