[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 3, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H510-H519]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1675, ENCOURAGING EMPLOYEE
OWNERSHIP ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 766,
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CUSTOMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 595 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 595
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1675) to direct the Securities and Exchange
Commission to revise its rules so as to increase the
threshold amount for requiring issuers to provide certain
disclosures relating to compensatory benefit plans. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-43. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
766) to provide requirements for the appropriate Federal
banking agencies when requesting or ordering a depository
institution to terminate a specific customer account, to
provide for additional requirements related to subpoenas
issued under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Enforcement Act of 1989, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-41. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. STIVERS. 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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act
of 2015, and for H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer
Protection Act of 2015. House Resolution 595 provides for a structured
rule for consideration of both H.R. 1675 and H.R. 766.
The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services for
H.R. 1675 and H.R. 766. Additionally, the resolution provides for
consideration of all seven amendments which were offered to H.R. 1675,
and two of the three amendments offered to H.R. 766. Finally, Mr.
Speaker, the resolution provides for a motion to recommit for each
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the
underlying legislation. H.R. 1675 is a vehicle for a group of five
legislative items, and I will speak about each one of them briefly by
title.
Title I, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act, would amend SEC rule
701, which hasn't been modified since 1999.
Although small companies are at the forefront of technological
innovation and job growth, they often face significant obstacles that
are often attributable to the proportionately larger burdens on them
that securities regulations--written for large public companies--place
on small companies when they seek to go public.
SEC rule 701 permits private companies to offer their own securities
as part of written compensation agreements to employees, directors,
general partners, trustees, officers, or even certain consultants
without having to comply with very expensive and burdensome security
registration requirements. SEC rule 701, therefore, allows small
companies to reward their employees through employee stock ownership in
a company. These ESOPs have been very successful.
The $5 million threshold in rule 701 has not been adjusted since
1999. If the disclosure threshold had been adjusted for inflation, it
would be more than $7 million today. The SEC has authority to increase
the $5 million disclosure threshold via rulemaking, but like the 500
shareholder rule that we had to fix--and my colleague from Colorado was
very active in helping with--rule 701 has not been changed. It is
unlikely to happen without congressional intervention. That is why this
is so important.
This is about getting employees access to ownership in their
companies. It is about building ownership structures that make these
companies stable over time. It allows businesses to incentivize their
employees with a direct stake in the ownership in their company. It
will help with employee retention, makes sure that these firms have
great opportunities for retirement programs, and helps employees reap
some of the benefits of their life's work that they worked so hard for
every day.
I will give an example, Mr. Speaker. There is a company in my
district called Allied Mineral. I talked about this, as my colleague
from Colorado may remember, yesterday in the Rules Committee.
Allied Mineral is a company in Hilliard, Ohio, that has an ESOP, or
employee stock ownership model, and many of those folks who operate
forklifts in their warehouse will retire with over $1 million in their
401(k). It really helps these folks want to stay in their company;
therefore, it improves retention and cuts down on training new
[[Page H511]]
employees, but it helps them in their retirement. It is a great vehicle
to make these companies productive and stable, as well.
That is title I. Title I is really important. Title I is pretty
universally agreed to.
Title II, the Fair Access to Investment Research Act, directs the SEC
to create a safe harbor for certain publications or distributions of
research reports by brokers or dealers distributing securities, such as
exchange-traded funds.
An exchange-traded fund is an investment company whose shares are
traded intraday on stock exchanges at market-determined prices.
Investors can buy and sell exchange-traded funds through a broker or in
a brokerage account, just as they would any other publicly traded
company.
Over the past three decades, exchange-traded funds have grown from
100 funds with about $100 billion in assets to over 1,300 funds worth
$1.8 trillion in assets. However, due to anomalies in our securities
laws and regulations, most of the broker-dealers don't publish research
about these exchange-traded funds, despite their growth in popularity.
The SEC has implemented similar safe harbors to what this bill would
suggest for other asset classes, including listed equities, corporate
debt, and closed-end funds. This section will help investors get access
to useful information when deciding whether to invest in exchange-
traded funds and similar products.
Title II, I think, is also pretty agreed to.
Title III, the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and
Brokerage Simplification Act, amends the Securities Exchange Act to
exempt merger and acquisition brokers from registration with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Merger and acquisition brokers
perform services in connection with the transfer of ownership of mostly
smaller privately held companies.
An estimated $10 trillion of privately owned companies will be sold
or traded as baby boomers retire and folks want to figure out what to
do with their life's work and how to move their company in a way that
the company can continue to exist. But it is important for us to reduce
the costs associated with this flow of capital because the registration
with SEC for these M&A brokers can be very expensive.
M&A brokers currently help successful entrepreneurs take the capital
out of their company and maybe move on to the next phase of their life,
while simultaneously aiding new entrepreneurs in the ability to invest
their capital in the continued success of their company. They foster
economic development, growth, and innovation.
Despite the valuable services of these M&A brokers, the compliance
costs for this new regulation with the SEC and FINRA can be very
expensive. For each individual broker inside an organization, it can
cost $150,000. Ongoing costs are about $75,000 a year.
Let's say somebody does four deals a year. Deals take a little while
to happen, and they are not going to do a ton of deals. A small firm
might do that few number of deals. If you do four deals a year, the
first year you have just added $75,000 to the cost of each deal.
{time} 1245
That is too high. It is causing problems. We need to make sure that
we streamline this and allow these small companies to have access to
the same type of access to capital that our big companies have.
The limit in this is up to $250 million in sales. As many people in
this Congress know, up to about $500 million in sales is what we call
middle-market companies.
Middle-market companies dot the maps of each one of our districts.
These middle-market companies aren't necessarily names you might
recognize or the American people would recognize, but they are the
fastest growing part of our economy. They are major employers in our
communities, and they deserve access to capital, just like the big
companies do.
So that is why title III is so important. It will relieve some of the
fees for these merger and acquisition brokerage houses that help these
companies get access to capital.
Title IV, the Small Company Disclosure Simplification Act, provides a
voluntary exemption for emerging growth companies, again, with annual
revenues up to $250 million from the eXtensible Business Reporting
Language.
Basically, it is exportable files. The data is still available. The
point here in title IV is that the data will be available, but it might
not be in a downloadable format that you can put in a spreadsheet. You
might have to look at it in a PDF.
Investors look at a lot of things in PDF. I can look at PDFs on my
phone, and it won't deny anybody information. But the cost of this new
format is adding up to $50,000 in costs for these small companies. The
question is: Does the cost really meet the benefit?
So it allows an exemption for these small companies. And, again, it
is an optional exemption. It is not a mandatory exemption. It doesn't
end this downloadable program, but it allows these small companies to
be more flexible in the way they do it because of the cost.
Title IV requires the SEC to report to Congress on the XBRL
requirements so that it can better analyze and understand how to
utilize XBRL and structure data moving forward.
Finally, we have title V, the Streamlining Excessive and Costly
Regulations Review Act, in the Securities and Exchange Commission. It
actually is built on some executive orders. Title V is modeled after
executive orders that the President did last year.
It would force the independent agencies and require the Federal
Reserve, OCC, and FDIC to review regulations at least every 10 years
and identify any outdated and unnecessary regulations that are imposed
on depository institutions.
We need to do the same thing for the SEC. That is what this does. I
think it will help streamline and make sure that paperwork is more
reasonable over time, especially for duplicative, outdated, and overly
burdensome regulations.
So that is H.R. 1675.
The other bill is H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer
Protection Act.
You may have all heard about Operation Choke Point, where law
enforcement, the Department of Justice, partnered with a lot of other
agencies. Their plan was to ``choke off'' banking services from
businesses that they found undesirable.
Rather than investigating and prosecuting companies that were alleged
to have committed crimes like fraud and any other misdeeds, the
Department of Justice issued subpoenas to financial institutions to ask
about entire industries and effectively coerced financial institutions
to cease offering banking services to many of those industries.
The Department of Justice partnered with the FDIC, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, to identify merchants that they said
posed high risk for consumers, notwithstanding the question of whether
these merchants were operating under the law or illegally.
In doing so, the FDIC equated legitimate and regulated industries,
such as coin dealers, firearms and ammunition sales industries, with
inherently illegal activities, such as Ponzi schemes, debt
consolidation scams, and drug paraphernalia.
So that is the real problem here, that they didn't separate out legal
businesses with illegal businesses. If they want to do something with
regard to businesses that are already illegal and make sure that those
folks can't get access to banking services, that is a legitimate thing.
But the way they identified high risk made a lot of legal businesses
lose their access to financial services. They were terminated by their
banks and they had, in many cases, no place to turn.
This is a blatant overreach by our Federal regulators. And many of
us, including me, believe this bill is an important step to make sure
that businesses that are legally operating have confidence that they
will have access to banking services. That is the key here.
This last section of this last bill makes sure that legally operating
businesses have access to legal banking services and that the banks
can't be intimidated by their regulators to make sure that legally
operated businesses don't have access to banking services.
[[Page H512]]
I look forward to debating these bills with our House colleagues. I
urge support for both the rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule today
because it is close--it is close--to a rule that would have substantial
bipartisan support.
The rule today provides for consideration of H.R. 1675, the
Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015, and H.R. 766, the Financial
Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015.
In terms of process, there is some credit to be given under this
rule. The rule was very close, with one major fault, which I will
discuss in detail, to fulfilling the promises laid out by the new
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
As you might recall, Mr. Speaker, there was a promise to all Members
that each Member of this body would have a chance to consider his or
her ideas on the House floor through a more open amendment process.
And you know what? That is a good idea.
Of course, if it was an idea that didn't have a majority of support,
that is fine. But there would be a vote. We could debate it. We could
vote on it.
If ideas came to the floor, were debated and considered worthy by a
majority of this body, they would pass. Even if a particular committee
chair of jurisdiction didn't like the bill, even if leadership on
either side didn't like the amendment, the will of the body could be
heard for commonsense improvements.
Now, this promise of regular order is so simple, so attractive, so
desirable, by the American people who let us do our job, yet,
unfortunately, it still remains elusive.
Now, on the first bill here today, H.R. 1675, the Encouraging
Employee Ownership Act, there were seven amendments submitted to the
Rules Committee, four of which I was a cosponsor of.
I am proud to say all seven amendments were made in order to be
considered on the House floor. If that was all that this rule
contained, I would be proud to support that rule.
In addition to that, H.R. 1675 is actually good legislation. Look,
any one of us can say we don't personally agree with every word, and
there are amendments to address some of the deficiencies in the bill.
But in its total, it is a package that should be considered for an
affirmative vote by Members of both parties. I am confident that it
will have strong bipartisan support in the underlying bill.
It promotes and makes needed updates in employee ownership, which is
a great form of corporate governance that I think each Member of this
body should support. We have companies in my district that use it.
The legislation also clears away red tape for small- and middle-
market companies, which my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) spoke
about here on the floor as well as in the Rules Committee.
I do believe that one of the bill's titles, in its current form,
takes away and reduces market transparency in the wrong direction.
But I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, we have amendments that will be
considered today by Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison, as well as cosponsored by
myself, that would address that matter--to encourage transparency in
financial markets--because financial markets are predicated on as-
close-to-perfect information as we can achieve and step towards perfect
information, enhance the efficiency of markets; steps away from perfect
information, decreased efficiency of markets.
Now, the second bill, H.R. 766, unfortunately is a piece of
legislation that again addresses a real need, but I can't support it.
Again, I would be proud to vote for the rule if it included a simple
amendment which I will be talking about in a moment. But,
unfortunately, the process through the Rules Committee shut that down.
I want to be clear. H.R. 766 takes a look at a critical, legitimate
issue, the issue of the Justice Department and Operation Choke Point.
Now, unfortunately, what it does is it goes too far in limiting the
tools that are available to DOJ to combat actual illegal activities,
like Ponzi schemes, banking fraud, and situations where the banks
themselves are complicit in committing the alleged fraud.
It also fails to deliver on what Mr. Stivers indicated its goal was,
to allow legally operating businesses to access the banking system.
It fails to deliver on that because, while there were nine amendments
that were made in order, a critical amendment offered by my colleagues,
Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado and Mr. Heck of Washington State, was not
allowed, an amendment that would have furthered the goal of this bill
to allow legally operating businesses to access banking services.
It was a germane amendment. There were no points of order. In fact, a
majority of the Members of this body have supported this amendment, in
full or in part, in various floor votes in earlier times.
A majority of this body supports a real-world solution to a real-
world problem, not just one we face in Colorado, but many States face.
The fact that legal, legitimate marijuana-related businesses cannot
interact with legitimate banking institutions is an enormous problem
for economic growth and a security risk.
It is a problem for law enforcement that we hear from police and
sheriff departments back home every day, and it is a problem for the
safety of our communities.
It is simply not acceptable to meet the standard of an open and
transparent process that the Speaker has promised to eliminate from
even consideration and a vote, this very important amendment that
addresses the accessibility of banking services to companies that are
engaged in a legal State business. For 23 States and the District of
Columbia, this is an enormous problem right now.
To be clear, what we are talking about is not just people who run
medical marijuana dispensaries, but also highly regulated growing
operations. Even farmers producing industrial hemp are turned away from
opening bank accounts, cannot accept credit cards, have to haul around
large amounts of cash to pay their employees every day, placing
themselves and their employees at enormous risk of physical assault and
robbery, as well as detracting from the very law enforcement ability to
trace transactions that our law enforcement officials are clamoring
for.
Due to Congress' inaction, hundreds of businesses in Colorado and 22
other States are forced to operate on a dangerous, untrackable, cash-
only system that raises serious public safety concerns, increases tax
fraud, and is an enormous burden on our economy.
Now, those are facts that are not in dispute. I know that there are
many Members on both sides of the debate about how we should treat hemp
and marijuana, whether they should be legal or illegal. That is not the
issue.
The issue is that 22 States and the District of Columbia have chosen
to legalize it under State law. It is illegal under Federal law. We are
not debating that here now either. That is fine. That wouldn't be
germane for this bill, to say let's legalize it federally. That is not
even what we are talking about here.
What we are talking about is, in the States that it is legal, it is
absolutely critical from even a law enforcement perspective--even if
you want it to continue to be illegal federally--that the interactions
are through our normal banking system in a traceable way.
These are facts that are not in dispute. My good friend from Ohio
knows these issues. In the lead-up to Ohio's possible consideration of
legalization, I am confident that many Ohioans had conversations with
law enforcement, walking through officials on the issue of making this
a cash-based business.
That was a significant issue in the Ohio election and in other
States.
{time} 1300
The issues of taxation and recordkeeping are critical. But do you
know what, that points to the necessity of this legislation. Do you
know what, Mr. Perlmutter's amendment would likely have passed this
body with Republican and Democratic support. It would have won a
majority of bipartisan support this week. It is not the job of the
Rules Committee to pick
[[Page H513]]
winners and losers. If it is particularly objectionable for the Rules
Committee to abuse its power to kill a measure that has demonstrated a
bipartisan level of support, that is not an appropriate use of the
discretion of our committee or our chair to have their personal
opinions guide what amendments are forwarded to this body for full
consideration.
What else can Members do? We write thoughtful amendments that solve
real-world problems in our State. We garner support for these
amendments year by year talking to Republicans and Democrats. And then
what, it just dies because we can't get it to a floor vote? How is that
an open and transparent process? It is not.
Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Heck are fighters. They will keep working on
this. We will win this debate eventually. This is simply a speed bump
in making sure that we address this issue for which there are no
legitimate arguments on the other side regardless of where one stands
on the legal treatment or regulation of substances that are currently
classified.
We should have won this week with this debate. This type of
bipartisan work should be rewarded in this body, and the 23 States and
the District of Columbia that face this issue deserve better. This
amendment had no drafting error. There was no political gimmick to it.
It wasn't nongermane. It didn't even rewrite in any substantial way the
underlying bill. It was perfectly consistent. It wasn't even
controversial. I can't understand why it didn't deserve consideration
by this body--not even a 10-minute debate, not even a 1-minute debate.
Will the gentleman from Ohio amend the rule to allow at least a 1-
minute debate on this amendment? I will yield for a ``yes'' or ``no.''
Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from Ohio won't even allow
a 1-minute debate. The gentleman from Ohio said he wanted legally
operating State businesses to have access to banking services which is
the very purpose of this bill. It is a great shame that we cannot fix
this issue now. Because you know what, otherwise I give credit to the
gentleman from Ohio and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for
allowing 9 of 10 amendments to be considered on the House floor under
these two bills.
This is the rule that I am coming closest to supporting of any rule
that we have debated thus far in the 114th Congress here on the floor,
but because of this one glaring deficiency which prevents, through an
open and transparent process, a real-world problem that Democrats and
Republicans agree need to be solved from being addressed in any
appropriate bill in an appropriate way, I cannot recommend to my
colleagues that they support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like quickly to respond to what the gentleman
referred to, and he did change some of my words. I said that these are
legally operating businesses. Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from
Colorado's own admission, these are not federally legal businesses.
They are illegal under Federal law. Marijuana is illegal in U.S. Code
21, section 812. The gentleman knows that.
Maybe we should debate whether marijuana should be legal under
Federal law. If he wants to debate that, that is okay. But this is a
recognition for banking services of businesses that are operating
lawfully under both Federal and State law, not ambiguous businesses
that are legal under State law but illegal under Federal law. At the
most, these businesses are ambiguous, but clearly they are illegal
under Federal law. I didn't say businesses that are operating legally
under State law in my comments. I said legally operating businesses.
That means under Federal and State law.
We live in a Federal republic with a State and a Federal Government.
If something is illegal under Federal law, under U.S. Code 21, section
812, then it is illegal. Those businesses are not legally operating
businesses. That is the distinction. That is why the amendment from Mr.
Perlmutter and Mr. Heck was not allowed, because these businesses--
drug-related businesses--are illegal under Federal code. That is the
reason we are not debating that amendment here.
I would say to the gentleman's point earlier where he wanted a minute
of debate, I think he has gotten more than a minute on both sides on
this. So he has done pretty well.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a
fellow from the Rules Committee.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Ohio
for the time today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 595
providing for consideration of H.R. 766, the Financial Institution
Customer Protection Act and H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee
Ownership Act of 2015. I strongly support this rule and the underlying
measures.
H.R. 766 is a vitally important response to the administration's
unacceptable executive overreach through Operation Choke Point.
Operation Choke Point is another example of the administration's
circumventing Congress. It is a disturbing abuse of authority to
achieve politically motivated results, and the fine folks in northeast
Georgia have made it clear that they won't stand for it.
Under the program, the Justice Department and Federal financial
regulators have coerced banks and other financial institutions into
cutting off relations with legal businesses simply because the
administration does not like them.
The administration has painted a target on certain industries ranging
from payment processors and short-term lenders to gun and ammunition
stores to other small businesses. Again, it is the administration who
has decided under the guise of customer protection to target entire
industries simply because they deem them offensive.
This is not the way the government is supposed to operate, and it is
time we prevent it from happening. I have had the opportunity to meet
with some of the hardworking individuals in the industries affected,
and it is clear action is needed.
A few weeks ago I met with several members of the electronic payments
industry. This is an industry that promotes innovation, is rapidly
growing, and plays a large and important role in Georgia's economy. To
give you an idea of the enormity of this industry, the electronic
consumer spending is projected to exceed $7.3 trillion in 2017. Yet the
administration has been increasingly exerting pressure on this
industry. They have increasingly tried to make the payments industry
responsible in part for the misdeeds of bad actors in other segments of
the industry.
Possibly even more disturbing, by forcing payments processors and
banks to assume the role of regulators and police the industry for bad
actors, known or unknown, the administration is promoting
discrimination of legal businesses if they belong to a certain industry
that isn't supported by the White House's political agenda. What has
happened to fairness under the law? It is amazing to me. The
administration is choking legitimate businesses off from needed capital
and other resources by painting them with a scarlet letter, and they
are burdening the payments industry by trying to use it as a means to
carry out their own dirty work.
Another industry long targeted by Operation Choke Point is the gun
industry. As Americans, we have a constitutional right to bear arms
under the Second Amendment. Just this week I had the privilege of
visiting Honor Defense, a gun manufacturer located in my hometown of
Gainesville, Georgia. I talked with the owner, toured their facilities,
and assembled actually one of their fine firearms.
These are hardworking American businesses operating legal businesses.
The administration doesn't like this industry, though, so they have
painted a target on their back. This is not right. We should be
encouraging businessowners to grow their businesses and celebrating
their success, not trying to force them out of business.
Stories of industries and legitimate small businesses that have been
targeted are widespread. It is time for this to stop. The government
has a legitimate role in protecting consumers and preventing fraud. But
that necessary role should not be abused to achieve political goals.
Financial regulators should not be able to target legal businesses by
choking off their lines of
[[Page H514]]
credit and forcing them out of business.
Mr. Speaker, Operation Choke Point is misguided and politically
motivated, and it is time we rein it in to protect small businesses and
legitimate enterprises of hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up a bill to help prevent mass shootings
by promoting research into the causes of gun violence and making it
easier to identify and treat those prone to committing violent acts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. To further discuss our proposal, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. If we
defeat the previous question, Mr. Polis will be able to offer an
amendment to the rule to bring my Gun Violence Research Act to the
floor for an immediate vote.
My Gun Violence Research Act would lift the over 19-year-old ban on
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to
objectively studying the health aspects of gun violence.
Former Republican Congressman from Arkansas, the Honorable Jay
Dickey, who was the author of the CDC ban, has gone on record
regretting his decision--expressing that the prohibition was rooted in
partisan politics, not sound public policy.
With well over 32,000 Americans killed by gunshots per year and
roughly 88 Americans killed every day--every day--gun violence is
undoubtedly a public health crisis that necessitates attention.
I represent Silicon Valley, and I have seen firsthand the role and
value objective research plays in expanded knowledge and informed
decisionmaking.
Research on gun violence should not be controversial or partisan. It
is a commonsense tool to help us understand why tens of thousands of
our fellow citizens are being killed every year by gunshots.
Without being able to adequately understand why the problem is
occurring, we are unable to effectively tackle our Nation's gun
violence epidemic and protect the American people whom we represent.
This is why I urge my Republican colleagues to allow a vote on this
critical legislation and lift the ban on desperately needed gun
violence research. When we understand the problem, we can make informed
public policy decisions to keep Americans safe without eroding the
Second Amendment and demonizing the millions of law-abiding gun owners.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher). He is a member of the
Foreign Affairs and Science, Space, and Technology Committees.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
underlying rule and in support of H.R. 1675, a bill that aims to lessen
many of the regulatory burdens that employers currently experience. Of
particular interest to me and of interest to working men and women
throughout America is title I of the bill entitled Encouraging Employee
Ownership Act of 2015. This title would make it easier for private
employers to grant their employees with greater ownership stake in
their own companies without having to disclose certain sensitive
information.
The consideration of the bill is but the latest in a long history of
actions taken by the Federal Government to promote an ownership
society. President Jefferson recognized ownership of private property
as the keystone of a free society. President Lincoln pushed for, and
Congress delivered, the Homestead Act of 1862 which has proven to be
one of the most important manifestations of Jefferson's vision of a
broad-based ownership property society. More recently, President Reagan
supported employee stock ownership, labeled it ``the next logical step,
a path that benefits a free people.''
In the near future, I will reintroduce legislation that incentivizes
employee ownership even further than we currently have it by treating
as tax-free any broad-based distribution of employer stock that is held
by the employees for a certain period of time. Yes, it would be ESOPs
on steroids. We would dramatically increase the amount of employee
ownership in our country and all the benefits that go with that.
I would ask my colleagues to consider my bill. It will be proposed
probably next week. My proposal is simple and easy to understand. No
team of lawyers or accountants would be needed to be hired in order for
an employer to participate in this expansion of employee ownership of
his or her company. As such, it has great potential to give a shot in
the arm to many small upstart companies that do not have significant
sums of cash to offer employees or to attract the very people who
actually have the skills necessary for their new company to succeed,
but instead have an idea that if an employee is willing to work hard
and make a company grow, prosper, and succeed that that company's
benefits would be shared with the employee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider joining me in support
of the working people of this country by giving them the opportunity to
achieve the American Dream and make employees partners instead of
adversaries to management.
One of the things in this bill that we are talking about today is
taking a step forward in employee ownership. I certainly support that.
The legislation I will propose takes another step.
I would like to congratulate my friends who have been involved with
this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California. I look forward to
discussing with him his bill next week and seeing whether it is
something that I can support.
I strongly believe in encouraging employee ownership through ESOPs
options. This bill does part. We can do a lot more. It is a big thing
that we can do to address the increasing income disparities that this
country has in making sure that workers can participate in capital
formation and capital growth along with owners and executives. We look
forward to working with the gentleman on that bill and contacting the
gentleman as well.
The gentleman from Ohio said that somehow legal operating businesses
must have access to banking resources, the goal of this bill. He said,
oh, wait a minute, I mean Federal ones not State ones, not Federal not
State. This is where you have a difference. Of course, you won't have
any disagreement that there is an ambiguity here with regard to types
of businesses that are legal at the State level and are not legal
federally. But this is where you will find that most Democrats believe
very strongly in States' rights.
{time} 1315
Most Republicans believe here, with the exception of the other
gentleman from California who just spoke and a number of others who
would allow a majority to support this bill, but apparently the
gentleman from Ohio believes in an overarching Federal definition
telling States what they can and can't do indirectly through the
banking system, effectively constraining their ability to allow banks
to serve businesses that might sell types of firearms that are illegal
federally, or types of marijuana or hemp or other products that might
be illegal federally. Effectively, they are arguing that the Federal
Government should tell them what to do and impose a one-size-fits-all
solution on States that are as diverse as Texas and California and
Colorado and North Dakota.
I disagree with that premise, as do most of the Democrats here today.
We feel that while this body, of course--and I agree with the
gentleman--
[[Page H515]]
should continue with the discussion about the regulatory structure of
legal treatment of cannabis products federally, that should in no way,
shape, or form stand in the way of a simple fix that says, whether you
want it to be legal or illegal, transactions should be traceable, safe,
through the banking system for businesses that are legal at the State
level.
Let me address H.R. 1675, the Encouraging Employee Ownership Act,
also being named the Capital Markets Improvement Act. It is a good
piece of bipartisan legislation that I think can be made even better
through the amendment process.
Title I of this bill, which will revise the SEC's rule 701 by raising
and indexing for inflation the threshold under which companies can
issue stock to employees without running into government red tape, is a
commonsense, good piece of legislation. I hope it is something that
most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with. I am an
early cosponsor of this legislation, and I think we should promote and
applaud the structure, the indexation, and, of course, allowing
employees to have a stake in their companies.
That is not the only solution. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) might have some other ideas I look forward to discussing,
as do I. But if you want to help solve some of our Nation's issues with
income inequality and the wealth gap, then we should applaud and
promote companies that incorporate employee stock or option ownership.
Whether you issue stock in the manner under this bill or whether you
operate in ESOP or any of the other forms that allow workers to benefit
from the growth of your company, we should find ways to work together
to promote and encourage this style of corporate governance.
Title II is a safe harbor for investment research, a bill that will
help improve available market information for investors and something
that has broad bipartisan support. I know my colleague from Delaware
(Mr. Carney) will also be pleased to see this pass, as an original
sponsor.
My colleague from Ohio, who is a co-chair with me of the
Congressional Caucus for Middle Market Growth, spoke yesterday and
today about how this overall package of legislation will help grow
companies in the all-important middle market. This is Main Street
America. These are companies that might not be big enough to be
multinational, multibillion-dollar brand names, and they are not
startups or small companies, but it is the engine of our economy, the
portion of the market that is a vital piece of our economic engine
creating jobs on Main Street.
Title III of this bill will work to reduce red tape for these very
middle market companies.
These provisions have broad bipartisan support, and I applaud them.
The SEC has largely agreed with this. In fact, the only argument
against it has been we already do this, and I think that is a weak
argument because we ought to put it in statute. The SEC has agreed and
has taken action, but, unfortunately, some of their actions have added
in some increased investor impediments as well.
I hope the administration can work with Congress to improve this bill
if there are specific issues they have with it. But the bill is
necessary. It is better to fix things in statute. I think that we can
work together to reduce red tape to grow small- and middle-sized
companies.
Title V of the bill is another bipartisan piece of legislation that
is in line with the sort of regulatory review that we already ask in
many agencies. It is the sort of good government legislation I think
both sides of the aisle can find agreement on and hopefully support
now.
Title IV of H.R. 1675, unfortunately, is a bit of a step in the wrong
direction, and it is something we discussed extensively in the
committee yesterday. Fortunately, for this provision, there was an open
process. Mr. Issa and Mr. Ellison have amendments that will be
considered that improve the portion of the bill or remove it entirely.
Unfortunately, the bill, as written, is a move away from searchable
financial reporting that can be done digitally. It is a step away from
sortable and downloadable formats. It is a return to the pen and paper
and inefficient world of the 20th century rather than a step forward to
the open data transparency world of the 21st century.
Across the board, market participants, investors, and regulators want
information that is already required--we are not talking about any new
requirements--information that is already required, financial
information, to simply be available in a digital, searchable format.
That is all we seek to preserve and not eliminate.
It is an odd and outdated use of government resources to deal with
this information by hand, by pen, by paper. It puts investors and
others at an enormous disadvantage, and it prevents and reduces the
amount of information in the marketplace. Searchable and sortable data
can be better used to track trends, find anomalies, find investment
opportunities, and help regulators notice trouble spots in markets and
hopefully catch the next Enron before it explodes.
Just as importantly, investors need information. So do
entrepreneurial folks, who want to take this information and package it
in new and interesting and exciting ways and sell it on to
institutional and individual investors. We heard yesterday from
detractors who said investors aren't asking for this information.
We also heard that the committee didn't include any investors in
their testimony; they only included operating companies. I am not sure
who they are speaking for; but in my conversations, I have never heard
any investor say, ``I want less information,'' or, ``I want information
to be harder to search or find.'' No investor says, ``I want to know
less about a company's earnings. I want it to be in an archaic pen and
paper format.'' That argument that this information isn't welcome by
investors is simply incorrect, and it is counter to anything you will
ever hear from anyone in the investment community.
Hopefully, we will fix these issues through amendment. Overall, I
believe this package should merit serious consideration and support
from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, does
address a very important issue, and that is the inexcusable actions of
Operation Choke Point, which, at best, could be described as an
overzealous use of the Department of Justice's power, or, at worst, as
a pernicious attempt to root out activities that are determined to be
politically unpopular.
Unfortunately, as we examine this bill, it looks like it has some
unintended consequences which are not addressed through the amendment
process. The amendment process also fails to include a simple amendment
that would further the goals of this bill with regard to the regulated
marijuana industry in 22 States.
I hope that we can address the Operation Choke Point issue. I hope we
can prevent this administration and future administrations from
engaging, having DOJ engage in this kind of troublesome use of
authority to coerce closures of accounts for otherwise legitimate and
legal customers of local financial institutions.
If a bank or credit union has a legal business, it is legal in the
State, they deem it creditworthy, they are a good customer and they
want to open an account with them, they should be able to serve that
customer. The Federal Government should not use the bank itself as an
intermediary in a dispute. If the DOJ has a dispute with a bank's
customer, that should be resolved between the DOJ and the customer, not
the bank.
I hope that there is groundwork for bipartisan legislation in this
area that can ensure that this President and future Presidents and the
future Department of Justices do not abuse their authority in this
area.
One real-life, everyday issue where this concept comes up of the
Department of Justice and the Federal Government interfering with the
bank working with its legal customer would have been addressed by the
Perlmutter amendment that I spoke about earlier. It is not just a
Colorado issue. Frankly, if this bill addressed that issue, despite it
being overarching in other areas, I would probably support it.
Thus is the importance of this issue from local law enforcement in
our State. But, unfortunately, not even a
[[Page H516]]
minute, not even a second of debate is allowed on the issue. The
gentleman from Ohio claimed that we were having that debate.
To be clear, we are not. We are debating the underlying rule. There
is no time for the sponsors of the amendment to make their case or for
opponents of the amendment to make their case. We are outlaying the
time for other amendments. Many amendments have 10 minutes; many
amendments have more. There is not even a second for the debate of that
amendment sponsored by Mr. Perlmutter. That is why I cannot support
this rule.
213 million Americans live in a State or jurisdiction where the
voters have allowed for some legal marijuana use. Colorado tried to
solve the problem locally, but we were rejected by Federal banking
regulators in courts, so Congress needs to be the one to make this
change. Only Congress can address this issue.
While there remains a need to align Federal and State laws, while the
DOJ and Treasury have issued some guidance, some institutions are
providing banking services to the DOJ and Treasury guidance issues, the
guidance does not solve the problem, which is why we need to change the
law and provide certainty, which this very simple amendment that has
bipartisan support and likely would have passed on the floor would have
done. But it is completely shut down under this rule even though it
furthers the actual goal of the legislation, is germane to the
legislation, is consistent with the legislation, and yet it is
completely shut down in a closed process that runs contrary to the
Speaker's stated goal of allowing Members on both sides of the aisle to
contribute to making things better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to address two quick points made by the gentleman.
With regard to H.R. 1675 and exportable data, the gentleman tries to
claim that this data will not be available. It will be available in
scanned-in information, so you can still look at it and see it. It is
not pen and paper data the way he alleges. It is still very accessible
on the electronic systems. It is just not exportable data.
The question is: Is that exportable data worth the $50,000 cost for
these small companies? It is only a few small companies that will
benefit from being relieved from this burden because the cost is more
than the benefit.
Secondly, the gentleman continues to ignore the fact that marijuana
businesses are not legal under Federal law. If he wants to have the
debate about whether they should be legal under Federal law, we should
have that debate. That is not germane in this bill.
What we are talking about are legal businesses that are legal under
Federal and State law, not ambiguous businesses that are only legal one
place or the other. In our Federal system, there is both a Federal and
a State component. If he wants to debate making marijuana legal at the
Federal level, that is legitimate; it is just not germane in this bill.
This is for businesses that are legal at the State and Federal level.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), who is
a distinguished member of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform that had a lot of hearings on Operation Choke Point.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio
for yielding and for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the Financial
Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015.
Over the past several years, the Obama administration's Department of
Justice has strong-armed the financial industry in an attempt to cut
off payment processors, short-term lenders, gun and ammunition stores,
and other companies from banking services simply because they do not
like their line of business.
Operation Choke Point is just another example of this administration
trying to advance its radical leftist agenda through executive power
overreach with a disregard for Americans' due process rights. In
effect, these businesses are being treated as if they are guilty until
proven innocent.
The bill before us today prevents Federal bureaucrats from abusing
their executive power to prevent legitimate businesses from using
depository banks. It also requires written justification of any request
to terminate or restrict a business' account, unless the business poses
a legitimate threat to national security.
In the First Congressional District of Georgia that I represent, we
have a large, multi-State licensed consumer finance company that
services more than 1,000 new customers every day. This is just another
example of this administration working to limit economic growth and
Americans' free will.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can put an end to
this administration's unconstitutional actions and restore the rule of
law.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I appreciate the committee of jurisdiction's work and the
Rules Committee's work to make 9 out of 10 amendments submitted in
order today--that is 9 out of 10. But I have to reiterate again that
the one that is most important to not only my home State, but the
jurisdictions in which 213 million Americans live--22 States plus the
District of Columbia--is omitted from consideration in its appropriate,
germane bill.
I strongly object to the unnecessary gatekeeping of the Rules
Committee and what they have engaged in and the way that they have
treated this excellent idea and real-world solution from Mr. Perlmutter
and Mr. Heck.
Access to banking services is an issue of fundamental importance for
all businesses, as the proponents of this bill have argued. Do you know
what? That includes State legal marijuana businesses. Just because some
Members of Congress--and they are in the minority, by the way, and they
are decreasing every day--object to the very existence of these
businesses does not mean that they should obstruct the entire
legislative process and shut down our ability to make it possible for
these businesses to exist, grow, and succeed.
{time} 1330
The Perlmutter-Heck amendment is a germane, thoughtful solution to a
real-world problem, and I hope this House will atone for its error
today by swiftly taking up legislation--and there is a stand-alone
bill--to solve this banking issue once and for all.
This was a discussion that we had in our committee yesterday, but,
unfortunately, it is a discussion that we are not allowed to have on
the people's floor of the House of Representatives. There is not an
amendment that would have somehow legalized or have made any judgment
about the legality or the morality of marijuana. It simply would have
addressed a banking issue that both proponents and opponents of
marijuana law reform agree needs to be addressed. Now, I am happy to
have that conversation about how we should treat marijuana federally at
a separate point. That is fine. I have legislation to regulate
marijuana like alcohol, and others have other ideas.
Those who are following at home need to know that the Perlmutter-Heck
amendment is not that discussion. It was germane to the bill we were
discussing, and it, frankly, gets at the issue of why our banks are
being used as a chokepoint for doing business with otherwise legal and
legitimate customers as determined by the States.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, while I support one of the two
underlying bills--and I would like to be here to support the other if
it would simply deal with the urgent issue of 213 million Americans who
live in jurisdictions that face it--I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
and defeat the previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's points.
These two bills are great bills. The first bill helps to preserve and
to incentivize employee stock ownership. It decreases burdensome
regulations so as to allow these middle market companies, which I
talked about earlier, to have access to capital and to continue to
grow, and it ensures that entrepreneurs can have access to the capital
markets in an affordable and efficient way.
H.R. 766 addresses legal businesses. Again, I want to stress
``legal'' businesses. The gentleman from Colorado,
[[Page H517]]
Mr. Speaker, I think, would welcome the day of the Articles of
Confederation. He wants to ignore that we have the State and the
Federal governments. He wants the States to just make decisions and not
allow the Federal Government to do anything. If marijuana is illegal at
the Federal level, that is a fact. If he wants to have the debate about
making marijuana legal at the Federal level, we should do that. That is
not germane to this bill.
These businesses are, at best, ambiguously legal, and they are
clearly illegal at the Federal level. So let's clear up the ambiguity.
Then they can have the same access that other legal businesses have,
like gun dealers and automotive dealers and short-term lenders, which
are already legal at both the State and Federal levels. They need
access to banking services. H.R. 766 makes sure they will continue to
have access to banking services.
There are some amendments that I will be supporting and that others
will be supporting. Make one's mind up on the amendments, but I think
both of these bills are important. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 595 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3926) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
better understanding of the epidemic of gun violence, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3926.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 176, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 55]
AYES--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
[[Page H518]]
NOES--176
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Amodei
Beyer
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Conyers
Deutch
Ellison
Fleming
Hahn
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Loudermilk
Rush
Sarbanes
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
{time} 1352
Ms. SPEIER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 55, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 55, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 175, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 56]
AYES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--175
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Amodei
Beyer
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Deutch
Ellison
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Hill
Lawrence
Paulsen
Rush
Sarbanes
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska) (during the vote).
There are 2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1359
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 56, I was unavoidably detained
with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 56, I was not present due
to a meeting with constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on
rollcall No. 55 on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1675 and H.R. 766. I am not
recorded because I was absent due to the birth of my son in San
Antonio, Texas. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
[[Page H519]]
Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 56 on H. Res.
595, the Rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 1675,
Encouraging Employee Ownership Act of 2015 and H.R. 766, Financial
Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015. I am not recorded because
I was absent due to the birth of my son in San Antonio, Texas. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________