[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3533-3538]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2745, STANDARD MERGER AND 
ACQUISITION REVIEWS THROUGH EQUAL RULES ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR 
 PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 24, 2016, THROUGH APRIL 11, 
                                  2016

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 653

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2745) to 
     amend the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act to 
     provide that the Federal Trade Commission shall exercise 
     authority with respect to mergers only under the Clayton Act 
     and only in the same procedural manner as the Attorney 
     General exercises such authority. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     March 24, 2016, through April 11, 2016--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 5.  The Committee on Energy and Commerce may, at any 
     time before 4 p.m. on Thursday, March 31, 2016, file a report 
     to accompany H.R. 2666.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 653, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2745, the Standard Merger 
and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules Act of 2015, or the SMARTER 
Act.
  The rule also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
and also provides a motion to recommit. I would like to point out that 
the Rules Committee put out a call for amendments, but none were 
submitted for consideration.
  Yesterday the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman 
and ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial, and Antitrust Law. A subcommittee hearing was held on this 
legislation and it was marked up and reported by the Judiciary 
Committee. The bill went through regular order and enjoyed discussion 
at both the subcommittee and full committee level.
  H.R. 2745 is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 
American Hospital Association because it is a matter of basic fairness 
and reducing uncertainty.
  This legislation makes two key changes to the procedures by which the 
Federal Trade Commission litigates

[[Page 3534]]

merger cases. First, it requires the FTC to satisfy the same standards 
that the DOJ must meet in order to obtain a preliminary injunction in 
Federal Court.
  Second, it requires the FTC to litigate merits of contested merger 
cases in Federal Court under the Clayton Act--just as the DOJ does--
rather than before its own administrative tribunals.
  Currently the FTC is authorized to obtain preliminary injunctive 
relief, whereas the DOJ must satisfy the generally applicable test for 
obtaining preliminary injunction in Federal Court if it wants to block 
a merger. Courts have sometimes held that there is a lower burden on 
the FTC to obtain an injunction than the DOJ would have to face under 
the traditional test.
  Additionally, if the FTC loses a preliminary injunction in Federal 
Court, it is able to litigate the merits of the cases in an 
administrative proceeding ultimately adjudicated by its commissioners. 
However, the DOJ does not have this power.
  The SMARTER Act addresses these disparities, as recommended by the 
Antitrust Modernization Commission.
  Parties to a merger should not be subject to different treatment and 
standards based on the reviewing antitrust enforcement agency. 
Antitrust agencies are charged with reviewing transactions efficiently 
and fairly in order to ensure that competition is preserved. But 
current law leaves the impression that there is a divergence of 
procedure and that whether or not a merger can proceed depends on which 
agency reviews that particular transaction.
  Importantly, this bill does not make it easier for mergers to be 
approved. H.R. 2745 does increase fairness and efficiency by ensuring 
that the antitrust enforcement agencies are not imposing unequal 
burdens on the merging parties.
  I thank the full committee, Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Marino, 
Congressman Farenthold, and their staff for their work bringing these 
important reforms today. Again, as we look forward, I would encourage 
all to support this rule and the underlying legislation as it will 
bring some streamlined modern efficiencies to this program as we go 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  That was complicated. My colleague from Georgia, Mr. Speaker, 
explained a lot of stuff. There were definitely a lot of big words in 
there, and words that we do not use too often in Colorado.
  It seems to me that this bill is designed to make it easier for very 
big companies to merge and reduce the oversight in making sure that 
those big mergers do not hurt consumers. Most mergers do not even go 
through this. I think it was in our Rules Committee yesterday where Mr. 
Marino testified it was maybe 3 percent of mergers. So only if both 
companies are very, very, very big companies, multinational 
conglomerates, then it goes up for review. This bill says that maybe 
there should be a little less review. I think even the proponents say 
there still should be review. There are several government agencies 
involved.
  But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what this bill is really 
doing--the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules 
Act of 2015--it almost takes a few breaths to even say it. It is one of 
the longer bill titles that I have heard, very technical--it is really 
the stalling on the floor of the House bill until the Republicans can 
figure out a budget. That is exactly what we are doing here, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I would hope that, as we stall, we could offer more substantive bills 
that we could do in the meantime. This bill, the Standard Merger and 
Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules bill, is really, truly a 
solution in search of a problem.
  Where does this bill come from?
  I am certainly very pro-business. I founded several businesses before 
I came here. I took a long and hard look at this bill today. I am all 
for streamlining government processes, but I just can't imagine what 
problem we are even trying to solve here. I don't know. I wonder where 
the idea for this bill came from. Maybe it came from a town hall. I 
know a lot of the best ideas that I get start from my constituents and 
small businesses back home. That was the argument we heard very 
passionately orated when we talked about brick kilns for an entire week 
the other week.
  Maybe Members are fighting for people back home. Maybe a constituent 
approached somebody in Mr. Collins' district and said: We truly wish 
review processes for the larger corporate mergers were streamlined; 
something must be done about the FTC's administrative adjudication 
authority.
  Maybe that was the call that was resounding in town halls across the 
country, but it did not come up in any of mine. In Colorado's Front 
Range it simply was not the issue that my constituents were raising, 
but I will certainly give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt. 
Perhaps there is a groundswell for addressing the FTC's administrative 
adjudication authority for the largest companies and their mergers that 
simply has not reached Colorado. Perhaps that is the case.
  Mr. Speaker, there is an important point I want to make. Time is very 
precious here on the House floor. Taxpayers are paying for this time. 
In fact, apparently tomorrow will be the last day. This will be the 
last bill we vote on before we all get sent home for a 3-week vacation. 
We have very limited time to pass bills that benefit the American 
people.
  Six years ago, nearly to this day, the House took this workweek in 
late March and passed a little something called the Affordable Care 
Act. Now, that might not be popular with my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, but it certainly was consequential. In fact, 15 million 
more Americans have coverage today because of what we did this same 
week 6 years ago. We passed the first major piece of healthcare reform 
in a generation. Like it or not, we had conviction, and we passed bills 
that helped Americans every day solve problems.
  Now here we are 6 years later and we are debating a measure that 
helps a few large corporations merge with each other to become even 
larger. Look, if we want to help American business, let's find a 
backbone, let's look at tax reform, let's look at comprehensive 
immigration reform, let's invest in our infrastructure and in our 
schools to have a better prepared workforce. Be courageous. Let's 
present solutions to problems, not solutions in search of a problem.
  Here we are passing yet another bill the Senate won't consider and 
that will never become law, and then go reward ourselves with 3 weeks 
of vacation. Look, maybe someday this bill will help one conglomerate 
purchase another conglomerate, or save them a few dollars in legal fees 
along the way.
  Is that exciting, Mr. Speaker, to you? Is that something that 
resounds across our country or would even contribute one iota to our 
country's economic growth?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not solve any of the problems this 
Congress needs to take on.
  What should we be doing this week?
  We should be talking about making college more affordable. We should 
be talking about growing our economy, investing in infrastructure, 
reforming our bloated Tax Code, and simplifying taxes. We should be 
talking about passing a budget.
  Mr. Speaker, most households have a budget. My household has a 
budget, but this Congress does not have a budget. Instead of having a 
budget, everybody is going on a vacation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not find a solution to the 11 million 
undocumented people in our country and fix our broken immigration 
system. This bill does not secure our borders or does not make college 
more affordable. It is a shame that we are spending an entire week 
debating this nonsolution in search of a problem that maybe some years 
hence will help one large company merge with another and reduce their 
paperwork to the detriment of

[[Page 3535]]

the public interest and consumer interest in the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I think it is interesting. It does not help. As we come down here and 
debate--and this is a floor to do that, Mr. Speaker--let's just be very 
clear, this does not help companies merge. I am not sure why we are 
putting forth a statement that helps companies merge. It simply takes 
and it streamlines the process so that you are not having two divergent 
paths in which the scrutiny of a merger takes place.
  If we want to at least be faithful to the bill, which is what this 
does, it does not make substantive changes to antitrust law. Rather, 
this legislation standardizes the process between the two antitrust 
enforcement agencies.
  Look, I grew up in north Georgia, and there were a lot of times 
especially--I have had some small businesses, and I appreciate the 
gentleman from Colorado, but I bet there are many times in his 
businesses that the things that you do every day, it is like being a 
part of a family. It is doing chores, it is doing the work that needs 
to be done. It may not hit the front page of the paper, it may not be 
the glamorous piece that anybody would want to talk about. Those things 
are getting discussed and those things are moving forward. Maybe not at 
the pace that some would like to see, but we are moving forward with 
legislation.
  The question is if a bill that simply streamlines and provides some 
efficiency that even this current Department of Justice assistant 
attorney general for the antitrust division stated, I don't think that 
there is a real practical difference in how courts assess the factual 
legal basis for enjoining a merger challenged by the FTC on the one 
hand or the Department on the other.

                              {time}  1245

  Basically, we are doing some of the administrative work that needs to 
be done to lay the groundwork so that we don't have divergent opinions, 
so that we don't have two processes out there. If that is not exciting 
enough, then I am sorry. There are a lot of things that we do that do 
affect business, that do affect the streamlining of government. There 
are a lot of things that I would like to see us work on and that we are 
continuing to work on.
  On this issue of ``will the Senate take it up or not?'' I, frankly, 
Mr. Speaker, don't care. If they don't want to do their job, that is 
their problem. If they have other agendas, then that is their problem. 
That is why there are two separate bodies on the Hill--there is the 
House, and then there is the Senate. We must work in tandem when we 
can, but we also must work with our own individual agendas to move 
forward what, in our perspective, is a conservative agenda for this 
country.
  The other thing that is very concerning is--and there are a lot of 
issues here, and I appreciate the gentleman's speaking, Mr. Speaker, 
about where ideas come from. I am very concerned--and I know the 
Speaker is as well--about where ideas and processes come from for bills 
here. The best place, as the gentleman stated, is from back home--being 
with members and being with constituents and being with the businesses 
and being with the school groups and being with the folks in the places 
which we come from. I am born and raised in my district. As is the old 
saying, good Lord willing, by August, it will have been 50 years I will 
have lived in my district. I know my district and have gotten to know 
their concerns.
  Do I believe there are a lot of things we can do up here? Yes, but I 
get to go home to my district, and I get to listen to people. I will be 
happy to read my schedule for the next few weeks while I am in the 
district, and if that sounds like a vacation to you, maybe we will have 
a different opinion on what a vacation looks like, because I am going 
to be going to businesses which, over the past few years, have been 
hurt by a healthcare policy that was put in place, and they don't know 
if they can hire new members. They have had to downsize--they have had 
to stop progress--and they are just being, all the time, encircled with 
regulations that keep them from hiring and from providing good jobs in 
the Ninth District of Georgia.
  I don't know about what others do on their time back in their 
districts. I go to talk to school groups who ask the question: What do 
their futures look like with an ever-increasing pile of debt? They look 
at their futures, and they ask: What is this country? They look at the 
future around the world when they see attacks, such as this morning in 
Brussels, and they ask where their place is in the world. What is 
America's role? These are the kinds of things that are discussed on my 
time when I am in the district.
  I believe we could work up here every day, and I will be supportive 
of that; but when I go back home to the district, when it is scheduled 
for us as Members to go home, then, frankly, maybe there is just a 
definitional difference in vacations. For me, it is to go home and 
listen and to be a part and to, yes, spend some time with my family. At 
the same point in time, every day, I get up and go out and talk to the 
district, and I talk to these people who have issues with Washington, 
D.C.: with their tax burdens, with their regulatory burdens, with their 
healthcare burdens, and with all of these supposed fixes.
  Many times, like I said, I believe the Republican majority, in the 
last 5 years, has had to undo and fix the problems that were so 
forcefully allocated. We have got a banking system in our district that 
is still having trouble with banks being able to make loans, banks 
being able to do the things that they are supposed to be doing to help 
our business community, because they are strangled with regulatory 
burden.
  You see, these are the issues that we can discuss here, and I 
appreciate the argument. Also, as we go back to the bill before us, 
sometimes it may not make the front page of whatever you read, but when 
you have two agencies that do, basically, a similar function in the 
merger arena and when they do it differently--and even the current 
Department of Justice and the chairwoman for the mergers and 
acquisitions were looking at this and were saying that this just needs 
to be better--this bill is a positive step forward. As we move forward 
to the debate that will happen this afternoon, I look forward to the 
debate of the committee as it discusses the ins and outs of this bill.
  Before we go any further, I think we just need to be honest with the 
American people and say that these are ideas that are worth having and 
that also, when we are back in the districts, their ideas are worth 
having, because that is where the best ideas come from. That is where 
our homes are, and that is who we represent up here. It is never a 
burden to go home. Many times, it is a burden to come up here and fight 
against values that you have in your district that are not valued on 
the other side of the aisle. That is the burden that we will continue 
to fight. We will continue to stand as a conservative bearer on this 
side to say that this is a government that needs to work for the people 
and not at the people. That is the biggest difference that you will see 
on this floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the American people deserve to know what Members of Congress 
are doing to earn their salaries.
  This week--3 days--this bill is the only bill under a rule that this 
Congress is even considering. Let me tell you how Congress calculates 
days, Mr. Speaker, because most Americans think, ``Okay. A day, maybe I 
go to work at 9 o'clock and come home at 5 o'clock. That is a day.'' 
Let me tell you that Congress has a different definition of a day for 
Members of Congress.
  Monday, we started at 6:30 p.m.--not a.m. but p.m. Now, Mr. Collins 
and I got to come in at 5 p.m. to start. We started early. Mr. Collins 
and I worked an extra hour and a half. I asked the Speaker if Mr. 
Collins did, and he did start at 5 o'clock with me. We worked an extra 
hour and a half; but you, Mr. Speaker--I don't think

[[Page 3536]]

you started until 6:30. That is when the votes occurred.
  On Tuesday--that is today--that is a real day. I will give you that. 
We are working on Tuesday. I started this morning at around 8 o'clock, 
and I fully expect we will go until 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock. That is a 
good day. That is good. I can be proud of that for my kids that I 
worked a good day and can tell anybody back home.
  Tomorrow, Wednesday--this day, we are working today. I would ask my 
colleague from Georgia: Does the gentleman know what time we expect to 
finish tomorrow? I would ask Mr. Collins if he knows what time we are 
scheduled to finish tomorrow.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. It is the majority leader's prerogative, as 
the gentleman from Colorado is well aware.
  Mr. POLIS. What is that?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. After the final votes are cast tomorrow, it 
is the majority leader's prerogative, as the gentleman from Colorado is 
well aware.
  Mr. POLIS. I heard it was around noon or, maybe, 12:30. I think I 
heard a lot of Members discussing whether they could catch their 
flights at around 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. I don't know if they are 
going off to the Caribbean for their vacations or what. So, in this 
week, in which the Republicans are claiming we are working 3 days, I 
call it 1 day--Tuesday--and maybe half a day on Wednesday and maybe an 
hour or two on Monday.
  Look, that is not the kind of job that the American people expect us 
to do here. They want us to work full days. Why aren't we here all 
week? Why aren't we bringing up more than one bill? Fine. This bill can 
have its day in the Sun, and, as Mr. Collins said, not every bill is 
glamorous. Maybe there are some really big companies that want to be 
merged with other really big companies, and they feel it is too much 
paperwork to do it. Let's discuss it. Let's do that in a half a day. I 
mean, let's do that on Monday. Instead of coming in at 6 o'clock, maybe 
we come in at noon and sleep until 11 o'clock--that should be late 
enough for Members of Congress to sleep--and debate it for a few hours. 
Then let's do something else on Tuesday. Let's do a budget on Tuesday. 
Let's do something about the Zika virus on Tuesday. Let's do something 
about the Puerto Rico virus on Tuesday. On Wednesday, let's get to work 
and do more, right? I mean, let's roll up our sleeves and get to work. 
Let's not go home at noon.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a very exciting motion I will be able to make 
here. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to 
the rule to prohibit the House from starting a 2-week recess tomorrow 
unless we do our job and pass a budget.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert that amendment in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Now, this is very exciting, Mr. Speaker, because I am 
giving my colleagues an opportunity. As to this previous question vote, 
if we vote it down--a ``no'' vote--it will mean ``Congress, don't go on 
vacation. Do your job and pass the budget.'' A ``yes'' vote means ``go 
on vacation, and forget about a budget.'' With this motion that I am 
introducing here, if we defeat the previous question, I am really 
calling on Members of Congress to account as to whether they think we 
should do our job or whether we should go home after making it easier 
for very big companies to merge.
  I hope that the answer is the one that the men and women who are 
listening at home would agree is the logical answer: that we should 
stay here and do our jobs. We will see here in a few minutes what my 
colleagues want to do: whether they agree with me that we should stay 
here and do our jobs or whether they think that we should allow bigger 
companies to have facilitated mergers and then go home.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. I am 
interested in whether the gentleman from Colorado has any more speakers 
or if he is ready to close.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close.
  I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that my good friend and colleague Mr. 
Collins from Georgia said that maybe this bill is important, that maybe 
it is one of those things that might not be glamorous but that has to 
be done, that it is important. Yet I think it speaks volumes, Mr. 
Speaker, that not a single person even showed up to this debate besides 
Mr. Collins and me, who have to be here. No Republicans who, I guess, 
support this bill and no Democrats--and there might even be some 
Democrats, I think, who support this bill or oppose this bill--I mean, 
no one even came.
  That is because everybody knows this bill is not going anywhere. The 
Senate won't consider it. The President won't sign it. The American 
people have not been crying out for it. Big multinational corporations 
are perfectly able to merge today as long as they are not blocked by 
the FTC or the DOJ for antitrust. This bill doesn't solve any problems. 
Not a single Republican even came to the floor to argue about why we 
needed this bill, with the exception, of course, of my good friend and 
colleague Mr. Collins and me, who have to be here because we are 
running the debate.
  What does that mean when even the proponents of this bill don't even 
come here to tell us why they want it? I think it shows a certain moral 
bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker, and it exposes the veneer off the fact that 
this is, simply, a time-stalling bill because Republicans don't have a 
budget, and they want us to go on vacation right away.
  Look, as to this bill that is being considered, I will address some 
of its merits. It would alter the process in which the Federal Trade 
Commission acts to regulate mergers and guarantee a competitive 
marketplace and protect consumers. I am sure there are valid and 
important arguments on both sides of this bill. The FTC was created in 
1914 as an independent, bipartisan agency, and it has unique tools to 
look after consumers in order to make sure that when two large 
companies merge that it doesn't hurt consumers. Of course, because the 
FTC and the DOJ have overlapping responsibilities, there are issues 
between them. If there is a pressing problem, I would be happy to 
consider this bill under an open rule.
  Now, what does that mean?
  It means that I believe--and the Democrats on the Rules Committee 
yesterday made a motion to this effect--that we should allow Democrats 
and Republicans to offer amendments on this bill to say: Do you know 
what? Maybe there is a problem. Maybe we need to improve it. Maybe we 
need to change it. Do you know what? That motion for an open rule was 
voted down on a partisan vote.
  Perhaps that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that no Republicans or 
Democrats bothered to come in on this bill, because the Republicans 
have locked us out of participating. They have locked out the 
Democratic and Republican rank-and-file Members, who represent great 
districts across our country, like from Texas and California and New 
York and Wisconsin--Democrats and Republicans. No one with any good 
ideas can even try to make this bill better. No wonder people aren't 
bothering to come to the floor in droves. It is because their ideas--
and they are good ideas, and good ideas even come from Republicans, Mr. 
Speaker--are locked out of inclusion in this bill.
  Do you know what? In 2007, Congress established the Antitrust 
Modernization Commission, which released 80 recommendations for 
revisions to antitrust law and policy. Of those recommendations, one of 
them advocated for the elimination of the FTC's administrative 
adjudication authority, and another proposed the adoption of a uniform 
preliminary injunction standard. Those are two things that are in this 
bill. To date, Congress has not considered the other 78 ideas that came 
out of this obscure Commission that were reported back that only affect 
the world's largest companies that merge with one another.

[[Page 3537]]

  If we had an open rule, I could bring forward some of those other 78 
ideas. If this is such a pressing problem and if we need to spend our 
full day in session here this week in talking about making it easier 
for corporations to buy one another, why not go all out and allow a 
discussion of the other 78 ideas that the Antitrust Modernization 
Commission recommended?
  Mr. Speaker, this is a half measure that is a solution in search of a 
problem. Instead of debating bills like the one here today, we should 
be tackling problems that the American people sent us here to work on. 
We should work an honest workweek rather than an hour on Monday, a full 
day on Tuesday, a half a day on Wednesday, and take Thursday off and 
take Friday off. The American people deserve an honest week.
  They deserve us to get the budget done. Just like our households have 
a budget, Congress deserves a budget. I am sure, in the past, my 
colleague and many others have reminded us that Democrats, at times, 
have also failed to produce budgets. I am saying neither side is 
perfect. I am not proud that the Democrats, in the past, have failed to 
produce a budget, but what we are talking about today are the 
Republicans who are failing to produce a budget.
  I remember very distinctly that, when the Democrats had difficulty 
producing a budget, the Republicans said: How dare you. Produce a 
budget. Our households rely on budgets. Why can't the Congress have a 
budget?
  That was one of the arguments that my colleagues made to the American 
people, and the American people, for that reason and perhaps others, 
gave control of this body to the Republicans. Now here we are with the 
Republicans, who, instead of producing a budget, are sending every 
Member of Congress home on vacation for 2\1/2\ weeks after working a 
very taxing 1\1/2\-day week, making it easier for multinational 
corporations to merge.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. As I mentioned earlier, when we do 
defeat the previous question on the vote, the amendment I have offered 
into the Record will amend the rule to prohibit the House from starting 
our vacation tomorrow, unless we do our job and pass a budget.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no'' 
on the underlying bill, and, instead, work to pass a budget and find 
solutions to the big problems that we were sent here to face, like 
improving our national security, like securing our border and replacing 
our broken immigration system into one that reflects our values as a 
Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants, one that makes prescription 
drugs more affordable and improves upon the Affordable Care Act, 
improves our schools, invests in infrastructure, and so many of the 
other issues that I hear about from my constituents at our town halls, 
on the phone, and in letters.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I always try to be positive. There is one thing I do agree on with my 
friend from Colorado just now, and that is that we can do better.
  We can do better about explaining what is actually going on here and 
talking about it in derisive terms, especially about a bill in which 
there was--I serve on the Judiciary Committee--there was one amendment 
brought to committee. This bill seems to be fairly tight because there 
seems to be general agreement here.
  There was one committee amendment brought to the committee, and it 
was withdrawn. Then there was an amendment process put out.
  It is interesting that, from this Antitrust Modernization Commission, 
there were 78 other ideas. And then, when my friend just spoke about 
the fact that, if we had an open rule on the floor, they might bring up 
78.
  I would just ask him where was he yesterday. We have talked about 
showing up for work. Maybe he didn't punch in last night. He could have 
brought 78 amendments last night to the Rules Committee. He chose not 
to.
  So we can do better. We can honestly discuss the procedures and the 
fact that right now, while he and I are on the floor discussing this 
rule and preparing for this rule, the rest of the 433 Members of the 
House of Representatives--432 now--I think we still have one open 
seat--are in committees right now.
  They are meeting constituents. They are marking up bills. They are 
going through regular order, which is the Republican Congress' way of 
doing the people's business.
  Also, as we have already discussed, whether the Senate signs 
something or not--then he brought up the fact that the President would 
never sign this piece of legislation.
  Well, let's just remind the people what the administration doesn't 
also sign. They won't also sign the Keystone Pipeline, which takes away 
jobs from Americans.
  He won't also sign a refugee bill that actually would just put an 
extra measure of protection for protecting the American homeland from 
possibly infiltration through the refugee program. They refuse to sign 
that.
  Yet, we will have the results of the world looking at that. He won't 
sign that, Mr. Speaker. The administration doesn't seem to want to hold 
Iran accountable for the testing that it is doing with its missiles.
  So we can discuss what this administration doesn't want to sign. I 
think using that as an excuse not to move a bill is an abdication of 
responsibility.
  So as we look forward, again, I have never thought anything that I do 
up here, especially when it comes to my office or in committee work, 
was not working.
  I think, frankly, it is sort of disrespectful to the folks who come 
to our offices and meet with us or the committee work that we do to say 
that the only ``work'' is here before the cameras making speeches. If 
that is what work is about up here, maybe we have just found the 
problem with this Congress.
  So, Mr. Speaker, parties to a merger should expect and receive the 
same treatment and processes, regardless of the reviewing antitrust 
enforcement agencies.
  These parties should not be subject to attempts to extract 
concessions or threat of administrative litigation by the FDC simply 
because that is the agency reviewing the merger.
  The underlying bill preserves key standards of review while removing 
disparities. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and H.R. 2745.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

      An Amendment to H. Res. 653 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 6. It shall not be in order to consider a motion that 
     the House adjourn on the legislative day of March 23, 2016, 
     unless the House has adopted a concurrent resolution 
     establishing the budget for the United States government for 
     fiscal year 2017.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 3538]]

     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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. POLIS. 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.

                          ____________________