Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 1062. This bill places significant additional requirements for economic analysis by the Securities and Exchange Commission, effectively bringing any efforts at rulemaking to a standstill.

Let's be clear: the purpose of this legislative effort is to stop implementation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act dead in its tracks. After losing in Congress, the fight against the Dodd-Frank act moved to the courts, beginning with overturning the proxy access rules they adopted under authority provided by that act.

Although I agreed fully with the SEC's position, they went with their friends to court and the court found that the SEC did not meet its already significant requirements to conduct an economic analysis.

After the proxy access case was overturned, the SEC adopted improved standards for conducting cost-benefit analyses. These procedures were cited by the GAO just last December as having all of the elements of good regulatory analysis. Basically, what the GAO is saying is we took a look, we studied it, and they do a good job.

Nonetheless, the bill before us today adds even more requirements, tying up the SEC resources, and putting it at even greater risk for litigation for every rule, despite the assurances of my Republican colleagues that they're only applying the terms of an executive order to the SEC. That executive order explicitly protects agencies from lawsuits based on their economic analysis. H.R. 1062 has no such protection for the SEC.

The Commission is undertaking a valiant effort to finish the Dodd- Frank and Jobs Acts rule, even in the face of attempts by the majority to restrict their funding. As the SEC attempts to balance capital formation with the need to protect investors, this bill weights the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors. In fact, the words ``investor protection'' do not appear anywhere in this bill.

Even without this bill, we can count on industry lobbyists to sue the SEC anytime it sees a weakness in the justification supporting a rule, as they have in several other cases currently before the courts.

And this bill does not apply only to new rules. This is extraordinary--and I want to say this so everybody understands--this bill would require the Commission to review every rulemaking ever issued--even those that have protected our securities markets since the Great Depression--1 year after the adoption of this bill, and then again every 5 years thereafter. As a result, the Commission will be forced to divert resources away from other key areas, such as enforcement.

This comes at a time when House Republicans want to hold SEC funding flat, despite the SEC's new responsibilities--the increase in the number of participants it oversees and the growth of complexity and the size of U.S. securities markets.

It is ironic that as House Republicans push this bill forward, they are also calling for the SEC to speed up its efforts on Jobs Act rules. This bill makes it impossible for the SEC to meet the very deadline we adopted just 2 days ago when we passed H.R. 701.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Representative Gwen Moore.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, Representative Ellison.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut, Representative Himes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Representative Foster.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Representative Denny Heck.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I have a number of communications that I will insert into the Record.

I have a Statement of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the President; I have American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; I have Americans for Financial Reform; I have AFSCME; and I also have California Public Employees Retirement System, all in opposition to this bill, and asking us to please oppose the bill.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 1062--SEC Regulatory Accountability Act

(Rep. Garrett, R-NJ, and 23 cosponsors)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays a

critical role in protecting Americans' investments for

retirement, higher education, and other personal savings

while ensuring strong, efficient, safe financial activity

that contributes to the Nation's economic health and job

creation. While the Administration is firmly committed to

smart and effective regulations that advance statutory goals

in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, the

Administration opposes passage of H.R. 1062. By adding

burdensome and disruptive new procedures, H.R. 1062 would

impede the ability of the SEC to protect investors, maintain

orderly and efficient markets, and facilitate capital

formation.

The Administration believes in the value of cost-benefit

analysis. However, H.R. 1062 would add onerous procedures

that would threaten the implementation of key reforms related

to financial stability and investor protection. H.R. 1062

would direct the SEC to conduct time- and resource-intensive

assessments after it adopts or amends major regulations

before the impacts of the regulations may have occurred or be

known. The bill would add analytical requirements that could

result in unnecessary delays in the rulemaking process,

thereby undermining the ability of the SEC to effectively

execute its statutory mandates.

The Administration is committed to a regulatory system that

is informed by science, cost-justified, and consistent with

economic growth. Through efforts including Executive Order

13579, ``Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies,''

the Administration is taking important steps to encourage

independent agencies to follow cost-saving and burden-

reducing principles in their reviews of new regulations, and

to examine their existing rules to identify those that should

be modified, streamlined, or repealed.

Mr. Chair, how many minutes do I have left?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

In closing, allow me to quote one of the Financial Services Committee members in a hearing yesterday, because I think it is so important for us to understand that the SEC is our cop on the block that has the responsibility for protecting investors.

Let us understand that my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle are opposed to the SEC having an adequate budget. They do everything that they can to cut the budget, to deny the resources; but they keep adding on additional responsibilities, recognizing that the SEC has a tremendous load. Not only do they have all of the work, the cost-benefit analysis that they do on everything, but they have the responsibility of rulemaking for all of Dodd-Frank, which is the reform legislation that will cause us to eliminate risk and to protect our constituents and the citizens of this country.

But let me just say that yesterday, during a Financial Services Committee hearing, Chairman Emeritus Spencer Bachus said that it would be penny-wise and pound foolish for there not to be a bipartisan agreement for raising the funding or increasing the funding for the

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment adds a requirement that the SEC analyze the number of jobs created or lost as a result of a new rule or order, while differentiating between public and private sector jobs.

Although this amendment is not by itself problematic, it layers one more requirement onto a bill already bursting with onerous cost-benefit requirements. And while counting the jobs created or lost because of a particular regulation is a noble goal, we have to view this goal in the context of the overall bill, which tips the scales heavily in favor of industry over investors, including the pension plans for millions of Americans.

The criteria by which the SEC would need to engage in cost-benefit analysis under H.R. 1062 would have the Commission make all decisions on the basis of whether the rules impose the least burden on ``market participants.'' In fact, nowhere in the bill are the words ``investor protection'' used, despite the fact that a central mission of the Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors.

Let's be clear: H.R. 1062 is essentially a solution in search of a problem. This bill is not about refining the SEC's cost-benefit analysis. The Commission, in fact, has already done that by adopting a new set of guidelines to ensure that its analysis meets the very high bar set in the decision overturning their proxy access rule. Instead, this bill is about making it easier for industry groups to overturn SEC regulations in the courts.

After the 2008 financial crisis, the public spoke; and they demanded that Congress stand up and legislate rules of the road to prevent another crisis. So we took action to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives market, improve corporate governance, implement the Volcker rule to stop commercial banks from gambling with depositor money, and to reform the credit ratings agencies that slapped AAA ratings onto toxic securities.

Having lost that battle here in Congress, the industry--with the help of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--is now waging a new, quiet battle to have these regulations thrown out in court. H.R. 1062 abets that goal by making it significantly easier for the industry to win in court. This is a key differentiation from the President's executive order on cost-benefit analysis, whose requirements cannot be used as a basis for litigation.

So, again, this amendment is harmless, but it amends what is a deeply problematic bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on all of the problems raised by H.R. 1062 by imposing the same burdensome cost-benefit analysis requirements on the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, or MSRB, and certain self-regulatory organizations as the underlying bill imposes on the SEC.

Beyond the problems caused by H.R. 1062, this amendment would further put individual citizens and taxpayers at risk by tying the hands of the MSRB, which is entrusted with regulating dealers of municipal securities, including city bond issuances.

The Wall Street Reform Act expanded the mission of the board to protect State and local governments and to regulate, for the first time in history, the individuals who provide municipalities with financial advice.

We had good reason to expand the mission and responsibilities of the MSRB under Dodd-Frank. Like many borrowers who were sold exotic mortgages based on the representations made by mortgage brokers in the lead-up to the financial crisis, we saw that many municipalities entered into complex financial instruments that they didn't fully understand. At the same time, we saw that many financial advisers to municipalities were involved in pay-to-play scandals and recommended unsuitable investments, particularly to small communities. The result was the imposition of substantial costs on taxpayers in communities across the country. The most high-profile example is the case of Jefferson County, Alabama, which entered into the largest municipal bankruptcy in history after a simple sewer bond financing deal ended with the county going broke over faulty interest rate derivatives.

This amendment will make it much more difficult for the MSRB to regulate the financial entities selling these derivative products to our small counties, cities, and towns.

But that's just one example. The amendment would impose similar onerous requirements on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority-- that is FINRA--the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers, and the Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board, which regulates the auditing industry.

Again, this amendment doubles down on what is already a harmful bill by extending the same onerous requirements of self-regulatory organizations. I see no reason why the Congress would want to further tip the scales in favor of Wall Street over Main Street.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. David Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would like to thank the gentlelady from New York for bringing this amendment today. As a matter of fact, the opposite side should thank her, too, because she is giving them an opportunity to back out of this awful bill that will be harmful and that is ill-informed and to get

on with just saying that her resolution would make good sense. So I am eager to support this amendment from the gentlelady from New York.

The amendment strikes all bill text and replaces it with a sense of Congress, reiterating all the economic analysis requirements already imposed on the SEC.

Specifically, current law requires the SEC to conduct economic analyses pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Congressional Review Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as well as additional cost-benefit analysis per the National Securities Markets Improvement Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In its current form, I am.

This is the final amendment to the bill, which would not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

This motion ensures the ability of the SEC to continue to protect investors and enforce the securities laws. I want to emphasize that this motion does not stop the bill, but it does flag the very important ways in which we need to let the SEC act. The motion would ensure that the SEC can protect investors and enforce the securities laws in two specific areas:

First, the motion will ensure that this bill does not reduce the ability of the SEC to protect the pension plans of our firefighters and police, the people on whom we rely as our first responders, as well as the pension plans of teachers and other retirees against fraudulent and deceptive practices. Protecting investors is a core element of the SEC's mission and one that we ignore at our peril. This week is Police Officers Week. Do we really want to honor our men and women in service by stripping them of protections for their hard-earned and hard-won earnings? Mr. Speaker, these protections become ever more crucial as we rely increasingly on the securities markets for our retirement savings.

Second, the motion to recommit focuses on protecting investors by ensuring that the SEC can protect against the takeover of American firms by foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies, that are using such mergers to access the investor funds in our capital markets without going through the SEC registration process. The SEC has had numerous enforcement actions against such companies which purchase a small company and merge it with a larger, often fraudulent, foreign company. It has worked hard to protect the savings of hardworking Americans, including union pension holders and other pensioners, from being disadvantaged by these Chinese firms that don't play by the same rules.

Both of these areas highlight the importance of SEC action to protect investors, particularly those preparing for retirement. With Americans increasingly dependent on the securities markets to protect their retirement savings, it is more critical than ever to ensure that we preserve the ability of the SEC to act.

Just yesterday, we heard from the SEC's new chairwoman, Mary Jo White. When we asked her about this bill, she said that she found it ``very troubling.'' I don't imagine that a former prosecutor who took on the Mob and terrorists is easily troubled. Indeed, she said that she had already needed at least 45 new economists to meet the need for an expanded economic analysis under the SEC standards, but she couldn't hire them due to the sequester. This is troubling indeed.

Rather than helping the SEC to do its job better, we are cutting its budget and throwing up new roadblocks, like this bill. It is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material for the record on H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act of 2013.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the adoption of H.R. 1062. This is a bill that technically is about something called cost-benefit analysis. I know to some that sounds a little bit like Ph.D. economics, but, Mr. Chairman, what it's really about is kitchen-table economics.

When I go home to the Fifth District of Texas, what I hear from my constituents is that they're insecure in their jobs--those who are lucky enough to have them.

We know that millions of our fellow citizens are unemployed, are underemployed; and those who are fortunate enough to have jobs wonder will they have them tomorrow.

We know again that we are in the Great Recession, the ``non- recovery'' recovery. So the impact of the regulations that are promulgated in Washington, D.C. has a huge impact on kitchen-table economics, on whether or not our constituents are going to be able to put gas in the car to take their children to school, whether or not they're going to be able to help an elderly parent with their medical bills, how they're going to put groceries on the table.

It is incumbent upon us, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that the rulemaking authority--that this body helps grant the executive branch-- at least has to take into account how their rulemaking impacts hardworking American citizens and those who wish to work hard.

So this is a very, very simple bill, Mr. Chairman. It simply says that the Securities and Exchange Commission has to adopt cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the advertised benefits of one of their rules is actually measured against the actual cost of what they're doing. This is vitally important.

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, this body had a vote yesterday to repeal the Affordable Care Act--or dare I say the Not So Affordable Care Act. And I'm curious, what would have happened had Congress had the benefit of the cost of this bill prior to that vote? What would have happened had we known that the Congressional Budget Office said that we will have 800,000--almost 1 million--fewer jobs because of ObamaCare?

You know, when we took that vote, Mr. Chairman, all we had were the advertised benefits. But how come we didn't have the Congressional Budget Office report of the cost? That's just one example. Almost 1 million fewer jobs because nobody bothered to conduct cost-benefit analysis. It wasn't required at the time.

Now the President claims that we ought to have this. He issued an executive order--No. 13563--saying government agencies ought to do it, but then his administration issues a veto threat on this bill. I find that kind of interesting. So the President says he wants to do it; he's just not actually going to do it.

The SEC mission, among other things, is to ensure that we help form capital. You cannot have the benefits of capitalism and the free enterprise system without capital, capital formation. So it's necessary to ensure that we look at the cost of what we're doing.

Apparently, the SEC historically--again, notwithstanding that they claim they're going to do it. Most recently, we've had a unanimous decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals--unanimous decision--in the proxy access case that the SEC failed--and failed miserably--at ensuring cost-benefit analysis, also known as kitchen-table economics. How are the costs of their rulemaking going to impact hardworking Americans?

It's time to remedy this, Mr. Chairman. Our constituents demand it.

Again, I urge the adoption of H.R. 1062, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman, just to say that, number one, in listening to my colleague, the ranking member, I'm just curious about this concern about litigation burdens. We certainly didn't see it, as she and many of her colleagues back the proxy access rule, and how many have refused to support medical liability reform. So I don't understand why the litigation burden concern is not there.

In addition, I notice that the SEC has sought comment in the past on rulemaking to ensure that there is a retrospective look-back because markets change.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and GSEs of the Financial Services Committee, the author of the legislation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds just to say to my friend from New York that if this regime is so effective, why was there a unanimous decision in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to say it was ineffective, and if it is already on the books then the worst thing that we have done is that we are being repetitive. I don't think that's such a great sin.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, the vice chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, Mr. Hurt.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Frog Jump, Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to myself.

I would like to do a little factual cleanup here, Mr. Chairman, on some things that my Democratic colleagues have said.

I believe I understood my friend, the gentlelady from Wisconsin, to say nowhere in this bill is the word ``benefits.'' First, I would say, number one, it is a 10-page bill, not a 2,000-page bill. And on the very first page, line 11, you read the word ``benefits.'' If you turn to page 2--not page 2,000--page 2, line 3: ``Utilize the Chief Economist to assess the cost and benefits.'' So let me correct that for the record.

Second of all, we had discussion about the failure of regulation and how this bill might lead to another Great Recession or financial crisis. I would point out to my friends that it was the failure to understand the cost of Fannie and Freddie, the failure to understand the cost of the affordable housing goals that put millions of our fellow citizens into homes that they could not afford to keep.

So maybe, just maybe, had this body and the other body realized the full cost of their folly and how it could not only bring this economy to its knees, that it could cause our fellow citizens to risk their meager lifesavings on homes they couldn't afford to keep, maybe had a cost-benefit analysis been in place at that time, we wouldn't have the suffering that we have today.

I would say to my friend from Connecticut, he is clearly talking to different economists and different job creators than I have because what I understand from them is that, frankly, we have trillions of dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines because of Dodd-Frank, because we have rulemaking that falls into two categories: those that create uncertainty and those that create certain harm.

Last, but not least, I actually have the numbers from CBO on the budget of the SEC. And I think if you examine them carefully, Mr. Chairman, you will discover that in a little over 10 years, this is an agency whose budget has increased 300 percent.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now proudly yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to my friend from Georgia when he talks about the incredible burden of a retrospective look back, I would quote:

Because considerations of efficiency and competition in

capital formation evolve over time, a retrospective analysis

of the Commission's rules and regulations is fully within the

Commission's statutory mandate.

That comes from the ABA.

I would also quote this as well:

The safety of workers' retirement savings that are invested

in the capital markets depend in large part on the

Commission's rules and regulations for the protection of the

investors. To be effective, securities regulations must be

continuously updated to address the emergence of new

loopholes, abuses, and market failures.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the author of the bill, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I'm under the impression I have the right to close, so the gentlelady has reserved. I will reserve until she is ready to close.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time, although I will alert my colleagues I do not intend to take it all.

Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat interesting the great amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth that we have heard on this House floor for a very simple bill that weighs in at, frankly, less than 10 pages that simply requires a government agency to decide is there going to be a cost to our economy, is there going to be a loss of jobs as they pass a rule. It doesn't overturn their rules. It just says, before you make a rule, you've really got to think about kitchen-table economics. You've got to take a look at and understand how will this ultimately impact hardworking Americans who are struggling to pay their health care bills, struggling to put gas in the tank and who have economic insecurity due to this economy.

So I've heard a lot of furor here. I must admit I'm particularly entertained by those who care to lecture me on what it means to be a conservative. Maybe I'm not the world's expert, but there was a time in my career my fellow colleagues elected me the chairman of the Conservative Caucus of the House, known as the Republican Study Committee. And, Mr. Chairman, I have a certificate in my office that I proudly display from the Americans for Democratic Action where they say Congressman Hensarling receives a zero percent liberal rating.

So I will certainly agree with my friends that, apparently, I don't know much about liberalism, but I do think I do know a few things about conservatism. So I'll come up with an informal agreement. We'll let you be the experts on what it means to be a liberal--and you're very good at it, to the best of my knowledge--and I will retain the expertise on how one votes conservative.

The next thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is how fascinating it is to have so many of my colleagues say that this bill, on the one hand, is unnecessary, but, on the other hand, it's burdensome; on the one hand, it's redundant, but, on the other hand, it will stop the SEC in its tracks. Mr. Chairman, I just don't think you can quite have it both ways.

I notice when some can't argue the merits of a question, they tend to come up to question one's motivation, and we've got the usual Wall Street bogeymen to come in here. But what I want to know about is why, why would we not want to know, as some have estimated, that the Volcker rule promulgated by the SEC potentially could cost 1.1 million jobs in our Nation? And yet my colleagues from the other side of the aisle say, Shh, no, no, no, no, no. We don't want this information. We don't want it out. Just like we didn't want out the information that ObamaCare could cost us 1 million jobs.

And we see it every day. We get the headlines: people can't afford their health care, their premiums have gone up; people are getting laid off; people who had full-time jobs are going to part-time; and people who would have hired more people don't want to cross that 50-person threshold. And that's just ObamaCare. But, no, shh, we don't want--we don't want to know how this is going to impact hardworking Americans who have economic insecurity, millions who do not have jobs.

I am somewhat perplexed, Mr. Chairman, how such a simple bill that says all you've got to do is look at the cost--we're not imposing our numbers on them. We're just saying you've got to look at the cost of what you do. It's what families do; it is what job creators do; and, frankly, it's what the administration claimed they wanted to do, and it's what the SEC claimed they wanted to do.

How many of my Democratic colleagues with their words say ``yes'' but very soon with their voting card are going to say ``no''? No, we shouldn't know the cost of rulemaking. No, we just want to know what bureaucrats say the benefits are. But, you know, if people lose their jobs, well, que sera, sera. We just aren't going to--we don't want to know that ahead of time. Maybe we'll learn about it afterwards. Maybe we'll try to clean up the pieces, the shattered lives of people who lost their jobs.

Mr. Chairman, this is a false dichotomy set up by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The question is not between regulation and deregulation. The question is between smart regulation and dumb regulation. And smart regulation requires the rule makers to understand the cost of their rules to the average, hardworking American family. That's smart regulation. Dumb regulation is burying your head in the sand and saying, no, we don't want to know.

If we're so concerned about the burden on the SEC, if we're so concerned about the litigation burden, and if we're so concerned about the work burden and the rule burden, where's this same concern for the job creators of America? Where is that concern? You cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator, which is what so many of the different titles of Dodd-Frank do.

So at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is as simple and as common sense as it could be. If you're going to pass a rule and you're going to tell us about the benefits, you've got to let us know what the costs are to the economy and to hardworking American families. It's common sense. We should adopt it. We should adopt it today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, this should be a simple rule. Every year, this House considers the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It's a bill that reauthorizes our Nation's defense programs and a place where we should have the opportunity to debate some of the most important issues facing this country and the world.

The process is typically broken up into two parts: a rule providing for general debate on the National Defense Authorization Act and a rule providing for consideration of amendments to that bill. It's generally not a controversial process; although, the decisions made by the Rules Committee in allowing and preventing amendments from being considered can be controversial.

And that's where this rule goes wrong. This is not the normal rule providing for general debate for the defense authorization bill. No, Madam Speaker, this rule is much more than that.

Over the past 3 years, we've seen the Republican leadership in the House fixated on several things:

They want to take health care away from millions of Americans by repealing ObamaCare;

They want to destroy the social safety net through mindless budget cuts; and

They want to weaken our financial system by repealing the Dodd-Frank Act that came out of the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.

This rule, the rule that should be a simple general debate rule for the Defense Authorization Act, also makes in order H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Not only does this rule cram in this controversial bill, it does not allow one single amendment. That's right. This is a closed rule. That's not an open and transparent process, certainly not the one that Speaker Boehner promised.

H.R. 1256 would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission to jointly issue rules on the regulations of swaps transactions between the United States and foreign entities.

H.R. 1256 automatically exempts transactions in countries with the nine largest swaps markets from U.S. regulations unless the CFTC and the SEC jointly determine that the regulations aren't broadly equivalent. Because many large U.S. financial institutions have subsidiaries outside of the United States, there are serious concerns that banks will seek to conduct swap transactions in countries with looser regulations to avoid U.S. oversight. And, Madam Speaker, it is important to note that many countries are far behind the United States in promulgating their rules on swaps.

Why are we looking to allow foreign regulations to govern transactions involving U.S. companies that could ultimately impact our economy?

During the markup in the Financial Services Committee, Ranking Member Maxine Waters offered an amendment to strike the presumption that foreign regulatory requirements satisfy U.S. swaps requirements, allowing the CFTC and the SEC to determine whether foreign regulatory requirements are comparable to U.S. requirements. Unfortunately, under this closed rule, the full House will not have the opportunity to consider a similar amendment to strengthen this legislation.

Madam Speaker, this is yet another attempt to slow down the Dodd- Frank rulemaking process, undermine the CFTC's work in regulating derivatives trading, and weaken the financial market regulations needed to protect our economy.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

This rule also allows, believe it or not, the Agriculture Committee to file a supplemental report to H.R. 1947, the

farm bill reauthorization. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that cuts $20.5 billion from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. While this report is just technical, and fulfills the committee's responsibilities following the markup of H.R. 1947, this rule is not the place for this report. And, more importantly, I want to make it crystal clear that I do not support these egregious cuts. It's a rotten thing to do to poor people during this tough economic time.

Finally, Madam Speaker, let me discuss the least controversial part of this rule, the defense authorization bill. This rule allows the House to begin general debate on H.R. 1960, the FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.

There is much to admire and support in this bill, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for working together to ensure the programs that provide benefits and support to our veterans and military retirees are adequately funded and that there will be no increases in TRICARE fees. Regrettably, there's also a great deal in this bill that should make every Member of this Chamber pause and think about our national security priorities:

Should we be spending additional billions on Cold War nuclear weapons rather than on our troops, their families, and our veterans?

Should we really be cutting funds and putting obstacles in the way of implementing the New START Treaty with Russia, limiting both our nations' ability to further reduce and verify our nuclear arsenals?

Should we be committing hundreds of millions this year and billions of dollars in the future to an east coast missile defense site that the Pentagon says it doesn't want and doesn't need?

Should we continue to set up roadblocks and obstruct the President's efforts to resolve the issue of how to effectively and safely close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Naval Station, appropriately release and return to their families those prisoners who have been cleared of all charges, and bring to justice once and for all those few remaining prisoners who were indeed engaged in heinous acts of terrorism?

And once again, Madam Speaker, the committee provides $85.8 billion for the war in Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations account. That's $5 billion more than what the President and the Pentagon asked for.

Now let me just say a couple of words about the OCO account. It is an off-budget account. It is another $85 billion on the Nation's credit card--deficit spending, pure and simple. It is the lingo of ``emergency spending,'' as if it were an unexpected surprise that we will still be in Afghanistan throughout all of FY 2014.

I have always been concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever more amorphous and hard-to-define global war on terror, have not been included in the Pentagon's base budget but always outside that budget, with an ``emergency'' designation so that we don't have to figure out how to pay for it now. We'll just pay for it later and later and later. I'm increasingly concerned that, even after we transition all combat military and security operations over to the Afghan Government by the end of 2014, the OCO will still go on.

It is time to phase out the OCO, put this spending back into the base spending bill, and if we want to make war, then we ought to figure out a way to pay for it or make the appropriate cuts in other Pentagon programs to make room for the funding of these operations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the strong concerns this Congress has, on both sides of the aisle, about the epidemic of sexual assault in all branches of our military. This bill includes several measures that will strengthen the investigation and prosecution of these heinous crimes inside our military. It also provides new protections for victims of military sexual assault. It reflects the bipartisan work of Representative Turner, my Massachusetts colleague, Representative Tsongas, as well as Representatives Walorski, Noem, Castro, and Loretta Sanchez. However, Mr. Speaker, there is still much more that should and can be done to ensure these brutal rapes and assaults are fully investigated and prosecuted, the victims treated with respect, and to advance education in our military academies and among our ranks and our officer corps.

Several amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and I hope that they will be made in order so that we can more fully debate this critical issue and how to end rape and sexual assault within our Armed Forces.

Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that while the NDAA looks to strengthen protections and prosecutions inside our military, we here in Congress are also to blame for having failed in our oversight responsibilities. Congress has not given the attention to military sexual assault that it deserves. So I think that we do need to clean up our own House and ensure that Congress does a far better job of oversight to ensure that the Pentagon and all our military members are held accountable for preventing, reducing, and prosecuting cases of sexual assault and abuse in our Armed Forces and providing victims with the services and support that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I'm always ambivalent about the annual defense authorization bill. I support the programs for our veterans and our retirees, and I support providing for the genuine needs of our servicemen and -women, whether they are based here at home or abroad. But I cannot support the amount of waste, the spending on unnecessary and often ridiculous programs, on more nukes, on outdated weapons, and on wars that never end.

As we begin general debate on the defense bill later today, I ask my colleagues to keep these questions in mind.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule is unnecessarily complicated and misguided. There is no reason to include yet another bill gutting Dodd- Frank in this rule, and there's no reason to cram into this rule a report from the Agriculture Committee about a bill that will make hunger worse in America.

For these reasons, I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for these three measures, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small Business, Ms. Velazquez.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida how many additional speakers he may have.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

I yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I get it. The Republican majority wants to repeal Dodd- Frank, and they're using every possible vehicle they can to undermine Dodd-Frank, which puts consumers at risk by their constant attack on protections that, I think, most people in this country think are reasonable.

As you heard from Ms. Waters, the ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, and from Mr. Ellison, there is controversy around this bill. The thought that you would bring a bill like this to the floor that would weaken Dodd-Frank under a closed rule is really unforgivable, quite frankly. We ought to debate this. This is important stuff. There ought to be debates, and there ought to be amendments.

On the defense authorization bill, I just want to say this for the record: while I have no opposition to your bringing the DOD bill up for general debate, I do want to express my concern that when the Rules Committee considers the amendments that they be fair-minded about it and that all major issues, including the issues raised by a number of my colleagues on sexual assault, are addressed.

I also want to say that the war in Afghanistan ought to be debated on this floor. A central part of our defense budget right now is going to this war, and last year, we were shut out. I'm hoping that this year we will at least have the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor, debate what our policy should be, and will let Members on both sides vote up or down.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' because this does allow H.R. 1256 to come to the floor under a closed rule. That is wrong. This should be a more open and transparent process, especially when it comes to an issue that is so important.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman.

I rise today obviously in support of H.R. 1062, the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act.

At a time when new regulation after new regulation is being proposed by

this administration, it is critical that we restore some semblance of order to the regulatory process and ensure that our Nation's small businesses do not continue to drown in a sea of red tape. So this legislation specifically subjects the SEC to a more robust version of the President's own order, which requires and outlines an enhanced cost-benefit analysis requirement, as well as requires a review of existing regulations.

The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act will do what? It will enhance the SEC's existing economic analysis requirements for requiring the Commission to first identify the nature of the problem that would be addressed before issuing any new regulations.

While the SEC has already certain cost-benefit related requirements in current law relative to rulemaking, as indicated before, recent court decisions have vacated or remanded several of these and pointed out the deficiencies in the Commission's use of cost-benefit analysis.

For example, recently the SEC inspector general issued a report that expressed several concerns about the quality of their analysis. They found that none of the rulemaking examined attempted to quantify either benefits or costs, other than informational collection cost.

This bill will ensure that the benefits of any rulemaking outweigh the cost, and that both new and existing regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.

The legislation will also require the SEC to assess the cost and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating at all, and to choose the approach that basically gives us the best benefits.

Under the bill, the SEC shall evaluate whether a proposed regulation is inconsistent, incompatible, or duplicative of other Federal regulations, as well.

So because some rulemaking has been politicized in the past, the bill then requires this cost-benefit analysis which I talk about will be performed by who? By the Commission's chief economist.

These are commonsense reforms. They are appropriate, especially given the fact that the Commission continues to struggle with this issue. For instance, as already pointed out in the recent unanimous decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the Commission's proxy access rule, the Court stated:

The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously for

having failed once again adequately to assess the economic

benefits of a new rule and inconsistently and

opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule.

The bill also includes, besides all this, a section that will provide a clearer post-implementation assessment of new regulations so that post-implementation cost-benefit analysis can also be done, in addition to the pre-implementation. This will be able to better inform the true impact of the major rules once they're in place.

Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say these new requirements will be too costly and will open the SEC to a flood of additional lawsuits. No, no, no, no. This could be further from the truth. By having these robust standards, the rules will be drafted so well that they will be thoroughly done, they will not be struck down by the courts, and we will not have to wade through additional time and money defending them in court and then redrafting the rules, like the proxy access rule.

So in the end, this is a commonsense, pragmatic approach to our rulemaking process that should have been in place all along. And with our economy struggling now with unemployment above 7\1/2\ percent, we need to ensure that we're making it easier, not harder, for businesses to begin hiring again.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, a stronger commitment to economic analysis by the SEC is absolutely essential to ensure reasonable rules do not unduly burden registered companies or negatively impact job creation.

I was not going to speak again until, in fact, I was being lectured on what a true conservative is by the other side of the aisle, who gave us the over 2,000-page Dodd-Frank legislation that has in fact stymied the economy, despite what the gentleman from Connecticut was saying before, that is setting literally trillions of dollars on the side, not being invested; that the unemployment rate hovers at high levels because of this stagnation in the economy because of the legislation.

To the other side of the aisle, to define what a true conservative is, a true conservative would actually read the bill, as other Members of the other side of the aisle have not done. Those who could not find simple words such as ``benefit'' when it is listed many times, those who could not find the benefits to investors when it's listed multiple times. A true conservative would understand what they're talking about when they come to the floor, Mr. Chairman. A true conservative would do what's in the best interest of the economy, of the investor, of the job seekers of this country, as well. A true conservative would support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentlelady's offer of an amendment here. I also appreciate the fact that the lady and I have often worked together on legislation in the past in our respective committee, but on this one I humbly disagree.

As she says, the amendment before us basically guts the bill and simply sets forth a sense of Congress.

Two points, one on policy and one on practicality.

On policy, if this were the gentlelady's idea that this is the way we should go on this piece of underlying legislation, as the ranking member of the subcommittee and as a member of the full committee, she had every opportunity in the world to come before the committee at the time and put this before us, at which time we could have had a full and complete debate on it.

Had we done so, we probably would have pointed out to her two things.

One, she makes reference to the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion on lines 14 through 18 of her case. Would that the D.C. Circuit Court had said that the SEC is doing a good job, that they had the authority to do so and that nothing else is necessary in going forward. If she had read the opinion, she would have known that that's not quite what they said.

The D.C. Circuit Court stated that the SEC, the Commission, acted arbitrarily and capriciously for having failed--note this--``once again''--so this is not the only time--but once again to adequately assess the economic effects of the new rule and, again, inconsistently and opportunistically framed cost benefits of the rule.

So the citation that she gives of the D.C. Circuit Court does not support her position but undermines her position. The D.C. Circuit basically supports our position that the SEC has failed, and that it has failed repeatedly to do what it should do, and that is why we have the legislation before you today.

And when she talks about red tape and unnecessary--well, that's not what the AFL-CIO says, and that's not what the American Bar Association says. The SEC did look at the issue of doing a retrospective look at this. They did so back over a year and a half ago, back in September of 2011, and they asked for input.

What did the AFL-CIO say about that?

To be effective, security regulations must be continuously

updated to address the emergence of new loopholes, abuses and

market failures.

Likewise, the American Bar Association also chimed in about the retrospective analysis, which is what the SEC could have been doing, should have been doing, didn't do, and that is what our bill will require them to do.

So I appreciate the gentlelady's efforts in this area, but I would recommend a ``no'' vote on her amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, and I will simply address both the process and the policy briefly.

On the process, I appreciate the gentlelady's bringing this amendment here to the floor today; but, as she knows, we were in committee for multiple hours hearing various amendments on the underlying legislation, and she had every opportunity to bring it before the entire committee at that time, and we could have had a full and complete debate and actual vote in the committee at that time. I am lost for a reason why she did not go through the regular order.

But, more specifically, to the merits of the underlying bill and the amendment, if there could be anything simpler or easier than what we are trying to do in the underlying bill, H.R. 1062, Mr. Speaker, let's be real. Mr. Speaker, all we're asking the SEC to do is this: identify a problem first before you do a regulation, and then once you consider a regulation, consider all the alternatives that are out there, not just the initial one that comes forward. And then once you've passed that regulation, the next year and years after that, go back and reconsider them and make sure that they're being done effectively and they were the most efficient regulations for the economy. That's the underlying legislation, and that's why I encourage my Members to support the underlying bill.

To the MTR, what is the SEC charged to do? Three, basically, core provisions: investor protection, capital formation, and efficient markets. And perhaps to the point here, one of the most important is investor protection.

Who are we talking about when we're talking about investors? It's that single mom out there who is trying to raise a young girl and trying to put her into college and have money to do so. It's the young couple who wants to have financing to be able to buy their first home. It's the moms, dads, and our grandparents, the pensioners and the retirees who want to know that their investments are secure and the markets are operating efficiently. To the point here with your amendment most specifically, yes, it's the cop on the beat, it's the fireman, and it's the union worker who wants to make sure that he's investing his time and efforts into our community and his investments are taken care of in an efficient operation in the markets on Wall Street and the markets as well.

That's what our bill does. All of them are taken care of in the underlying legislation. Your amendment basically says that we don't care as far as making sure the most efficient rules are concerned when it comes to the firefighters, the pensioners, or the teachers.

I'll close on this. If we want to honor the firefighters, if we want to honor the police officers, and if we want to honor the teachers and the pension funds, vote ``no'' on this MTR and vote ``yes'' on the final passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 256 provides for House consideration of two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R. 1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which will be considered for 1 hour, with time divided between the Committees on Financial Services and Agriculture, under a closed rule.

Secondly, and the reason why I am so proud to be the sponsor of this rule, H. Res. 256 provides for 1 hour of general debate for this year's National Defense Authorization Act.

The Rules Committee traditionally receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA; and with just under 300 submitted by the end of the day yesterday, this year is no different. Therefore, as is the tradition for this bill, this first rule in the NDAA consideration process provides for general debate while a second will provide for consideration of the plethora of amendments we have before us.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the

honor of helping craft this legislation for the past few months. As I think anybody can imagine, when you're talking about a bill that authorizes the Department of Defense, there is a lot to discuss and consider. That point was illustrated by our full committee markup in the Armed Services Committee last week, which started first thing Wednesday morning and went through to almost 3 a.m. on Thursday, 16 hours. We worked long and hard, and I'm proud of the product we've presented to this House for consideration.

But for as much time and effort that we on the Committee on Armed Services put into the Defense Authorization Act, I know that other Members who don't serve on our committee will want to make their mark on this bill, too. To ensure that the House has an opportunity to really have a comprehensive, free-flowing debate on such an important topic, we've decided to break the rule for the Defense Authorization Act into two parts.

That's why today's rule provides us with 1 hour of general debate time. It gets us started on the path to consideration. It also allows Members from both sides of the aisle to have a full discussion about the broader themes running through this base legislation. There are important debates, and the sooner we get them started, the better. But with nearly 300 amendments submitted to the National Defense Authorization Act, the truth is we on the Rules Committee couldn't give each and every amendment the full weight and consideration it deserves and produce a comprehensive rule that starts debate on the full bill and all amendments today.

If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right. Therefore, while the House works on the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act and starts general debate on the NDAA, we, on the Rules Committee, will return to the committee room and we'll continue to sift through all the amendments that Members have offered on this bill.

We want to make sure the House has the opportunity to weigh in on each and every important issue in the NDAA. That's why we need to take our time. And once we have a full understanding of the amendments submitted to the committee, we'll come back with a second rule setting the universe of amendments for this legislation.

I know that we all share the same commitment to making this a fair and collaborative process. Quite frankly, it's the spirit of cooperation and the knowledge that we're serving a common purpose that has been one of the most gratifying parts of serving on HASC to date. As Chairman McKeon said to the Rules Committee yesterday, we may disagree sometimes, but it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. We're able to put partisanship aside, and we know that our work directly impacts the life of each and every servicemember and his or her family in a personal and direct way.

We're providing for the common defense, which is part of the Federal Government's most fundamental roles, part of our core mission, as I like to say. And if you want proof of how collaboratively we worked on this bill as a committee, you only need to look at the fact that we passed this bill out of committee 59-2. And as the father of three sons serving in the Army, I'm heartened to know that politics can be set aside when it comes down to making sure our troops are equipped with the tools that are required, funded at the levels they need, and trained for the mission at hand.

This is an important time for our country and an important time for those members of the military who serve us every day. These young men and women put their lives on the line for us so we could be here today and debate the issues of the day. So they deserve our undivided attention and support when it comes to making sure that they have everything that they need, and there's no more essential role for our Federal Government, in my opinion, as to what we are doing today.

H.R. 1960 fulfills the promise to our warfighters and to their loved ones. I'm proud of this rule, which gets us on the road towards considering and passing this essential bill. For that reason, I support the rule. I support the underlying pieces of legislation and look forward to coming back here tomorrow in the next step of getting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody knows that there were almost 300 amendments that have been submitted, and they'll be discussed later today, and Mr. McGovern is a part of that process and will be discussing those amendments today.

But I agree with both of my colleagues as it relates to sexual assault in the military. Having only been on Armed Services now for 6 months, I will tell you that I agree with Mr. McGovern, particularly as it relates to oversight. And I believe that this Congress should exhibit and utilize its oversight capacity to the fullest, especially as it relates to sexual assault within the military.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I have none.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. It allows the House to take action on two different but very important pieces of legislation.

It provides us with an opportunity to force the SEC and the CFTC to finally and jointly promulgate rules governing the U.S. institutions' use of swaps and other financial derivatives while accessing international markets. This action will help ensure that we have a vibrant financial system and that American companies can manage the risks while remaining competitive in an international market. Additionally, it begins our consideration on the National Defense Authorization Act, providing the House with an hour of general debate on programs that make up our Department of Defense.

As a Member of Congress, as a three Blue Star parent, and as an American, I can think of nothing more important than providing our military the tools that they need to carry out their missions. These brave men and women put their lives on the line for our Nation each and every day. This legislation isn't a thank-you to the troops, it's our duty as citizens to acknowledge that we live in the land of the free only because of the service of the brave.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion here on the floor, particularly as it relates to Dodd-Frank. First of all, this does not repeal Dodd-Frank. If it were a vote for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, I'd vote for it, but it's not a repeal of Dodd-Frank. As a matter of fact, this piece of legislation, the Swap Act, was actually voice voted out of the Agriculture Committee, which has joint jurisdiction over this piece of legislation. It was voice voted. In the Committee on Financial Services, 100 percent of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats voted for its passage, so it isn't exactly as one would hear the other side say.

When we talk about open rules, I think one of the things that distinguishes this Congress versus the 111th Congress is that this is one of the most open Congresses in the 112th Congress versus the 111th, which had absolutely zero open rules. I will remind my colleagues of that just because, as we talk about this and move forward on both of these issues, it's important to know that we have an open rule coming up in which we have almost 300 amendments that we are going to be considering in the Rules Committee in just a short period of time with the NDAA.

Lastly, I hear my colleagues talk about how for 25 years they have allowed sexual assault to go unabated. I can hardly stomach the fact that this body would allow that to happen over the last 25 years. As a former law enforcement officer, as one who vigorously prosecuted cases of sexual assault and rape, it should be no different for our armed services.

That is where my good friend Mr. McGovern had mentioned the oversight of armed services and of this House to make sure that we hold people accountable; to make sure, as other Members have talked about, that members of our military are kept safe, and that those who would prey upon members of their own military unit will find swift justice so that nobody can say there is not justice in regards to the fact, if you commit a rape or a sexual assault in the military, that you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that we make sure that we have victim advocates for those who are assaulted, and that we have good investigators who focus on those types of crimes and have the forensics to back it up so you have a strong prosecution. I think that's what this NDAA bill is an attempt to do.

I strongly support the bill and the underlying legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.