PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2003
Emergency Securities Response Act of 2003 - Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to grant the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) powers, in an emergency, to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the substantial disruption by the emergency of: (1) securities markets, investment companies, or other significant portion of such markets, or (2) the transmission or processing of securities transactions.Permits such emergency to extend beyond 30 business days, but no more than 90 calendar days, if the SEC finds that the emergency still exists and determines that the continuation of the emergency order beyond 30 business days is necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors. Redefines emergency to include a major disturbance that substantially disrupts or threatens to substantially disrupt: (1) the functioning of securities markets, investment companies, or any other significant portion or segment of the securities markets; or (2) the transmission or processing of securities transactions.
People & committees
Rep. Garrett, Scott [R-NJ-5] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text of measure as passed House: CR H1341)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text of measure as passed House: CR H1341)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 657.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1341-1343)
Mr. Garrett (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 13.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 108-19.
Reported by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 108-19.
Ordered to be Reported.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.657 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.657 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.657 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.657 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.