Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 109 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 109 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4497-H4522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

General Leave

Mr. CRENSHAW. 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 the further consideration of H.R.
5485, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 794 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5485.
Will the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1439

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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5485) making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Ribble (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
July 7, 2016, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 25,
printed in House Report 114-639, offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Davidson) had been postponed.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Duffy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce a new regulatory
action for which the aggregate costs of State, local, and
tribal government compliance or private sector compliance, as
estimated under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532), will be $100,000,000 or more.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that deals with an issue that
quite often comes up on this floor. It is an issue about regulation and
overregulation. What this amendment would do is prohibit the
administration from using any of these funds to implement a rule that
would cost the economy $100 million more. This is kind of like the
REINS Act, but the rule doesn't come back for a vote; it is just
prohibited.
The reason is there have been so many new rules and regulations that
our economy is having a hard time keeping up. Just last year alone,
there were 3,400 new rules--administrative rules, not from Congress,
but these are from agencies. There were 80,000-plus pages of rules and
regulations last year alone, and over half a million regulation pages
over this President's administration.
This is having a real impact on the American economy. We have
businesses that are having a more difficult time accessing loans to
expand their businesses, to grow their innovation, to invest in
innovation and create good-paying jobs within our communities. We have
an increased cost of financing business expansions and home financing
because of the compliance cost of our whole financial sector.
The costs have increased so much because the rules are now so complex
and so many that it is trickling down to the business community and to
our families. It is impacting our economy.
So I think it is time. At least right now, for a year, in this
funding bill, let's take a pause. Let's just take a break on all the
regulation. Let's stop, let's review, and then we can have a discussion
about how we move forward. But this is a pause on the big regulation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is a surprise to the gentleman that we still have 6 months to go
in this Congress and in this administration.
This amendment would limit the administration's ability to propose or
finalize important rules or regulations.
The administration issues rules because Congress has conveyed a
specific responsibility to them. Rather than enact every contingency
into law, we rely on public comment and technical advice to make sure
the laws are implemented efficiently.
Taking a myopic view of our Nation's regulatory practices is nothing
new for the majority. Time and time again we have seen appropriations
riders and authorizing legislation that only looks at the costs
associated with agency rules and completely ignores the associated
benefits. This amendment is no different.
These proposals overlook the extensive review process that already
exists for rules. For example, every new rule is already scrutinized up
and down by numerous Federal agencies as well as key stakeholders and
the public. For economically significant rules, an agency must provide
the Office of Management and Budget with an assessment and, to the
extent possible, a quantification of the benefits and costs of the
proposed rule.
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the agency has to justify
the costs associated with the rule, and these costs are justified with
benefits--something this amendment appears to think don't exist. But
that is just false. For example, in its 2015 analysis of the estimated
cost and benefits of significant Federal regulations, OMB estimated
that, over the last decade, the benefits of these rules outweighed the
economic costs by up to 9 to 1.
This amendment would upend years of precedent and could prohibit
agencies from revising rules and regulations in response to changes in
technology, the economy, or public demand.
Republicans should stop trying to undermine the rulemaking process
and should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to
society.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment very strongly, and I urge a
``nay'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1445

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), our chairman.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in support of this, and thank the gentleman for bringing this
before the House.
We have an administration that just loves to regulate. They love to
regulate. They have rules for everything. They have no regard for the
cost of the regulations. Small businesses, governments, and States are
all hard pressed to do all this stuff. The administration tries to
sidestep us by going through executive orders and Presidential
memorandums.
All this amendment does is force the administration to seek
congressional approval on the most significant of the new regulations.
It is a great amendment, and I urge all the Members to support it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that my good friend
across the aisle talks about the great review process that we have by
Federal agencies. These are the faceless, nameless

[[Page H4498]]

bureaucrats who make rules that have huge impacts on our families, on
our businesses, and on our economy.
I don't know about you, but people come to me and say: There is a
horrible rule. Could you help me out, my Member of Congress? What I do
is I write a letter.
We have disenfranchised the American people because we don't make the
laws anymore. We have outsourced that to the regulators. Let's take
that power back.
When we empower the Congress, we empower the American people to have
a say in their government on the rules that have a huge impact on their
lives. Let's have the backbone to take tough votes, to say ``yes'' or
``no'' to these kind of rules. But let's not outsource it to an agency
that has no relationship with the American people and no accountability
to the American people.
This is saying ``no.'' Let's take a stop and let's reempower the
Congress to have a say, which, again, empowers the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing. I think it could be
December 31 of this year and we would still be trying to find a way to
make the President look bad. That is what this is about. It is about
this President having an administration.
If it was up to some on the other side, there would be no Federal
agencies, there would be no Federal employees, they might invent a new
computer that would run the whole government, and the rest of us would
just sit around. But be careful, because then somebody would suggest
that there should not be a Congress.
This should be left alone. We have agencies. We have secretaries.
These agencies carry out. And when they don't carry out to our
understanding, believe me, just look at the appropriations bills. There
are riders upon riders upon riders to try to undo what is being done,
which, in many cases, is excellent work. This is just more of the same.
It may come as a shock to you, but the President is still around for
6 more months and we are around for 6 more months and those
administrators are around for 6 more months, so we better learn to get
along for those 6 months.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Crenshaw of Florida

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 27, 48, 53, 56,
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, and 69, printed in House Report
114-639, offered by Mr. Crenshaw of Florida:

Amendment no. 27 offered by Mr. Duffy of wisconsin

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used with respect to the case Rainey v. Merit Systems
Protection Board (United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit; No. 2015-3234, decided on June 7, 2016).

amendment no. 48 offered by mr. zeldin of new york

At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to enforce section 540 of Public Law 110-329 (122 Stat.
3688) or section 538 of Public Law 112-74 (125 Stat. 976; 6
U.S.C. 190 note).

amendment no. 53 offered by mr. jeffries of new york

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the relocation of the Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review of the Social Security Administration
located at 111 Livingston Street in Brooklyn, New York.

amendment no. 56 offered by mr. grayson of florida

Page 11, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,250,000)''.

amendment no. 59 offered by mrs. comstock of virginia

Page 37, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.

amendment no. 60 offered by ms. speier of california

Page 46, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 90, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

amendment no. 61 offered by mr. himes of connecticut

Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,784,000)''.
Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,784,000)''.
Page 114, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,784,000)''.

amendment no. 62 offered by miss Rice of new york

Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $800,000)''.
Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $800,000)''.
Page 113, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $800,000)''.

amendment no. 63 offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts

Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,300,000)''.
Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,300,000)''.
Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,300,000)''.

amendment no. 64 offered by mr. walberg of michigan

Page 37, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

amendment no. 65 offered by mr. connolly of virginia

Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

amendment no. 66 offered by ms. meng of new york

Page 117, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

amendment no. 67 offered by mr. engel of new york

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, for any
executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except
in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet
Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

amendment no. 69 offered by mr. grayson of florida

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of
its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by
Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of
its principals--
(1) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for--
(A) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract;
(B) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes
relating to the submission of offers; or
(C) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws,
or receiving stolen property;
(2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated above in paragraph (1); or
(3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, the majority and the minority have agreed
to these amendments en bloc. They are noncontroversial amendments that
affect a variety of topics, such as whistleblower protection, property
disposal, and reducing drug trafficking.
Additionally, the sponsors of the amendments have agreed to the
consideration of these amendments en bloc.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a historic moment, so
let's pay attention.
I rise in support of the en bloc amendments. I appreciate the
chairman's inclusion of amendments for Democratic Members.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment. I think it is a fine
example of what we can do every so often.

[[Page H4499]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member.
I rise to support a bipartisan amendment that I have offered with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), which helps
communities combat the opioid and heroin epidemic by increasing funding
for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program by $2 million.
Across the country, HIDTA officials are doing important work to curb
drug trafficking and bring law enforcement and community stakeholders
together to stem the tide of drugs like heroin and fentanyl. Providing
these additional resources will allow for even more local partnerships
to fight drug trafficking.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
I rise to offer my amendment to the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act to improve the FTC enforcement of the Do
Not Call Registry list, and to improve public education about FTC-
supported solutions that can block these malicious and annoying
robocalls.
Mr. Chair, all of us have suffered the repeated ringing from calls
from unknown numbers from robocalls.
It only takes one day sitting at home to realize how invasive
robocalls have become. This is what our elderly and retired citizens
have to deal with every single day.
Robocall scammers steal over $350 million every year from those who
fall prey to incessant calls. Without proper enforcement and support
from the FTC, these calls will continue and all of our constituents
will continue to suffer. This amendment I offer today would increase
funding for the FTC for the purpose of additional enforcement of the Do
Not Call Registry and for educating for consumers about their options.
The relatively small increase in this amendment would result in 6.5
percent more funds for enforcement. Since 2004, the FTC has brought in
$41 million in penalties. That's a paltry $3.4 million each year.
Considering scammers owe the FTC an estimated $1.2 billion in
penalties, there's a lot more that can be done.
For the past several years, the FTC has held contests to support the
development of robocall blocking apps such as Nomorobo and Robokiller.
However, many people don't know that they are free and are effective
solutions for some consumers. By allowing the FTC to conduct more
education and outreach, this amendment would further leverage existing
FTC investment in this area.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. This amendment would
provide a significant increase to the FTC's ability to crack down on
illegal robocalls and provide our constituents some peace for the
constant robocall ringing.
With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which
would transfer $7 million to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program, also known as HIDTA.
HIDTA coordinates federal, state, and local drug task forces to
disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking operations.
So many individuals--and by extension, their families and friends--
are suffering the effects of drug abuse.
The heroin and opioid epidemic is affecting all of northern Virginia.
But currently, only part of my district is HIDTA-designated.
Two counties--Clarke and Frederick--have not yet received a HIDTA
designation.
But I will not rest until my constituents in the Shenandoah Valley
are afforded the same resources to combat this scourge.
The funding increase proposed by my amendment will ultimately save
lives.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, those of us in this institution talk a lot
about how America is a nation of laws.
But unfortunately, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled that, while we are a nation of laws, we are not a nation of
rules. At least not if you are a Federal worker.
My amendment would prohibit the use of funds made available in the
underlying bill with respect to Rainey v. Merit System Protection
Board.
Allow me to explain the case and why it's relevant to the bill
before us today.
Dr. Timothy Rainey is a State Department employee who, while serving
as a contracting officer in 2013, was ordered by his supervisor to
violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Dr. Rainey refused, and in doing so he was removed from his duties.
When Dr. Rainey invoked the ``right-to-disobey'' provision of the
Whistleblower Protection Act, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled
that the law only protects him from refusing to violate Federal laws,
but not rules or regulations.
On June 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit upheld this ruling.
So what does this mean, Mr. Speaker?
I chair the Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee where we
frequently get valuable tips from Federal whistleblowers about
questionable and illegal activities at Federal agencies.
This ruling will have the effect of taking away their protections to
stand up to bad actors in the Federal workforce.
Let's not forget that our rules and regulations are supposed to be
derived from law.
In effect, this ruling will give permission to political appointees
and other supervisors in positions of authority to force Federal works
to violate the rules and regulations that Congress, through law,
directs the agencies to implement.
At the Treasury Department, one of the many agencies funded by this
bill, this would mean that Federal workers could be forced to violate
sanctions against Russia for its violation of Ukraine's territorial
integrity.
Many of those sanctions are enforced through the Code of Federal
Regulations pursuant to laws enacted by Congress.
Ultimately, Congress will need to fix the Whistleblower Protection
Act.
I intend to work in a bipartisan fashion and with the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform to fix the Whistleblower Protection Act
to address this ruling.
In the meantime, I ask adoption of my amendment to put the House on
record that Federal workers should follows laws and rules and
regulations.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw and
Ranking Member Serrano for including my amendment into the en bloc
amendment to H.R. 5485, the FY2017 Financial Services Appropriations
Act.
I offered this amendment to increase the funding provided to the
Treasury Department's Office of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN) by $3,300,000. By sharing financial intelligence with law
enforcement, private industry, and its foreign counterparts, FinCEN
supports financial crime investigations throughout the world.
Terrorists' proven ability to move money through innovative means
necessitates continued progress in this critical counterterrorism area.
The $3,300,000 is needed to enhance FinCEN's supervisory strategy of
Money Services Businesses and to meet the growing demand for FinCEN's
expanded national security response efforts.
The amendment would offset this necessary increase through
corresponding decreases in the funding provided for the ``Rental of
Space'' account within the General Services Administration.
Through my work as Ranking Member of the Financial Services
Committee's Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing and the Co-
Chair of the bipartisan Task Force on Anti-Terrorism & Proliferation
Financing, I witnessed the vital work that FinCEN engages in to
safeguard our financial system from evolving money laundering and
national security threats. By analyzing financial intelligence and
sharing it with law enforcement, private industry, and its foreign
counterparts, FinCEN supports financial crime investigations throughout
the world.
At this time, FinCEN needs additional funding to enhance its
supervisory strategy of Money Services Businesses (MSBs) and to
establish a specialized response team to focus on high priority
threats. This is important because banks are increasingly derisking by
exiting the MSB market due to the high risks associated with MSB
customers. For example, this is making it nearly impossible for
families, charities, and businesses to send remittances to people in
Somalia. A specialized response team will encourage banks to more
consistently service the financial needs of the MSB market that is seen
as higher risk.
In addition, FinCEN could use these additional funds to meet the
growing demand for its expanded national security response efforts.
FinCEN continues to support the broader Department of Treasury efforts
by identifying sources of revenue for organizations such as Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and their attempts to access the
international financial system. However, without adequate funding
FinCEN will be unable to meet the demand for expanded intelligence
reporting and increased investigations into terrorism finance.
As evidenced by recent support to the Paris and Belgium terrorists
attack investigations, FinCEN's expertise assisted in quickly
identifying links between the two attacks. FinCEN

[[Page H4500]]

published 51 reports related to the Paris attacks and 2 reports related
to the Brussels attack Many of these reports were generated through
engagement with financial institutions by FinCEN, which resulted in
increased reports from U.S. financial institutions. Moreover, FinCEN's
financial intelligence has played an important role in identifying
potential foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs).
With today's increasingly complex and rapidly evolving terrorist
networks, we cannot risk our national security by not adequately
funding this important Department.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

July 7, 2016, on page H4500, the following appeared: The
amendments en bloc were agreed . . .

The online version has been corrected to read: The en bloc
amendments were agreed

========================= END NOTE =========================

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Garrett

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. GARRETT. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to propose,
issue, implement, administer, or enforce any requirement that
a solicitation of a proxy, consent, or authorization to vote
a security of an issuer in an election of members of the
board of directors of the issuer be made using a single
ballot or card that lists both individuals nominated by (or
on behalf of) the issuer and individuals nominated by (or on
behalf of) other proponents and permits the person granting
the proxy, consent, or authorization to select from among
individuals in both groups.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on an amendment that would
prohibit special interests from having their agendas advanced by
Washington bureaucrats, and to refocus the Securities and Exchange
Commission on its important threefold policy mission: to protect
investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to
facilitate capital formation.
Strong and efficient communication between the boards and management
of public companies and their shareholders is foundational to healthy
capital markets and to maintaining the ability of companies to innovate
and to create jobs for everyone.
Fortunately, recent studies have shown that communication between the
investors and the companies has actually improved over recent years,
and shareholders are now increasingly able to effectuate change without
all of the drastic measures, such as launching a proxy fight.
In fact, according to a 2015 report from Ernst & Young, the number of
companies disclosing engagement on government topics rose from a mere 6
percent of the S&P 500 companies all the way up to 50 percent in 2015.
In many ways, this is a private market at work as investors demand that
boards and management be more responsive to their request for how to
improve the company and their long-term performance.
A number of regulatory hurdles still need to be overcome to improve
the U.S. proxy system, which remains one of the primary ways in which
public companies communicate between the two. Back in 2010, the SEC put
forth a number of ideas, the so-called ``Proxy Plumbing'' concept
release, which explored various ways to improve the transparency, if
you will, of corporate government systems here in the United States.
Importantly, the Proxy Plumbing concept release also discussed at
length the importance of getting retail investors more involved in the
process. For a variety of reasons, retail investors have for years been
disenfranchised by the current proxy system, and they rarely exercise
the rights of shareholders to engage in improving the way that the
companies work.
Unfortunately, for nearly 6 years, the SEC has, and maybe not
surprisingly, allowed this Proxy Plumbing concept release to languish
and has chosen not to act on it, even on some of the most basic and
noncontroversial parts of it.
But then last year, out of the blue, SEC Chair Mary Jo White had
directed the SEC staff to develop a rulemaking for what is known as
``universal proxy ballots.''
You ask: What are universal proxy ballots? Good question. Put simply,
while they sound quite benign, actually, universal proxy ballots are a
means for special interest groups to easily then nominate their
preferred candidates to a company's board, and that would fundamentally
change things. It would fundamentally change the way in which public
company directors are elected here in the U.S.
This is an initiative that has been pushed for years by insiders and
special interests. It has also been pushed by a number of activist
pension funds, many of which have been horribly managed themselves and
now find themselves with unfunded liabilities that threaten the
retirement security of the public sector workers over which they were
responsible.
The adoption of the universal proxy rule would only increase the
likelihood of high profile proxy fights at public companies, which
would then serve to distract the employees and management of these
companies from carrying out their core mission.
More importantly, it would make the vast majority of public company
shareholders, including the smaller retail investor, pay the price for
the costs associated with these big fights.
Finally, it is unfair to those investors who do not wish to carry the
water for these special interests.
Aside from these specific policy concerns, there are also issues of
how the SEC has been prioritizing its finite resources. The SEC
recently missed the rulemaking deadline for yet again another
congressional mandate to simplify and modernize our current corporate
disclosure regime.
This is an initiative that has bipartisan support and would help
boost confidence by making quarterly and annual reports more effective
for the small investor by reducing some of the unnecessary and the not
material disclosures within them.
Unfortunately, once again, the SEC chose to ignore what Congress
mandated and, instead, prioritized rulemakings over such things as that
universal proxy I mentioned, which, again, would benefit simply a
minority of insider special interests over the vast majority of public
company shareholders.
This rulemaking should be nowhere on the SEC's agenda. My amendment
would simply disallow the SEC from using its finite resources.
I urge all of my colleagues' support.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
bringing the amendment before us. This is a very good amendment. It
keeps the SEC on track, it gets them focused on their core dual
mission--investor protection and capital formation.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said it more succinctly than
I did in the last 4 minutes, and I thank him.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has
expired.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to hear the other side
protecting the right of the SEC to do its work when the budget and the
bill show just the opposite.
This amendment is yet another attack on the independence and efficacy
of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also represents an attack
on shareholders.
When special interests cannot win ballot questions put to their
shareholders, they seek protection from Congress to change the rules of
the game.
Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the SEC from proposing,
implementing, or enforcing any regulatory action on the issue of
universal proxy ballots. These universal proxy ballots would let
shareholders vote for whomever they wish to represent them on the
corporate boards. This is a vital consideration in proxy contests since

[[Page H4501]]

board seats and, in some cases, board control are at stake. It would
also make for a fairer, less cumbersome voting process.
Right now, there is a two-tiered system governing shareholder
elections. Shareholders in attendance at meetings, particularly in
proxy contests, have the ability to receive a legal ballot that allows
them to pick and choose among all of the candidates who are duly
nominated.

{time} 1500

Shareholders who are not in attendance do not have that ability and,
typically, can only choose from among nominees who appear on
management's or a dissident's ballot, but not both. This limits
shareholders' choice.
Many advocates and investors, including the Council of Institutional
Investors, have written to the SEC and have asked them to address this
issue. Indeed, the CII filed a rulemaking petition to this effect.
Likewise, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, which is the group of
outside experts tasked with the responsibility under Dodd-Frank to
advise the SEC on issues of investor protection, called upon the SEC to
take action on this issue.
Corporate governance is only effective when boards are elected in a
free and fair manner. The SEC should take steps to eliminate
disenfranchisement in proxy contests in cases where shareholders have
no ability to ``split their ticket'' and vote for a combination of
shareholder and management nominees.
This amendment would curtail the SEC's existing authority in this
regard, to the detriment of shareholders and corporate accountability.
I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Garrett

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to--
(1) designate any nonbank financial company as ``too big to
fail'';
(2) designate any nonbank financial company as a
``systemically important financial institution''; or
(3) make a determination that material financial distress
at a nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size,
scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the
activities of such company, could pose a threat to the
financial stability of the United States.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I rise to prevent government regulators from
expanding the corrupt doctrine of ``too big to fail'' into even greater
parts of our economy.
Under Dodd-Frank, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC,
has the power now to designate companies as systemically important
financial institutions, SIFIs. I have heard it said that the SIFI
status does not necessarily mean ``too big to fail,'' but that is a
ridiculous claim that is on par with the reassurances that there was no
implicit guarantee with Fannie and Freddie. In the real world, the
Federal Government will never allow a SIFI to fail. The SIFI
designation is nothing less than the government's stamp of approval and
the enshrining of taxpayer bailouts. Simply put, a SIFI designation is
the guarantee that the taxpayers will, once again, be on the hook for
the bailouts of Wall Street.
First, megabanks were designated as ``too big to fail.'' Now FSOC is
claiming that nonbank firms, such as insurance companies and asset
managers, should also be designated as SIFIs. FSOC's words and actions
belie its true purpose, which is to grow its regulation of the economy
so that every sector of the financial industry is propped up on the
backs of taxpayers.
I am offering this amendment to prevent the Secretary of the Treasury
and the Chairman of the SEC, who are both voting members of FSOC, from
designating any additional nonbank companies as SIFIs. When companies
become SIFIs, they cease to operate in the free market. Instead, they
operate under a new system--a system that protects entities by sparing
them from the costs and the consequences that other regular companies
face in a competitive market. So, over time, the combination of this
protected status and the Fed's risk-averse regulation will zap the
energy and competitiveness of this company. Simply put, the government
will corrupt the private sector, which, in turn, will corrupt the
government.
``Too big to fail'' must not take root in the nonbank financial
sector. These companies serve as an important counterbalance to the
megabanks. You see, Dodd-Frank was built on a foundation of sand--a
foundation that mistakenly views the financial crisis as having been
caused exclusively by the greed of large financial institutions and
that intrusive government regulation would have prevented the crisis by
keeping them from making risky investments. So it should come as no
surprise that, instead of solving the problem, Dodd-Frank gave ``too
big to fail'' the force of the law. FSOC is not working as intended
because it is unworkable.
Finally, even with its absolute and unaccountable powers, its faulty
premise dooms FSOC to failure. We must prevent FSOC from continuing to
dig a deeper hole in free market capitalism and get Wall Street off the
backs and out of the pockets of the American taxpayers.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment
before us, and I urge everyone to support it.
Mr. Chair, FSOC is there to mitigate risk, not to just go around
looking for people to designate. In our underlying bill, we say that,
before you can designate a nonbank, you have to give it the right to
cure whatever the problem is. This takes it one step further in asking:
Why do we designate nonbanks as significantly important financial
institutions?
We ought to focus on where the focus ought to be and just leave the
nonbanks out of this.
I urge the support of this amendment.
Mr. GARRETT. Once again, the chairman said it more succinctly than I.
I urge all Members to support the legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, we finally found something we agree on again.
This is becoming a habit. We want to keep Wall Street in its place. I
wish the gentleman would help us with empowering the SEC to do so.
Dodd-Frank does not designate any entity as ``too big to fail,'' as
the Garrett amendment suggests. Instead, Dodd-Frank provides regulators
with the tools to address the risks posed by large, complex, and
interconnected financial institutions--both banks and nonbanks alike.
This is crucial in addressing one of the main regulatory gaps we
witnessed leading up to the 2008 crisis. Too many nonbanks were in the
shadows, having had escaped critical regulation that could have
prevented the crisis.
For example, regulators have already designed AIG as a nonbank
systemically important financial institution, a SIFI. Recall that the
London arm of AIG's was speculating in derivative products, such as
credit default swaps, leading up to the 2008 crisis. By the fall of
2007, AIG Financial Products had already begun a tailspin that helped

[[Page H4502]]

spark the worst financial crisis in the U.S. since the Great
Depression. By May 2009, various programs of support from the Federal
Reserve and the Treasury amounted to more than $180 billion in bailouts
to the company.
Other nonbank broker dealers, like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers,
were at the center of the creation of toxic assets, which were central
to the crisis and necessitated the need for a Wall Street bailout. The
Garrett amendment would stop our banking regulators from subjecting the
next Lehman Brothers from heightened regulation. Hedge funds were also
key intermediaries in the distribution and structuring of toxic assets.
Again, the Garrett amendment would stop our banking regulators from
providing the heightened regulation of their operations.
The Garrett amendment is an attempt to roll back the critical rules
of the road we have passed in the wake of the greatest financial crisis
since the Great Depression. Large financial institutions are fighting
the SIFI designation because they know that being identified as one
means being subjected to regulation that is above and beyond current
requirements, including ``living wills,'' which will help regulators
plan how to wind down the firms in an orderly fashion in the event they
become insolvent. The heightened regulation also includes the ability
for regulators to ``stress test'' the entity to see if it can withstand
financial distress, demand more capital, or to demand more stringent
reporting.
Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, a Republican appointee, noted in
congressional testimony after the passage of Dodd-Frank: ``Many
institutions are vigorously lobbying against such a designation,'' and
``being designated a SIFI will in no way confer a competitive advantage
by anointing an institution as `too big to fail.' ''
The capacity to designate nonbanks as SIFIs is critical to the U.S.
financial system for appropriate regulatory oversight. The designation
process already has in place multiple procedural safeguards and
opportunities for appeal via a lengthy process. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to oppose the Garrett amendment as it does much more harm
than we would think.

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, the harm that has occurred is from the Dodd-
Frank legislation, and the harm that has occurred by the FSOC
designations is twofold.
One, the large one, is the fact that it has given a regulator the
ability to put financial institutions and non-financial institutions
and their problems on the backs of the American taxpayers, meaning that
you and I and everybody who is listening to us may someday have to
reach into their pockets and bail out, once again, Wall Street for its
bad decisions. That should end now.
Two, the even larger issue, is the failure of Dodd-Frank. In the
legislation here, we are trying to fix the fact that it has had a
debilitating effect on the overall economy. It has created
disincentives in the marketplace, which is bad for the economy, and it
is why we are having such a slow growth in the GDP, which translates
into less job growth, fewer jobs for the American public, and fewer
jobs for your neighbor and my neighbor as well. We need this
legislation to fix it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, the other side doesn't like ObamaCare; it
doesn't like Dodd-Frank; it doesn't like the SEC. Maybe I am going to
try an amendment on the bailout of the automobile industry to see if
they like that one, because that helped a lot of folks.
This amendment is misguided. The gentleman is a good man who honestly
believes in what he is saying and in what he is doing, but it is only
going to hamper the SEC's ability to do its work. We do that enough in
this bill, so it should be left alone. I urge a vote against the
amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay a performance award under section 5384 of
title 5, United States Code, to any career appointee within
the Senior Executive Service.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, 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. Chair, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment with
the intent of prohibiting the use of funds in this act to pay a
performance award to any senior executive employee within the IRS.
Under the direction of Commissioner John Koskinen, IRS officials have
led a coordinated effort to hide the truth about this IRS' targeting of
innocent Americans based on their political beliefs. Rather than
cleaning up this rogue agency, Koskinen has doubled down on the
agency's lawlessness and political culture.
On Koskinen's watch, the IRS intentionally destroyed nearly 24,000
emails from Lois Lerner and failed to comply with a congressional
subpoena. To make matters worse, Commissioner Koskinen made a series of
false and misleading statements under oath to Congress at multiple
committee hearings on this matter.
Koskinen said in March of 2014 that the IRS had turned over all of
Lerner's emails and all requested information; yet the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration uncovered more than 1,000
emails that the IRS tried to hide.

{time} 1515

The recent transgressions perpetrated by this agency are not only
disgraceful, they border on corrupt. The trust Americans once had has
been utterly destroyed.
In July 2013, Danny Werfel, Acting Commissioner of the IRS, sought to
eliminate bonuses for union employees and senior executives within the
agency, sending an email to employees which stated: ``I do not believe
there should be performance awards this year for IRS employees,
managers, or executives.''
Unfortunately, Koskinen chose to ignore Werfel's attempts to restore
trust within the agency. In February of 2014, Koskinen announced his
decision to pay out bonuses to senior IRS bureaucrats in order to
improve ``employee morale.''
In April 2014, the Treasury inspector general reported that more than
1,100 IRS employees with delinquent tax returns received bonuses of
more than a million dollars. That same investigation found: ``2,800 IRS
employees facing disciplinary actions received more than $2.8 million
in monetary bonuses.''
The Office of Personnel Management reported that in fiscal year 2014
alone, 61.5 percent of all senior executives within the Treasury
Department received performance awards.
Lawlessness within this agency should not be rewarded. This amendment
seeks to effectuate a policy of accountability and change the corrupt
culture of this agency by prohibiting bonuses and performance awards
for Senior Executives Service employees within the IRS.
It is unconscionable that Lois Lerner and other dishonest senior
officials

[[Page H4503]]

within the IRS have received more than $100,000 in bonuses in recent
years. Committing perjury, purposely disposing of hard drives and more
than 2,400 emails in order to stymie an investigation, and providing an
extremely poor level of service to taxpayers doesn't warrant a bonus of
even a penny, in my mind.
Fifty-seven Democrats joined every single Republican in seeking to
prevent senior bureaucrats within the IRS from collecting these lavish
bonuses in the fiscal year 2015 by voting in favor of my amendment that
passed the House with strong bipartisan support.
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste supports this
amendment and FreedomWorks is key voting in favor of this amendment.
Once the IRS can prove that it will hold rogue employees accountable
for their ineptitude, I will cease my efforts to prohibit these awards.
Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued
work on the committee.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to start backwards here.
We are not going to call for a vote on this, and the reason for it
is, when people read your amendment, they are going to realize someone
didn't write it correctly. It doesn't speak to the IRS. It actually
allows for this cut to be across the board on the whole bill, which
should make our chairman not very happy, and I am interested in my
chairman's happiness.
I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would prevent agencies
under this bill from giving employees in the Senior Executive Service
bonuses. This seems to be aimed at the IRS since the summary on the
Rules Committee Web site emphasizes the IRS, but it would have the same
effect across the board.
No one is saying that poor performance should be rewarded, but this
takes one class of employees and punishes all of them regardless of
their individual merits. It will cause us to lose good employees, which
is not what we need.
I realize Members on the other side of the aisle are eager to get
their kicks in against the IRS--they even put them in bills when they
are not the only ones in the bill--but I argue that this amendment
would have unintended consequences.
Rather than somehow making the IRS or any other agency better, this
is likely to make it worse. This amendment is going to simply ensure
that we have less accomplished employees at the IRS and at other
government agencies. It would have a negative effect on recruitment and
retention of highly talented senior executives necessary to ensure tax
administration and other agency duties. It may also conflict with
statutory requirements for SES bonuses that are designed to award
strong performance.
I oppose the amendment. It is not well targeted or well thought out.
I think we also should know that this is the one agency that has been
reduced in its employee number by the largest in the last few years, so
I really don't understand what this is trying to accomplish.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, let me now ask the gentleman from New York a
question.
I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to
respond.
If you disagree with my amendment and feel that it will have
unintended consequences, name the agencies in the bill that you think
should be allowed to dole out lavish bonuses to their senior
executives.
Mr. SERRANO. I think that if an-- Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I am asking
the gentleman: Name me an agency here that should not be doling out--
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, and I am not answering
the gentleman's question, my role is not to tell you what you should
have put in the bill.
Mr. GOSAR. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman from New York can't
give an answer--
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I am telling the gentleman from Arizona what
he didn't write.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, I think most hardworking
Americans would agree that the senior bureaucrats with the Customer
Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and
the Federal Communications Commission should not be receiving lavish
bonuses when we are $19 trillion in the hole.
As I mentioned at the outset, the intent of this amendment is to
prohibit the use of funds in this act to pay a performance award to any
senior executive employee within the IRS. When the staff realized the
actual language in the amendment could be more far reaching than
intended, we attempted to work with the committee to correct this
occurrence.
One thing that this House agrees on is that senior executives within
IRS should not be collecting bonuses, and this amendment prohibits
exactly that occurrence.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I will be brief.
I don't want to read into the gentleman from Arizona's statement,
sir, that you were trying to get the chairman not to notice that you
were writing the amendment that he dislikes the most across the board--
that we both dislike the most. I just think, you know, what you are
talking about is something that, in many cases, has to be looked at.
Also, in order to keep good employees, you have to find ways to reward
them.
This agency, through the hits it takes, has lost--the one you intend,
according to your comments, the IRS--has lost 18,000 employees in a
couple of years since 2010, I believe, 18,000 employees. Now we go
further here.
Secondly, I am glad to see that you spoke about other agencies, which
means you must have read the amendment a little closer. But I still
think it is not a good amendment. I still think it should be defeated.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Members on both sides are reminded to direct
their remarks directly to the Chair and not to each other.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 114-639.
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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment. The Gosar-Bridenstine-
Duncan-Gohmert-Huelskamp-Jones-Barletta-Brat-Brooks-Black amendment
prohibits funds within this act from being used in contravention of
Federal immigration law for sanctuary city policies.
The concept of sanctuary city policies is in direct opposition to the
rule of law and our Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 4 gives
Congress clear jurisdiction on immigration matters.
A nation of laws must enforce established law, not seek ways to skirt
around it. Sanctuary cities defy Federal immigration statutes by
harboring untold numbers of illegal immigrants and providing safe
havens for criminals, many of whom are violent offenders.
Our amendment prohibits the use of funds which are appropriated by
this act from being used in contravention of

[[Page H4504]]

section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996. This Federal law prohibits sanctuary
policies that prevent or obstruct government and law enforcement
officials from sharing information regarding a person's immigration
status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Despite being the law of the land, more than 200 State and municipal
jurisdictions across the country have established policies that
directly violate the law and shield criminal illegal aliens from
enforcement. The shocking case of Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015
revealed the danger sanctuary cities pose to our Republic.
Just over a year ago, on July 1, 2015, Steinle was shot and killed by
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been
deported five times. San Francisco authorities were asked to detain
Sanchez until he could be turned over to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement officials. The city declined and held Sanchez in jail for
less than a month on a 20-year-old drug charge before releasing him on
April 15, 2015, less that 2 months before he killed Steinle.
Sadly, Kate's tragic murder is not alone. Between 2010 and 2014,
criminal aliens who were released by DHS went on to commit 124
homicide-related offenses across the country.
Let's not forget the many others who have been killed by criminal
aliens: Jerry Braswell, Sr., and Jerry Braswell, Jr., of North
Carolina; Dani Countryman of Oregon; Chandra Levy of Washington, D.C.;
the Gonzalez family of Texas; Kevin Will of Texas; Christopher
``Buddy'' Rowe of California; Jamiel Shaw of California; Alvert John
Mike of Utah; and Grant Ronnebeck of Arizona and countless others.
These brutal murders have called attention to the dangers sanctuary
city policies pose to the safety and security of the American people.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform supports this amendment
stating: ``Gosar amendment 31 addresses a critical public safety
problem and sends a clear message to sanctuary city jurisdictions that
their dangerous policies are unacceptable.''
NumbersUSA is key voting in support of this amendment and has stated:
``The Gosar Amendment is a targeted approach to sanctuary policies.''
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Gosar
amendment to cut off the funding to sanctuary cities through the
financial appropriations bill.
When I came to Congress in 2011, I quickly cosponsored the Enforce
the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, and I have worked to hold these
governments accountable ever since. Here is why.
We all know that, for years now, Congress has ceded more and more
power to the executive branch. But less talked about is the fact that,
for just as long, Congress has allowed more than 200 State and
municipal jurisdictions to do the same exact thing. And this is just
plain wrong. Sanctuary cities thumb their nose at Congress; they ignore
Federal law; and they endanger the lives of their citizens.
While I urge passage of this amendment, I also believe that we must
act by passing my bill, the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, which
takes a broad-based approach to defunding sanctuary city policies once
and for all.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for his leadership on
this issue. I support his amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, this is one of those moments where you
realize that an amendment is put forth not to deal with an issue but,
rather, to put it on the floor so you can discuss it.
First of all, this is not the place to discuss immigration policy.
And I can tell you that we would both agree that our immigration
policy, our program, is broken and it has to be fixed.
Here is the problem, one that I have been arguing for years, and a
lot of other people have been doing the same thing for years and
lately, and that is that law enforcement officials, for the most part,
will tell you that, regardless of whether we deal with the immigration
issue or not, they need to speak to the local people and get
information so they can do their job.
If they are seen as agents of the immigration department, if you
will, the people won't speak to them who are here undocumented. They
won't speak to them. So they are faced with a very difficult situation.
They are saying: You guys and ladies are supposed to handle immigration
reform. Do it. Take care of it. Do it in the way you want. Take care of
that. But in the meantime, let me do my job.
So a guy steals a car, and three people in the neighborhood know who
stole it. They go up. If they think that that police officer is also
enforcing immigration policy, they are not going to talk to him. That
is just a fact of life.
So you may think you are doing a great thing, but you are actually
hurting law enforcement in the job that it has to do. What we need to
do is have an immigration policy that speaks about all the issues that
are covered by immigration policy.
Secondly, we hear from the other side about local control, local
control, local control. Well, some cities have decided that they are
sanctuary cities, that they are going to deal with the immigration
issue differently than other people deal in other places--less mean,
less aggressive and being nasty, more understanding of a problem rather
than just saying that people come here to rip us off.
We have to keep all those things in mind as we look at this
amendment, and this amendment should be defeated.

{time} 1530

Lastly, your amendment talks about cutting funds, and the gentlewoman
talked about cutting funds. To our knowledge, there is nothing in here
that funds anything having to do with sanctuary cities or, for that
matter, having to do with immigration. So wrong bill, wrong place,
wrong time, wrong idea.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Guinta

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. GUINTA. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to
implement, administer, or enforce any guidance with respect
to indirect auto lending.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. GUINTA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in March of 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau issued flawed and inaccurate guidance that would threaten to
eliminate auto dealers' flexibility to discount the interest rate
offered to consumers financing vehicle purchases.
Whether a person seeks to buy an automobile, an RV, or a motorcycle,
consumers rely heavily on their neighborhood auto dealer to provide
them the best possible rate. However, this faulty and unstudied
guidance could increase the cost for consumers, ultimately making it
more difficult to obtain an automobile.
Roughly 6 months ago, my good friend across the aisle, Mr.
Perlmutter, and I, introduced H.R. 1737, which passed the House with an
overwhelming bipartisan and veto-proof vote, 332-96. My bill, along
with 13 bipartisan letters sent by Congress over

[[Page H4505]]

the last 3 years, gave the CFPB a chance to fix the faulty guidance and
reissue it, but, unfortunately, they still insist on an anticonsumer
policy and chose to keep their faulty bulletin in place.
In fact, the CFPB has refused to change course even with a solution
modeled on the Department of Justice consent order that is supported by
auto dealers and lenders and do not resort to eliminating dealer
discounts. Congress has given the CFPB an opportunity to correct and
reissue their guidance, and that would take into account consumers and
bring clarity to the market.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will leave no doubt that either the CFPB
will fix this problem they created or Congress will, and if we do it,
we will do it in a bipartisan way.
I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw and Chairman Hensarling of
the Committee on Financial Services for their support. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for
bringing this before the body.
Here is another example of the CFPB overregulating, trying to find a
solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I support this amendment, and
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the CFPB from implementing,
administering, or enforcing any guidance related to indirect auto
lending. This is meant as a shot across the bow to the CFPB, telling
them not to bring fair lending cases against indirect automobile
finance companies. But on a practical level, the amendment will only
invite confusion into the industry.
After all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders'
obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Instead, the
amendment only strikes guidance the CFPB has provided to those lenders,
providing clarity on how they can meet their obligations under the law.
Discrimination in any finance market is unacceptable, and we know
that discrimination is still alive and well in the indirect auto
lending marketplace. In the three settlements to date against Ally
Financial, Fifth Third Bank, Honda and Toyota Motor Credit, the CFPB
secured nearly $162 million in borrower relief and penalties, finding
that minority borrowers paid more than $200 over the life of a car loan
than White borrowers, even when controlling for borrowers'
creditworthiness.
Discretionary markups are the source of discrimination in auto
lending, and the guidance that this amendment nullifies helps lenders
monitor and respond to potentially discriminatory auto lending
practices. It is something that we should not be allowing, and this
amendment tries to undo a lot of work that we are doing and a lot of
work that should be done in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that there is no
place for discrimination. Based on information from the CFPB, CBO
expects that the agency would not prepare a replacement bulletin if
H.R. 1737 were enacted. That is because the bill would not affect the
underlying statute or regulations to implement it. The Bureau can
continue to enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act without the
bulletin. I also remind the gentleman that the minority report also
stated that this would not negatively impact the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank Mr. Serrano for yielding.
You just described this as a shot across the bow to the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, and you are absolutely right. They are
attempting to tell them not to bring fair lending cases against
indirect automobile finance companies.
This amendment is about protecting wrongdoers who gouge racial and
ethnic minorities with high markups on car loans even when their
income, their credit scores, and their financial backgrounds are the
same as Whites. The amendment is about protecting companies like Ally
Financial, Fifth Third Bank, Honda and Toyota Motor Credit, all of whom
have had to enter into settlements with the Bureau over their indirect
auto loan practices.
All told, the CFPB, again, has secured nearly $162 million in
borrower relief and penalties to help these borrowers. In their
investigations, the Bureau found that minority borrowers paid more than
$200 over the life of a car loan than White borrowers, even when
controlling for borrowers' creditworthiness.
Studies have shown that minority borrowers are less likely to be
aware of interest rate markups. According to the Center for Responsible
Lending, 68 percent of all borrowers were unaware that dealers have the
ability to mark up an interest rate above what a lender offers based on
their creditworthiness and the car being sold, but nearly 75 percent of
African American and Hispanic borrowers are unaware that the practice
of dealer markups even exists.
The guidance that this amendment seeks to nullify clearly outlines
steps that lenders can take to protect borrowers from potentially
discriminatory lending practices that often occur without the borrower
even being aware of it occurring. So we know what the intent of this
amendment is, but on a practical level, the amendment will only invite
confusion into the industry.
After all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders'
obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Instead, the
amendment only strikes guidance the CFPB has provided to those lenders
providing clarity on how they can meet their obligations under the law.
The issue has come up before in this Congress, but no matter where you
stood on H.R. 1737, a bill we considered last year, you should be
against this amendment.

To the Members on the opposite side of the aisle, you are supposed to
have a poverty agenda, and you claim that you are taking on a new
direction, that you want to have reduced poverty and deal with the
problems of minorities and people in rural communities, et cetera.
This is what keeps poverty in these communities. We have these blue
suede, slick dealers of all kinds--whether they are automobile lenders
or payday loans or auto loans, all of this stuff--coming into these
communities, taking advantage of the most vulnerable people who want to
get out of poverty.
You say you want to help, but then you come in and you attack the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You hate the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau. You want to do everything to undermine their
authority.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Members on both sides are reminded to direct their
remarks to the Chair and not each other.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau's guidance was issued without
public notice or comment and without any study of its impact on
consumers or small businesses.
I want to thank the ranking member for authoring the minority report
that states: ``H.R. 1737 does not alter regulated entities' obligations
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or the CFPB's examination or
enforcement activity pursuant to ECOA.'' This is nothing more than a
continuation of H.R. 1737.
I also want to repeat my thanks to my colleague on the other side of
the aisle, Mr. Perlmutter, for helping me with a successful 332-96 vote
in favor of that bill. This amendment is almost identical to it, and I
would appreciate the ongoing support on behalf of consumers not just in
New Hampshire, but all across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I would again thank the chair, Mr. Crenshaw, as well as
Mr. Hensarling, those Members who voted in favor, 332-96, on H.R. 1737.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

[[Page H4506]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire will be postponed.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Hudson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. HUDSON. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to propose or finalize a regulatory action until
January 21, 2017.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support my amendment that prohibits future regulations from the Obama
administration. This is a commonsense step to rein in our regulatory
system and make it work for the American people and not the other way
around.
Since my first days in office, one message I continue to hear is
people are tired of an unaccountable government that oversteps its
bounds. In April, I was successful in pushing the EPA to withdraw a
harmful regulation that would have devastated the motorsports industry.
I recently had the opportunity to visit a national leader in custom
auto-racing parts in my hometown of Concord, North Carolina. I spoke
with one worker who told me that if this one regulation would have gone
through, he would have lost his entire livelihood. That, Mr. Chairman,
is unacceptable.
The problem is, agencies have moved beyond their constitutional
authority, and Washington bureaucrats are accountable to no one. They
show little regard for the real world damage of their new rules on
working families, on people looking for jobs, on our economy in
general.
From regulatory gut punches like ObamaCare and ever-expanding EPA
rules, stacking one on top of the other often before the previous rule
is even enacted, regulations under this President have woven a web so
complex and large, it risks ensnaring every American. This means fewer
job opportunities, it means lower wages, and more families struggling.
At its core, overregulation is a form of stealth taxation. Working
families, working people are paying the price for every new rule that
comes out of Washington.
Now, I recognize some regulations are necessary, but we need a
regulatory system that is transparent, one that balances the needs of
our environment and public safety with economic strength and jobs, one
that benefits hardworking Americans, not big government, big labor, and
big business. It is time for us to chart a new pro-growth course away
from this administration's burdensome regulations so that Americans can
get back to work, and this amendment is one solution.

{time} 1545

It will prevent the President from unleashing a new hailstorm of
regulations in an attempt to cement his legacy in the last months of
his administration. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that there is a new
bipartisanship here. I notice that this bill takes effect from now
until January 21. So that means we will wait for Mrs. Clinton to become
President before any new regulation would take effect.
Secondly, the other side is always complaining about regulations. But
every so often, we should step back and, instead of knocking our
country so much, kind of pay attention to what some of those
regulations have done.
Sure, we have regulations. We have regulations about conditions in
coal mines. Is that bad? We have regulations about the water we drink.
Is that bad? We have regulations about the air we breathe.
Those regulations make us different from other countries where there
is no respect for the population and no protection. There is a
regulation that says you have to go to school up to a certain age. That
is great. There is a regulation that says no children can be working in
factories or in the garment industry in New York. That is wonderful.
So I am not afraid of regulations. Overregulating, okay, we can
discuss that. But that side wants no regulation. It wants a computer to
run the country. I keep claiming I want to see who is going to invent
that computer. Here we go again, just talking about overregulating.
There are questions. This provision, for instance, would also be in
direct conflict with other statutory requirements. For example, EPA is
required to finalize annual renewal fuel standards regulations by
November 30 of each year. I am sure there are others.
This is widely overbroad and can prevent significant regulatory
actions in emergency situations, like disaster relief, where required
by a court order, or when required by statute.
For another example, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Trade Bureau, or
TTB, in Treasury would not be able to publish implementing regulations
relating to taxation of cider and removal of bond requirements for
small beverage alcohol producers, and numerous other rules, such as a
final rule reducing formula burdens on industry for specially denatured
spirits and completely denatured alcohol, and the modernization of
beverage alcohol.
It is easy to say: no more regulations from October 1 to January 21.
Let the next President deal with it. You are rolling the dice, assuming
you think you know who is going to be President. But that is okay, I
can roll along with you.
The problem is that this is not the way to go. The dislike of the
Obama administration by the other side is so evident, especially in
amendments like this, where it is directed. At least, to your credit,
you had the honesty in you to say the Obama administration. You called
it by name, and I respect for you that. Other than that, I don't have a
lot of respect for your amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HUDSON. I thank my colleague for his comments. I do agree that we
don't need to eliminate all regulations. That is certainly not what we
are saying here. We are saying that, from October 1 until January 21,
we don't need new regulations.
With all due respect, I think we have had plenty. The amount of
regulations that have come out of the Obama administration has been
astounding. If you compare the amount of regulations to all other
administrations combined, it is astounding, and they affect every
aspect of people's lives.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned regulations in the past have
been good. For example, regulating coal mines. I am sure that there
were good regulations on coal mines, but we are at the point now where
this administration is going to make coal mines illegal.
The gentleman also mentioned, Mr. Chairman, regulating water and air.
We certainly all agree that we want clean air and clean water. But this
administration issues a clean air regulation, or a new rule, and even
before it goes into effect, they issue the next one to reduce the
levels even lower--to levels that even experts agree aren't necessary.
In fact, members of the other party, in our hearing in the Energy and
Commerce Committee, testified to the fact that the air today is so much
cleaner

[[Page H4507]]

than it was before. And science proves that.
In North Carolina, we have got a 20 percent reduction in the coarse
particulate matter in our air. We have made great progress, but to say
we are going to continue to lower that level even before the science is
to determine what the effect of the last regulation was is simply going
too far.
What that means is, in places like Montgomery County, North Carolina,
where we desperately need jobs, you can't have a new job. You can't
have a new road. You can't have a new water-sewer line. You have can't
add any new manufacturing jobs. That is ridiculous.
This administration has had 7\1/2\ years, and they have used that
time wisely if their goal was to overregulate the American people. All
I am saying is, in the last few months of this administration, let's
put the brakes on.
As my colleague mentioned, we don't know who the next President is
going to be. It may be someone from the other party. But that new
President will have won a mandate, and that new President can then
address the regulatory scheme. I look forward to having that debate.
But as far as this administration, the votes are in. We have gotten our
results. This administration has gone way too far with regulation.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to put on the
brakes and say: 7\1/2\ years; enough is enough.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, you know, it is amazing. Many of us--and I am
not suggesting you--get elected to Congress, and we are in awe of the
fact that we come from where we come when we get to Congress. I am in
that category. I am very blessed. There are others who come to
Congress, and it seems that they come to Congress to undo Congress and
undo the government.
We are the greatest nation on Earth.
How did we get that?
Obviously, the fighting and the working spirit of the American
people. But it was also the protections placed on the American people;
the fact that children were told you have to go to school, the fact
that we try to get the best water.
We spoke before about an immigration issue. I don't call it a
problem.
Why does it exist?
Because people still know that we are the greatest country on Earth,
and they want to come here.
So a lot of what you see as government intrusion, a lot of what you
see as government being a pain could actually be some of the reasons
that we became the great country we are. We just didn't let people go
on their own and hurt each other, and so on.
We had people elected by the people to say: Hey, hold on. Why don't
we do this? Why don't we do that? Why don't we curtail this? Why don't
we grow that?
And we continue to do that. So we disagree. I think we are great
because we have certain rules to follow. And we follow them well.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce a rule issued
pursuant to section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Securities and
Exchange Commission to issue a rule mandating that public companies
disclose whether the minerals they use benefit armed groups in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, also known as the DRC, and its nine
neighboring countries.
``Conflict materials'' refer to tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold,
which have been used in a huge variety of products, from cell phones,
cosmetics, jewelry, chemicals, footwear, and including auto parts made
right in west Michigan.
Simply put, section 1502 produced a rule that has failed everyone,
and my amendment would, therefore, suspend its implementation for 1
year. The people of central Africa don't want it. President Obama's own
SEC chair doesn't want it. Parts of the rule have been judged by the
courts to violate First Amendment rights, and businesses throughout
America are burdened with a reporting task that even the Department of
Commerce has admitted is impossible.
Recently, the European Union--apparently sobered by other own
experience in the U.S.--rejected this approach to conflict minerals. It
is easy to see why they did so.
As we debate this amendment, let's be clear on what this isn't about.
It is not about who cares more about the plight of the Congolese more,
a population that continues to suffer violence at the hands of rebel
groups. The question is whether a window dressing disclosure rule at
the SEC is the way to address this problem. If we truly care about
peace in central Africa, then good intentions aren't enough. We have to
demand results, Mr. Chairman.
Sadly, we have gotten the wrong kind of results from section 1502.
Recently, I spoke with some missionaries from my own denomination who
confirmed this. However, let's start by highlighting the voices of
those who too often go unheard in this debate--the voices of the
Africans themselves.
I include in the Record an open letter from 70 Congolese leaders and
other regional experts who wrote:
``But in demanding that companies prove the origin of minerals
sourced in the eastern DRC or neighbouring countries before systems
able to provide such proof have been put in place, conflict mineral
activists and resultant legislation--in particular Section 1502 of the
Dodd-Frank Act--inadvertently incentivize buyers on the international
market to pull out of the region altogether and source their minerals
elsewhere.
``As a result, the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead to
meaningful improvement on the ground, and has a number of unintended
and damaging consequences.''
According to a Washington Post article titled ``How a well-
intentioned U.S. law left Congolese miners jobless,'' section 1502
``set off a chain of events that has propelled millions of miners and
their families deeper into poverty,'' with many miners forced to find
other ways to survive, including by joining armed groups.
This article goes on to share the story of a Congolese teenager who
actually joined a militia because mining could no longer put food on
his table. ``If we were earning money more from mining, I would not
have entered the militia,'' he said.
I ask my colleagues to remember the Congolese, who aren't alone in
their suffering. The SEC rule applies to nine other African nations as
if they were all a single country. Section 1502 treats over 230 million
people living in 10 distinct nations as one undifferentiated group.
Little wonder that Africans themselves take issue with Washington's
one-size-fits-all mentality. In testimony to the Financial Services
Committee last November, Rwanda's Minister of State for Mining, Evode
Imena, noted that--despite Rwanda's actions to strengthen due diligence
in its mining sector, and despite the fact that Rwanda has no armed
groups in the first place--``the region is now suffering from an
`Africa-free' and not a `conflict-free' minerals situation. Section
1502 has caused a de facto boycott by companies in the U.S. and much of
Europe on most of our valuable resources.'' This disaster ``has largely

[[Page H4508]]

impacted the livelihood of thousands of miners and their families . .
.''
The words of Africans harmed by this rule should be enough for us to
suspend it. But if we need more evidence of section 1502's failures,
let's take a look at hard numbers.
A GAO study found last year that not a single company sampled could
determine whether its minerals supported armed groups. Professor Jeff
Schwartz of the University of Utah Law School has come to a similar
conclusion, after reviewing 1,300 filings under section 1502.
Additionally, I wrote to SEC Chair White asking for a detailed
description of the funds and hours expended to date on the SEC conflict
minerals disclosure rule. In the SEC response letter, she stated that
from July 2010 to March 16, 2015, the SEC spent over 21,000 hours and
approximately $2.7 million on this particular provision which the SEC
has little to no experience with.
Given the lack of benefits from this rule, it is no wonder SEC Chair
Mary Jo White has said:
``Seeking to improve safety in mines for workers or to end horrible
human rights atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are
compelling objectives, which, as a citizen, I wholeheartedly share.
But, as the Chair of the SEC, I must question, as a policy matter,
using the federal securities laws and the SEC's powers of mandatory
disclosure to accomplish these goals.''
I agree with the SEC, and I appreciate support for this amendment.

An Open Letter

Dear governments, companies, non-governmental
organisations, and other stakeholders implicated in efforts
of various kinds related to the issue of `conflict minerals':
In early 2014, two international industry giants--Intel and
Apple--issued refined corporate social responsibility
policies for minerals sourced in the eastern Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC). The announcements followed an
unprecedented wave of guidelines, law-making, and initiatives
over the past few years to `clean up' the eastern DRC's
mining sector, and were met with widespread praise.
Perhaps the most widely publicised of these efforts is US
legislation known as Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
which asks all companies registered on the US stock market to
reveal their supply chains to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) when sourcing minerals from the eastern DRC
or neighbouring countries. Canada is in the advanced stages
of developing similar legislation, and many other countries
are looking closely at the issue. The European Union has
introduced a voluntary conflict minerals regulation scheme
for all member states, and the United Nations (UN) and
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
have developed guidelines on sourcing natural resources in
high-risk areas such as the eastern DRC.
These efforts primarily target artisanal (or `informal')
mining in the eastern DRC, due to widespread international
recognition that so-called conflict minerals (most notably
tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold) produced by artisanal
mining in this part of the world have helped conflict actors
generate revenue to finance their operations in the DRC over
the past two decades.

The Situation

Despite successes of activists in shaping policy, the
conflict minerals campaign fundamentally misunderstands the
relationship between minerals and conflict in the eastern
DRC. First, while the minerals help perpetuate the conflict,
they are not its cause. National and regional political
struggles over power and influence as well as issues such as
access to land and questions of citizenship and identity are
just some of the more structural drivers of conflict. The
ability to exploit and profit from minerals is often a means
to finance military operations to address these issues,
rather than an end in itself. Internal UN assessments, for
instance, show that only 8% of the DRC's conflicts are linked
to minerals, and specific motivations vary greatly across the
vast array of different armed groups.
Second, armed groups are not dependent on mineral revenue
for their existence. The eastern DRC is a fully militarised
economy, in which minerals are just one resource among many
that armed groups--and the national army FARDC--can levy
financing from. The M23, until recently the most powerful
non-state armed group in DRC, never sought physical control
over mining activity.
Moreover, few local stakeholders have been included in on-
going international policy-making, and as a result realities
on the ground have not always been taken into account.
Setting up the required systems and procedures to regularly
access and audit thousands of artisanal mining sites in
isolated and hard-to-reach locations spread across an area
almost twice the size of France would be a challenge for any
government. In the eastern DRC, where road infrastructure is
poor to non-existent and state capacity desperately low, the
enormity of the task is hard to overstate. But in demanding
that companies prove the origin of minerals sourced in the
eastern DRC or neighbouring countries before systems able to
provide such proof have been put in place, conflict minerals
activists and resultant legislation--in particular Section
1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act--inadvertently incentivize buyers
on the international market to pull out of the region
altogether and source their minerals elsewhere.

The Result

As a result, the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead
to meaningful improvement on the ground, and has had a number
of unintended and damaging consequences. Nearly four years
after the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act, only a small
fraction of the hundreds of mining sites in the eastern DRC
have been reached by traceability or certification efforts.
The rest remain beyond the pale, forced into either
illegality or collapse as certain international buyers have
responded to the legislation by going `Congo-free'.
This in turn has driven many miners into the margins of
legality (for instance, feeding into smuggling rackets),
where armed actors return through the loopholes of
transnational regulation. Others have simply lost their jobs,
and in areas where mining has ceased, local economies have
suffered. To put this in context, an estimated eight to ten
million people across the country are dependent on artisanal
mining for their livelihood. Some former miners have returned
to subsistence agriculture, but persisting insecurity levels
leave them in abject poverty facing dire living conditions,
in fear of missing harvests due to displacement. Others have
been prompted to join militias as a means to quick cash in
the absence of other opportunities; a particularly perverse
impact, when one considers the intentions of the movement.
Alongside the impact on mining communities and local
economies, several armed groups have responded by turning to
different businesses such as trading in charcoal, marijuana,
palm oil, soap, or consumer goods. Those remaining in the
mining sector have largely traded mineral exploitation on
site for mineral taxation a few steps down the supply chain,
operating numerous roadblocks that can bring in millions of
dollars a year. Others are reported to have sent in family
members or civilian allies to run business for them on site,
while they remain safely at a distance.
For the few mining sites fortunate enough to be reached by
Joint Assessment Teams responsible for determining their
`conflict-free' status, these teams have been unable to
provide the regular, three-month validation visits envisaged
in legislation. There is an additional delay of several
months following these visits before the Congolese Ministry
of Mines reviews and approves the assessment at the national
level. Given the speed at which situations can change in
volatile environments, infrequent assessments and lengthy
delays raise concerns over the accuracy of certification and
the credibility of the system.
More worrying still, multinational corporations such as
Apple and Intel are auditing smelters to determine the
conflict-free status of the minerals they source, and not the
mines themselves. As smelters are located outside of the DRC
and audits are not always conducted by third parties, these
processes raise further concerns over whether conflict-free
certifications reflect production realities.
By far the most advanced site in terms of producing
`conflict-free' minerals for sale to the international market
is Kalimbi, a tin mining area home to externally-financed
initiatives running an industry-led bagging-and-tagging
scheme called iTSCi. Yet even here, despite the establishment
of a `closed pipeline' from mine to exportation, the mine
still suffers from the sporadic influence of armed actors,
and miners are made to bear the additional costs of
`conflict-free' schemes. This raises further concerns over
the credibility of the system in place, and its suitability
for the scale-up and expansion to other, more remote mine
sites currently underway. Coupled with slow progress in
implementation, the trend towards the monopolisation of
`conflict-free' supply chain initiatives, in particular
traceability by iTSCi, is economically damaging to local
populations since it currently excludes and isolates the
overwhelming majority of mining communities from legal access
to international markets.

The Alternative

There is broad consensus for the need to clean up the
eastern Congo's minerals sector, yet much disagreement about
the international community's current model for achieving
this goal. As such, efforts to improve transparency in the
eastern DRC's mineral supply chains should continue. Yet a
more nuanced and holistic approach that takes into account
the realities of the eastern DRC's mining sector and the
complexity of the conflict is needed. To this end, we make
the following five recommendations:
Improve consultation with government and communities:
Congolese government and civil society were poorly consulted
on Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act prior to its passing,
and as a result many were unaware of its implications. The
few who were consulted were unanimously pro-Dodd-Frank,
creating additional conflicts on local levels where
endorsement and dissent compete. More Congolese voices must
be listened to, and the local context and power structures

[[Page H4509]]

taken into account. This would ensure greater understanding
of the local context and better harmonisation with existing
national and regional initiatives, such as the International
Conference of the Great Lakes Region's (ICGLR) Regional
Initiative against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources.
Work towards meaningful reform: The audit process should be
designed to improve policies and practices rather than to
just provide window-dressing. The dominant belief that static
oversight and validation processes ensure `conflict-free'
mineral trade is misplaced given the volatile security
situation in most of the eastern DRC. Both mines and smelters
should be regularly inspected and the time period between
inspection and certification minimized. Where this is not
feasible, additional waivers or similar measures should not
be ruled out.
Create incentives towards better practice: Legal frameworks
must be supported by real projects on the ground that can
meet their requirements. If this is not possible--which is
clearly still the case today, nearly four years after the
passing of Dodd-Frank--then transition periods must be
extended and the lowering of excessively high standards for
`conflict-free' minerals should be considered. Similarly,
former conflict actors should be incentivised where
appropriate to join new `conflict-free' schemes. This may
help avoid the eventual subversion or infiltration of the
`clean' system put in place, as has been seen to date.
Promote fair competition: Regulation must be based on
competition that allows not only international businesses but
also Congolese producers to influence (i.e. increase) local
price schemes. This in turn would encourage a regime that
ensures minimum wages which mining cooperatives can guarantee
to their members based on their increased leverage on the
price fluctuation.
Widen the lens: Root causes of conflict such as land,
identity, and political contest in the context of a
militarized economy, rather than a single focus on minerals,
must be considered by advocates seeking to reduce conflict
violence. Furthermore, efforts to eradicate conflict minerals
should not overlook the fact that artisanal mining is a key
livelihood in the eastern DRC that holds as much potential to
help steer the region away from conflict as it does to
contribute towards it. More supportive measures are needed--
such as those found in the earlier 2009 draft of the US
Conflict Minerals Act--that can help capture the economic
potential of artisanal mining. Finally, other critical
challenges such as access to credit, technical knowledge,
hazardous working conditions, and environmental degradation
should not be ignored by multinational corporations if they
seek to improve business practices and increase transparency
in their supply chains.
So far, progress has been made in producing more ethical
products for consumers, but stakeholders have not yet
proceeded to improve the lives of Congolese people, nor
address the negative impact current `conflict-free'
initiatives are having. If the conflict minerals agenda is to
lead to positive change on the ground, legislation passed by
national governments and steps such as those outlined by
Apple or Intel need to be grounded in a more holistic
approach that is better tailored to local realities. Failure
to do so will continue to seriously limit the ability of
conflict minerals initiatives to improve the daily lives of
the eastern Congolese and their neighbours. Worse, these
initiatives will risk contributing to, rather than
alleviating, the very conflicts they set out to address.

List of Signatories

1. Aloys Tegera (Director, POLE Institute Goma)
2. Ann Laudati (Lecturer at the School for Geographical
Sciences, University of Bristol)
3. Ashley Leinweber (Assistant Professor of Political
Science, Missouri State University)
4. Ben Radley (Researcher, International Institute of
Social Studies & `Obama's Law' Producer)
5. Bonnie Campbell (Professor of Political Science,
Universite du Quebec a Montreal)
6. Christiane Kayser (Independent Analyst & Civil Peace
Service-Bread for the World mobile team)
7. Christoph Vogel (Researcher, University of Zurich &
Independent analyst/writer)
8. Cyprien Birhingingwa (Executive Secretary, COSOC-GL &
Coordinator of CENADEP Kivu)
9. Daniel Rothenberg (Professor of Practice, School of
Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University)
10. David Rieff (Independent Author and Commentator)
11. Deo Buuma (Executive Secretary, Action pour la Paix et
la Concorde--APC, Bukavu)
12. Didier de Failly s.j., (Directeur, Maison de Mines du
Kivu, Bukavu)
13. Dominic Johnson (Africa Editor and Deputy Foreign
Editor, die tageszeitung)
14. Dorothea Hilhorst (Professor of Humanitarian Aid and
Reconstruction, Wageningen University)
15. Emmanuel Shamavu (Director, APRODEPED, Bukavu)
16. Eric Kajemba (Coordinator, Observatoire Gouvernance et
Paix, Bukavu)
17. Esther Marijnen (Researcher, Institute for European
Studies/Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
18. Evariste Mfaume (Executive Director, ``Solidarite des
Volontaires pour l'Humanite'')
19. Gabriel Kamundala (Researcher, CEGEMI & Universite
Catholique de Bukavu)
20. Ganza Buroko (Cultural Operator & Coordinator of
Yole!Africa, Goma)
21. Godefroid Ka Mana (Professor, ULPGL Goma & UEA Bukavu &
Universite Kasavubu Boma)
22. Godefroid Muzalia (Professor, Institut Superieur
Pedagogique de Bukavu)
23. Henning Tamm (Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow,
Nuffield College, University of Oxford)
24. Herbert Weiss (Emeritus Professor of Political Science,
City University of New York)
25. James Smith (Associate Professor of Anthropology,
University of California/Davis)
26. Jean Ziegler (Former UN Special Rapporteur for the
Right to Food and Professor at University of Geneva)
27. Jeroen Cuvelier (Postdoctoral Researcher, Wageningen
University and Ghent University)
28. John Kanyoni (Independent Consultant and Vice-President
of the Congolese Chamber of Mines)
29. Josaphat Musamba (Assistant Professor, Universite Simon
Kimbangu of Bukavu)
30. Joschka Havenith (Independent Researcher and
Consultant, Cologne)
31. Jose Diemel (Researcher, Special Chair for Humanitarian
Aid & Reconstruction, Wageningen University)
32. Joshua Walker (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University
of the Witwatersrand)
33. Josue Mukulumanya (President of the South Kivu mining
cooperatives board GECOMISKI)
34. Justine Brabant (Independent Researcher and Journalist)
35. Juvenal Munubo (Member of Parliament, Democratic
Republic of the Congo)
36. Juvenal Twaibu (Director, Centre Independant de
Recherches et d'Etudes Strategiques au Kivu)
37. Ken Matthysen (Researcher on artisanal mining in
eastern Congo, Antwerp)
38. Kizito Mushizi (Member of Parliament, Democratic
Republic of the Congo)
39. Koen Vlassenroot (Director, Conflict Research Group &
Professor, Ghent University)
40. Kris Berwouts (Independent Consultant and Author)
41. Kristof Titeca (Assistant Professor, University of
Antwerp)
42. Laura Seay (Assistant Professor of Government, Colby
College)
43. Ley Uwera (Independent Journalist and Author, Goma)
44. Loochi Muzaliwa (Programme Coordinator, Life and Peace
Institute DRC)
45. Micheline Mwendike (Activist, on behalf of LUCHA--Lutte
pour le Changement/Struggle for Change)
46. Manuel Wollschlager (Conseiller Technique, ZFD-AGEH in
Bukavu)
47. Milli Lake (Assistant Professor, Arizona State
University)
48. Nicole Eggers (Assistant Professor of African History,
Loyola University New Orleans)
49. Odile Bulabula (Deputy Coordinator, RIO--Network for
Organisational Innovation, Bukavu)
50. Padraic MacOireachtaigh (Regional Advocacy and
Communications Officer, Jesuit Refugee Service)
51. Pamela Faber (Researcher, St. Catherine's College,
University of Oxford)
52. Passy Mubalama (Independent Journalist and Author,
Goma)
53. Paul Muhindo Mulemberi (Member of Parliament,
Democratic Republic of the Congo)
54. Paul-Romain Namegabe (Professor of Law, Director of
CEGEMI, Universite Catholique de Bukavu)
55. Paulin Bishakabalya (Director of Humanitarian
Assistance and Development Committee, Bukavu)
56. Peer Schouten (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of
Gothenburg)
57. Phil Clark (Reader in Comparative and International
Politics, SOAS/University of London)
58. Rachel Niehuus (Postdoctoral Researcher at University
of California, San Francisco)
59. Rachel Strohm (Researcher in Political Science,
University of Berkeley)
60. Raf Custers (Independent Journalist and Author on
Mining)
61. Remy Kasindi (Director, Centre for Research and
Strategic Studies in Central Africa, Bukavu)
62. Rodrigue Rukumbuzi (Coordinator, AGAPE-Hauts Plateaux,
Uvira)
63. Rosebell Kagumire (Independent Consultant and Blogger,
Kampala/Addis Ababa)
64. Salammbo Mulonda Bulambo (Director, PIAP, Bukavu)
65. Sara Geenen (Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of
Development Policy, Antwerp University)
66. Sekombi Katondolo (Director, Radio Mutaani, Goma)
67. Severine Autesserre (Assistant Professor, Barnard
College, Columbia University)
68. Thomas Idolwa Tchomba (Consultant and Mining Expert,
Goma)
69. Timothy Makori (Researcher, Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto)
70. Timothy Raeymaekers (Lecturer in Political Geography,
University of Zurich)
71. Yvette Mwanza (President of the Mining Committee,
Federation des Entreprises Congolaises North Kivu)
72. Zacharie Bulakali (Independent Researcher on mining in
eastern Congo)
All the signatories listed express their support to the
open letter in its above form but

[[Page H4510]]

not necessarily approve of accompanying opinion pieces and/or
explanatory notes, which remain their respective authors'
views.

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1600

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just another devious Republican
attempt to undermine efforts to end the decade-long scourge of rape and
murder in Congo.
I have been in Congo many times. I served in the State Department in
Kinshasa. I know the area. And the gentleman's statement that there is
no company that is able to do this is absolutely incorrect. There is a
company in Coral Gables, Florida, Kemet Corporation. They certify every
bit of their metal is conflict-free. It is possible to do.
Now, why is this important? Well, all the 5 million people that have
died in eastern Congo since Rwanda in 1992-93 have been from armed
militias that are getting their money by taking minerals out of the
ground and selling them abroad using slave labor.
The way you enslave a man is to rape his wife in front of him, and
then bring him down and chain him and make him dig up the minerals.
That is what has been going on there, and it has been going on for a
long time, and everyone in this room is benefiting from that.
Everybody who has a cell phone has tin, tungsten, tantalum in it. And
what this amendment is about is companies that will not go through the
process. They do not want to do it. They want to get it from wherever
it comes from. They don't care who it is.
Now, you can't tell me, and I know enough about Boeing and a lot of
other companies, that they know their supply chain right down to where
it starts in the ground somewhere. Everything that is in a plane, they
know where it came from. And for them to say they don't know where it
comes from or I can't know is simply that they want to get it on the
cheap and don't care about human value in central Africa.
Now, the gentleman has given me the opening, which I didn't know if I
would have, but his own church, the Christian Reformed Church in North
America, their coordinator of office of social justice says defunding
section 1502 and amendment No. 34 is immoral. It will result in
violations and will undo work to our conflict-free mining in Africa.
This is a long-time battle, and we have had no one come up with any
other way to deal with this except to cut off the money to the
militias. To say there is not armed conflict in eastern Congo is
somebody who has got their head buried in the sand; because if you go
over there, you know that there is conflict from Rwanda and Uganda and
all the countries in that area, because this stuff is valuable and
people want it, and they want it on the cheap.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I maybe, possibly like yourself, have occasional differences with my
own church denomination. I have challenged them to talk to their own
missionaries that are in the surrounding areas, whom I have talked to,
who are also out on the coast, who are now seeing minerals exported.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Reclaiming my time, I get your point. You are saying
that your church in wherever they are located, in Michigan or wherever,
they are out of touch with what is going on on the ground.
I am in touch with the people on the ground. There are groups like
HEAL Africa, which have been operating a hospital in Goma, which has
been filled with people that come from this whole process. And when you
go over there and talk to them, they say the only way you are ever
going to do it here is cut off the money, and that means saying to
people you have got to know where that tin or tungsten or tantalum came
from and was it gotten by using slave labor.
If you are unwilling to do that, as a company, in the United States,
you have no moral fiber. If you are not willing to say you will not use
slave labor for the material that is in your product, in your cell
phone--and believe me, it wouldn't be hard to get a boycott going in
this country against some folks who want to, but nobody wants to come
out in the open.
This amendment gets slid in at the last minute every year. Senator
Durbin, Senator Coons, Barney Frank, all of us worked on this. We have
heard it all.
And of course the SEC doesn't want to do it. They don't want to do
anything that doesn't have to do with paper shuffling and letting the
derivatives run through the economy. They simply have been given this
because they handle the money.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Farenthold). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize,
implement, administer, or enforce pay ratio disclosure rules,
including the final rule titled ``Pay Ratio Disclosure'',
published Aug. 18, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 50103).

[[Page H4511]]

Even the former Financial Services chairman, Barney Frank,
acknowledged that burden before a September 24, 2010, hearing, stating:
``I would note, again, that it was a Senate provision, and I think our
inclination is to see to what extent it can be lessened as a burden,
and, if not, we would be able to work and try to change that next
year.''
That was almost 6 years ago, Mr. Chairman. During that same hearing,
the Democratic witness, Mr. Martin Baily of the Squam Lake Group,
stated: ``I am quite concerned about the level of poverty in the United
States. I am quite concerned about the fact that ordinary workers have
not done very well in the last few years. I don't see how publishing
that ratio helps anybody very much, so I am not a big fan of that.''
Amen. I could not agree more, Mr. Baily.
In his dissent, SEC Commissioner Gallagher stated: ``Addressing
perceived income inequality is not the province of the securities laws
or the Commission.''
Additionally, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has expressed similar concerns
about the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, noting that several
provisions ``appear more directed at exerting societal pressure on
companies to change behavior rather than to disclose financial
information that primarily informs investments decisions.''
Again, I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman.
This useless disclosure requirement creates a number of lengthy and
burdensome reporting obligations whose costs far outweighs any
perceived benefits. This includes failing to provide shareholders with
useful information or facilitate a better understanding of pay
practices, which some falsely trumpet this provision would do.
Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about creating more jobs in our
various congressional districts, and instead of companies being forced
to spend millions of dollars trying to comply with a regulatory mandate
for which the SEC has been unable to quantify any benefits to the
public, shouldn't these burdensome costs, instead, be converted and
used by manufacturers, retailers, and other public companies for much-
needed investment and job creation? I think so. I urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It
would repeal a requirement that companies show just how much more the
CEO is paid compared to the company's median worker.
Why are Republicans so scared about reporting this number?
I imagine my Republicans colleagues will describe the alleged costs
to industry. Indeed, industry has offered wildly exaggerated estimates
of the SEC's initial proposal, 10 times what the SEC economists
estimated. However, none of these estimates are credible. There is no
indication that industry has yet to come up with any credible estimate
for the cost of the final rule. In fact, no one has, as the House
Financial Services Committee has failed to convene a hearing on the
final rule and the flexibility provided by the SEC. Worse, the
committee has failed to hold a hearing on the bill, itself, this
Congress. Rather, the Republicans are rushing this bill through the
House and once again seek to repeal outright this provision in Dodd-
Frank.
In the past, and before the SEC finalized its flexible rule,
Democrats offered amendments to ease burdens on businesses, but
Republicans weren't interested then and are apparently worried that the
American public and investors will finally see that not all public
companies pay their employees the same. In fact, some companies pay
their CEO 400 times the median employee.
My Republican colleagues aren't concerned that CEOs and the rest of
the 1 percent continue to take most of the income and wealth of this
country. My colleagues aren't concerned that minorities and low-income
Americans haven't seen a raise in decades.
The SEC has provided industry with as much flexibility as it could
while still being consistent with the congressional mandate. I will
also note that the requirement doesn't affect small businesses or
emerging growth companies, but it is targeted to companies that retail
investors overwhelmingly choose to invest in.
I know that industry, especially the global manufacturers, oppose the
SEC rule, but I think that the information provided by this number
matters. It will go a long way to identify the disparity between the
top 1 percent and the everyday worker. It will go a long way towards
enabling everyday investors to fund companies that properly compensate
their employees, or punish those that inappropriately compensate their
CEO.
I urge my colleagues to think seriously about this amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the
remaining time on both sides.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining,
and the gentleman from New York has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. And I believe I have the right to close;
correct?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has the right to close.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to
point out to my colleague from New York that he is actually wrong. We
marked this bill up in committee in April of this year.
And the interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, is they want it both ways.
We have to follow the SEC until they don't want to do it, and then they
disagree with it. They disagree with the statement that the SEC
apparently has come up with that this is going to cost $1.7 billion in
this initial year.
They want to say that the Obama economy is great--until it isn't and
it doesn't work in their favor.
I, too, am very concerned and join my colleagues of all stripes to
say that this economy has not responded the way it needs to and we need
to have those wages up. And here we are robbing Peter to pay Paul,
because we are going to take that money that could go into investing in
equipment and productivity and actual workers, and we are going to do
meaningless reports to this that tell us nothing. And the words of the
SEC Chair--not my words, the SEC Chair--says that this brings no
meaningful information to people in the economy.

{time} 1615

So I don't understand why, other than window dressing, once again,
and trying to set up a straw man argument, for why the businesses are
doing what they are doing, why they would move ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a corporation tell you that studying
their business practices is well-spent money. Everybody wants to keep
everybody in the dark as to what is going on.
The American people have a sense of what is going on. We have heard
enough, especially during this last campaign, about the 1 percent and
the 99 percent. We have heard enough about how on Wall Street, in my
city of New York, part of the problem was the lack of supervision by
the FCC and by the SEC. And part of the problem--a large part--was the
bonuses that these folks were getting. A $50 million bonus in some
cases and a $25 million bonus in some cases was not something unheard
of.
So I think that every so often the American people need to know and
get information that may seem like a waste of money to some people, but
actually can get at a problem.
We need to know in this capitalist society that we have--and we are
not about to change that. We all like it. I like it. I want to keep it.
But I think we have to try to look for ways to balance so that 99
percent of the people are not in danger of hurting while 1 percent of
the folks are in great shape.
To find out that CEOs sometimes get 400 times the salary of one of
their workers is totally outrageous, and the American people should
know that and

[[Page H4512]]

should know--especially in the cases of stockholders too, there are a
lot of stockholders who are small stockholders--and they want to know
what company they are investing in.
So I think that this rule or this approach is good, and I think your
amendment just tries to--I am not saying you do--but your amendment,
the final result will be to try to cover up the truth, and that is not
a good thing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that Amendment No. 36 will not be offered.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Lance

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 37
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. LANCE. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available by the Act may be
used in contravention of, or to implement changes to, section
560.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in
effect on June 22, 2016.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to eliminate the
potential of Iran's gaining access to the U.S. dollar.
As Iran continues to violate international law with illicit ballistic
missile tests, as it undermines U.S. foreign policy, and as it
destabilizes the Middle East, the Obama administration may be willing
to ease restrictions on Iran's access to the dollar and potentially
reward Iran's international provocations with coveted access to world
financial markets.
We cannot allow this to happen.
Since agreeing to the Iranian deal last year, the Obama
administration has seemingly gone out of its way to appease Iran.
Sanctions were lifted with little to show in the way of nuclear
disarmament. The rogue regime is now selling oil on the international
market, and Iran has received access to tens of billions of dollars
held abroad and has signed deals worth over $100 billion in foreign
investment.
Allowing Iran to have access to the dollar would mark an
unprecedented additional concession to the world's leading state
sponsor of terrorism. Access to the dollar would be an undeserved
reward to a country that tortures its own people, denies human rights
to women, and has the blood of Americans and our allies on its hands.
But in an effort to advance the nuclear agreement, I worry that the
President may act unilaterally--as he has done so often in the past--
and permit the Treasury Department and other Federal entities to
proceed with granting Iran the access to the dollar it so desperately
wants. A vote for this amendment will eliminate that possibility.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that this does not change what is currently
the situation in this country. Last summer, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew
testified that Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars
through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S.
financial institutions, or enter into financing agreements with U.S.
banks.
As the Secretary made clear, Iran, in other words, will continue to
be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial
market.
This amendment simply puts that promise into statutory law, and that
is why I have proposed it. The Lance amendment will eliminate any
possibility that we might move in the other direction.
Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I don't, as you can see, have much to say on this because it is
really an interesting situation. It is an amendment looking for a
problem that doesn't exist. It is an amendment looking for the
possibility that the President--there we go again, the gentleman in the
White House--that the President may do something he hasn't said
anything about doing.
The Treasury Department says that there are no current plans to amend
the regulation and that flexibility is not at issue at this point
because no one is discussing this.
The second part to this amendment is the underlying feeling by some
Members still that the deal with Iran was a bad deal, that that deal
won't work, and that somehow we will be left holding the bag. Well,
giving peace a chance, as the song says, is never a bad thing to do.
I would hope that in the future we deal only with amendments that
speak to an existing problem and not to an amendment that simply speaks
about: What if? We have too many what-ifs in amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and would hope that our
colleagues would vote against it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is not designed against
any one President. This would be put into statutory law, and it would
proceed after this President leaves office.
I believe that it is important that this fundamental principle--that
Iran not have access to the U.S. dollar--should be in statutory law and
not merely a matter of executive action. That is why I have proposed
the amendment.
I hope that all Members will consider the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note that we speak about it, and
it is not directed at any one President. But we have a unique system.
We only have one President at a time. So it is directed at one
President.
I suspect that if we were going to stay in session--which we are
not--for every week from now until the end of the year, we would see
more and more and more bills--up to December 31--bills that would try
to limit the power of the office of the Presidency because of who
occupies it right now and the disdain that the other side, so many
Members, have for our President.
I see it differently. I see the Iran deal as a possibility for peace.
Maybe history will say that I was naive. But I know the alternative,
and the alternative is war. So any time that I can take a chance on
evading and not having war, let's go for it.
Secondly, to legislate by suggesting that something could happen and
therefore we have to head it off at the pass is not the way to
legislate.
I would hope that we could vote against this amendment. I urge
opposition to it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that the Iranian
agreement is, of course, extremely controversial. It was voted down by
the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, there was never any vote
in the other House because cloture was not achieved.
The President submitted the Iranian agreement as an agreement, not as
a treaty, based upon the fact that legislation has been passed to make
it an agreement. I think it is important that as a matter of statutory
law we make sure that Iran not have access to the U.S. dollar, and that
is why I propose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H4513]]

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
Number 38.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce Executive Order 13166 (August 16, 2000; 65
Fed. Reg. 50121).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that I offered before in
the past. It simply says: ``None of the funds made available by this
Act may be used to enforce Executive Order 13166.''
That is an executive order that was filed by then-President Clinton
on August 16 in the year 2000, in the last months of his Presidency,
that directs all Federal fund recipients--and that would include
Federal contractors, State and local governments, as well as the
Federal Government--to facilitate language interpretation with anyone
who seeks to engage with them.
That has been an executive order that has been highly costly not only
to the taxpayers, but to the consumers in this country, in time and in
money. It was one of the initial things that began to slow down this
process of assimilation in America.
We know that a common language is the most powerful unifying force
known throughout all of history, whether it is English or whether it is
some other language in some other country, and that we have a strong
effort to establish English as the official language of the United
States.
I happen to be the author of that accomplishment in the State of
Iowa. Thirty other States have English as the official language, and
some 83 percent of Americans support this policy. Yet President
Clinton's executive order subverts this and works to fracture us rather
than unify us.
So it will save us billions of dollars. I didn't bring that figure to
the floor with me, but we know it has been very expensive over time. We
are 16 years into this. It has been destructive to the unity of the
American people. I want to see us united as a people, and this is one
of the steps that we can take.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I won't speak in Spanish. I will only speak in English.
The gentleman is a person that we all know well. He can't pass up the
opportunity to say something about immigrants and say something about
English as the official language.
Let me start off by saying this: I don't speak for any community, and
I certainly don't know what other communities go through. But I can
tell you that in the Hispanic/Latino community, when people sit around
the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is not a plot
against the English language. It is usually a conversation about how
the children and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish; they speak
only English. That is just a fact.
Number two, this assimilation issue, do you really think that someone
would leave all their small belongings behind, leave in many cases
their wife and their children to come into this country undocumented--
assuming we are talking about undocumented people--before they can find
a way to bring the rest of the family, to not learn English, to
purposely keep themselves away from immigrating into the American
society?
On the contrary, some of the jokes are that some of the better--not
better, but stronger-feeling Americans, the ones who want to vote, the
ones who want to wave the flag strongly and proudly, are people who
came from other countries.

{time} 1630

Just about everybody has somebody that came from another country,
either now or a long time ago.
The reason that President Clinton and so many of us have supported
the issue--and I am speaking about the first President Clinton, not the
next one--the fact that we support the issue of giving service is
because in many ways this could be a constitutional question.
I will give you an example. I am not a lawyer, but it says life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that is what we are promised.
Well, life could be a paramedic being able to speak to you in a
language that you understand. Liberty could be you in a trial getting
an interpreter so what you have to say to that judge and to that jury
can be understood. And the pursuit of happiness, of course, is a
separate issue, but it allows you to grow two cultures at the same
time.
I speak Spanish, I speak English, and I am a Member of the U.S.
Congress. I don't think the fact that I speak Spanish has made me a
worse Congressman or a worse American. I was born in an American
territory that speaks a lot of Spanish. I grew up speaking Spanish and
English at the same time. I am still working on both to be better at
them every day, but I am a living example that there is nothing wrong
with speaking more than one language.
We in this country have a couple of fears that set us apart from the
rest of the world and make us less than the rest of the world, and that
is the fear of languages. In some other countries, in Europe and so on,
children at the age of 10 speak two, three, or four languages; grownups
speak a couple of languages. It doesn't hurt them in any way.
What is wrong if you speak another language?
But here we are talking about services, going to the Department of
Motor Vehicles and getting someone who can understand what you are
saying until you learn to speak English. But trust me, the big line
here is ``until you speak English,'' because no one wants to come here
and remain only speaking Spanish or their own country's language and
forgetting English.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say first in response to the
gentleman, and I respect his position and his background, but I would
say if he had a development in the Greek language, he might think of
that pursuit of happiness as what our Founding Fathers did. They called
it eudaimonia, E-U-D-A-I-M-O-N-I-A, the Greek word. That means
developing the whole human being--the body, the mind, the spirit, and
the soul--all together.
That pursuit of happiness wasn't about a tailgate party. It was about
becoming the best human being that you could. That is a little
difference in the translation of the language that got lost. It is an
example of how we are divided by language rather than unified by a
common language.
Another example would be Israel. It became a country in 1948. In
1954, they adopted Hebrew as their official language. I asked them why,
and they said: Because we saw the example of the United States, that
you have embraced English as your common language. It has unified the
people. We needed to have a language to unify the Israelis.
And it has been successful, and I could give you examples. One day I
got in a taxicab and there was a gentleman there. He spoke perfect
English and he didn't seem to fit what a normal taxicab driver was. I
said: Where were you raised?
He said: Bosnia.
How long have you been here?
Seven years.
Did you learn English before you came?
Not a word.
How can you speak perfect English in 7 years?
He said: It helps when you have to.
So I am not about discouraging the utilization of other languages,
and this amendment does not do that. What it says is I am dispatched by
the taxpayer dollars that are contributing to the division of America
rather than let us have an encouragement to pull together in the same
language. That is what this is about. It is a fiscally responsible
amendment that addresses an

[[Page H4514]]

83 percent majority in 31 States that have already taken this act.
I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that the gentleman
picked the wrong example--Israel--because they have more than one
official language, but that is okay. The more the merrier.
The fact of life is that the gentleman picked the example of someone
who learned English. Well, everybody wants to learn to speak English.
If you go to my community in the South Bronx, you see small-business
owners. Those are the best examples. Some of them speak what we would
call broken English. Some of them speak perfect English. Their
children, half of them no longer speak Spanish; they speak English.
Their children are attending Fordham University or a university down
South. They are not going to be bodega owners when they grow up, or cab
drivers. They most likely will go work on Wall Street or somewhere else
or teach.
In other words, we have a pattern in this country that hasn't been
broken. What made us great is the fact that people come here, they
adapt, they become part of this country, and then they defend this
country with everything they have got, including their blood. That
happens all the time, it happens all the time, and it is not going to
stop happening.
So if you have a worry--and I have heard you for years--that somehow
speaking Spanish is going to wreck this country, on the contrary. Just
learn to speak Spanish and you will feel much better.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say in response to the
gentleman, I give some thought to the story of the Tower of Babel. We
know that the construction manager there was Nimrod. He was building a
tower to the heavens. They had the arrogance to believe that they could
bypass God and get to heaven without Him. The Lord looked down on the
Tower of Babel and He said:
Behold, they are one people, they speak all one language, and nothing
that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
He scrambled their languages and scattered them to the four winds.
Humanity on the planet has been at each other's throats ever since.
That is the message of the Tower of Babel.
My message is unify us as one people. It is not discouraging the
utilization of other languages, but it is discouraging the idea that we
should establish ethic enclaves in America, that we should isolate
ourselves somehow in these neighborhoods and not be assimilating into a
broader neighborhood.
I will give an example to the gentleman. When Bush was President and
we had a representative from the Department of Labor who came to
testify before the Small Business Committee, she said: We have a
problem. We don't have enough workers in the factories to run our punch
presses and our lathes. Simple industrial work.

Why is that?
She said: Well, the applicants are not literate in the English
language, and we have great difficulty in teaching them how to operate
these machines.
I said: I can understand that if they are first-generation
immigrants. In fact, I can understand it if some of them are second
generation.
She cut me off and said: Even third generation.
So the pick-up of the language and the transition into the next
generation is not happening at the speed it did because our enclaves
are getting larger and more populated and people are more isolated into
that.
I want to encourage people to be successful, to go out and get an
education and to assimilate more broadly. I want to be able to look
across this country and know that I can walk into a city council
meeting anywhere and know that it is being conducted in English. I want
people to be able to talk and communicate with each other. When I go to
a foreign country and they speak their language, I get the sense of
that, too.
We gravitate towards common kind, and the more common we can be, the
more things we can have in common with each other, the more likely we
are to be bonded together. That is what this amendment is about.
I urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. 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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out Operation Choke Point.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, how does the Federal Government get
rid of an industry it doesn't like?
Simple. It cuts that industry off from the financial services
sector--the lifeblood of every business in this country.
It sounds impossible, doesn't it?
However, that is exactly what the FDIC is doing in conjunction with
the Department of Justice. By this point, we are all familiar with
Operation Choke Point. It is the program designed to force legally
operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them off
from the financial services they need.
What started with nondepository lenders has spread to many other
industries. Reports indicate that the FDIC and DOJ continue to pressure
financial institutions that service the gun, ammunition, and tobacco
industries. These are legal industries, and it is my belief that no
joint FDIC and DOJ operation should broadly target lawful commerce.
I want to be very clear. I strongly support the FDIC and other
Federal banking regulators' authority to monitor financial institutions
and identify risky behavior. But what cannot be tolerated is the
Federal Government abusing its authority to target entire industries,
including those that obey the laws and live within the rules.
This isn't a Republican issue; this isn't a Democratic issue; it
isn't a liberal or a conservative issue. This is an issue of the DOJ,
FDIC, and potentially other banking regulators stepping outside the
law.
We worked on a bipartisan basis to inform the DOJ, FDIC, and others
of the consequences of Operation Choke Point, but those concerns have
fallen on deaf ears. Operation Choke Point is still happening. In the
last few months, I have heard from a debt buyer in California, a
tobacco shop in Florida, and, just this week, a veteran-owned shooting
sports company in Virginia.
I am now concerned that Operation Choke Point-like tactics have
spread beyond the FDIC to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency. Despite Comptroller Curry's remarks on the dangers of de-
risking, we continue to hear from financial institutions that OCC
examiners are applying pressure in an effort to force banks to drop
longstanding customers and correspondent banking relationships for no
valid reason.
I would like to remind my colleagues that similar amendments to
prohibit the use of funds for Operation Choke Point were attached
without opposition to appropriations bills in fiscal years 2015 and
2016. In February, the House passed a bipartisan vote of 250-169 H.R.
766, the Financial Institution

[[Page H4515]]

Customer Protection Act. That legislation included measures that would
prohibit Operation Choke Point through increased transparency and
responsible governance.
This amendment is an important step in ensuring that the FDIC and
other Federal banking regulators continue their job, but do so without
abuse of power.
I ask my colleagues for their support of this amendment which, again,
has generated no opposition and has been adopted by voice vote in
previous years.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, at the behest of the House Republicans'
inquiry, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional
Responsibility investigated whether there was misconduct or targeting
of legal businesses by Operation Choke Point. The DOJ's OPR, in their
report from last year, found that absolutely no wrongdoing had
occurred.
The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility ``concluded that the
Department of Justice attorneys involved in Operation Choke Point did
not engage in professional misconduct,'' and that, ``OPR's inquiry
further determined that Civil Division employees did not improperly
target lawful participants.''
Moreover, a follow-on report from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation inspector general found that the FDIC's involvement in
Operation Choke Point was inconsequential to the direction and outcome
of the initiative.
Operation Choke Point is an enforcement action by the Department of
Justice, whose funding is not addressed by this particular
appropriations bill. In fact, that is part of the large problem with
this amendment--that it really speaks to issues that belong in another
bill.
What this provision really does is tell the banking regulators not to
cooperate with law enforcement when the Department of Justice has
identified mass market fraud and other abuses of the payments system.
The Department of Justice has made it a priority to hold the
perpetrators of consumer fraud accountable. Recently, for example, they
prosecuted the operators of lottery scams, the promoters of fake
business opportunities, and the criminals behind a telemarketing fraud
targeting Spanish-speaking customers.
Preventing banking regulators from cooperating with legitimate law
enforcement requests would restrict the ability of the Civil Division's
Consumer Protection Branch in enforcing consumer protection statutes
throughout the United States.
Operation Choke Point is just one of the Consumer Protection Branch's
efforts that require cooperation with banking regulators and which have
produced significant results.

{time} 1645

For example, the Branch, together with U.S. Attorneys across the
country, obtained over 150 criminal convictions and more than $7
billion in criminal fines, forfeitures, and restitution ordered to
victims. Limiting the funding it receives would be a serious blow to
consumers who need the protection of the government from the financial
predators.
This is something that we should not be doing at this point. We,
certainly, shouldn't be doing it in this bill, but we shouldn't be
doing it at all. I urge its opposition.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chair, as somebody who has been on both sides of
the table with regard to financial services--as a regulator and on the
other side of the table as a businessperson--I think I have a unique
perspective on what is going on here.
We also have a couple of reports from the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee that took the emails of both of these agencies--their
own emails--and showed them to be engaged in Operation Choke Point
activities with the intent not to go after somebody who is doing
something illegal, but to go after people who are doing something
legal. That is the difference.
I support, as the gentleman indicated a minute ago, some of the
activities of the regulators in going after bad actors. I support that
110 percent. As a former regulator, I am with the gentleman all the
way. My problem is what is going on with Operation Choke Point as we
are going after legal businesses that are doing legal business. That is
a big difference because their own emails indicate their own, internal
attorneys--the legal authorities in their own agencies--questioned
their own ability to be doing what they are doing.
This should send a chill down the spine of every single American when
you have the Department of Justice's own attorneys telling them we
shouldn't be doing this because this is not legal. Yet this is the
legal entity that is supposed to be leading our country and providing
us protection with the law, itself.
It is interesting because the FDIC has already implemented a lot of
these changes that we requested in our bill. In committee--and to me,
personally--they admitted what was going on and said: We are going to
fix our problems. They admitted Operation Choke Point was going on and
that they were targeting legal businesses that were doing legal
business. They said: We can't have that. We are going to stop it. The
problem is it is continuing to go on, as I indicated in my testimony.
Just this week, there was another one. I have an email address that
takes information from individuals who have been wronged by Operation
Choke Point activities. They are in legal businesses, doing legal
business. And we got another hit just this week. Over the last several
months, we have had numerous hits from different businesses across the
country. Yet we have continued to see this happen.
I ask for the support of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-639 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 22 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 23 by Mr. Buck of Colorado.
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
Amendment No. 28 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 31 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Guinta of New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 34 by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
Amendment No. 35 by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
Amendment No. 38 by Mr. King of Iowa.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 241, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 377]

AYES--182

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat

[[Page H4516]]

Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--241

Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Lieu, Ted
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

{time} 1711

Messrs. WOMACK, HIMES, MEEKS, Ms. BASS, Messrs. REED, ROGERS of
Kentucky, Ms. McCOLLUM, and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. MULLIN, TROTT, and ROYCE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Buck

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The unfinished business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 224, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 378]

AYES--197

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--224

Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda

[[Page H4517]]

Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Guinta
Hastings
Lieu, Ted
Marchant
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1715

Mr. BISHOP of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Davidson

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 379]

AYES--217

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barr
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
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)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--203

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barletta
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Lieu, Ted
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Nugent
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner
Williams
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1718

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 379, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Garrett

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 380]

AYES--243

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr

[[Page H4518]]

Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
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
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
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
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--180

Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
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
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Lieu, Ted
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1721

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Garrett

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 381]

AYES--239

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
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
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--182

[[Page H4519]]

Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
DeSaulnier
Duncan (SC)
Hastings
Jordan
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1724

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 382]

AYES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
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
Cuellar
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--182

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Bost
Brat
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Eshoo
Farr
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Sinema
Takai
Turner
Walz
Waters, Maxine

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1727

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Guinta

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 383]

AYES--260

Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw

[[Page H4520]]

Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
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
Ruppersberger
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--162

Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Buchanan

NOT VOTING--10

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Sinema
Takai
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1730

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Huizenga) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 384]

AYES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
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
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
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
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
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--188

[[Page H4521]]

Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1734

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 385]

AYES--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
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
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
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
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
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
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--185

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
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
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poliquin
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--12

Bishop (GA)
Bost
Brown (FL)
Curbelo (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Mica
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1737

Ms. FOXX changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 386]

AYES--192

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)

[[Page H4522]]

Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Trott
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOES--232

Adams
Aguilar
Amodei
Ashford
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hurd (TX)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
Nunes
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stefanik
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zinke

NOT VOTING--9

Bost
Brown (FL)
Delaney
Hastings
Nadler
Nugent
Rooney (FL)
Takai
Turner

{time} 1741

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Carter of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia,
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. 5485) making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________