[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 81 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2907-H2910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FOSTERING INNOVATION ACT OF 2015
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4139) to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide
a temporary exemption for low-revenue issuers from certain auditor
attestation requirements.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4139
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 ``Fostering Innovation Act of
2015''.
SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR LOW-REVENUE ISSUERS.
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C.
7262) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Temporary Exemption for Low-Revenue Issuers.--
``(1) Low-revenue exemption.--Subsection (b) shall not
apply with respect to an audit report prepared for an issuer
that--
``(A) ceased to be an emerging growth company on the last
day of the fiscal year of the issuer following the fifth
anniversary of the date of the first sale of common equity
securities of the issuer pursuant to an effective
registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933;
``(B) had average annual gross revenues of less than
$50,000,000 as of its most recently completed fiscal year;
and
``(C) is not a large accelerated filer.
``(2) Expiration of temporary exemption.--An issuer ceases
to be eligible for the exemption described under paragraph
(1) at the earliest of--
``(A) the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer
following the tenth anniversary of the date of the first sale
of common equity securities of the issuer pursuant to an
effective registration statement under the Securities Act of
1933;
``(B) the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer during
which the average annual gross revenues of the issuer exceed
$50,000,000; or
``(C) the date on which the issuer becomes a large
accelerated filer.
``(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) Average annual gross revenues.--The term `average
annual gross revenues' means the total gross revenues of an
issuer over its most recently completed three fiscal years
divided by three.
``(B) Emerging growth company.--The term `emerging growth
company' has the meaning given such term under section 3 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c).
``(C) Large accelerated filer.--The term `large accelerated
filer' has the meaning given that term under section 240.12b-
2 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
thereto.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms.
Sewell) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 4139, the Fostering Innovation Act,
introduced by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
H.R. 4139 extends a narrow exemption to comply with section 404(b) of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for emerging growth companies that would
otherwise lose their exempt status at the end of a 5-year period
allowed under current law.
As such, H.R. 4139 is consistent with the bipartisan aims of the JOBS
Act to eliminate the one-size-fits-all regulatory structure for public
companies.
Under Sarbanes-Oxley, or SOX, section 404(b) requires an independent
and external assessment of a public company's internal controls over
financial reporting.
While important, this translates into significant legal and
compliance costs, driving up an entity's accounting and auditing
expenses. In fact, the costs to comply with section 404(b) have far
exceeded the original estimates done by the SEC, and even a 2011 SEC
study found that the average costs for companies can exceed $1 million
annually.
This burden disproportionately impacts small and emerging growth
companies, such as biotech firms that are engaging in lifesaving
research and development. My home State of Missouri alone has over
1,300 biotech companies that employ over 28,000 people who conduct
groundbreaking research.
Section 404(b)'s costs divert the resources of emerging growth
companies to regulatory compliance costs, which
[[Page H2908]]
harms the ability of those firms to compete in the global marketplace
and to even invest in creating lifesaving treatments and technologies.
Brian Hahn, the chief financial officer of GlycoMimetics, which is a
small, public biotech company, testified at a subcommittee hearing on
H.R. 4139 on December 2, 2015, that section 404(b) ``provides little-
to-no insight into the health of an emerging biotech company--but is
extremely costly for a pre-revenue innovator to comply with.''
{time} 1600
Recognizing these issues, the JOBS Act created an exemption to these
external control attestation requirements, which allows small companies
to focus on growing their business, going public, and still comply with
SOx's other provisions. Nevertheless, the smallest of public companies
still struggle to comply with the significant costs stemming from SOx
section 404(b).
Despite claims to the contrary, H.R. 4139 is narrowly tailored to
provide regulatory relief to the smallest of public companies, those
with less than $50 million in annual revenue. This legislation provides
those companies with an additional on-ramp for section 404(b)
compliance. As Mr. Hahn further testified in the Financial Services
Committee: ``Legislation like the Fostering Innovation Act will ensure
that growing companies have the opportunity to be successful on the
public market without being forced to siphon off innovation capital to
spend on costly compliance burdens that do not inform emerging biotech
investors.''
I thank Ms. Sinema and Mr. Fitzpatrick for their diligent work on the
bill, which passed the Financial Services Committee by a broad
bipartisan vote.
I encourage my colleagues to provide this badly needed regulatory
relief to our Nation's small innovative companies and join me in
supporting H.R. 4139.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today I rise in opposition to H.R. 4139, the Fostering Innovation
Act. This bill permits certain public companies that would be valued at
more than half a billion dollars to avoid an independent audit required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for up to a decade.
While I support legislation that would enable emerging growth
companies to use valuable resources to remain competitive, stable, and,
ultimately, successful, I believe that this bill, as currently drafted,
is overly broad and would potentially undermine critical investor
protections and impede confidence in our capital markets.
Ultimately, these auditor reports on public companies provide
substantial benefits to investors and to companies. They promote
confidence in the U.S. markets, strengthen internal controls, and,
ultimately, prevent fraud.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who is a distinguished member of
the Financial Services Committee and chairs the Task Force to
Investigate Terrorism Financing.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Luetkemeyer for
yielding time to highlight the importance of this bipartisan
legislation to assist the innovators and the job creators who drive our
economy and are those who continue to position the United States as a
global leader in research and a global leader in development.
Mr. Speaker, during a previous Congress, the Financial Services
Committee heard testimony from one of my constituents, the CEO of a
Philadelphia-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology firm which, at the
time, employed around 55 individuals. For this firm and for many
emerging growth companies focused on groundbreaking technologies, it
could take more than a decade to see a profit; but because of top-line
numbers, these companies are required to comply with costly regulations
meant to ensure that the largest corporations are playing by the rules.
While Congress has made some efforts to reduce some of these
regulatory burdens in the past, like the JOBS Act of 2012, it created
an effective yet one-size-fits-all approach to exempt certain companies
for up to 5 years from section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley, which, of
course, as we heard, requires the hiring of an external auditor in some
cases. Unfortunately, a small group of companies remain unprofitable
even after this period of time.
This bipartisan Fostering Innovation Act works to address this
shortcoming by providing targeted relief from these costly regulations
and requirements, allowing our American firms to focus on what they do
best: innovation, breakthroughs, and curing diseases. By extending the
waiver period for smaller companies that meet specific requirements,
Washington gets out of the way and allows these firms to better compete
in critical research and development in an increasingly globalized and
competitive world. That is it.
I want to applaud Chairman Hensarling and the rest of the committee,
especially my colleagues, Ms. Sinema of Arizona, who is the bill's
sponsor, and Representative Delaney. We came together to find
bipartisan solutions that address regulatory burdens for our emerging
growth companies, and it is my hope that, with this spirit of
cooperation, we will be able to find new issues to tackle and continue
to show the American people that this House can govern and foster an
economy that works for everyone.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters
of opposition from Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, and
the SEC Investor Advocate.
Americans for Financial Reform,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2016.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Americans for Financial
Reform, we are writing to reiterate our opposition to H.R.
4139, the ``Fostering Innovation Act''
This legislation would double the length of the existing
exemption from compliance with Sarbanes Oxley Section 404(b)
for ``emerging growth companies'', from five years to ten
years. The exemption granted in H.R. 4139 applies to
companies with $50 million or less in annual gross revenues.
Section 404(b) of Sarbanes-Oxley requires the auditor of a
public company to attest to the accuracy of the company's
financial reporting. This requirement was passed in response
to the accounting scandals of the late 1990s, which revealed
widespread deception and fraud in financial reporting. More
recent research by the GAO has found that companies exempted
from auditor attestation requirements have a higher frequency
of accounting restatements, indicating that the financial
reporting at such companies is deficient. Such accounting
restatements are harmful both to investors and to the
companies themselves, by virtue of making it harder to raise
capital.
We believe that the five year exemption provided for in the
JOBS Act is already ample time for a publicly held company
with tens of millions of dollars in revenue to develop the
capacity to provide fully reliable and accurate financial
statements. Ten years is an excessively long exemption. This
is especially true given the significance to the public and
the financial markets of accurate financial reporting.
Congress should reject H.R. 4139.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform.
Following are the Partners of Americans for Financial
Reform--All the organizations support the overall principles
of AFR and are working for an accountable, fair and secure
financial system. Not all of these organizations work on all
of the issues covered by the coalition or have signed on to
every statement.
AARP, A New Way Forward, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Alliance For
Justice, American Income Life Insurance, American Sustainable
Business Council, Americans for Democratic Action, Inc,
Americans United for Change, Campaign for America's Future,
Campaign Money, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for
Economic and Policy Research, Center for Economic Progress,
Center for Media and Democracy, Center for Responsible
Lending, Center for Justice and Democracy, Center of Concern,
Center for Effective Government, Change to Win, Clean Yield
Asset Management, Coastal Enterprises Inc., Color of Change,
Common Cause, Communications Workers of America, Community
Development Transportation Lending Services, Consumer Action,
Consumer Association Council, Consumers for Auto Safety and
Reliability, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer
Watchdog, Consumers Union, Corporation for Enterprise
Development, CREDO Mobile, CTW Investment Group, Demos,
Economic Policy Institute, Essential Action.
[[Page H2909]]
Green America, Greenlining Institute, Good Business
International, Government Accountability Project, HNMA
Funding Company, Home Actions, Housing Counseling Services,
Home Defenders League, Information Press, Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for Global
Communications, Institute for Policy Studies: Global Economy
Project, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Institute of
Women's Policy Research, Krull & Company, Laborers'
International Union of North America, Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law, Main Street Alliance, Move On, NAACP,
NASCAT, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National
Association of Neighborhoods, National Community Reinvestment
Coalition, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its
low-income clients), National Consumers League, National
Council of La Raza, National Council of Women's
Organizations, National Fair Housing Alliance, National
Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, National
Housing Resource Center, National Housing Trust, National
Housing Trust Community Development Fund, National
NeighborWorks Association, National Nurses United, National
People's Action, National Urban League, Next Step,
OpenTheGovemment.org, Opportunity Finance Network, Partners
for the Common Good, PICO National Network, Progress Now
Action, Progressive States Network.
Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Public Citizen,
Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law, SEIU, State Voices,
Taxpayer's for Common Sense, The Association for Housing and
Neighborhood Development, The Fuel Savers Club, The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Seminal,
TICAS, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, UNITE HERE,
United Food and Commercial Workers, United States Student
Association, USAction, Veris Wealth Partners, Western States
Center, We the People Now, Woodstock Institute, World Privacy
Forum, UNET, Union Plus, Unitarian Universalist for a Just
Economic Community.
List of State and Local Partners
Alaska PIRG, Arizona PIRG, Arizona Advocacy Network,
Arizonans For Responsible Lending, Association for
Neighborhood and Housing Development, NY, Audubon Partnership
for Economic Development LDC, New York, NY, BAC Funding
Consortium Inc., Miami, FL, Beech Capital Venture
Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, California PIRG, California
Reinvestment Coalition, Century Housing Corporation, Culver
City, CA, CHANGER, NY, Chautauqua Home Rehabilitation and
Improvement Corporation (NY), Chicago Community Loan Fund,
Chicago, IL, Chicago Community Ventures, Chicago, IL, Chicago
Consumer Coalition, Citizen Potawatomi CDC, Shawnee, OK.
Colorado PIRG, Coalition on Homeless Housing in Ohio,
Community Capital Fund, Bridgeport, CT, Community Capital of
Maryland, Baltimore, MD, Community Development Financial
Institution of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, AZ,
Community Redevelopment Loan and Investment Fund, Atlanta,
GA, Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina,
Community Resource Group, Fayetteville A, Connecticut PIRG,
Consumer Assistance Council, Cooper Square Committee (NYC),
Cooperative Fund of New England, Wilmington, NC, Corporacion
de Desarrollo Economico de Ceiba, Ceiba, PR, Delta
Foundation, Inc., Greenville, MS, Economic Opportunity Fund
(EOF), Philadelphia, PA, Empire Justice Center, NY,
Empowering and Strengthening Ohio's People (ESOP), Cleveland.
OH, Enterprises, Inc., Berea, KY, Fair Housing Contact
Service, OH, Federation of Appalachian Housing, Fitness and
Praise Youth Development, Inc., Baton Rouge, LA, Florida
Consumer Action Network, Florida PIRG, Funding Partners for
Housing Solutions, Ft. Collins, CO, Georgia PIRG, Grow Iowa
Foundation, Greenfield, IA, Homewise, Inc., Santa Fe, NM,
Idaho Nevada CDFI, Pocatello, ID, Idaho Chapter, National
Association of Social Workers, Illinois PIRG, Impact Capital,
Seattle, WA, Indiana PIRG, Iowa PIRG, Iowa Citizens for
Community Improvement, JobStart Chautauqua, Inc., Mayville,
NY, La Casa Federal Credit Union, Newark, NJ, Low Income
Investment Fund, San Francisco, CA, Long Island Housing
Services, NY, MaineStream Finance, Bangor, ME, Maryland PIRG,
Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition, MASSPIRG, Massachusetts
Fair Housing Center, Michigan PIRG.
Midland Community Development Corporation, Midland, TX,
Midwest Minnesota Community Development Corporation, Detroit
Lakes, MN, Mile High Community Loan Fund, Denver, CO,
Missouri PIRG, Mortgage Recovery Service Center of L.A.,
Montana Community Development Corporation, Missoula, MT,
Montana PIRG, New Economy Project, New Hampshire PIRG, New
Jersey Community Capital, Trenton, NJ, New Jersey Citizen
Action, New Jersey PIRG New Mexico PIRG, New York PIRG, New
York City Aids Housing Network, New Yorkers for Responsible
Lending, NOAH Community Development Fund, Inc., Boston, MA,
Nonprofit Finance Fund, New York, NY, Nonprofits Assistance
Fund, Minneapolis, MN, North Carolina PIRG, Northside
Community Development Fund, Pittsburgh, PA, Ohio Capital
Corporation for Housing, Columbus, OH, Ohio PIRG,
OligarchyUSA Oregon State PIRG, Our Oregon.
PennPIRG, Piedmont Housing Alliance, Charlottesville VA,
Michigan PIRG, Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, CO,
Rhode Island PIRG, Rural Community Assistance Corporation,
West Sacramento, CA, Rural Organizing Project, OR, San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, Seattle
Economic Development Fund, Community Capital Development,
TexPIRG, The Fair Housing Council of Central New York, The
Loan Fund, Albuquerque, NM, Third Reconstruction Institute,
NC, Vermont PIRG, Village Capital Corporation, Cleveland, OH,
Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Virginia Poverty Law
Center, War on Poverty--Florida, WashP1RG, Westchester
Residential Opportunities Inc., Wigamig Owners Loan Fund,
Inc., Lac du Flambeau, WI, WISPIRG.
Small Businesses
Blu, Bowden-Gill Environmental, Community MedPAC,
Diversified Environmental Planning, Hayden & Craig, PLLC, Mid
City Animal Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, UNET.
____
PUBLICCITIZEN,
Washington, DC., May 23, 2016.
Re Vote NO on H.R. 4139 Fostering Innovation Act of 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Member: On behalf of more than 400,000
members and supporters of Public Citizen, we ask to you to
vote no on H.R. 4139 Fostering Innovation Act of 2015. This
bill would allow certain firms with up to $50 million in
revenue and $700 million in capital floats to escape critical
scrutiny in audits by doubling the length of their exemption
from the requirements set forth in 404(b) of the
SarbanesOxley law.
A firm where investors have trusted $700 million should be
willing to be scrutinized under a Section 404(b) audit. A
firm that does not want to withstand such scrutiny is the
very firm that likely needs such scrutiny to ensure its
financial reporting is not being doctored.
Already the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act provides relief for smaller companies from the
audit requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley. Capital markets thrive
when companies are held to reasonable standards. That works
both for investors as well as entrepreneurs who hope to avail
themselves of the capital markets. Extending firms'
exemptions from necessary oversight will only lead to less
compliance with standards, and more risk.
For questions, please contact Bartlett Naylor, financial
policy advocate, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Public Citizen.
____
United States Securities and
Exchange Commission,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2016.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: H.R. 4139,
cited as the ``Fostering Innovation Act of 2015,'' is ill-
advised, and I urge Members of Congress to vote against it.
The bill would allow smaller public companies to avoid the
auditor attestation requirement of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for
up to 10 years following an initial public offering.
In a small company, as in a large one, it is management's
job to maintain a system of internal controls to help ensure
that the financial statements are reliable. A key reform of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed on the heels of the
Enron implosion and other accounting scandals that wreaked
havoc on American investors, was to require that a company's
auditor attest to management's assessment of the
effectiveness of its internal control over financial
reporting. This ``second set of eyes'' helps to identify
potential risks of material misstatements and is designed to
prevent or detect fraud. Unfortunately, H.R. 4139 would chip
away further at the requirement for a second set of eyes,
even though auditor attestation enhances reliability of
financial reporting for investors, which has been shown to
reduce the cost of capital for businesses.
Credible empirical research has established that both
investors and companies benefit from having auditors attest
to the effectiveness of internal controls. For example,
institutional investors rely on the auditor's opinion.
Auditor testing uncovers more deficiencies than does
management's assessment alone. Moreover, there is a positive
correlation between a material weakness in internal control
and the future revelation of fraud. Indeed, companies with
more serious control problems tend to be smaller, less
mature, growing, or rapidly changing. All of this academic
research is described at length in the testimony of
University of Tennessee professor Joseph V. Carcello on this
bill before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and
Government Sponsored Enterprises of the House Financial
Services Committee. In addition, a 2011 study published by
the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fund
that companies that do not have an auditor attestation tend
to have significantly more material weaknesses in their
internal controls and more financial restatements.
Since the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002,
several steps have already been taken to significantly reduce
the burden on smaller companies from the auditor attestation
requirement in Section 404(b). In 2007, for example, the SEC
and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board took steps
[[Page H2910]]
to reduce the costs of 404(b) compliance. Later, the Dodd-
Frank Act exempted approximately 60 percent of companies from
this requirement, and the JOBS Act waived the requirement for
emerging growth companies for up to five years. HR 4139 would
extend this exemption for up to 10 years for certain issuers,
and I believe it is a step too far.
Aside from weakening an important investor protection, H.R.
4139 further compounds the complexity of securities law
reporting requirements by creating yet another category of
issuers. The development of scaled reporting requirements has
resulted in multiple overlapping issuer categories, each
eligible for different rules, and that complexity itself adds
to the cost of raising capital.
In short, the independent audit of internal controls
provides important protections to investors and the companies
in which they invest. It strengthens internal controls,
prevents fraud, and promotes confidence in U.S. capital
markets. I oppose H.R. 4139 because it would further
deteriorate the benefits of Section 404, and I strongly
encourage you to oppose it as well. Please call me at if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rick A Fleming,
Investor Advocate.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), a distinguished member of the Financial
Services Committee and a sponsor of the bill.
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hensarling and Congressman
Fitzpatrick for working with me on this narrow, targeted exemption to
provide commonsense, regulatory relief for companies on the cutting
edge of scientific and medical research.
I have heard from companies throughout my district that burdensome
and unnecessary regulations continue to stifle their ability to grow
and succeed. The Fostering Innovation Act allows certain emerging
growth companies, including some biopharmaceutical companies, to spend
valuable resources on product research and development instead of
costly and unnecessary external audits.
Currently, EGCs are exempt from certain regulatory requirements for 5
years after their initial public offering. One of the requirements that
EGCs are exempt from is Sarbanes-Oxley section 404(b), which requires
public companies to obtain an external audit on the effectiveness of
their internal controls for financial reporting. This reporting
requirement is costly and unnecessary because management is still
required to assess internal controls, and these EGCs, by definition,
have very limited public exposure.
H.R. 4139 is a very narrow fix that temporarily extends the Sarbanes-
Oxley section 404(b) exemption for an additional 5 years for a small
subset of EGCs with an annual average revenue of less than $50 million
and less than $700 million in public float. This will enable these EGCs
to use valuable resources to remain competitive, stable, and,
ultimately, successful.
In the biopharma market, making it easier and less costly means
greater competition and results in potentially lower drug prices for
consumers. Further, nothing in this bill prohibits an external audit if
a company or a majority of its shareholders determine an audit is
beneficial
I urge my colleagues to join us in helping to ensure that costly
regulations don't stand in the way of success for biopharmaceutical and
other companies on the cutting edge of scientific and medical research.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Sinema and Mr. Fitzpatrick
for their fine work on this piece of legislation, which basically is a
commonsense piece of legislation to help a lot of our small, biotech
companies to be able to do a better job of managing their own funds.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer)
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4139.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________