[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 21 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H570-H583]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CUSTOMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in

[[Page H571]]

which to revise and extend their remarks and to submit extraneous 
materials on 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 595 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 766.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1013


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Mooney of West Virginia in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Maxine Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am proud to offer H.R. 766, Mr. Chairman. It is a bipartisan piece 
of legislation that provides transparency and accountability among 
Federal banking regulators and the Department of Justice.
  This legislation comes in response to the abuse of authority by DOJ, 
FDIC, and other banking agencies under the action called Operation 
Choke Point, an initiative which seeks to deny legally operating 
businesses the financial services they need to operate and survive.
  The notion that Operation Choke Point is limited to payday lenders or 
the banks serving them is far from the truth. This initiative has 
spread across many industries, including tobacco shops, gun 
manufacturers and dealers, pawnbrokers, even a coal mine and an auto 
dealer. Even attorneys and data companies that serve these industries 
have been impacted.
  While regulators will tell you this activity has stopped, Operation 
Choke Point remains a very live issue. For more than a year, I have 
asked Americans impacted by this initiative to submit their story at 
our email address of [email protected].
  Just this week I heard from a payday lender in Missouri who recently 
received account termination notices from his financial institution. 
Gregory Bone, whose businesses have served borrowers in Branson, 
Pineville, and Neosho, has operated since 1998 and is registered with 
both the State of Missouri and the U.S. Treasury Department. On January 
21st, there is a similar story from a credit bureau in California and, 
before that, a tobacco shop in Florida.
  The underlying problem here cannot be overstated. The Federal 
Government should not be able to intimidate financial institutions into 
dropping entire sectors of the economy as customers based not on 
wrongdoing, but purely on personal and political motivations and 
without due process.
  We have the internal DOJ and the FDIC memos that prove these motives 
that are driving Operation Choke Point. The Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform did a fantastic job of putting together two reports 
that take the different agencies' own emails and show what is actually 
going on and the motivation for those actions.
  This program sets a dangerous precedent that shouldn't be permitted 
under any administration. William Isaac, the former chairman of the 
FDIC, appointed to the board by President Carter and named chairman by 
President Reagan, stated in committee that Operation Choke Point is the 
most dangerous government program he has seen in his 45-year career as 
a banker, a bank consultant, and as a regulator.
  H.R. 766 offers a straightforward approach to a complicated problem. 
First, it dictates that banking regulators cannot suggest, request, or 
order an institution to terminate a banking relationship unless the 
regulator has a material reason beyond reputational risk.
  The bill also strikes the word ``affecting'' in FIRREA and replaces 
it with ``by'' or ``against.'' This modest change will help ensure that 
broad interpretations of the law are limited and that the intent of the 
statute, penalizing fraud against or by financial institutions, is 
restored.
  It is essential that DOJ and financial regulators maintain the 
ability to pursue bad actors, and I fully support these efforts. This 
is something they must continue to do. But the checks and balances in 
this legislation would ensure accountability and would not hinder the 
ability to pursue those suspected of fraudulent activity.
  The provisions contained in H.R. 766 are reasonable. In fact, the 
FDIC used its authority to already put them in place. Agency policy now 
requires staff to track and document account termination orders, which 
must be made in writing and cannot rely on reputational risk. The 
willingness of the FDIC to put these standards into place tells other 
regulators that they can and should follow suit.
  I am proud the House is working in a bipartisan fashion to address 
this issue, including the passage of limitation amendments by voice 
votes in the 113th and 114th Congresses.
  Republicans and Democrats alike have talked to regulators about the 
dangers of such a program. Many of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have expressed their concerns to me privately as well. This 
bipartisan legislation takes a responsible approach to curbing the 
malpractice we have seen.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hensarling for his 
outstanding support as we have gone through this 2\1/2\ year process.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 766.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, if you listen carefully to my colleague on 
the opposite side of the aisle, Mr. Luetkemeyer, you would think that 
the major point of this bill is the Choke Point controversy.
  Considerable time was spent by my colleague on the opposite side of 
the aisle talking about Choke Point. Well, I do not want that 
discussion to obscure the real problem with this very bad legislation.
  H.R. 766 eliminates core provisions of the Financial Institutions 
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, or FIRREA, that the Justice 
Department has used to investigate and prosecute bank fraud. This is 
what this discussion should be about: bank fraud.
  FIRREA has proven to be the Justice Department's most effective tool 
for holding Wall Street accountable. We hear a lot of talk about Wall 
Street. We went through 2008 and the subprime meltdown, the bailout, 
and all of that.
  Most of the Members on both sides of the aisle agree that we had to 
rein in the practices of Wall Street. Here we have a bill today that 
would basically protect them and take away the very tool that is used 
in order to make them accountable.
  After using FIRREA to secure historic settlements against Wall 
Street, including a $7 billion settlement against Citibank, a $5 
billion settlement against Goldman Sachs, a $13 billion settlement 
against JPMorgan Chase, and a historic $16 billion settlement against 
Bank of America, now H.R. 766 seeks to stifle the Justice Department's 
investigative powers over financial fraud. In fact, there are still 
ongoing settlement negotiations with

[[Page H572]]

banks like Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs that were announced just this 
week.
  Without investigatory powers and an extended statute of limitations 
granted to the Justice Department by FIRREA, it would be impossible for 
us to identify and rectify the fraudulent activity that set us up for a 
crisis 10 years ago.
  Apparently, H.R. 766 supporters believe that actually holding banks 
accountable for fraud was too much of a burden for them, replacing our 
system of too big to jail with one where our biggest banks are now too 
frail to fine.
  H.R. 766 also invites the next crisis by imposing burdensome 
requirements--listen to this--imposing burdensome requirements on the 
Justice Department's ability to investigate bank fraud, allowing fraud 
schemes to continue at the expense of consumers and the financial 
system.
  The Justice Department's ability to identify and rout out fraud would 
be critical in averting future crises, and H.R. 766 would be a free 
pass to banks that make their money by breaking the law.
  That would include banks like Plaza, Commerce West, and Four Oaks, 
all of which knowingly aided fraudsters, despite the many red flags 
raised by their financial activities.
  At Commerce West in particular, the bank admitted fraud for failing 
to file suspicious activity reports with regulators even after the 
bank's own employees determined that one of their customers was 
routinely submitting fraudulent checks to the bank.
  According to the Justice Department's complaint, the bank also failed 
to heed the warning of other banks that pointed out to Commerce West 
that some of their customers were fraudulent businesses.
  Furthermore, H.R. 766's account closure provisions are a solution in 
search of a problem as regulators are now forcing financial 
institutions to close customer accounts.
  Every Federal banking regulator has been clear, except for rare cases 
involving national security or systemic risks. The responsibility for 
closing accounts is a decision for financial institutions.
  Some financial institutions are simply deciding that they would 
rather lose a customer than invest in the resources needed to ensure 
that our financial system is not being used for money laundering or 
other criminal activity.
  In order to protect our economy from the next financial crisis, 
regulators have to have the necessary tools to prevent fraud and 
protect consumers.
  Americans are still reeling from the effects of the financial crisis. 
We should be in the business of seeking ways to continue to hold banks 
more accountable for their misconduct, not rolling back the Federal 
Government's most effective tool for protecting consumers, investors, 
and taxpayers from bank fraud. Banks that break the law don't deserve 
get-out-of-jail-free cards.
  The administration will veto H.R. 766. I urge my Democratic 
colleagues to oppose H.R. 766.
  I just want to say that, despite yesterday when we had five bills 
that had been rolled into one that I warned our Members of Congress 
about because of what they literally did, particularly in terms of 
allowing corporations to not have to disclose information about the 
stock that they were giving to their employees, and I talked about how 
bad that was.
  This is worse. This is worse because we are able to call names and to 
point out banks because we have the information. It is real.
  We are able to point out how the Justice Department has been affected 
in making these banks accountable. So why in the world would we want to 
take away the Justice Department's tool that is FIRREA? Why would we 
want to prevent the Justice Department from going after these banks who 
know they are dealing with crooks and fraudsters?
  I would ask for a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), the cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Missouri. We have 
been working on this now 2\1/2\ to 3 years.
  The bill is fairly simple, Mr. Chairman, in what it actually does. It 
just takes a second to read the operative line that an appropriate 
banking Federal agency may not formally or informally request or order 
a depository institution to terminate a specific customer account 
without a really good reason.
  I want people to think about that, Mr. Chairman. The fact that we 
have to actually debate this frightens me. The fact that we have to 
bring a bill to the floor of the United States House that says the 
Federal Government regulators cannot force a bank to close an account 
without a good reason should frighten people.
  I heard Mr. Luetkemeyer talk about many of the companies that have 
been impacted: gun manufacturers, pawnshops. It has now spread, Mr. 
Chairman, to individuals.
  We are hearing reports that individuals engaged in legal businesses--
every single one of the victims are engaged in legal activity.
  We are hearing now that individuals who happen to engage in legal 
poker playing in Las Vegas, Nevada, which is a completely legal 
endeavor--you may not like it--are having their bank accounts shut off 
by the Federal Government.
  My dad told me when I got to this job: The difference between the 
government when I was your age and the government that you are going 
into is that I was never afraid of my government. Your children will 
grow up afraid of their government because of things exactly like this.
  We are debating a bill on the floor of the House that says the 
government can't force banks to shut down legal business banking 
accounts. It is outrageous, but it is real, and it has happened for a 
long time.
  It has happened, by the way, Mr. Chairman, because this 
administration has not been able to accomplish their agenda through 
legislative process. So they are doing it now through regulation.
  There is a report that our committee put out. It is an excellent 
report. I commend it to everybody. There are emails from within the 
regulators. I will read one.
  It says:

       I have never said this to you, but I am sincerely 
     passionate about this. I literally cannot stand payday 
     lending. They are abusive, fundamentally wrong, hurt people, 
     and do not deserve to be in any way associated with banking.

  It is a completely legal business, Mr. Chairman.
  I hope that we have bipartisan support for this. We have had 
cosponsors on both sides. I encourage wholehearted support of this so 
we can get the Federal Government out of making decisions like this.

                              {time}  1030

  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I would 
simply like to point out that Mr. Mulvaney just continued in the vein 
that Mr. Luetkemeyer started out in, obscuring the real point of this 
bill.
  They are going to keep telling you it is all about Choke Point. What 
they are not going to talk about is taking away the Justice 
Department's ability to use FIRREA to go after these banks that are 
committing crimes.
  I don't want the Members to be misled. Ask them why they are refusing 
to talk about the main point of this bill.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the ranking member and the 
chair of the committee. I would also like to say that this is a 
situation where there are--and I have even seen myself--some closures 
of accounts, which I think were not adequately justified, but this bill 
doesn't just solve that problem. It solves a whole lot of problems that 
are not problems.
  So they take what could be a legitimate issue, and then they use that 
little hole in the tent to push in a whole bunch of other stuff that 
will literally weaken the whole system.
  My good friend from South Carolina, if that was all the bill said, it 
wouldn't be that bad of a problem, but that is not only what it says. 
In fact, it weakens financial protections and lets bad actors in the 
system off the hook. If we are concerned about small accounts being 
closed, we should focus on that issue, but this particular bill goes 
way beyond that.
  As Members contemplate how they want to vote on this bill, they had 
better think about and read this bill carefully because it goes far 
beyond just

[[Page H573]]

simply calling for a justification for arbitrarily closing accounts. 
That is why I oppose the bill.
  I oppose the bill, the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act, 
H.R. 766. This bill would do the opposite of what is asserted in the 
title. H.R. 766 would not protect customers of financial institutions 
actually. Instead, it would make it more difficult to hold financial 
institutions accountable, and it will achieve that goal in a bait-and-
switch way by acknowledging what may be, in some cases, a legitimate 
issue of arbitrary account closures, but then coming in, sneaking in 
the back door, all this other stuff, to weaken the financial system.
  Many Americans, including those who saw the movie ``The Big Short,'' 
cannot understand how so few people went to jail for the schemes that 
caused the financial crisis. People made loans they knew would fail, 
sold those bad loans to investors, and caused the financial crisis that 
cost our economy $14 trillion.
  Twelve million people lost their jobs, and 11 million people lost 
their homes. Who went to jail for all this mortgage fraud? Well, I 
think there is only one person I have been able to find. I would be 
happy to find anyone else. Teresa Giudice from ``The Real Housewives of 
New Jersey,'' football player Irving Fryar, and straw buyers in 
Michigan, those are the only people I could find who went to jail for 
this. Other people who committed massive fraud, they paid fines, but 
they walked away.
  I am incredibly frustrated by the fact that the Department of Justice 
has not pursued more criminal prosecutions of people at the 
multinational corporations who caused the financial crisis. But the 
answer to that problem is stronger enforcement, not to take away the 
most important tool Federal prosecutors have to pursue financial fraud.
  There is this thing called FIRREA. I know people watching C-SPAN are 
like, what is that? These Congress people always speak in acronyms. It 
is the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. 
FIRREA was specifically designed to hold bankers accountable for 
destabilizing the financial system with their fraudulent activity. This 
bill weakens that.
  In an Orwellian twist, it says that FIRREA cases cannot be brought 
when fraud is committed against a bank instead of by a bank. I will say 
it again. If this bill passes today, FIRREA cases can only be brought 
when fraud is committed against a bank and not by a bank. That is bad.
  It also limits law enforcement's subpoena power. Don't we want to be 
able to subpoena these guys? Why would we want to be able to weaken 
that?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Newhouse). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 
minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. It eliminates the bankers' regulators' ability to ensure 
safety and soundness of the financial system. We need to enforce the 
law, not wink at it.
  Members, they are dangling a shiny, little object in front of you by 
saying they are going to stop arbitrary account closures. This bill is 
way more than that. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his 
work on this very important bill.
  The Constitution is clear: the right of the people to keep and bear 
arms shall not be infringed, yet time and time again, this 
administration has attempted to circumvent the constitutional rights of 
Americans to further their political agenda.
  Today, under the guise of protecting consumers, the Department of 
Justice and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are targeting 
payment companies to choke off credit for certain businesses they deem 
high risk, including ammunition and firearms stores, lending 
institutions, and other lawful businesses as well.
  Instead of protecting consumers, this initiative is restricting 
consumer choice and crippling legitimate businesses. This policy makes 
financial service providers responsible for policing their customers. 
That is not fair to either banks or their consumers.
  This commonsense legislation we are considering today will protect 
consumer access to banking services and restrict the administration 
from using the highly substantive notion of reputational risk to 
undercut constitutional rights and terminate the accounts of lawful 
businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck), a valued member of the Committee 
on Financial Services.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, as a fellow Washingtonian, might I 
just observe that you make that dais look good.
  I actually counterintuitively want to start out by thanking my 
friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), for taking this 
issue on.
  We had a problem in a lot of communities around the country with 
businesses getting access to the banking system, and I know he worked 
this very hard last year. He investigated; he talked to banks, 
businesses, and regulators; and he actually negotiated a solution with 
the FDIC that he had pushed and pushed until they actually adopted it.
  It was a good solution. In fact, part of this bill would essentially 
codify that. What it would say is, you can't use FIRREA to go after 
whole sectors of the economy. It has to be specifically and 
individually based. You have to have a reason to believe that an 
individual business was engaged in fraud if you were going to use the 
banking system to get at them. Good solution, constructive solution. My 
hat is off to you, sir.
  Unfortunately, this bill, as has been suggested earlier, goes 
farther. Section 3 makes it a lot harder for the Department of Justice 
to investigate financial solutions because, as has been suggested, it 
takes direct and specific aim at the powers under FIRREA, as the 
gentleman from Minnesota had indicated. It puts limits on them as to 
when subpoenas can be issued. To me, frankly, that is a solution in 
search of a problem.
  FIRREA has been the key statute in going after fraud that, in fact, 
helped lead to the Great Recession and the crisis, and the wiping out 
of $13 trillion in net worth. Frankly, I am one of those people who 
believes we need more prosecutions, not fewer, for all the damage and 
harm done to Americans throughout this land.
  I am very reluctant to embrace any language that substantially 
weakens or obstructs FIRREA's ability to investigate fraud. I do agree 
with my friend that investigations and our oversight of them could be 
improved by requiring a paper trail. I worked with him to see if we 
could find a compromise that did that, but we couldn't. So ultimately, 
we had to disagree, and this is a disagreement that I will characterize 
as being a very strong one.
  The truth of the matter is, in the last two calendar years alone, 
FIRREA was the operative statute which led to $40 billion in fines and 
recoveries being levied. Truth be told, it is very, very unlikely, if 
not highly unlikely, that any of those $40 billion in fines or 
restitution could have been recovered if the language of this 
legislation had been in effect; $20 billion of which was restitution to 
harmed parties, people who lost their homes inappropriately because 
they had had fraud perpetuated upon them.
  I don't think that is what the American public wants right now. I 
think the American public is still eager for some accountability for 
the actions and behavior that led to the Great Recession.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. So I join in the chorus of my colleagues who 
suggest that this bill is actually not just a step backward but two 
giant steps backward. There is an issue here that could be worked on. 
This is not the right solution; and, I might add, it is not going to 
become law because it has already been indicated by the executive 
branch this probably isn't going anywhere.
  I would entreat you--in the spirit of trying to find a solution to a 
real problem--please, let us set aside, vote ``no,'' and not enact that 
which is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist and, in 
fact, does considerable

[[Page H574]]

harm to the American public and to our ability to hold people 
accountable.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly rewarding and 
heartwarming to see that the ladies and gentlemen on the other side of 
the aisle continue to support our bill from the standpoint they 
recognize that where there is a problem, Operation Choke Point exists, 
that our bill is the solution. The only thing they seem to have 
problems with is the part that we try and do something with the DOJ 
with regards to FIRREA.
  To settle that and enlarge on that discussion, I am proud to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), our 
Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee chairman who will provide some 
information with regard to that very thing.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the chairman yielding. I am 
grateful for Chairman Luetkemeyer's work on this important issue.
  Our financial systems are the bedrock of our economy. When financial 
systems work, our economy works. And we have seen when our financial 
system doesn't work, things come crashing down. To make sure our 
financial system is safe and sound, we have empowered regulators to 
keep an eye over it, to make sure we don't do things that are too risky 
that can endanger the financial system and then, therefore, the 
economy.
  One of the problems, though, is that those regulators have stepped 
outside that traditional role and have tried to impact policy decisions 
that should be made in this institution by rules and regulations that 
come out from their oversight capacity.
  I look at the liberals, or it might be the progressives, inside the 
FDIC who, in line with the administration, said: I don't like gun 
dealers, I don't like ammunition manufacturers. Who cares about the 
Second Amendment? I don't like them.
  Now, if you don't like guns and you don't like ammunition and you 
don't like short-term lenders, if you want to get rid of those things, 
have a debate about it. Have an argument. Introduce a bill, and let's 
vote on it. Let the American people see it. But the administration 
knows they will lose because most Americans like their guns, they like 
their Second Amendment.
  So instead of going through this institution, they very craftily 
thought: Wow, just think, if we were able to, as regulators, put 
pressure on banks so banks would stop banking legal businesses that we 
don't like--guess what happens if they can't bank? They will go out of 
business, and we will have less guns, less ammunition, and we will have 
less short-term lending. That is exactly what they have done.
  But we didn't empower the FDIC to make policy decisions. We said, 
hey, keep the banking system safe and sound. But like so many corners 
of this administration, they have expanded that authority to advance 
their liberal, progressive agenda.
  I know my friends across the aisle, who I like very much and are 
friends of mine, are trying to focus on big banks and Wall Street. But, 
Mr. Chairman, to the ranking member I would say: Listen, big banks 
aren't being affected by Choke Point. It is the smallest, little 
businesses in our communities that don't have the power to stand up and 
fight back and push back. They are the ones that are affected.

                              {time}  1045

  Big banks on Wall Street don't get hit by this. It is the little guy. 
This is a bill that Mr. Luetkemeyer crafted that stands up for the 
little guy--the little one that doesn't have the lobbyist and the money 
to come to town to talk to Members of Congress--who is being affected 
by this liberal progressive agenda today that they know can't be get 
passed by law, so they do it by regulation.
  This is one more horrible example of how your government isn't 
working and how this institution isn't representing the people that we 
were sent here to represent.
  This is a great bill. Let's pass it. Let's join together and let's 
stop Operation Choke Point.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Again, my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will talk about 
guns. They will talk about Choke Point. They will talk about unfairness 
to businesses based on a bank's ability to close accounts. They will 
talk about everything except the real point of this legislation.
  I don't know why, I don't know where it came from, and I don't know 
who can convince a serious public policymaker that somehow you are to 
take away the investigative power of the Justice Department, a Justice 
Department that has proven that it could use FIRREA--that is the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act--to 
investigate banks that are guilty of fraud. I don't know where this 
would come from. Given what we have gone through in this country, 
starting in 2008, I don't know why any serious public policymaker would 
want to do that.
  What have we witnessed in this country, based on the predatory 
practices of banks? We have seen whole communities devastated. We have 
seen foreclosures and people lose their homes. We have seen homes 
underwater. We have increased homelessness. We have seen the targeting 
of some of the most vulnerable communities in our country, based on the 
fraudulent practices of banks.
  The Justice Department has a tool, and they are using this tool. Why 
would any credible Member of Congress want to take away the Justice 
Department's ability to investigate and to fine these institutions?
  No, ladies and gentlemen, this is not about Choke Point. This is not 
about guns. This is not about any of that other stuff that they are 
trying to make you believe you should pay attention to.
  Every legislator and every public policymaker should ask themselves: 
Do I want to be a part of ever allowing this institution to once again 
revert back to the practices that caused people to lose their homes, 
that threw this country into a recession, that still has us reeling 
from the negative impacts of those decisions by a bank?
  Why would anybody want to take away the Justice Department's 
investigative powers? In addition to that, this bill will not even 
allow the Justice Department to exercise its authority to subpoena. Why 
do you want to do that? It doesn't make good sense.
  Again, you can talk about Choke Point all night long. You can 
describe it as being unfair to businesses, you can talk about what we 
need to do, but that is not what this is about.
  I know why you don't want to talk about it because you have got to be 
ashamed of it. You have got to be ashamed of the fact that you are 
leading this institution to do away with investigative powers of the 
Justice Department.
  Let me just say this. The Department of Justice has relied heavily on 
the powers granted under FIRREA to pursue billions of dollars of 
mortgage fraud cases since the financial crisis. In these cases, 
financial firms defrauded the government by knowingly selling faulty 
mortgages while representing them as high quality.
  Without FIRREA, investigations would have stalled and taxpayers would 
have been left on the hook for even more losses. FIRREA powers were 
also instrumental in securing the historic $25 billion mortgage 
servicing settlement.
  As many of our colleagues know, there are still many more problems in 
the mortgage servicing industry, and eliminating this tool would 
encourage fraudulent practices by mortgage services that end up 
wrongfully kicking Americans out of their homes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining on each side, please.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman from 
Missouri has 19 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California 
has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to make a few comments here. It seems that the ranking 
member, as eloquently as she has spoken, continues to deflect from the 
bill we are talking about with regard to talking about mortgage 
servicing assets, the mortgage crisis that we had a few years ago. That 
is not in this bill.
  We are talking about Operation Choke Point, which is recognized by 
the Department of Justice. The Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee has a report from their own

[[Page H575]]

email showing that within their own agency there was a discussion among 
the legal staff, believing they didn't have the ability to do what they 
do. They thought it was illegal themselves to do what they were doing, 
and yet they did this.
  Mr. Chairman, for anybody who is listening and watching today, it 
should send a chill down their spine when you sit here and have the 
leading law enforcement agency in this country believe and know that 
they are doing something wrong and still do it. That, Mr. Chairman, 
cannot happen.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Ross), a cosponsor of the bill and a member of the 
Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, want to thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for 
introducing this legislation which prohibits the Department of Justice 
from cutting off financial support to law-abiding businesses through 
its Operation Choke Point.
  Created under the guise of a program to root out banking fraud and 
money laundering, Operation Choke Point has morphed into an instrument 
used by administration bureaucrats to pressure and force banks to end 
relationships with the legitimate businesses the administration 
considers to be a ``reputational risk.''
  This country is made up of all walks of lives and all walks of 
entrepreneurs and small businesses, yet this administration has 
targeted these small and legitimate businesses.
  I have a cigar retailer back home who was told by his bank that he 
could no longer do business there. I have a gun store owner who was 
told the same thing. I have a pawnshop that was told the same thing.
  These targeted business owners do not receive a note from the bank 
stating: ``Due to Operation Choke Point, we regretfully must end our 
financial relationship with your business.'' No. They are just 
discontinued from doing any banking relationship, without any notice 
whatsoever.
  If what we have done with the Department of Justice and the FDIC is 
empower them with the ability to deny a fundamental right of 
constitutional due process, then yes, we need to correct it. We have 
that obligation.
  As the chairman points out, we ought to be outraged over these 
administrators doing this to our legitimate businesses.
  This legislation, introduced by my colleague, will prohibit any 
Federal banking agency from suggesting, requesting, or ordering a 
depository institution to terminate a customer account or prohibiting 
an institution from maintaining a banking relationship with specific 
customers unless the agency has a material reason to do so, and that 
reason is not solely based on reputational risk.
  This bipartisan, commonsense legislation passed the Financial 
Services Committee by a vote of 35-19. In voting to pass H.R. 766 
today, I will be voting to rein in this out-of-control administration 
and its assault on small, legal businesses not only in Florida, but 
across the country.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Let me draw Members' attention to what is being attempted on the 
opposite side. They keep talking about Choke Point and how they want to 
save payday lenders and rent-to-own and pawnshops and all of that. I 
may have some issues with some of that, but that is not what this is 
about today. Today, this is about the fact that they refuse to tell you 
what is really in this bill.
  They cannot stand up and defend why in the world they would be taking 
away the Justice Department's ability to investigate bad banks. They 
cannot tell you why they are ignoring the lessons of 2008 and predatory 
lending and what the Justice Department has been able to do using 
FIRREA and investigating and fining and getting settlements.
  They cannot tell you why they would ignore the fact that many 
innocent middle class folks who work every day and who fought hard to 
make down payments and signed on the dotted line for mortgages didn't 
know that they were being tricked into signing mortgages that they 
could never really keep up with and that the interest rates would reset 
and go higher and higher and they were going to lose their homes.
  They cannot defend the predatory lending practices. They cannot 
defend the fraud. They cannot defend the undermining of the average 
American family. They cannot defend the fact that Americans lost their 
homes. So they are going to keep talking about Choke Point and how they 
have got to protect payday lenders and how they have got to protect 
pawnshop owners and how they have got to protect rent-to-own and all 
those businesses they hold so dearly and want to protect.
  This really doesn't have anything to do with that. If they want to 
have a real discussion about Choke Point, we are willing to do that; 
but, this is not the time to do it.
  This is not the time to use this to hide behind the fact that you 
want to protect the big banks. As a matter of fact, this is so 
outrageous, it basically says that, instead of the Justice Department 
or anyone going after the banks, it would protect the banks by saying 
that you can't go after the banks and you have to protect them and you 
can't go against them.
  I am simply saying over and over again that I don't care how many 
Members they call up and I don't care how many Members come and talk 
about Choke Point, somebody needs to tell us why they can't talk about 
taking away the investigatory powers and the power to subpoena from the 
Justice Department, a Justice Department that has proven that it is 
willing to use its investigatory powers in order to deal with these big 
banks.
  So listen very carefully and listen to all this Choke Point stuff 
that they are trying to ram down your throats. Listen and look them in 
the eye and see if they can look you back in the eye and defend what 
they are doing.
  Don't allow them to mislead you, Members of this Congress, into 
thinking that this bill is all about protecting payday lenders and 
rent-to-own and pawnshop owners and all these businesses that they care 
so much about.
  This is about stripping the Department of Justice of their power to 
investigate and subpoena. This is about pulling the rug out from under 
the citizens of this country who have tried to own homes and who have 
not been protected by their own government until we had reform. This is 
about saying they don't care what the Justice Department has been able 
to do to rein in these practices. They are going to come here today 
with a bill and tell you it is all about Choke Point.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton), an outstanding member of the committee.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we found some common ground. The ranking member was 
just talking about listening to Operation Choke Point. I think that is 
important for every American, because we are talking about freedom. We 
are talking about reining in an out-of-control bureaucracy. We are 
talking about actually preserving freedom in this country, to take it 
back for the American people and for businesses as well.
  I want to applaud Chairman Luetkemeyer for his leadership on this 
issue. It prevents Federal banking issues from pressuring banks and 
credit unions to terminate customer accounts with legal businesses.
  Although it is important to be able to prevent fraud in the banking 
system, Operation Choke Point has largely been abused by the agencies 
and their regulators, pressuring and manipulating financial 
institutions based on personal prejudices of Federal bureaucrats.
  In my district and many others across the U.S., legitimate businesses 
have found themselves shut out of the banking system after years of 
longstanding relationships with banks and credit unions. Oftentimes, 
this derisking means that these legal businesses are further shunned by 
other financial institutions fearful of civil and criminal liability as 
well as greater regulatory scrutiny.
  Thankfully, this legislation puts commonsense restraints on 
regulators that have been running amok. By requiring Federal banking 
agencies to provide a material reason other than reputational risk for 
terminating a customer account, this bill establishes

[[Page H576]]

necessary, clear standards to avoid further abuses.

                              {time}  1100

  Instead of relying on implicit or explicit threats from regulators, 
this legislation requires written justification of any request to 
terminate or restrict customer accounts.
  It is clear that, despite several letters, hearings, and warning by 
Congress, financial institutions continue to face unwarranted pressure 
from the regulators. These requirements provide the necessary oversight 
to ensure banks, credit unions, and their customers are treated in a 
fair manner.
  I am happy to lend my support to this bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support this commonsense measure. I again thank the 
gentleman from Missouri for his efforts on this legislation.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Williams), another outstanding member of our committee.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time.
  I rise today to support H.R. 766, the Financial Institution Customer 
Protection Act of 2016.
  As a small-business owner for 44 years, I have seen it all--or at 
least I thought I saw it all--and I am deeply troubled over a Federal 
Government program that I believe to be, at best, immoral and, at 
worst, illegal: Operation Choke Point.
  The Obama White House has single-handedly granted itself the 
authority to cut off relationships between private financial 
institutions and the perfectly legitimate businesses which they serve. 
This Congress has not passed any legislation granting the executive 
branch such immense power.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us here have bore witness to the Obama 
administration's willingness to bypass the lawmaking branch of our 
government, but this is a new low. Operation Choke Point is the worst 
example of the Obama White House telling Americans what is best for 
them, and there is no appeals process.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the worst form of government intrusion I have 
ever seen and can think of. Operation Choke Point is another example of 
this administration's going around Congress to create laws rather than 
do their job, to enforce the laws we already have on the books.
  As a second-generation small-business owner, I support H.R. 766, 
which will rein in this abuse of power. Operation Choke Point is un-
American and deceiving. It is simply wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and do away with Operation 
Choke Point once and for all. Let's save small business. Let's save 
Main Street America.
  In God we trust.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, after the Justice Department finally began 
to use the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act 
that we refer to as FIRREA to create some semblance of justice for 
financial crisis-era bank fraud and misconduct, my Republican 
colleagues respond by restricting the Department of Justice's most 
powerful tool for holding banks accountable.
  This is an interesting debate that we are having. We are sitting here 
wondering why it is that not one Member on the Republican side of the 
aisle who has taken to the floor to debate this bill will talk about 
FIRREA and will talk about the Justice Department and what you are 
doing in stripping away their powers.
  I know why. Because you know that, if, in fact, you really got up and 
talked about what you were doing, you would lose all of the votes even 
on your side of the aisle. This is outrageous. So you are hiding behind 
Choke Point.
  Not one Member on the opposite side of the aisle has the guts to get 
up and say: I can't do this. I am going to talk about what this bill is 
really about.
  And so they continue to march down here, taking their orders to talk 
about Choke Point, Choke Point, Choke Point.
  No. No. No. This is about stripping the Justice Department of its 
investigatory powers and its subpoena powers.
  FIRREA is the last line of defense between consumers and investors 
and bank fraud. Central to the DOJ's ability to investigate fraud and 
to build cases against financial institutions is its subpoena power, 
power that H.R. 766 singles out for unprecedented and burdensome 
restrictions.
  Instead of bolstering the Justice Department's ability to investigate 
mortgage fraud, H.R. 766 seeks to actually protect the banks and to 
insulate them from accountability. Wow. Wow.
  Can you just imagine that anyone could go home to their constituents 
and say: I just voted for a bill that would actually protect banks and 
insulate them from accountability, I just voted for a bill to strip the 
Justice Department of its power to investigate?
  Bank fraud should be met with the full force of the Federal 
Government. H.R. 766 is a dangerous step backwards for an economy still 
reeling from financial crisis-era fraud and misconduct.
  Every regulator has been clear that account closures aren't the 
result of pressure from regulators, but from banks that have decided 
that, for some customers, they would rather lose their business than 
investigate any anti-fraud practices to protect our financial system 
from money laundering.
  Look, you have got people who are willing to work on that part of 
public policy that you would like to see some changes in, but this is 
not it.
  When you couple that discussion to overshadow what you are doing, to 
strip the Justice Department of its powers to investigate, what you are 
doing is you are setting up a situation to take us backwards and to 
harm so many people.
  Have you forgotten the lessons already of 2008? Have you forgotten 
already what this country went through? Have you forgotten that the 
citizens of this country had to bail out the biggest banks to keep us 
from going into a depression?
  We went into a recession. We tore up communities. We threw people out 
of their homes. We increased homelessness.
  Now you want to come back and give the banks an opportunity to do 
what got us into trouble in the first place? Well, I can't imagine that 
you are prepared to defend that.
  The common theme throughout H.R. 766 and many of the proposals that, 
unfortunately, cleared the Financial Services Committee is that, even 
in the aftermath of the financial crisis, my Republican colleagues 
would have you believe it is the big banks that are the ones in need of 
protection, protection from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to please address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hill), one of the most knowledgeable members of our 
committee.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to address H.R. 766.
  Before I talk about what my constituents have asked me to talk about, 
Mr. Chairman, which is the problems with Operation Choke Point, for I 
do take my instruction from my constituents at home, I do want to call 
my distinguished ranking member's concern to this report about this 
bill, which says, ``or a Federally insured financial institution 
against an unaffiliated third person.''
  So I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand where the 
gentlewoman from California is coming from in terms of gutting FIRREA. 
It was certainly my privilege to serve at Treasury when FIRREA was 
negotiated with the Congress and enacted into law.
  I rise today, though, to support H.R. 766, the Financial Institution 
Customer Protection Act, which helps to target and stop the egregious 
abuse of executive power in what has been known as Operation Choke 
Point.
  Bank examiners want our commercial banks across the country to be 
conscious of reputation risk, something every institution, large and 
small, takes very, very seriously.
  Our boards of directors of our banks understand that, just like 
credit risk, reputation risk is important. We don't

[[Page H577]]

need to be lectured on the dangers of doing business with some high-
risk customers.
  But, in Operation Choke Point, we find subtle and not-so-subtle 
pressure from regulators to terminate business relationships rather 
than to expose that reputation risk.
  I have heard from pawnbrokers in Arkansas, legally licensed State and 
Federally regulated businesses, that they are victims of Operation 
Choke Point by having their bank servicing limited or cut off.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HILL. Just last week, Mr. Chairman, not 2 years ago, a firearms 
dealer in my hometown of Little Rock was dumped by his payment 
processor and is now having to pay more in interest, having less 
control of his cash.
  These are small, legitimate businesses that do business with our 
banks, and they are being penalized by the prejudiced, politicized 
agenda of this administration.
  This is not the only example. It is reminiscent of the IRS targeting 
of conservative groups.
  So, with great pleasure, I support my friend from Missouri's bill. It 
is a reasonable, targeted approach. I urge all my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining, please?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer), my friend and chairman of our Financial 
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 766, the 
Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015, offered by my 
good friend from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  This legislation is critical to ensure small businesses across the 
country are able to access basic banking services without the threat of 
being targeted at the political or ideological whims of Washington 
bureaucrats.
  As my colleagues have mentioned, H.R. 766 prohibits the Federal 
Government banking regulators from formally or informally prohibiting 
banks to serve lawful and legitimate businesses. Let me repeat that. It 
keeps them from prohibiting banks from serving lawful and legitimate 
businesses.
  Over the last several years, we have seen an effort by the Department 
of Justice, in cooperation with the Federal banking regulators, to 
target certain categories of lawful merchants. These merchants include 
gun stores, short-term, small-dollar credit lenders, and others. This 
effort has been officially named Operation Choke Point.
  Operation Choke Point has used a perverse interpretation of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, currently 
referred to as FIRREA, to force banks to terminate banking 
relationships with certain categories of merchants even if its unlawful 
behavior isn't present.
  Representative Luetkemeyer's bill would clarify the original intent 
of FIRREA. Unfortunately, the minority leader and the ranking member of 
the committee have been spreading misinformation about the impact of 
H.R. 766. So I will spend the rest of my remarks outlining exactly what 
the bill will do and what it will not do.
  It does not decriminalize any type of fraud. All of these criminal 
statutes comprising FIRREA's predicted offenses are untouched by this 
bill.
  H.R. 766 does not prohibit the Department of Justice from holding 
financial institutions accountable. FIRREA tools are still available 
for the pursuit of any of the frauds committed by bank insiders against 
the bank.
  Additionally, the bill expressly provides that FIRREA's civil tools 
also apply to fraud committed by the bank against an unaffiliated third 
party.
  In other words, where a bank defrauds a purchaser of a mortgage-
backed security, as was alleged by the big bank settlements, FIRREA's 
civil tools remain available to the Department of Justice.
  H.R. 766 does prohibit the use of FIRREA tools where fraud is 
committed by a bank's account holder, but not by the bank itself.
  This is the type of self-affecting fraud that the Department of 
Justice asserted that gave rise to Operation Choke Point. In other 
words, the fraud must be committed by the bank or against the bank for 
FIRREA to apply.
  I hope everyone will read page 6, lines 21-25, of the bill.
  Finally, H.R. 766 does limit the ability of the Attorney General to 
delegate issuance of FIRREA civil subpoenas.
  As a result, FIRREA subpoenas must be signed by the Attorney General 
or the Deputy Attorney General rather than a low-ranking Department of 
Justice attorney.
  Unfortunately, we yet have another example of the minority not 
actually reading the text of the bill before making public statements.
  Going forward, I hope the minority will study the text of the bill 
instead of relying on false statements and talking points of the senior 
Senator from Massachusetts.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege to serve in this body for a 
number of terms, but I have not lost my ability to be outraged. 
Operation Choke Point is an outrage to the American people.
  Who will stand up and defend the small mom and pop shops on Main 
Street from the billions of dollars and the thousands of lawyers at the 
so-called Justice Department who wake up one day and decide that, 
notwithstanding current law, they are going to put them out of 
business?
  Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have one outstanding Member of 
Congress, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), my colleague 
who is standing up to these people. He is standing up to these people 
by authoring H.R. 766, and he is saying enough is enough. And we must 
say enough is enough.
  Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, a number of Democrats on the other side of 
the aisle have actually joined with our side to say that justice must 
prevail and that the rule of law must prevail. I suspect that is why 
the ranking member--bless her heart--had to spend so much time speaking 
herself, because she probably couldn't find any other speakers to come 
and help her out.
  It is an outrage, Mr. Chairman, that this administration continues to 
trample on the Constitution. Clearly, we know the President has his pen 
and he has his phone. But he clearly doesn't have a copy of the 
Constitution. For legally constituted businesses to have to fear that, 
in the dark of night, they are going to be shut down by the awesome 
power of the Obama administration is an outrage. All Americans should 
be outraged.
  Frankly, when is it that we will have the ranking member and others 
stand up for the rule of law? We are losing the rule of law to the 
discretion of regulators. If there was any justice in the Obama Justice 
Department, somebody would be indicted over Operation Choke Point. 
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, they should indict themselves for bringing forth 
something we haven't seen since the Nixon era. What else is going to be 
in the bag of dirty tricks?
  Somebody has to stand up against the elites in Washington who bypass 
article I, section 1 of our Constitution. All legislative power is 
vested in this body. It is not vested in the Justice Department, Mr. 
Chairman. They are supposed to enforce the law, not make the law.
  To wake up one morning and find out that your bank account and your 
access to funds have been choked off by an oppressive Federal 
Government, lawlessly, has to be stopped. Where is the justice, Mr. 
Chairman? I ask you, where is the justice?
  Now, just yesterday I learned that on the other side of the Capitol, 
we had a Senator from Massachusetts who invoked the names of three dead 
African Americans who tragically lost their lives and used that bloody 
shirt to attack this bill. Then this very same Senator turned around 
and put out a fundraising appeal on H.R. 766.
  The American people have not lost their ability to be outraged at 
those who may possess Ivy League degrees and Washington, D.C., 
addresses who have the arrogance to tell them what is

[[Page H578]]

best for them, their businesses, their lives, and their families.
  It is time that we respect the rule of law. It is time that we 
respect the Constitution. It is time that we choke off Operation Choke 
Point and put it into the dustbin of history: the history of dirty 
tricks and the history of lawlessness.
  That is why it is so important, Mr. Chairman, that all Members--
Democrat, Republican, and liberals--let their voice be heard by casting 
their vote for H.R. 766.
  Why--why--do Members outsource their legislative authority to the 
unaccountable and unelected? Sooner or later, Mr. Chairman, the shoe is 
going to be on the other foot.
  Who will stand for justice today? We will look closely as the names 
come up on the big board. The American people are watching, and they 
want to know: Who is going to stand with me? Who is going to stand for 
the rule of law? Who is going to stand for the Constitution? Who is 
going to stand for the little people in America?
  I am proud to stand with Chairman Luetkemeyer and the Republicans of 
the House Financial Services Committee to ensure that Operation Choke 
Point is choked off once and for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-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.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 766

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Financial Institution 
     Customer Protection Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSIT ACCOUNT TERMINATION REQUESTS 
                   AND ORDERS.

       (a) Termination Requests or Orders Must Be Material.--
       (1) In general.--An appropriate Federal banking agency may 
     not formally or informally request or order a depository 
     institution to terminate a specific customer account or group 
     of customer accounts or to otherwise restrict or discourage a 
     depository institution from entering into or maintaining a 
     banking relationship with a specific customer or group of 
     customers unless--
       (A) the agency has a material reason for such request or 
     order; and
       (B) such reason is not based solely on reputation risk.
       (2) Treatment of national security threats.--If an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency believes a specific 
     customer or group of customers poses a threat to national 
     security, including any belief that such customer or group of 
     customers is involved in terrorist financing, such belief 
     shall satisfy the materiality requirement under paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       (b) Notice Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--If an appropriate Federal banking agency 
     formally or informally requests or orders a depository 
     institution to terminate a specific customer account or a 
     group of customer accounts, the agency shall--
       (A) provide such request or order to the institution in 
     writing; and
       (B) accompany such request or order with a written 
     justification for why such termination is needed, including 
     any specific laws or regulations the agency believes are 
     being violated by the customer or group of customers, if any.
       (2) Justification requirement.--A justification described 
     under paragraph (1)(B) may not be based solely on the 
     reputation risk to the depository institution.
       (c) Customer Notice.--
       (1) Notice not required.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed as requiring a depository institution or an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency to inform a customer or 
     customers of the justification for the customer's account 
     termination described under subsection (b).
       (2) Notice prohibited in cases of national security.--If an 
     appropriate Federal banking agency requests or orders a 
     depository institution to terminate a specific customer 
     account or a group of customer accounts based on a belief 
     that the customer or customers pose a threat to national 
     security, neither the depository institution nor the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency may inform the customer or 
     customers of the justification for the customer's account 
     termination.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--Each appropriate Federal 
     banking agency shall issue an annual report to the Congress 
     stating--
       (1) the aggregate number of specific customer accounts that 
     the agency requested or ordered a depository institution to 
     terminate during the previous year; and
       (2) the legal authority on which the agency relied in 
     making such requests and orders and the frequency on which 
     the agency relied on each such authority.
       (e) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term 
     ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' means--
       (A) the appropriate Federal banking agency, as defined 
     under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1813); and
       (B) the National Credit Union Administration, in the case 
     of an insured credit union.
       (2) Depository institution.--The term ``depository 
     institution'' means--
       (A) a depository institution, as defined under section 3 of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); and
       (B) an insured credit union.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS REFORM, 
                   RECOVERY, AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1989.

       Section 951 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, 
     and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1833a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``affecting a 
     federally insured financial institution'' and inserting 
     ``against a federally insured financial institution or by a 
     federally insured financial institution against an 
     unaffiliated third person''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the header, by striking ``Subpoenas'' and inserting 
     ``Investigations''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) summon witnesses and require the production of any 
     books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, or other records 
     which the Attorney General deems relevant or material to the 
     inquiry, if the Attorney General--
       ``(i) requests a court order from a court of competent 
     jurisdiction for such actions and offers specific and 
     articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds 
     to believe that the information or testimony sought is 
     relevant and material for conducting an investigation under 
     this section; or
       ``(ii) either personally or through delegation no lower 
     than the Deputy Attorney General, issues and signs a subpoena 
     for such actions and such subpoena is supported by specific 
     and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable 
     grounds to believe that the information or testimony sought 
     is relevant for conducting an investigation under this 
     section.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 114-414. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered 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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sherman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in part B of House Report 114-414.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 6, strike ``poses'' and all that follows 
     through ``such belief'' and insert the following: ``is, or is 
     acting as a conduit for, an entity which--
       (A) poses a threat to national security;
       (B) is involved in terrorist financing;
       (C) is an agency of the government of Iran, North Korea, 
     Syria, or any country listed from time to time on the State 
     Sponsors of Terrorism list;
       (D) is located in, or is subject to the jurisdiction of, 
     any country specified in subparagraph (C); or
       (E) does business with any entity described in subparagraph 
     (C) or (D), unless the appropriate Federal banking agency 
     determines that the customer or group of customers has used 
     due diligence to avoid doing business with any entity 
     described in subparagraph (C) or (D),
     such belief
       Page 2, line 9, strike ``materiality requirement under 
     paragraph (1)(A)'' and insert ``requirement under paragraph 
     (1)''.
       Page 3, line 16, after ``security'' insert the following: 
     ``, or are otherwise described under subsection (a)(2)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, this is really two bills that have been put 
together. One deals with Operation Choke Point, and for reasons 
explained by the majority, it is important that we pass that part of 
the legislation. The other imposes restrictions on FIRREA, and for 
reasons eloquently expressed by the ranking member, I do not support 
that part of the bill. I, frankly, do not know how I am going

[[Page H579]]

to vote because of these portions of the bill, one is important to 
pass, and the other is a restriction that I cannot support.
  I will point out for all of us who want to deal with Operation Choke 
Point that it is unfortunate that these two bills have been put 
together into one because we know the President isn't going to sign 
this bill if it has got the FIRREA portion in it. So it is my hope that 
we put on the President's desk a bill that protects American businesses 
from Operation Choke Point, a bill that the President can sign.
  I want to use the time allotted here to try to improve the Operation 
Choke Point provisions because I hope they are ultimately signed into 
law.
  Now, why are those Operation Choke Point provisions important? As the 
majority has explained, various businesses that are currently unpopular 
with the bureaucracy are being targeted, and it is an extremely 
powerful tool to destroy a business and to cut off its access to 
financial institutions.
  Today they come for the gun stores and the tobacco dealers. And I 
don't have friends who are gun store owners and tobacco dealers, so 
some would say I should be quiet. But I do not know who the next 
President of the United States will be. And as I listen to the Record, 
I know that if they have the power, they will come after the Planned 
Parenthood clinics and the environmental organizations.
  Woe be to a Congress that yields extreme power to the executive 
branch in the expectation that the executive branch will use it in a 
way that they favor knowing that the tide turns and the other party 
could be in control of that branch. So it is important that we improve 
the Operation Choke Point provisions of this bill.
  Every speaker who talked about the Operation Choke Point provisions 
of this bill focused on mom and pop businesses, domestic businesses. 
Every bit of the discussion in committee focused on that, and that is 
why it is important that this bill not have an unintended consequence 
never discussed by anyone at committee; that is, that it would affect 
our anti-terrorism and national security efforts.
  So in the words of the Democratic Daily Whip from Whip Hoyer, the 
Sherman amendment clarifies that the underlying bill does not prevent 
banking regulators from requesting a financial institution terminate a 
relationship because the customer poses a national security threat, is 
engaged in terrorist financing, or is domiciled in Iran, North Korea, 
Syria, or another state sponsor of terrorism.
  I think it is a step forward to improve the Operation Choke Point 
portions of this bill. I think that, as further improved, those 
provisions should and, I believe, will become law. So I ask support for 
an amendment that makes it clear that a bill that was discussed only in 
the sense of domestic businesses, only in the sense of ma and pa and 
Main Street, does not have an effect that the author never included in 
our national security policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters).
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from California who has shown his concern about the Choke 
Point provisions of the bill. He is absolutely right. Both of these 
issues are in this bill. We cannot divide it in the way that we are 
moving forward. And it means that if this bill passes, no matter what 
the concern may be, the overriding concern must be about stripping the 
Justice Department of its investigatory power and its subpoena power. 
It must be about undermining the Justice Department's ability to hold 
these big banks accountable.
  I don't think you can divide this. This is one bill.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this bill will be 
going through the legislative process. It is important that we improve 
the Operation Choke Point provisions.
  I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Missouri, and I hope 
that he will see fit to accept this amendment and to narrow it to a 
focus outside of terrorism policy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), who is a very thoughtful member of the House 
Financial Services Committee.
  I wish to accept his amendment. I believe it adds greater granularity 
and specificity on a very important issue. Since he lost an amendment 
yesterday, I want him to bat at least .500.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part B of House Report 114-414.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, strike lines 4 through 9 and insert the following:
       (1) Notice required.--Except as provided under paragraph 
     (2), if an appropriate Federal banking agency orders a 
     depository institution to terminate a specific customer 
     account or a group of customer accounts, the depository 
     institution shall inform the customer or customers of the 
     justification for the customer's account termination 
     described under subsection (b).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 595, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense 
amendment that will protect customers of financial institutions and 
increase transparency between them and the Federal Government.
  I applaud the committee for bringing this bill to the floor to 
protect consumers and businesses from an overreaching Federal 
Government. I am especially grateful to Representative Luetkemeyer for 
his work on the bill, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  My amendment will increase transparency by requiring the financial 
institutions to provide notice to customers if their account is ordered 
terminated by a Federal banking regulator. Customers have a right to be 
informed when the Federal Government has instructed a financial 
institution to close their accounts.
  In the base bill, Federal banking agencies are required to notify the 
financial institution and provide written justification as to why the 
termination is needed. My amendment would simply require the depository 
institution to share that justification with the customer.

                              {time}  1130

  One of the ways the Federal Government has abused its powers in the 
past regarding customers of financial institutions is Operation Choke 
Point. Operation Choke Point was an unconstitutional program created by 
the Obama administration that put pressure on banks and payment 
processors to shut down industries like gun stores and pawn shops that 
President Obama and the attorney general just didn't like.
  After continued pressure from Chairman Luetkemeyer, myself, and other 
Members of Congress, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, 
announced in January of 2015 that some changes to this terrible program 
were to be made. While this was a positive step, this bill and my 
amendment are still very necessary. Congress needs to codify these 
customer protections to prevent future abuses by an overreaching 
Federal Government.
  My amendment will help put an end to the abuses of Operation Choke 
Point. President Obama has been staunch in his assault on the Second 
Amendment, and Operation Choke Point was simply another way for the 
President and the DOJ to infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners 
and businesses.

[[Page H580]]

  American citizens do not want Big Government to have the power to 
arbitrarily terminate their accounts at financial institutions based on 
ideological opposition to individuals or organizations. This simple, 
commonsense amendment, which is supported by Americans for Limited 
Government, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and 
Eagle Forum, is about protecting consumers and increasing transparency.
  CBO has informed me that this amendment will not score. As such, 
there is no reason not to pass this amendment or this bill that will 
increase transparency and protect consumers throughout the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and H.R. 766.
  I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gosar's amendment 
is a dangerous amendment to an already highly problematic bill. As the 
OCC deputy comptroller noted in 2015 testimony before our committee: 
``In the rare cases where a customer has engaged in suspected criminal 
or other illegal activity,'' the OCC ``may order the bank through an 
enforcement action to terminate the customer's account.''
  H.R. 766 creates a national security exception for customer notice, 
but it leaves the term undefined in a case where the illegal activity 
does not pose a threat to national security. Mr. Gosar's amendment 
would potentially force banks to tip off someone engaging in criminal 
activity, frustrating regulators' oversight of Federal anti-money 
laundering laws.
  Mr. Gosar's amendment exacerbates an already highly problematic 
proposal, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, again, I just want to point out, since I 
have time on this amendment, that this bill is not about all of this 
anyway. They keep focusing on Choke Point, and they come up with these 
questionable amendments, et cetera, such as Mr. Gosar's.
  This is about the Republicans on the opposite side of the aisle 
stripping the Justice Department of its authority to go after these too 
big to fail banks and taking away their investigatory powers and their 
subpoena powers, thus threatening the citizens of this country once 
again to the kind of predatory lending that helped to almost bring down 
this economy starting in 2008.
  I ask for a ``no'' on this amendment, and I am going to ask for a 
``no'' on the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I am miffed. I am absolutely miffed that a 
customer, or a consumer, would not have the ability to understand that 
their account was actually closed. I am totally miffed at personal 
rights and responsibilities and the coordination with the Justice 
Department.
  Once again, this is the second amendment I have offered on Financial 
Services with the same type of attitude and idiocrasy that I have 
actually seen in defiance of a commonsense amendment.
  I oppose the gentlewoman's objections, and I would ask everyone to 
vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Chairman and Members, I would 
ask the Members of this Congress to not pay attention to what has been 
attempted by the opposite side of the aisle.
  Again, I challenged them and I asked them to talk about FIRREA. I 
asked them to talk about the bill that takes away the investigatory 
powers of the Justice Department. I asked them to explain why they 
would take away subpoena powers from the Justice Department. I asked 
them if they remembered what happened when this country went into a 
recession, almost a depression, because of predatory lending. I asked 
them did they want to have their name and their vote behind big banks 
that are guilty of fraud, who have been fined enormous sums of money by 
the Justice Department because they were found guilty, and I am asking 
them to talk about this. So this is a distraction. This is obscuring 
the real bill that is before us.
  Forget about this Choke Point part of the bill. We have time to work 
on that. There are some Members on the opposite side of the aisle that 
share some of those concerns, but not in this bill. They coupled it 
with this taking away of the Department of Justice power because they 
knew that they could somehow divert the attention over to the so-called 
Choke Point and talk about this administration and talk about guns and 
talk about payday loans and talk about rent to own and pawn shops and 
all that.
  This is not about small business protection. This is about using the 
Choke Point argument as a way to divert attention away from what they 
are really doing.
  Ladies and gentlemen, you can't go home and explain to your 
constituents why you would protect the too big to fail banks, why you 
would take away the power to make them accountable. They have harmed 
this country. They have harmed our citizens. They have caused people to 
lose their homes, and they have increased the homelessness with their 
predatory lending.
  We have reform that we are trying to implement. I know every trick in 
the book has been played to try to undermine Dodd-Frank and to keep us 
from having the kind of reform because there are people who are just 
very close to the big banks and they are not going to cross the big 
banks. As a matter of fact, they used too much of their career to 
protect the big banks.
  This is an outrage. I want the Members of this Congress to 
understand, we have got time to have a discussion about Choke Point and 
all of that. We have Members on both sides of the aisle who would work 
with you on those issues. This is not it.
  You should not have placed this part in this bill. You should not 
have had to try and make believe that this is all about Choke Point 
when, in fact, the real big deal in this bill is about how you are 
going to try to protect the biggest and the worst banks.
  We have pointed out to you in this discussion all of the big fines 
that have been imposed against these banks. Did these banks say, ``No, 
we didn't do it''? Did these banks say, ``I am not going to accept 
this. I am going to court, and I am going to fight''? You know they 
rolled over because they are guilty, and you know that they are.
  Please do not be diverted from the real meaning of this bill. This 
bill is about crippling the Department of Justice and not about Choke 
Point.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Rodney Davis of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 595, he reported the 
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

[[Page H581]]

  



                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Castor of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 766 
     to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect on the 
     date that the Attorney General and the Federal financial 
     institutions regulatory agencies jointly certify to the 
     Congress that in the preceding 5 years no federally regulated 
     financial institution has been subject to--
       (1) a consent order, settlement, deferred prosecution 
     agreement, civil or criminal penalty for a violation of the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act;
       (2) a consent order, settlement, deferred prosecution 
     agreement, civil or criminal penalty for bank fraud, wire 
     fraud, or mail fraud relating to the origination, servicing, 
     securitization, or sale of a mortgage product; or
       (3) a consent order, settlement, deferred prosecution 
     agreement, civil or criminal penalty for unfair or deceptive 
     acts and practices relating to the origination, servicing, 
     securitization, or sale of a mortgage product.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies'' has 
     the meaning given that term under section 1121 of the 
     Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act 
     of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 3350).

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker and Members, this is the final 
amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to 
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I rushed to come to the floor to offer this motion to 
recommit because this bill, H.R. 766, is so outrageous. Under this 
bill, the Republicans in Congress are poised to give a get out of jail 
free card to big banks and Wall Street interests when it comes to 
fraud. Republicans propose to take away tools and investigatory powers 
from the Department of Justice in cases of fraud and undermine the 
Department of Justice's ability to prosecute mortgage fraud and other 
crimes to the detriment of American families and our neighbors back 
home.
  Americans expect that the big banks that have broken the rules be 
held accountable for any of their financial misdeeds. However, the 
House Republicans are trying to give their special interest friends a 
break they do not need at the expense of hardworking Americans.
  Shortly after I was sworn into Congress in 2007, my neighbors started 
to come to me and express, sincerely, about a problem that was 
happening. It started in Florida almost earlier than anywhere else.
  As the financial crisis took hold and people began to lose their jobs 
or their employers cut back on their hours, they couldn't keep up with 
their mortgages. The deeper we dug in to it, we began to see a pattern 
of fraudulent practices by many in the mortgage loan business.
  After 2007, I had six foreclosure prevention workshops. At that time, 
I will never forget looking into the eyes of my neighbors, who asked 
for a little bit of breathing room, a little bit of help.
  We came to Washington and we asked for that help on behalf of 
American families, not to let them off the hook for their mortgages, 
but to give them a little breathing room. The response here in 
Washington was, instead, the huge, multibillion-dollar Wall Street 
bailout.
  We asked, as part of that Wall Street bailout of the big banks: Could 
you allow homeowners to have a little more breathing room so they could 
stay in their homes? But, no, that couldn't be part of the 
multibillion-dollar Wall Street package. That was a lesson to everyone 
across America who really holds the power here in Washington, D.C.
  Next week, I am still going to have another foreclosure prevention 
workshop with HOPE NOW and my local partners, because people are not 
healed and the fraud continues.
  On Monday of this week, I sat down with my U.S. attorney in the 
middle district of Florida, one of the busiest districts in America, 
especially when it comes to fraud. Do you know what U.S. Attorney Lee 
Bentley said? He said we need more tools to fight fraud. They are 
winning big cases and big settlements when it comes to Medicare fraud 
and mortgage fraud and rooting out waste in the system.
  So it is appalling. You bring H.R. 766 to take away those 
investigatory tools, the subpoena powers, for white-collar crime.
  Today, House Republicans are aiming to weaken the vital financial 
fraud fighting law, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
Enforcement Act. This is irresponsible. House Republicans should be 
called out for it.
  Republicans will eliminate the authority of thousands of Federal 
prosecutors to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigating and 
prosecuting any big banks or other financial institutions that engage 
in financial fraud or other financial crimes.

                              {time}  1145

  So I am offering an amendment, a motion to recommit, that, instead, 
sides with our hardworking families back home. My amendment will 
prevent the legislation from taking effect until the Department of 
Justice and banking regulators certify that no financial institutions 
that are covered by the act have broken the law by taking advantage of 
servicemembers or by perpetrating abuses in the mortgage market. That 
is the very least my Republican colleagues could do.
  In the meantime, American families who are appalled at this kind of 
action in the Congress should know that the Democrats are united for 
opportunity for hardworking Americans, especially for servicemembers 
and homeowners who are seeking to enjoy the American Dream. Americans 
should be appalled that Republicans want to take the financial cops off 
the beat and take tools away from our Department of Justice and U.S. 
attorneys.
  I ask my House Republican colleagues to join us in working to build 
an economy that works for all Americans, not just for the privileged 
few.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion. Side with American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I think I have finally found some common 
ground with my friends on the other side of the aisle, which is that we 
lament how few prosecutions there have been after the great financial 
crisis.
  How about all of the former Democratic officials who used to warrant 
Fannie and Freddie, which took tens of millions of dollars of bonuses 
only to see hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer bailouts? Where 
are those prosecutions, Mr. Speaker?
  How about all of the Democratic lawmakers who came and said, ``Let's 
roll the dice for taxpayer bailouts'' ? Guess what? The dice were 
rolled, and taxpayers were rolled as well. Where are the prosecutions 
there? It has been 8 years of the Obama administration's Justice 
Department.
  They are trying to take you away from what this is truly about. It is 
about, again, Operation Choke Point. It is about the awesome resources 
and power of the Federal Government that is being used to crush small 
businesses that somehow appear on the Obama administration's enemy 
list.
  Today, those small businesses that deal with ammunition sales, that 
are coin dealers, dating services--all on the enemies list--that deal 
with fireworks sales, payday loans, pharmaceutical sales. It is all 
right here in the FDIC Supervisory Insights. It reads that, even though 
you are a perfectly legal business, if we don't like you, we are going 
to crush you, and there is nothing you can do about it because we are 
the Federal Government.

[[Page H582]]

  Mr. Speaker, there is something we can do about it. We can pass H.R. 
766. All the motion to recommit says is that the Justice Department 
gets to decide whether the law is ever enacted. It is not worth the 
paper it is printed on.
  When is this body going to quit outsourcing its constitutional 
authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats? It is an outrage. 
Operation Choke Point is an outrage. It is an affront to the 
Constitution. It is an affront to the rule of law. It is an affront to 
all of the hardworking mom-and-pop shops all across America. It strikes 
fear in the hearts of Americans.
  It is time to stand up for the Constitution. It is time to stand up 
for the rule of law. It is time to stand up for those who do not have 
voice, for those who do not have power. Reject this motion to recommit, 
and enact H.R. 766.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 177, 
nays 240, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 62]

                               YEAS--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     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
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     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)
     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
     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.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     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
     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.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     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
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Beyer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Castro (TX)
     Fincher
     Green, Gene
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Murphy (FL)
     Pitts
     Rooney (FL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Takai
     Titus
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1208

  Mr. ROKITA changes his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. JEFFRIES, HUFFMAN, VARGAS, and BUTTERFIELD changed their 
votes from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 Moment of Silence for the 12 U.S. Marines Stationed at Kaneohe Marine 
                               Corps Base

  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Gabbard was allowed to speak out of 
order.)
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, today we are gathered and rising in memory 
of the 12 United States Marines stationed at the Kaneohe Marine Corps 
base in my district who were tragically lost the night of January 14 in 
a training accident.
  We must never forget the risks that our servicemembers take every 
single day, whether they are in training or in combat as they put their 
lives on the line for the security of our Nation.
  Major Shawn Campbell, College Station, Texas.
  Captain Brian Kennedy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
  Captain Kevin Rouche, St. Louis, Missouri.
  Captain Steven Torbert, Florence, Alabama.
  Sergeant Dillon Semolina, Chaska, Minnesota.
  Sergeant Adam Schoeller, Gardners, Pennsylvania.
  Sergeant Jeffrey Sempler, Woodruff, South Carolina.
  Sergeant William Turner, Florala, Alabama.
  Corporal Matthew Drown, Spring, Texas.
  Corporal Thomas Jardas, Fort Myers, Florida.
  Corporal Christopher Orlando, Hingham, Massachusetts.
  Lance Corporal Ty Hart, Aumsville, Oregon.
  May we offer them a moment of silence to honor their service, support 
their loved ones, and our entire U.S. Marines Corps in this tragic 
loss.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will please rise for a moment of 
silence.
  Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H583]]

  

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250, 
nays 169, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               YEAS--250

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     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
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     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
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     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
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--169

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     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
     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.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Beyer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Castro (TX)
     Fincher
     Green, Gene
     Herrera Beutler
     Huizenga (MI)
     Murphy (FL)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Titus
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1217

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 1; Tuesday, 
February 2; Wednesday, February 3; and Thursday, February 4, 2016, I 
was on medical leave while recovering from hip replacement surgery and 
unable to be present for recorded votes. Had I been present, I would 
have voted: ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 46 (on the motion to suspend 
the rules and pass H.R. 2187, as amended). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 
47 (on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4168). ``No'' on 
rollcall vote No. 48 (on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 
594). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 49 (on agreeing to the resolution H. 
Res. 594). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 50 (on agreeing to the Palazzo 
Amendment to H.R. 3700). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 51 (on agreeing 
to the Al Green Amendment to H.R. 3700). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 
52 (on passage of H.R. 3700). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 53 (on 
passage of H.R. 3762, objections of the President to the contrary 
notwithstanding). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 54 (on passage of H.R. 
3662). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 55 (on ordering the previous 
question on H. Res. 595). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 56 (on agreeing 
to the resolution H. Res. 595). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 57 (on 
agreeing to the DeSaulnier Amendment to H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' on rollcall 
vote No. 58 (on agreeing to the Issa Amendment to H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' 
on rollcall vote No. 59 (on agreeing to the Carolyn Maloney Amendment 
to H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 60 (on the motion to 
recommit H.R. 1675, with instructions). ``No'' on rollcall vote No. 61 
(on passage of H.R. 1675). ``Yes'' on rollcall vote No. 62 (on the 
motion to recommit H.R. 766, with instructions). ``No'' on rollcall 
vote No. 63 (on passage of H.R. 766).


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on 
rollcall No. 62 on the Motion to Recommit for consideration of 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 ``aye.''
  Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 63 on the final 
consideration of 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 vote 
``nay.''

                          ____________________